Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 6

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3801 Himalaya Road. Rezones property at 3801 Himalaya Road from B-2 with waivers and conditions to S-MX-3x (suburban, mixed use, 3 stories, less intense use) in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-20-16.

DenverCityCouncil_08292016_16-0508

Yes, Mr. President. I move the count to a five away, be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in second in the public hearing for council bill 507 is open. May we have the staff report? Mr. Tim walk into the House. Evening Council Members. Tim Watkins. Community Planning Development. Presenting application 2015 AI 151 And this is property located in Northeast Denver in Council District 11, taking you back a little closer to the airport again in the Gateway Green Valley Ranch neighborhood. And you note that the property is just at the southern boundary of Denver, at the southeastern extent of the city, sharing the boundary with Aurora and Adams County. Now, the reason I'm turning your world around 180 degrees in this image is to provide some land use context. So north is down, south is up, and you see the emergence and the development of industrial development in Aurora. And then you see the predominantly single family residential development in Denver. 38th Avenue is planned in both the city of Denver and Aurora transportation master plans. Uh, in case Denver moves or the the Denver plan to extend further east to Picadilly. So somebody that arterial street will continue and so the property is four acres and the owners requesting mixed use mixed use district that would allow for zoning that would allow for residential tenures on the site. The current zoning for just in context is B2 or Neighborhood Business District. This district provides for goods and services intended for surrounding neighborhoods, and it also allows for residential development, including single family and multifamily. However, in this case, there are waivers that restrict both drive thru services for commercial as well as multi-family residential. But still allows for single family residential. And then there is a condition for a 30 foot landscaping buffer along 38th Avenue. You know, the surrounding zoning is are to with various waivers conditions as well as an R to A and what's particular interest is the ah to a and one of the other ah to with waiver sites is actually zoning that would allow for multifamily. However it was built out as single family. The requested zone district is s or suburban mixed use three story and this is a zone district appropriate along corridors for larger sites and a major intersections. It's intended to provide for pedestrian skill development of 1 to 3 stories and to positively contribute to established residential neighborhoods intended to improve the transition between commercial and adjacent residential development and allows for flexibility of mixed use development in the suburban context. Existing land use is predominantly single family residential to the north, east and west of the site. But you saw in the earlier image that south in Aurora and Adams County you see developing industrial development. And that is seen here in the lowest image. And in the center, you see the site, the vacant property and the surrounding single family residential that backs primarily back to the the streets. The rezoning process has included public outreach by CPD and the applicant to the R.A. is listed here and all of the written and posted notice requirements have been met leading up to the council hearing this evening. The applicant has conducted several outreach meetings and attempted to engage as many residents as would participate in reviewing the proposed development and rezoning proposal. And this has resulted in three letters of support. These letters expressed support for the proposed residential townhomes and that some also some opposition has been generated to group emails, one in April, one in July expressing concern about increased density and possible traffic increases, a concern of negative impact on property values and parking. And some prefer the current B2 zoning hoping for neighborhood services and also citing the landscape of open space along 38th as a desired element. At the planning board hearing on July six, there was a comment of support. A resident that lives adjacent to the site suggested that residential townhomes were preferred over commercial development, that this would likely be a less intensive development than commercial uses. And then two opposing comments suggested that single family homes are preferred or neighborhood serving commercial or other types of services. Let's go on to the review criteria and the consistency with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning is consistent with infill development strategies recommended in comp plan 2000 as detailed in the staff report. The Gateway Concept Plan in 1990, which was also amended in 1993. Provides a recommended land use of office research, but doesn't provide any particular detail or further description. But it is somewhat of a obviously a commercial type of land use that was originally envisioned there. And then the Montebello Green Valley Ranch Neighborhood Plan from 1991 does not provide a future land use designation, but shows a map of the existing neighborhood zoning. And at the time it was before a general business district. And then some of the surrounding zoning, you see the are two which would allow for single family as well as multi-unit dwellings at 14 and a half to use per acre and then also an R two way allowing between 22 and 29 to use per acre. But that that was the vision at the time expressed through the current zoning at the time. Blueprint Denver concept land use a single family residential, which is defined as being the predominant development type, but still allowing for a variety of housing types as well as complementary land uses such as stores, parks and schools with a significantly smaller employment base than the population base. It's also an area of stability which is intended to maintain area character while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. The street classifications in Blueprint Denver include a residential collector classification for 40th Avenue. And for Himalaya Road north of 40th Avenue, it's shown as a residential arterial intended to provide more intra neighborhood and regional connections to employment and commercial centers. And then Blueprint Denver is somewhat silent on the classification south of 40th and along 38th Avenue, showing them as on designated. However, the Public Works Department has a street classification of arterial that I've outlined here in the darker color the bottom line and these are intended to connect neighborhood to commercial centers and other major transportation facilities. Here's an image of 38th Avenue looking west from 38th and Himalaya. And here we are at 30th and Himalaya looking north. And you see these are three or four lanes and accommodate a fair amount of trips, trip capacity. Here's 40th Avenue and we've received some questions throughout the the application process why this was classified or might be considered by Blueprint Denver To be a collector street and a residential collector street, it measures about 43 feet in width and then does widen to accommodate turning movements at Himalaya Road and back to this vicinity. Graphic Showing the land use context. The St 40th is highlighting. You note that it's quite continuous and I think that's what the. From whence it to rise the. The collector designation is that it's provides. Connection and continuous travel through the neighborhood where other local streets connect to it or run for much shorter segments. So CBC finds that the proposed Zone District has some x three is consistent with the adopted neighborhood plans. The second criteria would be met is CMC's three would result in uniform application of the district building form, use and design regulations and third criteria would be met as. The zone to further public health, safety and welfare by implementing recommendations from the adopted plans, the justifying circumstances, a change or changing condition of the property and its surroundings. Specifically single family residents of development around the site between 1999 2002 has taken place. And yet the site that was intended for commercial development for single family homes has remained vacant. And really there hasn't been sufficient population base to support some of the anticipated commercial services at the location. And meanwhile, we have new emerging commercial industrial uses developing south of 38th Avenue in Aurora. The proposed x three zone district is consistent with the suburban neighborhood context and provides the purpose and intent of providing pedestrian scale development of 1 to 3 stories to positively contribute to established residential neighborhoods and to improve the transition between commercial and adjacent residential. CPD's finding is that all review criteria have been met. Our recommendation is approval and planning board recommendation is approval with the 822 vote. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. We have one speaker tonight and that is the results. You have 3 minutes. Hi there. I'm Lila Rose. Alice Terracing, a design in Denver, and I'm just here to answer questions as the applicant. Perfect. That concludes our speakers questions for members of council. Okay. Oh, here we go. Not, of course. Uh oh. Okay. Here we go. Councilman Espinosa. Uh, Tim, there's a letter from this week for last week talking about. A prior attempt to use use the site for storage. My understanding, just looking at the code here that the storage would be a permitted use and the smx3. Is that correct? Indoor storage? Yes. And let me read through this and I might have further questions. Thanks. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. Lila, I have a couple of questions. The first question is, could you talk a little bit about the outreach that you conducted with the surrounding neighbors and what were some of their concerns and some of the things that you did to adjust or accommodate some of their concerns? Absolutely. I'd be happy to. We actually had three different neighborhood meetings that we held over January through April and to discuss the proposal of the multifamily. And the reason we actually ended up with letters of support from the two neighbors that are directly adjacent to our site and most impacted. Some of the concerns that came from other neighbors were multi multifold. I'll say a few of the neighbors wanted commercial on the site. That's what it's zoned for now. And so they were thinking that they would be able to get some neighborhood services or something at the site. The owner of the properties owned it for 18 years, I believe something along those lines. Unfortunately, no no ability to bring in a commercial user into the site. It's if you look at the region, it is it's just very remote. Yes, there's a lot of houses around it, but there's also a lot of other commercial centers that are much more appropriate for commercial uses. And it's just a very isolated four acre parcel that we just couldn't find another user for. So the Townhomes was a great use for this particular piece of property being that is a small four acre site. So there were some concerns around that. There were some concerns around traffic. And again, with the property being zoned commercial today, we really feel like the existing zoning would generate a lot more traffic than the townhomes or the multifamily proposal that we have in front of you today. So that was another concern. I'm trying to think. I think those are the two big ones that kind of came out from the conversations. And like I did mention, I spent a lot of time talking to a lot of the folks and a lot of the letters of opposition came in, you know, February, March timeframe. And since then, we've spent a lot of time kind of working through some some issues with them. And that's why they're not here tonight. I think I think we've kind of made everybody happy. So one one additional question. Yeah, there was there was some conversation about, I guess, the fence or sharing a fence or something. Could you talk a little bit about what the resolution was to that issue that was brought up? I'd be happy to. We've got two neighbors that are directly adjacent to our site, so we share our fence. And those are the two neighbors that showed letters of support or who came to the planning board. But what we said we would do for them as we would, we were going to go in and we're going to rebuild the portion of the fence that we share. And, you know, it's an older fence. It was built in 2003, maybe. So it's kind of starting to fall down a little bit. And so we're going to go in and rebuild that. And then also that will be maintained by the town townhomes or that development. So they won't be responsible for maintaining it either. So we're going to work with them on what kind of fence they want and kind of get that particular form. Okay. One final question. And so you kind of led into that. So the townhomes that will be built there. Could you tell a little bit about how many bedrooms there's going to be? Is there going to be some sort of HRA or covenant or kind of how will the management look like of these townhomes? Absolutely. We are proposing a 48 townhomes on the site. They will be loaded front, loaded onto the surrounding perimeter streets. They are two and three bedroom. I believe. The square footage is between 1013 hundred. Range on those. And they will be there will be some sort of archway or covenants or I'm guessing it's an away because there is a metro district out there. So I'm thinking that'll be nature way. That will do the exterior maintenance as well as the landscaping and snow removal and all those types of things that are required for a townhome project. Okay, great. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa, your backup. Yeah. So. Sounds like you. You gave the community some assurances. What formed those take? So that they're sort of enforceable and that, you know, that compel you to follow through on those commitments. On the fence as an. Example. Yes. Yes. Good faith. We're good. Good neighbor that's been developing out in Green Valley Ranch for 20 years. So good faith and our promise to get that done. And we told you in front of everybody. I know about the fence. You made it sound like there was more there were more agreements than just the fence, though. I mean, there's eight houses impacted directly across the street of 40th. Did you make any commitments to those residents as well? I did agree to do two story units. On those particular. Plants and the plans that are actually going to be submitted to a CPD tomorrow after hopefully, assuming we get approval, do demonstrate that we've got two story architectural elevations on those. Okay. And again, I'm posing in front of all of you. No. No. You know. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Any other questions? Seeing none. Public hearing for Council Bill 508 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. So clearly we have a housing shortage in Denver. And to look at this area, this corner that I have driven by numerous times, and it's sort of a troublesome corner, just the way that the traffic flows goes. You know, it's the property's been zoned B to B two since the early 2000s. If we have not been able to attract commercial development on this site in our current economic, you know, status of the city, with this boom, we're not going to ever get it. And so really looking at the small side, I would be more concerned if there was a rezoning in front of us today to do some sort of commercial 7-Eleven, that there would be lights on 24 seven, there would be activity, right, in a single family residential neighborhood. And this will not be the case. This is housing that is so needed in our city and at the planning board. It was specified that the site was really supposed to be a buffer, a buffer site between the housing and the industrial that was across the street. And so to have a little bit higher density, when you look at 48 units of townhomes on four acres, it comes out to 12 dwelling units per acre. And it's well within the recommended blueprint Denver recommendations, which are 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre area wide. And a lot of residents have brought up the concerns of traffic at 30th and Himalaya. Actually, I was able to drive some folks from public works around the area and they did agree that there needs to be better traffic calming measures at this intersection. And actually, the conversation evolved that when there is a little bit higher density with these 48 units of townhomes, that would actually help get more infrastructure at that corner because there would be more of a push because of the little bit higher density on this corner. And so definitely I'll be keeping public works apprized of this project and, and see what we can do knowing that the 48 units, the residents are not all going to leave nor come back to the community at the same time. So, you know, these these 48 units, that's assuming that every single one has a car. And the last piece I just can't reiterated enough, we have families who are looking to rent products. And, you know, in downtown we have micro units and they pose their own set of unique issues and challenges. But to my colleague, Councilwoman Ortega's comments that we need 2 to 3 bedroom units for our families and for families to have an entry level product to come into the Green Valley Ranch neighborhood. It's a beautiful area, a vibrant community, and we need to provide housing stock. That's a great entry level unit for our families. And maybe they will be able to become single family homeowners at some point in time. But this is a great entry level for them. So I will be supporting this rezoning tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa. I just am, you know, the same forces that are probably going to make this make you guys show up tomorrow with your concept. Ready to go are the sort of same forces that took modest developments and made them pretty egregious in my neighborhood. So I just caution people that are watching that when you get into these agreements with developers, get them in writing, you know, because, you know, I believe that you're going to follow through on all these things. But markets change, economies change, and things projects then evolve. And so just as a general caution to to constituents get these things in writing. Thanks. Okay. Let's see what we have here. Any more comments from members of council seeing? None. Madam Secretary, roll call. Gilmore, I. Herndon. I can. I can eat. Lopez New Ortega. Sussman Black. Clark. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Mr. President. I close voter USA Results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 508 Passes. Congratulations. Before I make the closing announcements, I want to make one announcement about a person here on city council is going to have a birthday tomorrow. So happy early birthday, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. All right. Pre German Announcement on Monday, September 26, 2016. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 549. Change the zoning classification for 3030 201 Walnut Street. Require a public hearing on Council Bill 551 changes on a classification of 4402 Umatilla Street and require a public hearing on Council Bill five nine to change the zoning

Recommendation to request City Council to censure Councilmember Jeannine Pearce for her conduct as a member of the City Council that has reflected poorly on the City of Long Beach and raises questions of potential sexual harassment, conflict of interest and failure to adhere to the City's Code of Ethics.

LongBeachCC_05222018_18-0450

I got it here. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So I believe we did hearing item number one. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. On the consent calendar. So there's been some requests to move up item number 19. So we will be moving up item number 19, which will be taken next. Okay. And if I can, please have the clerk, please read the item. Item 19 is communication from Councilman Austin, Councilwoman Price, Council membership not and Councilman Andrew's recommendation to request the City Council to censure Council member Janine Peers to her conduct as a member of the city council. Thank you. There is a motion in a second. So just to just to be clear, I'm going to go ahead and first turn this over to Councilmember Pearce and and then we will open it up and have a portion for public comment. And I will have something to say for those coming up right before that as well. So there's a motion on the second on the floor for the motion and the item and Councilmember Pearce. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, mayor. Thank you all for coming tonight. I know this is a difficult night for many, but I want you to know that I understand why we are here. I know many believe the actions and decisions that I have made reflect poorly on our city and on our city council. And I want to begin by apologizing. I want to apologize to the city of Long Beach, to my colleagues on the council, and most importantly, to the constituents of the Second District. I'm sorry. My actions, which I deeply regret, have taken attention away from the important work of the city, of the dedicated team and the people who work here. I take full responsibility for my actions. These last two years have been some of the most difficult in my adult and professional life. Through this time, I have undergone tremendous growth and I believe that I'm stronger and better person today due to these experiences. For me, taking responsibility means self-reflection, taking actions to understand why I made the decisions I did and why I found myself as part of the chaos that characterized my time in office. My traumatic childhood laid the foundation for me to fall prey to the narcissistic abuse, and many times I felt trapped. I know today that I'm a survivor. I don't say this to excuse my behavior. I do not say this to excuse my behavior, but to acknowledge that I am learning and growing, that I now know better, to recognize the pitfalls that led me into an abusive relationship where I put the public's trust and, frankly, my life on the line. I want to thank my support system for helping me get through the toughest parts of this past year. Through this difficult time, I want my constituents to know that I and my office have never stopped serving you. I'm proud of the second district accomplishments, of which there are many. But moving forward, I'm committed to regaining the trust and the support of my colleagues and constituents that I am proud to represent. I love our city. I love our home. The Second District. Holding public office is a great and tremendous honor, which I will continue to do better. At the same time, I believe we collectively can do better. I plan to continue to govern in a way that moves our city forward. In the coming weeks, I will be asking for my council colleagues to support me in the following requesting that the city auditor conduct a full audit of our practices and return with the policy recommendations to ensure all staff of the city have the information and training they need. A review of our protocols for the Legislative Department, specifically instituting a robust orientation and onboarding with annual ethics trainings for all legislative staff, regardless of their positions. I'd like to see something similar to the City of LA's My Voice website for city employees to learn their rights around roles and responsibilities, around discrimination and harassment, and where they can file a complaint online. I'd like to support establishing an ethics commission with community oversight. Many cities have these, which Long Beach has never had. I'd like to recommend that through the budget cycle, we discover a way for us to match $150,000 investment to support the city becoming a trauma informed city. We know we all experience trauma in some form or another, and how organizations and systems interact with those people can perpetuate the impacts of trauma from city employees who have their own trauma to constituents that call council offices and ask for support. When you become a trauma informed city, we will strengthen the fabric of our community, even at our darkest moments. I accept and acknowledge the sensor as a as a censure, as a call to do better. My hope is that once the vote is done tonight, we can move on and move forward. We can put politics behind us and focus on the work ahead. I ask my supporters in the audience to keep things civil. I know this is very personal to you and the issues that you care about. Tonight I ask that you stand with me in accepting the censure while committing to the real work that lies ahead for us. Thank you very much. And we will continue to rise stronger. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I will now open it up for public comment. And I will I will just say that, please. When you comment to be you have a First Amendment right to your 3 minutes. But I would also just ask us to please be respectful and to to to have that with you as you're as you're speaking in front of us today. And so with that, please. 3 minutes, Mr. GOOD. You very good to clear as the address. The imperatives of passing this of taking this item up for discussion are so obvious they need not be discussed. But discuss it. Discuss. Now, one of the things they have noticed is that this will be reviewed by the L.A. district attorney, Jackie Lacey. Who unfortunately, though she does have two degrees, is so inept, so disorganized, so ineffective. That not only would Harvey Weinstein run as fast as he could from her. Matt Lauer would activate that button underneath her desk, underneath his desk to keep her out of there. She clearly doesn't know what he's doing. What must be said. And this council, when you consider it tonight, must realize. They have the convening authorities. At the federal level. We'll expect you to include in this motion if you pass it. Robert Garcia. For his criminal complicity. In the earlier reference. Many times, Criminal Rose, along with Gary DeLong and his fellow travelers, derails Marine Stadium to S, which was first reviewed by Jackie Lacey. That says who said that's not. That said in writing, that's not my job. You have records of that. It then would flow ordinarily, in most cases, to the California state attorney general, who at that time was rebuked by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A bipartisan panel rebuked Kamala Harris for the epidemic of corruption she had engendered, i.e., she refused to prosecute the guilty, obviously guilty in a quid pro quo for their vote. And this is what happened in Long Beach. Garcia. Supported her. Period. Now, the U.S. attorney will take constructive notice of whether or not this counsel. Immense it. This motion before you, this very commendable motion do include Robert Garcia, Gary DeLong and those listed earlier who were complicit in the raising of Marine Stadium to less. Which parenthetically is the records also show the approval to raise that based upon false evidence. Was given. And the contract was written and signed to the contractor to raise it prior to being approved by the Coastal Commission three weeks later. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, please. You know, could you guys please. Actually, guys. Nope. None of that. Next speaker. The next speaker has the floor. Next speaker. I think about our council members who are private. Actually, you know what? You're out of line. The next speaker has the floor. Thank you. Please go ahead. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. My name is Jonathan Crouch and I reside at 525 East Seaside Way here in Long Beach. I'm not a member of any special interest. I'm simply a local resident and teacher that calls the Second District my home. I came before the Council on August 15, 2017, to address some many concerning issues I had with Councilmember Pearce's contact exposed by her run in with the police on June 3rd, 2017. These issues include sexual harassment, domestic violence, driving while intoxicated, intoxicated, using her council position to influence a police investigation and the many conflicts of interest that she has had within her council office. Since then, Councilmember Pearce has slowly but surely admitted to many of these wrongdoings through the different media interviews that she has had. For example, during a recent interview on the Luke and Cami show. She stated that on the early morning of June 3rd, she drove, buzzed, but was not drunk. Let me explain something to you that is widely known throughout our community. Those driving is drunk driving instead of taking responsibility for inappropriate and criminal behavior. What has she done? She has done nothing but point the finger at others. And the very beginning she pointed the finger at my husband and I say that this was all because we didn't support her in the last election. And as the recall movement grew, she then began to point the finger at our local business community. Councilmember Pearce This has always been and always will be about your actions. Your actions are what led to this censure vote brought forward by the courageous members of the Council. Your actions are what led to the nearly 9500 local residents signing the recall petition, and it come November when the residents of the second district vote will bend because of your actions that you will be removed from office. Time's up, Janine. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Nadir Tushnet. I live in the third district and I'm speaking on behalf of the Long Beach Area Peace Network, a network of organizations and individuals who work for peace and social justice in the world, but also very much in Long Beach. I recognize and admire what Councilwoman Pearce just said. There is graciousness in her speech and good reflection on how we go forward. However, when I first read of the potential censure of Councilmember Pearce, I felt deep anger. My first version of the testimony that I'm doing pointed out the hypocrisy of a council in censuring someone for doing what I have seen happen a number of times over the years in Long Beach by other council members with no censure. I've lived here 30 years and it's happened. I can count four times. There may be more. I'm still angry, but also sad. I'm sad because this motion masks what's really happening. Councilwoman Pearce is being shame, not for the events of what she says is the worst night of her life about a year ago. So if it was about that, the timing is strange. But but she's being state shamed for standing up for workers, women and other marginalized groups in Long Beach. And the shaming is not protecting the honor of our city, but is due to the work of hotel owners and managers, large developers and others whose concern is only for their own benefits. Ironically, today we delivered signatures of over 40,000 Long Beach voters who are standing for women. I urge the Council to vote against censure. Such a vote will restore the honor to the city of Long Beach. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is Sarah and Divine, and I am a second district resident. I also teach political science. So I'm really happy that all of these people care because I'm just like, that's first and foremost, but I'm here just to to say thank you. Come, Councilmember Pearce, for your leadership in our district, as well as the leadership you're demonstrating tonight. Well, it's clear that this item is more about politics than it is about ethics. It's time for us to heal as a district and a city and move forward. I personally find the smear campaign tasteless and sexist and have used it in my class. People like to make this issue black and white, and that's easy to do when you don't know a person or you're politically invested in one side or another. I'm here to bring Gray to the situation to as a human being. I've watched you go through this journey to seek help, take responsibility, stumble and get back up, and all the while never lose sight of what's best for our district as well as our city. And I can find parking a little faster just on personal. I know a lot of people wanted to speak tonight, but I respected councilmembers Pearce's request not to. So I'd like to invite them all to stand with me. And we stand with you in. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi. Some of you have already met me. My name is Don Sutton, and I'm a 25. Year resident of the second District of Long Beach. I own a small commercial and residential real estate company here in Long Beach, and I have for the last six years, I've been on the front lines of selling Long Beach, not only to investors, but also to families who are looking to move here, live here and make life a great place for all of us. And, you know, we have a terrific city by the sea. I am very active in professional organizations and nonprofits, and I've brought or have been active in bringing conferences and meetings and other events here to Long Beach, not only to the convention center, but also to different venues around the city . And I value the idea. Of bringing investment and money to the city. And dollars to the city because it actually improves all of our districts, not just my own. Now, no one wants to be here really for this, but during the past six months, I'm going to tell you that privately four different. Commercial projects have been turned down financially because of the. Instability of this council and the district and the actions of the second district. It's cost us millions of dollars, not just for the second district, but also for the other districts as well. Furthermore, I. Am also familiar with three different conferences that have backed out. Of being here in Long Beach. That's tourism dollars that have gone other ways because of the current actions of the individual occupying the second district. We have a tight budget here and we need to support our infrastructure. Our outstanding city employees. Work very, very hard, both union and nonunion, and our outstanding fire and police department. The fact of matter is, is that we're talking about censure. I think we really need to talk about one word and that is resign because it is in the best interest for us to just start over because the damage has been done and it continues to be done behind the scenes. That's hurting us financially, not just emotionally. And the cost of a recall, the cost emotionally and financially to the city should not take place in a place that I've been working hard for 25 years to bring and to to be the private cheerleader in the city to bring more people to this city. So I urge the council to not even consider a censure. I think you should consider resign. Thanks. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And just just because I want to make sure this is this is moving for who is the last person in line back there? I just want to make sure. Okay, I'm closing the speaker's list, so. Okay, then please get in line so I can. I can just I want to make sure that it's already a long line. So I want to make sure that folks that are going to speak come. I'm going to close the public comment. So, Mr. Rivera, who's moving in the back, is going to be the last public speaker and going once, going twice. Mr. Rivera back. There will be the last public speaker. Speaker's just closed. Next speaker. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Jim Starkey and I reside at 1306 East Hellman Street Unit six in Council District two. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this agenda item because frankly, as a former legislative staff member myself for 16 years for at the county level, state level and the federal level, I am mortified by Councilmember Pearce's continual abuse of the public trust. First, she employed her boyfriend as her chief of staff in willful violation of the city's unlawful harassment policy. Then, when that relationship. Began to sour, she appointed him as a taxpayer funded consultant. A few months later, still entangled with this same person. Apparently, they ended up fighting one morning on the 710 Freeway. And when she was approached by two different law enforcement agencies, the California Highway Patrol and the Long Beach Police Department demanded special treatment as a city councilmember . This pattern of behavior has thus resulted in an ongoing investigation by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. More recently, despite expressing public support for the hashtag MeToo movement, Councilmember Pearce employed on her staff, a former member of the Playboy magazine staff. Playboy being perhaps the penultimate example of female objectification. And what does the former staff, Playboy staffer, go and do? Send out campaign messages from second District, i.e., government, i.e., taxpayer funded computers again, and willful violation of city rules forbidding such conduct. Thus, the people of the Second District have been left no choice but to continue to move forward with our recall effort against her. Hopefully the strength of the recall, along with this resolution, will send a strong message to her. To resign immediately. I urge council adoption of this measure. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Kerry Sharpe. I reside in the fifth District and I have served for the last 30 years. Mr. Pearce, I really appreciate the fact that you, of course, have stood up and said that you are very, very sorry. Unfortunately, you can't deflect this on anybody else. And whether or not somebody else in the past got away with it or not does not reflect on what this council is doing today. This is your problem and only yours. This is nobody else's. Nobody else needs to improve. Everybody can do better. But this is on you. Now, my one thing that I wanted to say with the community, you have left us in a position that we are subject to very open lawsuits. There's no question about that. You have still embarrassed this city and not just here in Long Beach and not just in the second District. Again, I'm from the fifth and I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed that this has gone on this long as well. And I'm sure that everybody wants to have it a lot shorter, even up to people in Canada have called and said, is that really going on in Long Beach? That's crazy. And the other part is that everyone in the city is left wondering whether the decisions that you're making today are on the loo or on rent control . Are these decisions that you're making, Mr. Pierce, being done with a clear head, or is this an ongoing problem? You represent the entire city, not just District two, your decision on the loo, your decision on rent control. This affects everybody. And are you doing this with a clear head? The other thing that I wanted to say to our council, I want to thank the brave council members who stood up and said, enough is enough. We've had it. You have compromised everyone. You have strained the trust of this council. And just, you know, just once when you have to say to yourself council members, if once you have said again to neatness in the news, if you have said that one more time and said enough is enough, you must vote for the censure. Especially in districts where you have two years for a reelection or two weeks for a reelection. Remember, the people who are watching your constituents are watching how you are voting. And many of your decisions tonight could be the linchpin for the reelection for anybody. Finally, Ms.. Pearce, on a personal note, I have been an educator for over 30 years as a primary educator, teacher and administrator. I urge you, Ms.. Pearce, to resign because of just on the behalf of your small daughter, because where you. Go, your. Family goes. And I can promise to you, I. Think I think I'd like you to. I think that's. Wait. Hold on. Hold on. Excuse me. Ma'am. I would prefer we not getting the families. Okay. I'm saying, if I may. I want this to be respectful. You have to have a First Amendment right that asks you to please not get into that. I am being respectful when I ask for additional time for that. I am asking that the Council please not put friendship above duty. It is your duty to represent your constituents. It is your duty to send a message that it is absolutely unfair and unbelievable that you could be above that one person could be above the law . None of us are above the law and everybody needs to respond. Thank you very much. Action. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, I'm Kearsley. I'm from the fifth district and my address is on file. I don't normally take an interest in someone else's morality. I would consider that to be a personal issue of concern to immediate family and friends. I'm not here to judge Councilwoman Pierce for sexual misconduct in terms of wagging my finger. Shame on you. I do support the censure, however, because there were rules, broken rules that are in place to protect the employees of the city and also to protect the city from lawsuits. In the private sector, it is standard to have a set of ethics guidelines that all employers must acknowledge and sign stating that they will abide by company rules. And I have to think the city also has this in place. It is a corporate standard that you cannot have one person reporting to another when they are sexually involved. I believe the city has adopted that standard as well. Those rules are there for a purpose. When two employees on an equal footing are sexually involved. It creates the groundwork for a sexual harassment lawsuit. The employer automatically has a case against his or her boss, regardless of complicity or who seduced who. There were many more errors in judgment that occurred in this situation. But Councilwoman Pierce deserves to be disciplined for hiring her boyfriend and keeping him on the payroll for several years. That is not acceptable. And any large company that I know of. And unlike manner, the city must deal with it as a jury is obligated to make decisions based on the facts. So this Council is required to make this judgment, this vote supporting the rules that have been adopted by the city. While I have personally appreciated some of the work done by Councilwoman Pearce during her tenure, that must be set aside and this vote must be made based on facts that are relative to the rules the city has adopted. Otherwise, this Council is creating a precedent that advertises to city employees that this rule is not enforced. I can imagine that this is a difficult vote for some of you as this is your colleague. But your job here tonight is clear. The facts support censure. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Anna Kristensen, 25 nine terminal, Long Beach. Oh, I want you to see my jacket. I haven't worn this jacket since I was in the Long Beach City courthouse, defending myself against charges by Cal State University. They ended up dropping the charges. Ah, what does it say? It says, don't shoot the messenger. I think we need to be pretty clear here about all kinds of messages where the spotlight is on Jeanine Pirro. Your message is not a coincidence. It's not a coincidence that the council member is sponsoring the censure or the council members who voted against Claudia's law. It's not a coincidence that the majority of funding to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the recall campaign for Jeanine is from the hotel industry. So the message, regardless of whatever kind of message you want to send to Miss Pearce, the larger message to your community is not me too, but screw you, screw women , screw women, hotel workers. And you know, big industry gets its way, whether we're talking about lobbyists for big oil. Jeanine And we have a certain loyalty. Those of us who who opposed the $103 million. For the Belmont pool. Those of us who opposed oil drilling in the wetlands, we have very few city council people who stood with us on that. And it was just good judgment. And that's part of your ethics, is to exercise good judgment. You're saying she violated the ethics policy. What is Long Beach ethics policy to exercise good judgment? It is not good judgment to put on an underwater $130 million pools when kids are drowning in other parts of Long Beach. So if you want to look at the ethics of judgment, as I said on next door when people were swearing at me, when I, you know, were defending Jeanine, I said it was your focus. Or your. Priorities. If your priorities are to condemn somebody for violations of rules, fine. Oh, wait. I forgot. I'm supposed to start doing this as we all are, to honor the indigenous people of this land on whose land we are, the Tongva and a Hodgman. People who are being dishonored by the oil drilling project, by the way. And I want to say, if you're looking at the bigger picture, that long arc that we. Hope it is bending toward. Justice. Let's keep the big picture in mind. Let's keep women's rights. Claudia's hotel workers in mind. And let's be good allies. Let's be good allies. Yet Jeanine is our ally. And if people in Long Beach who are listening to this, anybody, you know, we need allies, the ordinary public people, they need allies. We need allies. And they're not the people who are sponsoring this. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Next speaker. As a reminder, Mr. Rivera is the last speaker on public comment. Thank you. Hi. Good evening. My name is Stephanie Aiello. I'm a current resident in the second district. I not only support the recall effort, I'm proud to say that I was successful in collecting a number of the 9462 signatures on the recall petition. For Janine Pearce, I would like to thank council members Al Austin, Susie Price, Darrell Supernova and Diane Andrews for standing up for what's right and recommending the city council vote to censure Jeanine Pearce. My hope is that you'll receive the unanimous support and unanimous support of the remaining council members, especially those that received a discretionary fund allocation from Pearce. As somebody else commented earlier, I'd hate to see you let the potential perception of that being a hush money taint any future dealings you have in politics. And it's really no compliment to you, Jeanine, that you've joined the ranks of politicians involved in sexual misconduct scandals. The difference is, is that by your own admission, you believe that none of this is any of our business. And I respectfully disagree. Your actions are indefensible and a disgrace to hardworking women that embrace a strong work ethic. As councilwoman for the Second District. You are right to your constituents to sincerely apologize. You owe it to your your colleagues, your supporters to take responsibility and sincerely apologize for the shame and disgrace that you brought to Long Beach. I heard your apology apology this evening. And that takes guts. It does. But it lacks sincerity because of you, as you've winked at me three times and winked at other people in the in the audience and rolled your eyes and made faces. It's very disrespectful as you've censured others in the public forum that have tried to reach out and talk to you. It's now being asked of you. I really do urge you to to make the right decision. Jeanine does not support the democratic process as she complains, as she proclaims. She's denounced the recall effort at all costs. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I actually voted for you and you let me down. You've not reached out once. And you know who I am. You know exactly who I am. And you had every opportunity to reach out to me. I've not blocked you and you've not done that. But you've called me a liar and a few other things, and I don't appreciate it. I'm a second district resident for 15 years and I take pride in my city. I volunteer in my district just like a number of other people. So, yes, I take what you did personally. I take that you calling me a liar personally. Okay. So I just couldn't be more disappointed that I trusted you and you let me down. It really isn't too late for you to make this right, Janine. All it takes is for you to resign. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you very much. My name is Julie Nicholson. I live in the second district. I imagine most, if not all of you already know how you're going to vote tonight. But I feel compelled to say something in my precious 3 minutes. This isn't simple. I'm aware of that. Possibly more than you might guess. But here we are somehow in this battle of business versus workers, ethics got involved. My master's degrees in ethics now are my territory. And I can tell you about applied ethics as the covers protecting workers ethical issues, fair wages, ethical is granting sanctuary to those seeking refuge. Okay, lesson of that ethics is providing food and shelter for those in need. And when a woman is in danger, so much danger that a court awards her a restraining order. Ethical is reaching out. Ethical is pulling her closer, offering a hand and asking, how can I help? What can I do? How can I help you collect safety around you? Ethical doesn't censure such a woman who has lived in fear, who has been bullied into silence, eventually had to fight back. And she is a survivor of abuse. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Newhart, captain, resident of the second district here in Long Beach. Thank you for having me here and thank you for all your hard work. Council members. I'm here to express my dissatisfaction. We all have our own reasons for being here. I am here because I first found out about Janine Pearce and her drunk driving. I had a cousin killed by a drunk driver in 2007, and that's what brought me to do the research and to find out what was going on in my city. I asked myself what would have happened if Janine wasn't stopped by by the CHP that night. This is a life or death situation. I feel like she's very lucky that she was stopped. She's very lucky that she has been outed because that might have prevented somebody from being harmed or even killed. I really I really feel like she's put her fellow council members in a really tough position. She's put me in a very tough position. I have friends and which are supporters of Jeanine Pearce and our supporters that are standing with her. She has gone against her initial platform of strengthening this the fabric of this city. And it has been torn. She has torn friendships. She has torn relationships. And she has torn trust between herself and the fellow council members. Now now her argument is that this is going to cost the city a lot of money, that there are special interests involved. I am not part of any special interest. I have no I have no connection with any hotel, any union, nonunion. I'm a resident of the second district and I've been called scum as a person, going out and collecting signatures, being villainized. This is my right. This is democracy. If you're unhappy with your representation, you have the right to go out there, talk to your neighbors, and serve justice. Now, talking about the money, my focus is my neighbors, my fellow second district, the taxpayer money that has gone into the numerous police calls, the responses, the internal investigation, the 300 hours that have been spent in this city's police department. That's taxpayer money. Now, we don't know how much this center or this recall is going to cost. We can't put a number on it. You can't put a number on the representation that you deserve, that we deserve. Now, I urge you, council members, everybody has a responsibility today to show the public that people need to be held accountable regardless of their position, regardless of their title. You owe it to the city to show that that honesty is the best policy and that honesty and that that distrust is what does bring me here today. So I thank you, everybody. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And just as a reminder, Mr. Rivera back there as the last speaker. Somebody left a device. Okay, we'll grab it. So I'm sorry. I'm actually going to have to take a deep breath, just so I, I, I don't say anything that I shouldn't say. Um, I'm here among friends, and I completely disagree with my friends. I'm a progressive. I'm on the left. I am proud of our movement. We are an LGBTQ loving, accepting women, embracing, standing up for the poor, standing up for the downtrodden, standing up for those who are the voiceless. That's that's what we are as a movement. There's a Talib Kweli album called A Beautiful Struggle, and that's what it feels like being on the left. And it's something that inspires me. It's something that I'm proud to be from, something I'm proud to be of. And it's something that Janine is part of, which is why I, I speak with great disappointment that this is even happening. Because, Janine, the truth is, I well, I read the well-written letter from the city council and everything they wrote. There is an absolute fact I don't see any falsehood in one of those statements. And it breaks my heart to see that because you were the candidate who was not expected to win, you were you were not the establishment candidate. The industry did not put thousands of dollars into your campaign. It was the unions. It was the working class. It was the poor. Those are the people who fought for you. You came out with a ban on fracking, and that's what I was counting on you for. And I'm still counting on you for because all the rest of them are taking oil money. All the rest of them will be quick to drop your name and smear you and drag you through the mud if they get enough money, which is what they're here to do, represent their donors. I look through all of their donations and it just so happens to be the same. People who are investing in the recall efforts are the same people who want to make sure you don't pass Claudia's law. And they're the same people who got in the way. The same people who will stop you for the Stand with Women Against Abuse campaign. So I just want to say, if we're going to shame anyone, let's all carry a little bit of shame. And I'm talking about the people who are here working for their lobbyists. You're doing a great job. Some of you claim to be Democrats and you're supposed to be fighting for the working class. You're supposed to be fighting for the poor. But instead of any of us talking about the environment and global warming is real and we really do need to do something about fracking. I really wish you guys would stop ignoring me. That is a very serious issue. Instead of us talking about living wages because poverty is very real. Homelessness is very real. And some of this talking about the issues that really matter to the voters, we're talking about somebody's stupid petty drama. And Janine, the truth is, they didn't create this. The hotel industry did not hire a lover. This was all on you. And so this is your this is kind of on you to get yourself out of this situation. I want to let you know I still have love for you, Janine. I'm not I'm not going to be like the rest of our friends and just joining the cheerleading crowd, because that's not what I'm here for. I'm here to make people think I'm here, to be honest, that that's that's who I am. That is who I am committed to being. I want you to realize tomorrow. Yeah, the press telegram is going to smear you because they refuse to cover fracking because they're all they are, just like these council members are. They are in the interest of business. But I do hope that you make fracking your priority again. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Larry Bull and Winston Churchill once said that anyone in their twenties who was not a liberal had no heart. And anybody in their sixties who has done a conservative had no mind. I'm here tonight to ask all of you to follow the rule of law. This is a gloomy day outside. It's a very depressing time to be here for all of you, for the supporters of your peers, for the friendships that you've gotten over the time, I'm sure, with the council. But we have to put those aside and follow the rule of law. And as some of the other speakers have said, there is no question about Janine's failure to follow ethics procedure and protocol when she hired. A boyfriend, a subordinate. That is an egregious action against the rule of law. You know, you can't do that. She approves his pay raises. She writes his performance appraisal. There's this conflict of interest beyond conflict of interest. Now, let me say this. During everything you have done and everything in your mind that you say I know you believe in and your supporters are here and they have the right to say what you have done is your own personal business. However, elected public officials are measured at a much higher level of integrity. And that's the difference between those of us out here and those of you there. You must follow the rule of law, even if you don't want to, even if it's going to hurt a friendship. You have to do that because that's why you were elected. You took an oath. So I just want to try to put some neutrality in here with regard to motive of people supporting you or calling for a recall. And the only course that a civilized nation can take and maintain that is different from our own personal views of of what is wrong and what is right. We have to censure and you have to. Jenny, if everybody censors you, you must forgive them and afterwards. So forgive you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nick Speaker. Good afternoon. My name is Andrew L.A. and I am. Speaking as a resident. Of Long Beach. I am now representing the. Organization that I work for, and before I tell my personal story, I want to acknowledge the corporate sponsorship of this theatrical show, the Marriott. The Marriott have put $800 in campaign contributions to Susie Price, about 1500 and campaign contributions to Al Austin. I have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars on the recall campaign as a survivor of domestic violence. I am familiar with the power and control behavior an abused and abusive person will use, especially for someone who works with the community, including using manipulative taxi tactics to discredit their victims. As a former Janine's neighbor, I was witness to some of these abusive incidents. This is why all of this has been very triggering to me. Witnessing how Janine is constantly being victimized publicly and by many of your actions makes me worried. What is the message that we are sending to survivors across Long Beach? Janine, we stand with you and people. I just want to let you know that this is what happens when corporate America controls our elections. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker, please. Okay. Hello. My name. Name's Joseph. Sullivan, and thank you for. The chance to speak tonight. I've had a chance to work with Janine, and I would just like to share from a personal standpoint, she cares very deeply about the labor movement. She cares very deeply about workers, about creating jobs and about her constituents. That's it. Thanks. Thank you. Sure. And Speaker, please. Stefan Borst and Zullo. I've been a second District City resident since 2010. I'm coming here speaking on behalf of Democratic Socialist of Long Beach and myself. I first met Janine on a picket line in 2011 protesting for better wages and better treatment of our hotel industry. She then personally rescued me from unemployment in 2014 by hiring me as a campaign worker for Prop 37, something I am eternally grateful for. Her election was confirmation that of Bob Foster, his worst fears about the organized left finally having a new voice in the city government. Despite all this and all the crap that's been going on in the last couple of years, she's been the best steward for for Council District two since I moved here. As evident by the anger that she has inspired by our parasitic landlord class in the exploitive hotel industry. However, frankly, you messed up by hanging out with the council members and their frat like atmosphere. Your your ethical lapses were any worse than the assorted misdeeds of your colleagues. But as a member of the left who left, you knew about the level of scrutiny facing you here. For the sake of us, you should have exhibited better judgment. I'm happy that you've finally accepted responsibility for this as members of the Left need you. This ensures curiously time become nearly a year after the completion of a criminal investigation that cleared you of any wrongdoing. But during a time in the city's cloak off, a clerk's office is performing the very sensitive task of verifying signatures for a very curiously and badly organized recall campaign. The co-sponsors of this also represent the exact same coalition of folks who killed statutory sexual harassment protections for hotel workers last year. So, frankly, I doubt they're sincerity on this issue in particular, given the news about the proposal, but how it asked the censure and the people delineating it, please affirm the independence of the city clerk's office in verifying this, as this is a very sensitive and important job for the press covering this. Take no to that, no to the lack of pretense exhibited by these recall folks. They aren't even trying to hide about what they really care about rent control, land use, development and workers rights. They don't like any of it. They don't care about the women of this district. They've attempted to intervene in a domestic violence restraining order despite lacking anything regarding legal standing. This is the first time this has ever happened. According to a superior court judge I spoke with, the rest of the city will persist regardless of the vote that happens tonight. Councilwoman Pierce, the council district two will not take one step backwards and we will win. Thank you. Thank you. Thank speaker, please. Thank you. Surely, Richard, if this nine person council. Does any voting tonight? However they vote. She's already been censored. Harry, she's been laid out here while looking, guessing what the press did put out there. We're wondering, speculating on what she did or didn't do. In the Old Testament. If a woman was caught in adultery, she'd be dead before sundown. It stone at a death. And then Jesus comes along in the same situation. The woman's laid out there on the floor. The man, probably some of whom wanted to be with her, but she was caught in adultery with someone else. So they turned her in. The fact that she was a woman is the reason why Jesus handled that situation the way he did. And what did he say? Those of you who are not guilty of the same thing. Pick up the stone. Pick it up. I'ma let you hit her first because he knew. Some of the men. And they happened to be preachers who wanted that woman, stone. So I'm probably the only one standing here tonight. You not guilty of the same thing. But Jesus defined adultery as if even you want to be with someone other than your spouse. And for the record, I don't know if the woman was married or the man, but I knew this. The man was never brought to the floor. We don't know who he is now. That man got away and Jesus had to handle that woman laying on the floor caught in adultery. And what did he say? First he dismissed everybody who wanted to accuse her of anything. We don't know her whether she was a secretary of parents. We don't know whether she was a banker in the town or if she was a high. We didn't know what a profession was. He just said, those of you who have not committed this sin stone at first, and then after you cleared the room because everybody in there was guilty of something or they would have stayed there. But they knew in their heart they were guilty to. He said after clearing the room. Honey, where are your accusers? They're all gone. Go and say no more. And I do not condemn you. Now. I don't know Janine's profession of faith, but I know this to be true. If a man's ways, please the Lord, He will make even His enemies be at peace with him. He'll make them leave you alone. If I were you, I'd go somewhere. Somewhere in a corner, sit tonight and have a talk with your creator, make a commitment that you intend to keep with him, and he'll silence your enemies. Thank you. Speaker, please. My name is Tiffany. Davey and I resigned and. Work in the second district. 2014 for me was also a very difficult year as a woman in this city. Janine's office and I have been in contact multiple times. She has listened to? No. And while many officers had not. I work right behind her home and as a community member have been privy to much of the information. That's not been shared with the public. As a survivor. It's disheartening. When I studied political science, I. Had a lot more faith in my community. Globally. Internationally. Same situation that will work there. Ethics is something that the entire world is playing with right now. And take a moment for the survivors. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Joe Soper I live in the fifth District. I don't live in the second district. In fact, I don't live in the other districts except the fifth District. But this is my city. If something is wrong in one district, it's wrong everywhere. If I stub my toe, the rest of my body feels it now. Janine Pearce. This has nothing to do. Because you're a woman. Fact, it doesn't matter that it's a woman. It's all on you. You took the oath. You're behind the rail. We hold you to a higher standard, and you know that. And she's not the only one that gets calls that call her names, that pick on her, that say bad things to her. There was a councilman. He's passed away. Ray. Ray. I forget his last name, but he sees. That's right. Bensky He said, because I get I keep all the nice letters that I get. I keep them in a drawer. When I get a call like that, I hang up when I'm done and I have to read those letters kind of to bring me back to who I am. This has nothing to do that you're a woman. But I don't know what kind of reality we're living in here. But it has to do because you are a council person. Not a council woman, a council person. You created. What happened. To you? And you're responsible for it. And if any other council person created something like that, they would be sanctioned tonight also or when appropriate. The facts are you are the council members. The facts support sensor. She needs to be held accountable. How? Held accountable for her actions. And that's what we're doing tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker, please. Good evening. My name's Tamara Romero, District two resident. I'm pretty serious. I'm not going to talk much, but I'd like to say, well, have the rest of my time as a moment. Of silence in support of Janine Pearce. Thank you. I'm going to leave some stickers. Thinking next week, please. With the setup like that, I better not mess it up. Dave Shukla, resident of the third in. I'm ashamed to say I grew up with you, man. You can't even stay quiet when a woman asks you to stay quiet for 3 minutes. Come on, man, I. I don't have a whole lot to say. Councilwoman Pearce, I believe you're beginning to see how real our town is. Welcome. I've been elections watching this recall. Um, as someone who, uh, Stephanie Davis mentioned, it's around fourth street. Lot privy to a lot of the details you don't yet know it. Have some skin in the game, so to speak. I was there, Devon. I was there the night you went to replace. I heard a lot. I heard a lot. I wish I hadn't. It's shocking to me that this is being brought to you with this timing. We're all smart people here. This is a very real city. We understand what a vote like this is. There is no clarity. I'm not obviously someone who's elections watch. I can't speak publicly about anything I saw, but I'm surprised that without certainty about an arbitrage rate, without certainty about what the numbers are. I mean, we all care about the facts. We all care about what the numbers actually are. That the city council would take this motion now. If she needs to be censured. You lose nothing. You lose nothing by waiting a couple of weeks, you lose nothing. But if you do. This now and it turns out, oh, well, what do you know? They actually didn't have the numbers and even interfered with the process by putting your thumbs on the scale. I mean, what kind of town do I live in, really? Now. I know I don't have much right to ask this, sir. I mean, what right would I ask? I'd have to see, brother. Father. Never to be sunny displace. I know I don't have much right to ask, but at least, at least let us learn. Fully since we have to get into this mess now and actually figure out what the details are. Let's actually have all those facts. Before you commit yourselves to something you may not want. To. And one last thing. I didn't grow up with this woman, but I guarantee you she's a lot better than those that have come at her. Because her next bigger piece. Our final speaker. Hi. Good evening for Hillary. That I'm actually here tonight speaking as a second district district resident. I want to just thank you, Councilmember Pierce, for your apology and all the actions that you've taken to move this thing forward. And it's unfortunate that you're. Constantly being stalled in the process to just be able to to move past it and heal. I have more questions than anything. I think one of the questions have been asked already is like, why now? It seems so timely? The issues raised in this agenda item and that have been shared already, they've all been public knowledge. The connection between. Agenda izing this item now and the. Recall campaign timeline looks it looks to be politically motivated. And why the truncated truncated process? Why is there a need to rush this by putting it on the supplemental agenda and not allowing for full engagement of the body of the public on this issue? Why invoke an unfamiliar process that hasn't been used for 25 years on such a short timeline? Is Council Member Pearce, the only council member currently under investigation for ethics violations. And if she's not, then then I hope that those that are currently under investigation for ethics violations are treated with the same level of of of focus that that she's been given in this process. And what's the standard for bringing forward a censure? The public deserves answers to these questions, since you for all fit saw fit to actually bring this forward. So I'm hoping that we get more answers to some of the the questions that have been posed tonight. Why now? Why a short process? Why is Councilmember Pearce the only one under ethics violation investigation? And I'm sure if we get these answers to these questions will be a little bit clearer on what ethics is and what it truly means. And I want to say one last thing, because you brought it up, Janine, about being trauma informed, because I know the city the city is trying to get some training on being trauma informed. And as a trained, trained trauma, nonviolent parent, educator, trained and community resiliency trained in community trauma and systemic trauma, which you all are exhibiting , especially these four authors, is not trauma informed because you're taking a domestic violence survivor and you're putting her under the spotlight and you're continuously beating her down. And that is not trauma informed. That is not going to help her heal. It's not going to help her move past. And you four should be ashamed. Thank you that closes that because the speakers list the there is a motion any second on the floor to approve the item in front of us. Please cast your votes. But as you say. But. Really? Councilman Andrews. Motion carries. We'll take we will take a recess. Five minute recess. Thank you. Yeah. I'm going to go and call a meeting back to order to get a quorum here. So far so good. Once we get a quorum, we'll will begin the ultimate. Kick to. Councilman Andrews. Okay. We're going to go back to public comment, please, Mr. Goodhue. You're up.

Approves a Master Funding Agreement with Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) paid out of the Revolving Affording Housing Loan Fund (RAHLF) for the administration, underwriting and servicing of the City’s Revolving Affordable Housing Loan Fund (RAHLF). The costs will be covered by borrowers from the fund in the form of application and origination fees and a portion of the interest paid by borrowers. (SAFETY AND WELL-BEING) Approves a Master Funding Agreement with Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) paid out of the Revolving Affording Housing Loan Fund (RAHLF) for the administration, underwriting and servicing of the City’s Revolving Affordable Housing Loan Fund (RAHLF). The costs will be covered by borrowers from the fund in the form of application and origination fees and a portion of the interest paid by borrowers. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on -15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting 8-18-15.

DenverCityCouncil_08312015_15-0570

One needs 571 council members. Can each and Flynn get them wrong? Looks good. Madam Secretary, can you take the first 1500 Catherine McInnis, would you like for us to do with this? Thank you, Mr. President. I had just a comment, and I actually was planning to do it on both bills at the same time. But since my colleague has called out Council Bill 571, I'll just do them separately. Sure, go ahead. My comments really apply to both Council Bill 570 is the contract between Denver and the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority for the creation of our first revolving loan fund for affordable housing. And I first want to thank especially my returning council members because the funding for this this new fund was a direct result, I think, of several years of budget advocacy from this council to put at first 3 million in 2014 and then another 3 million in 2015 and make that available to the department. My kudos to the Department Office of Economic Development for leveraging those dollars to create a $10 million fund out of our 6 million. So they grew it by four with partnerships with the state. And we are going to be able to build, you know, some really important workforce rental housing with this fund. We know it's not enough. And I call out my my colleague, Councilman Brooks, with whom we've been working with the mayor. Some of you may have seen the piece in The Post this Sunday, but this is a really important first step to getting workforce rental housing built in the city of Denver. And I really want to thank the department for their work. We have several developments ready to go I'm sure we'll be seeing in quick succession. But it's an important moment to just take a pause and say this is our first time really having our own local funding source and being aggressive about this and more of that to come as we continue the conversation about a permanent source. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman, and must give kudos to you and Councilman Brooks for leading the charge from the council from that perspective. Right. Madam Secretary, you want to get to the second one in 571 and so, Councilwoman, can each other, Councilman Flynn, where either one of you wanted to call that out for a vote? No. Okay. We'll start with comments in council. Thank you. The second bill is also a piece of a really multi-pronged strategy to expand access to affordable housing. In this case, by keeping the housing, we already have many of our tax credit projects and other things that were built with public money. They only are designated as affordable between 2030, every now and then 40 years, which means that they expire and we have more than 4500 units. I first want to acknowledge some of the private partners. We have Urban Land Conservancy and Enterprise Community partners who worked with the Office of Economic Development to commission the study that really tried to get a handle on how many units we were at risk of losing and ways that we could strengthen our laws. And so this ordinance was something the mayor mentioned in his inaugural speech just July. What was that, 2010? And here we are just a month later, passing this ordinance, hopefully on first reading I'm counting on all year. And so this is, again, a really important step in the right direction to keep the housing we have by making sure the city gets a right of first refusal to buy any properties that are expiring and making sure that there are good notice provisions when people are thinking about selling those buildings. So a really important piece of legislation for our overall approach to affordable housing. And again, thank you to the department as well as to the community partners for bringing this to the Council's attention. I plan on supporting it in the black vote. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn, Europe. Thank you, Mr. President. I will also be supporting them in a block vote. I just wanted to use this particular council bill as well as there are several others that the staff took a lot of time to work in committee and then also to meet with me separately. And then I had some nagging questions over the weekend and emailed this morning and I just wanted to commend the staff for being so prompt at Sky. Thank you. And and from your end. And Jen Wellborn also for helping me out here. I just wanted to commend the excellent work of staff. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman, I take it you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to add my comments of appreciation to Councilman Brooks and Councilwoman Kenney for their efforts in continuing to work work on this very important issue. I can remember back when the inclusionary housing ordinance was adopted, we had a group called S.O.S. that represented folks living in HUD housing, and they wanted to make sure that there were some protections in place. And that's where the original notification came from, so that anybody who had Section eight funding on their apartment buildings would have to notify the city if they were planning to opt out from continuing to operate that housing for Section eight tenants. And so to see that, you know, we've we've come back to 2015 and we're still dealing with the same issue in making sure that we have all government funded projects included in the notification. And it's really important. You know, we are losing apartment buildings in this city. If they are low income or affordable projects in my neighborhood, most of them have disappeared. The only ones that still exist are these protected properties. And so to know that we're including all of these in the city is really important to preserving the affordable housing that is still left in this city. And the work to create the fund with the previous ordinance is critically important. We all know people who have kids coming back from college or family members that are struggling that can't afford to live in the city. And, you know, it's important that we have some strong policies. I still would love to see our housing ordinance or housing plan be adopted so that we've got some clear guidelines for the development community, and it would provide some predictability for them and for the neighborhoods. But that's for another discussion, another time. But I just want to thank everyone who has worked on this, the administration, our Office of Economic Development for, you know, just making this a priority. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Kathryn Espinosa. Yeah, sorry. I just I want to I do want to commend everybody that worked on this. I do think they're good measures and I'll be supporting them. But I don't want anyone to think that this is these solve anything. We still have a very, very tough situation, particularly in my district where these properties are. Turning over and people are getting displaced and they get stuck in limbo between caring, basically paying the funds, the carrying costs for developers, intent on moving their plans forward. Well, people can't actually migrate and move into other subsidized housing projects. And so there's other things that we need to structurally fix. These are two measures that go a step in the right direction. But there are still other things that we as a council will need to be tackling. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. In other comments, questions 571 seen none. All that was all that were called out. So we are ready for the black vote. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Lopez, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block? Thank you, Mr. President, for a move that resolutions 579, 572, five, 82, five, 83, five, 76, five, 77. Five, 86, 28. All series of 2015 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn I Gilmore. I Cashman. I can each. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Susman. I black eye. Brooks. I. Espinosa. I can each. Mr. President. All right, Madam Secretary, please collectively announce the results to advice. Advisory resolutions have been adopted in the BLOCK Council. One final consideration on the floor for final passage in block. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bills. 498, five or three. But now those two those two are for the public hearings. Oh, so that's right. Those first two. Darn it. That's almost going to be the public. Okay, Scott, I move that council bill 561 five or two 565, five, 67, 569 all series of 2015 be placed upon final consideration and do pass in bulk. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Seen no comment. Madam Secretary, roll call. Kenny Lopez. I knew. ORTEGA Right. SUSSMAN Black. BROOKS Espinosa. FLYNN Hi, Gilmore. CASHMAN Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Councilmembers. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the vote and announce the results. 12. 12 hours. The bills placed on final consideration do pass in the block. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 503, changing the zoning classification for 22 South Adams Street and 44 South Adams Street. Reminder, it is council's intent to postpone final consideration for Council Bill 498 changing the zoning classification for 6502 East Union Avenue with its public hearing to Monday, September 21st. If you are here to speak on that matter, we please ask that you return on that date. However, anyone wishing to speak on Council Bill 503, please see the Council Secretary to receive our speaker card to fill out and return to her during the recess of council. If there are no objections from members of council, we'll take a 5050 minute recess. Coverage of this week's council meeting will continue once the public signs up to speak on scheduled agenda items. We'll take this time to look at what's still ahead, as well as preview additional meetings for the week and share some other items of interest. We'll be back with more meeting coverage in a few moments. There are two public hearings on this agenda. Council Bill 498 Rezone 6502 East Union Avenue and Council Bill 503 Free Zones 22 South Adam Street and 44 South Adam Street. Action on this agenda is just ahead. In the meantime, let's take a look at items in other meetings. Denver eight. We'll also cover this week. Every Tuesday morning, the mayor presents agency proposals and invites council to discuss policy. Join Denver eight as we bring you this meeting live at 9:30 a.m. with scheduled replays that evening at 930 and again Friday at 8 a.m.. Please note that when committees consider changes to the municipal code or policy, a public comment period of 15 minutes will be held on the measure with 2 minutes provided to each speaker. Please sign up beginning 30 minutes prior to the committee's scheduled start time. Tuesday morning's coverage continues with a 10:30 a.m. meeting of the Business Development Committee. Watch live at that time will catch replays Tuesday evening at 8:30 p.m. or Friday at 9 a.m. and Sunday afternoon at 1230. Tuesday's coverage continues each afternoon when the Safety and Well-Being Committee meets at 130. Replays of this council group are shown Tuesday night at 6:30 p.m., Friday morning at 10:30 a.m. and again Sunday at 2 p.m.. Wednesday morning begins with a session of the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee at 10:30 a.m..

A bill for an ordinance designating the Tilden School for Teaching Health Historic District as a district for preservation. Approves the designation of Tilden School for Teaching Health as a Landmark Historic District for preservation, located at the intersection of Grove Street and Fairview Place in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-19-19.

DenverCityCouncil_12162019_19-1259

All right, Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results. 12 provides counsel about 1158 has passed. Councilwoman Torres, will you please put Council Bill 1259 on the floor? I move that. Council bill 1259 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1259 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. I'm Karen with Landmark Preservation in Community Planning and Development. And we are here for the Tilden School for Teaching Health Historic District, which is located in District one. It is just north northwest of the school, and it is comprised of three different buildings that were used as a holistic treatment facility. The designation application was submitted by a former former council member, Rafael Espinosa, when he was still in office. It was the application was researched and written by members of the community and residents. It has gone through a variety of public outreach before it came to the Landmark Preservation Commission. And we are here at the public hearing. The Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed this. They reviewed it under the previous set of criteria because it was submitted prior to October 31st. This is the second to the last application that will be coming forward to you guys. That is under the old criteria. It is required to meet two out of three categories of history, architecture and geography to maintain its historic and physical integrity. And the LPC was to consider how it relates to a historic context or theme in Denver's history. This particular application meets two criteria under history, three under architecture, and two under geography. The does the designation application talks about the history of this property. It is associated with the development of the city, state or nation. So the development of Denver and is associated with the development of sanatoriums in Denver. At the turn of the century, physicians around the country believed that Denver's climate was beneficial for health purposes, oftentimes for people treating two per kilo cis. And so Denver became an area for treatment facilities for a variety of different types of ailments. This particular school was started as a teaching school for teaching people to have better health. It was developed by Dr. Tilden and established in 1915. In 1916. It started in the administration building, which is the Basler house, if any of you are familiar with that. And then it was built. A couple of other buildings were built along with it. The patients building in 1816 and then the main building, which is the Fairview Lofts, which is currently a condominium, was built in 1919, in 1921. Dr. Tilden taught nontraditional teaching health methods. He felt that patients need to know how to cure themselves. He protested that doctors cannot cure disease. The disease is caused by wrong life, and the doctor's prerogative is to teach the patients how to get well. So patients would come here and they would stay for a long term period of time in order to learn how to heal themselves through better living. It is also significant for its association with Dr. Tilden himself. He developed and extensively wrote about his treatment theories. These nontraditional theories or holistic treatments became well known for those who are seeking alternative methods to to surgeries or medications. And so he has he became well-known within the nontraditional treatment facilities, are nontraditional treatment theories. And so it is the building or the district is significant for his affiliation. And he was affiliated with the facility from 1915 to 1924. The school went from 1915 to about 1931. And so it's significant for its association with its founding medical professional. The property is are the district is also significant under architecture for a couple of different architectural styles. One, the Italianate style, which is seen in the Basler house, which is the building on the top. It's its asymmetrical design. The third story tower, which has been reconstructed according to preservation standards. The narrow windows, the segmental arches, and then the front and side porches are all character defining features of the Italianate style. It's also significant for its colonial revival style, which is the building on the bottom. It is. You can see its symmetrical features. It's a dominant two story central portico entry on the hipped tile roof and then the coining on the sides of each of the building in the front as well as the door surrounds in the taillight . Windows are the character defining features of the colonial or classical revival styles. And so the district contains two architectural styles that it's significant for. The district is also significant for the work of a recognized architect or master builder. It is a significant work of Harry W.J. Ed Ashbrook. He worked for his uncle, who was a well-known architect, Frank Frank at Brook, and he began his career in Denver working for him. When his uncle retired, Harry at Brook started his own practice and he designed the buildings other than the Basler house was already constructed, but he designed the other buildings in the historic district. It was early on in the life of his firm and it shows a strong collection of his work. Historian Wilber Fiske Stone felt that the patients building was one of Harriet Brooks most notable designs. So this property is a significant work of the recognized architect of Frank at Brook. Harry at Brooklyn. Apologize. It is also significant under architecture for portraying the environment of a group of people. The district is significant for portraying the environment of the patients at the school. This was a large scale institutional building that was intentionally designed to be in a residential area. It was designed to fit in with the with the community because the patients were going to be staying there for a significant period of time. So the district portrays the environment of the patients who had to stay there long term. It is an intact campus of early 20th century sanatoriums, and the buildings were designed to sort of feel like home for the patients. It also represents early 20th century thought for how patients and medical treatments for people, especially for people who came to these, whether it was the sanatoriums for tuberculosis or other other ailments. It has raised porches, bright sun rooms and a large number of windows, which were the leading theories of medical practice at the time. It reflected the importance of having ventilation and late into into into patients rooms and spaces and to provide fresh air and sunshine as a way of helping patients heal themselves. The property is also significant under geography for a couple of different criteria. The first is having a prominent location that is an established, familiar and orienting visual feature of the Committee of the Contemporary City. This is a series of large buildings in a in a residential area. They're large scale buildings. They stand out to the community, stand out in the community. And so they sort of they visually dominate the blocks around it, especially with the park that is really low scale. So it is a familiar and orienting visual feature of the neighborhood. And then finally, it is significant under geography for promoting the understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics or rarity. This this area was intentionally designed. If you note on the maps, the top is an 1887 survey and the bottom is the 1905 based real estate map. And if you note that the streets around it are designed in the north, south and east west grid, this was intentionally designed to take advantage of the contours of the land and to be more residential and pastoral in its design. It was intentionally developed and followed by a layout of the Riverside neighborhood in Chicago. And so this is distinctive for it's characteristic of the layout of the blocks in the lots. It is also rare, as one of the remaining examples of sanatorium sanatorium health campuses in Denver. That is a combination of buildings and larger scale. We don't have that many sanatoriums that are remaining and retain integrity. In order for a building to be designated, it also has to retain its historic and physical integrity. The building that is the most changed is the primary building, which is the main building or the Fairview Lofts. When it was converted into condominiums in the 1990s, there were alterations. The roof tiles were changed. There were some dormers that were added in. The windows were replaced. However, however, the overall massing has been retained. The proportions the bulk of the original building is still readily available, readily obvious. And so the building overall retains its integrity. And then as a district, the other two buildings have been minorly changed and they retained very good integrity. So overall, the district conveys the significance of an early 20th century medical facility. The LPC considered the context of this particular building that the operation of medical sanatoriums had become a major component of Denver's economy, that doctors from around the country were sending patients here. And so this reflected the growth of Denver at that particular time and is an important part of Denver's economy at the turn of the century. Because this is a historic district, it also goes to a planning board for their review, planning, planning boards. Review is really narrow. They look at a historic district's relationship to Denver's comprehensive plan and any plans that we might have, and then the effect of the designation upon the surrounding neighborhood. This property is related to comprehensive plan 2040. It relates to several different goals or strategies. The strongest one that it relates to is the strong and authentic neighborhoods. The proposed district reinforces the vision of comprehensive plan 2040 by preserving a historic cultural asset in the West Highland neighborhood. It is also supports environmental resiliency and that the buildings will remain standing and they will not be demolished in adding waste to our landfills. So it relates to two different vision elements within the comprehensive plan. It also relates to Denver's blueprint. It is currently the neighborhood context is urban, which is primarily characterized by single unit and two unit residential uses with some multi family residential. And it is has some mixed use throughout. So with its relationship to blueprint Denver this would meet the future places low residential. The designation would help ensure that the future growth is of residential character. It would also meet the strategy of to a under land use and built forms that recommends historic designation to ensure that the neighborhoods retain their historic character. That designation is consistent with Blueprint Denver's vision to improve the quality of design, and that preserves and creates authentic places. Planning Board also looked at its effect upon the surrounding neighborhood. The Tilden School for Teaching Health Historic District would help preserve the character of this particular block, but it would have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The intent of designations is only to preserve what was in the actual boundary of designations and not for anything that is outside of the historic district. And so it would have little impact on any of the surrounding neighborhood. We have received public comment from 26 individuals, 23 with 23 were written comments in support. Four were from neighborhood groups were organizations. 19 were for individuals. At the Landmark Preservation Commission Public Hearing, there are three members who spoke in support. There were no public comments at Planning Board. The Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously recommended approval and forwarded it for your review and the Denver Planning Board also unanimously recommended approval and forwarded it for your review. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We have four individuals signed up to speak this evening on this item. So first up, Chairman Sekou. Yes. My name is German Sake who likes to action movement for self-defense. In order representing poor, working, poor and homeless people are most vulnerable folks in the neighborhood. As a resident of this town. This is what we told. We support this 100%. This represents who we are and who we should stay. Like, not this mess we got being thrown up now out of clapboard and cheap construction material that won't even last that long, maybe 30 years. But we had to redo all of that. And what this represents also is the quality of how we felt about ourselves. You can't buy that today. You can't buy it. You can't buy it. And most remarkable thing about it is you had wholesome medical practices going on. Well, here's a doctor that said, if you want to be disease free, stay away from me and fix yourself before you reconcile. That is the everyday common stuff. All right. And he was well received by that and the medical community. So he's my kind of guy that will go against the grain. Take the risk of not being popular and then do the right thing. It wouldn't be great public officials acting like that and not get scared because somebody might not like the principles and values that you hold dear that you're willing to compromise. Chairman, if you could stay on the topic of this hearing, please. I was waiting for you to say so. Help me appreciate it. So not to belabor the point, and I'm sure that we're going to continue this on. Thank you very much for allowing me this time. Thank you. Next up, Arianna Stettner. Good evening, council members. And there's not going to be a test on all the history of the children teaching school for health. But now you know a lot about it. I am one of the owners in the condominium complex that Fairview Lofts building is celebrating its centennial this year. And we, as owners and neighbors have been working together to celebrate its history and work with our neighbors to create this historic district designation. We're very pleased that we have gotten unanimous support from the neighborhood and from our colleagues and from the owners in the property. And so I thank you very much for your consideration of this particular designation and the time it's taking you to review all of this. And I also want to express my appreciation to Paul Cloyd, who did considerable, incredible work on the application with me. So thank you for your time and thank you for your consideration. Would you mind stating your name for the record? Yes, it's a Greek name. Ari on the Stettner. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Next up, Paul Cloyd. Thank you, counsel. My name is Paul Cloyd. My wife and I have owned our home in the West Highlands for the last 35 years. I'm a registered architect and a licensed professional engineer, and I serve as chair. Of the West Highland Neighborhood Association Design and Preservation. Committee. I just quickly would state that I believe the application clearly shows the Tilden School for Teaching Health exhibits the significance and integrity to warrant designation as a Denver landmark. And as you may know from the application, these buildings are already on the National Register. I'm grateful to have had a small part in uncovering the story of the Tilden School and further sharing that story with the people of Denver. A historic district designation is the very best tool to ensure. That the buildings that perform the historic, historic character of our West Highland neighborhood are not lost. Please protect this historic part of Denver by voting yes on this designation. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Preuss. Good evening. Members of council, members of the audience, those watching at home. My name is Jesse Paris of the City Council, where large, almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I'll be running again in 2023 to be your next mayor. And I'll represent for Denver Homicide, a low black star action movie for self defense positive actually committed for social change. Unity Party of Colorado and Universal African People's Organization Denver Branch in Mile High knows we are in favor of this. As has previously been stated, this is something that Denver needs to preserve this this history needs to be preserved. And seeing that the community was all in support of this and you reached out to the community, I have no qualms against this. So good job, Espinosa. And now Amanda Sandoval, this pass. No problem. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Are there any questions from members of council on this item? Councilman Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. Took a while to click in there, as I had a couple of questions. Carol, maybe you could answer or maybe help. Excuse me. The way the lines for the district are drawn. It excludes a little portion of some property parcels. And I'm wondering, is that an unusual or is that something we've done on other occasions? And what's on the parcels that are not included within a district but are on the parcel, like with the main, with the patients building right behind it, there's a a rectangle that's excluded. Yes. It's it's the garage of the patients. Building garages have been basically considered non contributing buildings because we want people to have the ability to change them or alter them. This particular property owner asked that their garage be excluded and so it's somewhat unusual to do that. But because the block was a little not uniform anyways, that that boundary was going to be a little bit changed. And because the garage would be considered non contributing, whether it was in or out was something that we, we felt in order for the building to get designated. And then the other excuse me, the other question I have is the building is on Highland, is it a highland place on the north side, three buildings that are part of the parcel that has the the the apartments, condos. Now what are they. Tell me a little bit more about those. Are those because they're not on the original maps. Right. Right. So so so they're they're recent infill garages. So they're they're part of the boundary. But changes could be made to that through design review. But they're modern garages and they're non contributors. So they were recently built. Yes. They're like within now. I'd have to. Yeah. 26. 26. So we're including them in the historic district but they're non contributing. Right there at the. Rear of the property. Okay, that's enough clarification. That's all I have, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. All right. I've seen no other questions. The public hearing from Council 1259 is closed. Comments by members of council and the councilwoman for this district is not here this evening. Councilman Clinic. Thank you. I just want to share my appreciation as one of the At-Large council members for all of the work that everyone put into it. And I think that, you know, I used to go by these buildings all the time when I lived in the neighborhood. And so knowing the story, I think enriches the experience. So thank you for the awareness that this brings and just thank you to the staff for the thorough work in presenting it and exciting to see our historic dedications continue to grow in the city. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, so no other comments. I will just add my thanks to staff and everyone who put in all the hard work and to the Honorable Councilman Espinosa for your continued passion and work on behalf of our city. Thank you. I will be happy to support this this evening. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Black Eye CdeBaca I. Flynt I. Gillmor High. Herndon High. Cashman. High. Commission. Ortega, I. Sawyer, I. Torres. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please go to the voting notes. Results 1212. Hours counts. Bill 1259 has passed. Councilwoman Torres, will you please put council bill 1289 on the floor?

A resolution approving a proposed Third Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Mile High United Way for the administration and grant disbursement of Denver’s Small Business Emergency Relief Program during the COVID-19 health crisis. Amends a contract with Mile High United Way by adding $3,500,000 for a new total of $5,705,000 for the administration and grant disbursement of Denver's Small Business Emergency Relief Program as part of the Covid-19 response. No change to contract duration (OEDEV-202054468). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-18-20. Councilmember Flynn approved filing this item on 4-30-20.

DenverCityCouncil_05042020_20-0386

Council Resolution 279 will be referred back to committee. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please, for the next item on our screen, it is called out by two different members. This is 386. So, Councilor Canete, you ought to go ahead with your comments. Thank you, Mr. President. This bill is inspiring to a friend of who has made way more contact for me at the United Way to administer visits. So it takes the contract from $3500000 to $5705000 for this small emergency program. I wanted to walk through a little the history of this program really quickly before we vote on March 19, the mayor announced this program would be created. Just to take you back. That was three days, just three days after the second order. We had virtually no information about the sales taxes and the revenue service. And you can see we had no idea how long these words would be necessary for public health, the the better for the in terms of our community. And yet the administration, the mayor and the Office of. Denver. Economic Development and Opportunity Office took the courageous move to say that it was so critical to help small businesses in our community that they would immediately $24 million. So when this plan was announced, it was now announced to a million about the primary contingency. Contingency is the one source that we have for emergency to help with services and department funding. This was courageous and it was bold. We didn't ask, well, where will the money come from to build other hospitals? We didn't ask what what the impact might be of dedicating this money early. Just to give you some perspective. We care about $127 million. Denver was not signed until March 27. We did not know that there was a local government allocation or exactly where taxpayers would be and what it would be bringing to Denver. Yet we took courageous. It strikes me as you think about this pandemic, that governing is all about health care. It's about courageous actions, but it's also about corruption. I have supported these investments because they are the right thing to do, particularly for small businesses. I do not believe that we have to put everything into work. I believe that the science and the programs and the investments we make in one benefit the other every single time I believe that we sink or swim as a community together. Businesses and workers. I read from the status report the importance of investing. In workers. Who are being left behind. Workers have worked to build this community, clean this community to comfort food, many of whom have lost their jobs, and many of whom to the tune of 100,000, were not born here. Some are excluded from those programs because of their status. Some are leaving because of how they keep their taxes. And those workers are just as important to this community as the businesses who employ them. So while we look forward to our budget, we do need to be concerned. We need to think about how we're going to get through the rest of this year, which we now know will be managing this pandemic for many months to come. We need to be cautious about our city's budget and thinking about how things will get paid for for basic services. But I ask you, what is the definition of equitable? Is the definition of equity that one group we take great fashion for that group and another group are waiting to see if there's money left over at the end. I don't think so. I believe the definition of equity is that we take bold action for those who have been often left behind. We take it on page one, and that means we have to take it before we know everything at this point in time, in the coming months. I believe that this administration is injustice committed to workers as I am. We work together on the minimum wage last year with an economic equality to thousands of workers in our city. First, the contractors who do business with us and we are all the residents of the city. This mayor has been a champion. He was our partner in signing the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act in 2017, and he has worked to. Support. Every effort to undermine the work that we do to support the immigrant communities. So I believe we have shared values. The next step is to take that value and make it into action and find some way to bring the courage that we said to the Citizens Assistance Fund and massive and come up with these similarly sized, courageous investments and workers that can be done in partnership that can include foundations and partners. But it does take us to the city meeting. So I will be supporting this investment today because I believe that the small businesses we are helping are also a form of equity. That is not a group that answering my questions, demonstrating the number of businesses who are owned by women and people of color. We're not talking about different people here. We are talking about different entities. Right. Whether you bring attention to your business or when you bring into your household. Both are critical. So I will be voting for this today, but I voted for it because my expectation that it is the same courage we made on March 19 and we take that same cruise and we make an investment of equal equal to the workers for the next few months. Thank you, Councilmember Dodson. Reversing blocking would also help us to go ahead. Correct. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Cohen, each for those comments. I agree. Hold wholeheartedly with many of them. Is there anybody in the room who can answer questions on this contract? Yes. My question is about the overhead that's being paid to Mile High United Way. The number has changed a couple of times in my conversations. And I'm wondering if somebody can explain if the overhead percentage is changing for this amendment or if the overhead is the same for the full amount of our contract with them and what exactly that's paying for. Can you hear me? Yes. I'm Deborah Cameron from Zito. And it's good to be with you again this week. And thank you for considering this contract request in response to Councilwoman Baucus question. I want to talk a little bit about her administrative fee and her partnership with United Way and our straight into an approach with Mobile. United Way has changed since the first contract, which was our system impact opportunity, which was how United Way actually helped create and build that program and develop that program with us. So they were providing a great deal of technical assistance in that realm. So we pay you for the second expansion, which was the one shortly after March 19th, where we were putting $2 million into the by you right away. The administrative fee at that point was 10% for the first $10 million. And what that paid for at that time was mile high because of the expertize that they had in implementing in the fire funds and they provided in-depth training to our businesses are stepping up to speed in terms of not only helping us develop the application and scoring criteria, but really the financial analysis that our teams had to do with each of the applications to demonstrate and understand the financial impact that COVID was having on the on revenue streams. So they provided a great deal of technical expertize and assistance in that first $2 million segment of grams, which we announced 290 words at the end of last week for the contract extension modification that you're considering today. The administrative media's dropping down. To. 5% of the contract agreement because we feel like our team is fully. Up to speed. I will remain available. For daily phone calls with their team to continue to talk about questions. But primarily one role. Will be to execute payments to the companies that were awarded and selected by the U.S. government to function in this. And that criteria that was created. We've asked for that a couple of times. Who who is who needs to provide that Mile High United Way or DITO facility? Though I know we have presented information on the steps and factors of how the applications are scored, and I'm happy to go back through those the seasoning or up with you. Now, it's just the seven factors. It's not a rubric. It's a rubric with a numerical values for and the and the subsections. Yes. Okay. I'll follow up for that. Thank you. That's all my comments, Mr. President. Thank you. Next up, councilmember for. No. No. Oh, I saw your hand. I'm sorry about that. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So since the last meeting where this came up, I think it was our committee meeting, I had raised some questions and concerns about nonprofits and food banks. And I did have an opportunity to talk with Erik Crockett from Dito, and he assured me that they are putting out some funding that will be available for nonprofits. And I wanted to ask Debora. I texted him, but did not hear back yet if she has any idea how much and when that will be put out. Because many of our nonprofits are the very people they're not necessarily classified as businesses, but they're being expected to really do so much more with so much less . And a lot of them who would historically rely on volunteers, many of those volunteers are not coming in because of COVID. And so I would just like to know when those dollars will roll out. And is there a max amount that's being set aside to assist our food banks and nonprofits specifically? Can you pull that a little closer there? Thank you. I can't answer your question specifically, but I do know that I thought there might be more submitted. Ideas coming to this. Over the weekend with. Some suggestions. On how it would be used against. You. I don't know if I could. But I think discussions are ongoing, and I think you're. Expected to share some potential ideas as early as Friday. And I just want to make a comment. Mr. President, I appreciate the work that the administration has done in trying to help our small businesses. We have many of them struggling very, very hard. Not all of them got any of the stimulus funding. And it was like the ones who got in there first were the ones that got funded and anybody else who came behind because there were so many. Unfortunately, not everybody got some of that funding. I also agree with Councilwoman Kimmich about the the focus and the need for protecting our workers. A lot of workers are being expected to show up and and have masks. We need to make sure those are being provided for the workforce. A lot of low income workers were struggling just to pay rent and to put food on the table and didn't have money to buy masks. So those are some of the things I think we need to be addressing and will be talking to to Mr. McDonald about that when he's on the northwest town hall on Thursday. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. And if you're staying put, we're just saying we have another question coming in from council member Joe. Thanks, because. I can't get out as far as Vito's capacity. Things not in the first. Allocation, there was 150,000 for technical assistance, knowing that there was a low number. And the other point that's been made by my colleagues, equity, it was top priority for us. And so with the very, very small number of businesses who were wanted in this. First round, I think. There were nine that were. And can you talk a little bit about how many staff within the DOE are going to be assisting folks who are contemplating applying for these? But that's a great question. And other questions that. Were was asked last week was how. Was the breakdown between. Enterprise reporting to self? And based on the 290 words that we have announced. That we went to writing, 44%. Were either in the neighborhood or in the. Communications. But to get back to your specific question, we have probably over 20 people that are now working on this project, and we're going to go from the 1980s voting of health help. We're going to talk about helping out. So I would say in total, we have about 20 different people. We do have some bilingual staff that are available to. Help. Individuals and companies who might. Need. Reading. Applications as well. And also the staff of the Office of Financial Empowerment. We've been partnering with. Them and they're also working. With companies that might need a little. Extra help responding to an application. As well. And we're also utilizing as well the degree to work with with some of our. Businesses because they work. In their real. So we're driving across the city. Great. Thank you for that information. And. You know, we always have folks who want to apply for something that they just don't have the capacity at this point in time. So I would ask, as you're going through applications or if you identify specifically folks who have applied. That maybe they need some. Help with the technical assistance that. We have, some sort. Of game plan to give them that assistance. Maybe it's in the SEC around the city, but that we're really setting them up for success. We really are making this effort and I have never seen. The company to respond to questions and provide technical. Assistance. And we actually saw an email that went to the Denver Post this weekend specifically thanking their team for reaching out and providing them personal touch in terms of phone. Calls because. So many of the other services that. They provided for. Them having that kind of personal attention. And our team really is dedicated to putting ourselves. In the position and they're working on. Themselves. And it's been it's been both personally and a little bit traumatic. Francine Anderson. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I'll raise other comments on this one. We're going move on to the next one. Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. This is 393. And Councilmember CdeBaca, you close enough for comment? Go ahead.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3400 Arkins Court, 3460 Arkins Court and 1930 35th Street in Five Points. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3400 Arkins Court, 3460 Arkins Court, 1900 35th Street, 1930 35th Street, and 1950 35th Street from I-MX-5/UO-2 to OS-A (industrial, mixed-use to open space) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-13-18.

DenverCityCouncil_04232018_18-0243

Ten Eyes, one nay. Ten eyes, one nay to 29 has passed. Congratulations. All right, Councilwoman Gilmore, were you put to 43 on the floor? Yes. President Brooks, I move that council. 18 Dash 0243 be placed upon final consideration and due pass. It has been moved in second in the public hearing for council bill 243 is open. May we have the staff report? Geoff Hurt. You'll be here for a while. We'll put to. Public health sort of this. So this is a search effort with community planning and development. So this is a request for rezoning for city owned property in the Reno area to rezone for the purposes of a future city park. It's in Council District nine five in the Five Points neighborhood. And the request areas are the subject properties outlined in yellow. The request area is about three acres. The city has owned these properties for since about 2003, along with the intention of a future city park. The rezoning request would go from IMAX five, which is an industrial mixed use five story and you oh two, which is a billboard overlay to OSA, which is the most common zoned district for a city park. The purpose of the request, it originated from the Parks Department and like I said, city owned land to accommodate a future city park for a rapidly growing area and right now and to implement some some adopted plan. So subject property is annex five. Surrounding properties also IMAX five. And then going up from there and number of stories to eight and 12 stories to kind of reflect how that area is really booming. Existing land use is industrial, surrounding properties are mixed, but mostly industrial. You have two breweries and a dog daycare adjacent. So all you could ever hope for in the Reno area, properties outlined in yellow and these images. So you see it's adjacent to South Platte River corridor. It's actually on the the side of the corridor that has the trails is a great opportunity for kind of a flow into the the river corridor images of the subject property. So you can see the current condition used for Denver Police Department fleet services and other maintenance facilities. And then looking at the surrounding area, you see the mix of industrial and you start to see the boom happening in Reno and some of these images. I'm closer to Brighton Boulevard. And then looking at the surrounding area. So this is looking right across Arkin's courts. You can see the proximity to to the River and the Trail Network there presenting a real opportunity. OSA, the zone district, this being requested is intended for city owned land for future use as Parker open space. And like I said, it's the most common zone district you see for parks, including some nearby parks too. This one, St Charles Place, Globeville Landing. The process of followed our normal rezoning process is starting with an informational notice, and January Planning Board did recommend approval unanimously on February 21st. All the Arnaud's in the screen were notified of the request and no public comments have been received to date. And these are the criteria staff used to evaluate the request. So there's several adopted plans or citywide plans and local plans. But I will go to this pretty quickly because they are all the exception to the citywide plans. They all essentially point to the future use of a parker open space on the site. But in terms of citywide plans, certainly a lot of current plan policies and guidance related to encouraging development of parks in areas with increasing demand , which is clearly is seeing a lot of multifamily going in in this area and not a lot of park space to correspond with that. Blueprint. Denver has most of the site as a park and in an area of change. And then looking at kind of the most focused adopt the plan guidance the 30th and Blake stationery plan from 2009 does call out all these properties as a park and feature open space. And other plans echo that that aren't quite as focused in recent on related to the subject properties but they do call out a park and open space on these properties. So I'm not going to go through each one of these. But in terms of a justifying circumstance, just to highlight that, again, a rapidly growing area with a rapidly increasing demand for four park space that transformation, staff finds, is a justifying circumstance for this particular zoning. So staff does find or does recommend approval based on those criteria, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Thanks for the presentation. We have two speakers this evening, Sloan Nystrom from ADC. Come on up for 3 minutes and Chairman COO, uh, 3 minutes. Hi. I'm Sloan Nystrom. I'm here. Representing Parks. And I'm here. Just answer any questions if anybody has. Any questions about construction or the park. Thank you. Chairman Seiko. Yes, Chairman Sekou. Black Star Action. Movement for Self-defense. Oh, we enthusiastically support this. You know, it's rare, very rare on zoning changes that we've agreed on anything. Finally, we reached common ground. This park makes sense for no other sets of reasons stand on its own, meaning all the criteria and whatnot, and also the amenities that it provides for the neighborhood. And the truth is, it looks a whole lot better than the pictures. I just saw them for real. Unless you're talking about wildlife situation, then you know I did that and then let it go. But that was a beautiful addition to that, an increased property values and also make this place, especially in that area , rhino that's more civilized so that it no longer looks like New York City. We ain't got no grass and we've got all these buildings going up and this ain't it. This is Denver. And it needs to keep this character because that's the attraction here. We got green grass, we got trees, we got parks, and we have safe neighborhoods that kids can come and play even when the park closes after dark. So thank you very much for your leadership and bringing this forward and. Look forward to seeing the growth. Thank. All right. Time to spare. Okay. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Have a quick question for for you. I was shocked to see you focus on the 2000 938 station area when we just did the 30th in Blake Station area, only because I think we did call out parks in that. So did you not find information in that plan to speak to this. In the 38th and Blake Yeah. Plant yeah there's there certainly is. And I was just referencing the map. Got it. So some more than this, more just, you know, to your presentation. Why why would you focus on 2009 when we we just worked as a community to consolidate those plans to have the 2006 to supersede those? That's a fair that's a fair question. The in looking back on the slides here, this one had at least in terms of the map, this one had the clearest sort of and included all of the boundaries as a park and the other ones carved out chunks as staying sort of industrial, light industrial. So while it's not more recent in dates, you know, it it is more accurate in the sense of the map at least maybe. It proved your point harder is more clear. Maybe I should. Say. Okay, okay. And I'm just asking is that's probably why you. Okay, it's just interesting. Okay, great. Councilman, you. Jeff know, snap. You know, I love Parks. I'm a big fan of Parks. But this is the second week in a row where we've given city land, you know, for uses. And this is a good use of parks. But was there any consideration for affordable housing? I mean, this is an enormous 3.2 acres of land. Was there any discussion at all about using this for even a higher level of affordable housing, workforce housing or anything like that? I don't know that there was. I mean, these plans, it's really based on these plans and the community conversations that happened, you know, in 2009 and 2015. And so that would have been the place for those conversations. But I'm not aware of any plans unless Sloan knows of any other. Look. I think the city purchases specifically for parks. When do they purchase? It's been said to do. Do you have the year that it was purchased? I believe it's 2003. There's three parcels and each one was acquired in different periods, I think 23. And then more recent from there, we've acquired all of them. So it's a it's a little bit of a different kind of scenario. But this this part of town obviously doesn't have any parks. And so this has been a plan long in the making for this. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. So, having been the previous councilperson person, this district, it's been the bike shop and the repair shop for many, many years. But the plans for it being a park have been part of the discussion over the last ten years, at least as part of all the new development that was going in into the Brighton corridor , knowing that was a new growth area, we're going to see a lot more new housing development coming to the area. The question I have is where is the bike shop in the maintenance facility moving to and what's the timing of that? I do not know. Do you have that information? Can you come to tell us upfront? They're moving to the post building and they're supposed to move out this summer. It's slated for July. So when you say the post building, you talk about the Denver Post building downtown. Yes. So. We're going to have the bikes stored inside the car. I don't have. All the information on. That. I can get it. Can we get that information? That would be extremely helpful. Would be helpful to know the timing. And where specifically does the bike shop? I definitely do know the timing is July. Okay. Sure. Thank you. If you can get that, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Seeing no questions. Public hearings now. Closed comments, members of council. You know, this this this rezoning is exactly how it is supposed to line up. You heard Councilwoman Ortega when she was a councilperson in this district before me was during my tenure. I know she was working on this before her was Councilman Ortega. This has been something in the works for a long time for this part of the city. And, you know, I think a city growing as fast as we are to have us dedicating park land in space at this moment is is actually profound. And it says a lot about the values of the city. So I'll be supporting this, but I only want to just be supportive because the park but it matches up the criteria matches up with what we are supposed to approve. So excuse me, I hope that my colleagues will support this as well. See no other comments. Madam Secretary. Roll Call. Black Clarke. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore Cashman. Kenny. New Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President. I police the voting announce results. 11 eyes. 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?

AN ORDINANCE relating to affordable housing on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations; modifying affordability requirements adopted in Ordinance 126384; and amending Section 23.42.055 of the Seattle Municipal Code and Section 10 of Ordinance 126384.

SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_CB 120157

Okay, great. Thank you so much. Okay, folks, let's go ahead and end our period of public comment. We'll go ahead and go to other items of business on today's agenda, which is the public hearing on Council Bill 120157. Will the Court please read the title of Council Bill 1 to 0 157? Constable 120157 relating to affordable housing on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations. Modifying affordability requirements adopted in ordinance 126334 and amended Section 23.40 2.005 of the settlements, the code and Section ten of Ordinance 2060 384. Okay. It appears that technology is not our friend today. Just as we're about to do this. I see what Councilmember Strauss was having some need to reconnect. It looks like Councilmember Strauss is with us again. So before I open the public hearing on this item, I am going to go ahead and turn it over to Councilmember Strauss , who is the sponsor of this bill. Councilmember Strauss will provide us with introductory remarks before we go ahead and hold the formal public hearing, for which we do have a handful of members of the viewing public registered to make public comment. So thank you so much, Strauss, over to you. Thank you. Council President Gonzalez and apologies for the technological issues that we just experienced. Just wanting to highlight that council bill 120157 is before us today and it makes changes to Council Bill 120081, which the City Council passed on June 28. And this will increase the affordability requirements from 60% AMI to 80% AMI Council Bill 120081 Implementing a new state law that allows for larger buildings than zoning would otherwise allow for affordable housing developments on sites owned or controlled by religious institutions. The state law defined affordable housing as affordable to 80% am-I, as did the original version of Council Bill 120157 that was transmitted to council. The Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee considered the amendment to lower AMI requirements to 60% and decided against and rejected that amendment after hearing from stakeholders. The full City Council ultimately passed a similar amendment and lowered the affordability requirements to 60% AMI making Seattle's law more restrictive than the state law. Following these votes, my office and others were contacted by churches and community organizations expressing deep concern with the amendment, which works with and including from Nehemiah Initiative, which works with historically black churches in Seattle to save the black church in the central area into combat displacement. These stakeholders shared that the 60% AMI requirement threatened the viability of church affordable housing projects, meaning that we would lose affordable housing units that would otherwise been developed under this ordinance. Additionally, I heard that churches plan to use this ordinance as a way in ways that are more broad than what the City Council discussed during for council. In some cases, churches may wish to build affordable housing to allow their members to return home to communities that they have already been displaced from. Some of these members may not qualify for a 60% in my unit and they still have been displaced. I do not believe the city needs to micromanage how religious organizations best serve their congregations. Finally, I was reminded of the great importance historically and today of the Black Church is more than just a religious organization. But as Don King, president of Nehemiah Initiative, put it, as the largest African-American financial, emotional, physical, spiritual service provider and the largest African-American land owner, period. He added much more. And I know that many more people will be speaking during the public hearing today. So I will end with this. Just noting that this legislation will amend the previous council bill to provide more flexibility to churches to serve their congregations, build the needed affordable housing, and maintain themselves financially so that they can continue serving their community. Thank you, counsel presence. Those are my remarks before the bill. It's so much Castmember Strauss Appreciate that context setting and additional information both for the viewing public and for us as council members. So as Presiding Officer, I am now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 120157 relating to affordable housing on property owned or controlled by religious organizations. Online registration to sign up to speak opened at 12:00 noon today and I am going to call on speakers in the order of registration. The online registration will remain open until the conclusion of this public hearing. The same rules apply to the same rules that apply to the public comment period will be applied to this public hearing . Each speaker will be provided up to 2 minutes to address the council. Excuse me. And speakers are going to hear chime when they only have 10 seconds left of the allotted time. Your microphone will be muted at the end of your allotted. In their comments by seeing their name. And again, you have to press star six after you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted. Sorry folks, I'm continuing to experience internet stability so and have to turn my camera off. Here again, public comment on this particular section is only related to the council bill just described by Councilmember Strauss, which is a bill related to affordable housing on property owned or controlled by religious organizations. So we're going to go ahead and open up the public comment period. I'm going to go ahead and start calling on folks who are both present and signed up to speak on this subject matter. The first person is Kirsten Smith, followed by Donald King. Good afternoon. My name is Kirsten Smith. I live in District one and I am policy staff at Air Seattle. The American Institute of Architects apologized for getting in on the list ahead of him because he should go first. He is a fellow of the air and we are pleased to support the 120157. We also appreciate the Council's willingness to take a second look at the legislation. The Provision Architect strive to apply our professional skills to advance racial and economic justice. One way we do this is to identify policy changes that make development work for bipoc individuals and communities, both to combat the risk of displacement and to generate wealth building opportunities. Adjusting this legislation to make it achievable for black churches to allow them to participate in the program without giving up control of their project to larger developers is an example of exactly this kind of policy adjustment. It also supports the city's commitment to eliminating racial disparities and achieving racial equity while deeper affordability programs are essential and needed to achieve additional city goals. You believe in this case and solve to be addressed elsewhere. We ask you to support Council Bill one 2157 thank you. Thank you for calling it. And next up is Donald King, followed by Joey Lopez. Of Europe. Good afternoon. This is Donald King. I am president and CEO of the Myanmar Initiative of Seattle. And in fact, in your name and again, you have the press. Sorry. No, that's okay. We're all it. It is. Definitely. Let's start the clock over again. Yes. The next. It's I feel like today is extra Monday. So no worries. You have the full 2 minutes. Go ahead. Good. Thank you. My name's Donald King. I'm president and CEO of the Myanmar Initiative. And it is the mission of the Nehemiah Initiative to primarily one save the historically black churches, the predominantly black churches of central Seattle. And as part of that mission are we have two objectives in mind. One is to develop affordable housing on underutilized properties of the churches, which is quite abundant. And the second is to provide the church with income from the development of those properties for the churches to survive. So the churches can continue to do good. But also being well financially we are supporting of the passage of CB 120157 because it corrects a previously passed bill, an ordinance 120081 that was flawed. It had a late amendment added to it that required it eligibility of 60% area median income, which does not particularly work for our black churches. We applaud those that work in the low and very low income housing provision market. But with the objective that I just told you about and the second objective of that is being able to make the black churches stronger through the development of their housing. A threshold of 60% or a limit of 60%. Amid does not financially work for that objective. So I am urging you to pass this ordinance, to pass this bill into ordinance 1 to 0 one five. Thank you. Thank you for calling in today. Really appreciate it. Next up is Joey Lopez, followed by Benjamin Maurits. Council President Gonzalez and members of council. My name is Jose Lopez, a resident of District three in the Safe Land Initiative Lead at the Church Council of Greater Seattle. I appreciate the time to speak today on behalf of the Church Council in favor of Ordinance 120157 to modify the affordability requirements adopted in the past ordinance as relates to affordable housing on properties owned and controlled by religious organizations. As many of you know, the Church Council of Greater Seattle is a century old organization that is committed to making informed, transformational change for deliberation and justice in partnership with Seattle's faith, community and community organization. Much like many of my initiative, as part of this work, we facilitate a network of congregations and faith leaders through our Faith Land Initiative. Our initiative trained and developed faith leaders to cultivate deeper relationships within their congregations and neighborhoods, and a practice toward community stewardship of faith owned land. We also mobilize Seattle's faith communities to take action by practicing transformative stewardship of faith owned land and engaging their lawmakers and elected officials as we look and legislating in terms of affordability. We have to realize the impact for people with the most need like Bipoc family. We know the families that are our families are what will reverse the impacts of displacement and gentrification and policies that contribute to housing exclusion, like the city's history of urban renewal. Past debate focused on rental rates for studio and one bedroom unit. However, 80% of am I for a three bedroom unit is $2,295. I. Reality is that housing of this size is almost nonexistent at this cost or lower. We must be mindful of the long term impact of our development decision providing space for the return of displaced black renters in a sustainable way that does not contribute to further racial and economic segregation. I urge you to vote yes on the passage of S.B. 120157. Thank you. Thank you for calling in today, Joey. Next up is Benjamin Morris. And then after Benjamin will be Alicia Ruiz. Hello. My name is Benjamin Merritt, and I'm a housing developer in Seattle. I'm here today to answer the specific question of what is the difference between 60% AMI 80% AMI. It is a difference between many homes and no homes for a family of four. The difference between earning 63,000 and about 83,000 a year in income and for a housing providers, the difference between being able to charge that family a fair rent of about 6000 dollars per month, or about 20 $100 a month for a two bedroom home. But for somebody who aims to build housing and for whom, like most of us, must borrow money to do so, it's a difference between being able to pay off your construction loan and not being able to do so. And if you can pay off the loan and you are in charge, then it's the ability to have a bit of money left over afterwards to pay other bills and keep your community going. Now, not everyone needs to fund their operations in this way. Large nonprofits with access to federal tax credits and local subsidies can do just fine building at 60% AMI. And they should. But no one, not even the church with modest profit expectations, can build housing at 60% ami without subsidy. In Seattle, we now have the opportunity to allow smaller faith based groups, especially the black churches, the opportunity to revitalize themselves through housing and to do so on their own without subsidy that they must be able to build to 80%. Ami, please approve this bill. Thank you. Thank you so much for calling in today. Next up is Alicia Ruiz, followed by Gary Tyson. Hi, my name is Alisha Reese, and I'm speaking today on behalf of the Master Builders Association opinions and on which county and our nearly 3000 members are today. We stand in strong support of the amended version of Council Bill 120159 that would modify the eligibility criteria to require that all affordable housing units built on property owned by religious organizations serve households with an average income of 80% of AMI. The passage of this amended bill is an important step forward towards racial equality and also provide desperately, desperately needed affordable housing in our city. Thank you. Thank you for calling in today. Next up is Garry Tyson. And then the last person I have signed up for this public hearing is Barb Wilson. Looking for Gary Tyson, who is speaker number? Oh, I'm sorry, since we were at the time, Carrie, but I think I just called on him. Do we still have. Speaker 50? There we go. Okay. Just press star six and we'll be able to hear you. Gary, if you're with us, we just need you to press Star six on your end, and then we will be able to hear you. You're not hearing the collar. So let's go ahead and move over to Barbara Wilson. It was number 58 on our list. I'm Barbara Wilson, District six. Speaking in favor of 120157, increasing the permissible EMI to 80% would make it financially feasible for religious institutions with less land to build the missing middle housing at virtually no cost to the city. This approach to increasing Seattle's affordable housing exists because a dedicated group of small historical black churches advocated for a state law requiring increasing density for. Such buildings on religious property. Our own church in Ballard has been exploring building affordable housing at 60%. Am I on our property? We're privileged to have a very large piece of property, but you should know that the part of the property used for such affordable housing will be reduced in value by half. The reality is limiting the definition of affordable housing to 60% AMI and below reduces the land value so much that it's financially prohibitive for the very churches who brought Seattle one solution to increase much needed affordable housing for black historic churches. If you wish to support the black community and their continued presence in their historical neighborhood, please press 120157. Thank you. Thank you for calling in today. Okay. Our last speaker is Gary Tyson. Let's see if we can get Garry unmuted and available to give us his comments. All you have to do is press star six. For us to be able to hear you. Okay. I'm still not able to hear Gary. I apologize for that. Sometimes these Zoom features don't work as well as we'd like them to. I would encourage you to email your comments to the full council at council that CEOs, you and CIO of Seattle don't shy away. I'm sorry you waited this long and we're not able to get you on the line, but I am going to go ahead and close out the period of public comment. I don't have any other individuals signed up to speak for this public hearing, and we're going to go ahead and move to other items of business on the agenda again. That was our last speaker remotely present to speak at this public hearing. The public hearing on council Bill 120157 is now closed. This bill is scheduled for a vote at the September 27th, 2021 City Council meeting. And the Council is still accepting comments on your email at council at Seattle Dot Job. Thank you so much. Let's move to payment of the bills. Will the clerk please read the title. Council bill 120179. The property managers pay started and claims to the week of September six, 2021 through September 10th, 2021, and ordering payment thereof.

Recommendation to declare ordinance making findings and determinations regarding contracting for work usually performed by City employees and authorizing City Manager to negotiate and enter a contract with Managed Health Network for employee assistance services, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05122015_15-0414

Item 18, which I believe will require two motions. Report from Human Resources and Financial Management. Recommendation to award a contract to a managed health network for provision of employee assistance services for a total amount not to exceed 101,161 per year for a period of three years and declare Proposition L ordinance read for the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. Sir. Staff Report. Mr. WEST. Yes. Vice Mayor, this is our director, Debbie Mills, and new manager Michelle Hamilton. Vice Mayor and members of the council. This item requests authorization to contract with Managed Health Network MH and to provide employee assistance services to our city employees and their families. It also includes a propositional ordinance that makes findings and determinations in accordance with the city charter. An Employee Assistance program is designed to provide counseling services to employees and their immediate family members and or to refer employees to professional counseling for a variety of issues, including things like family problems, work related problems, health and wellness issues, work life issues, as well as individual and group grief counseling as part of a budget recommendation. A couple of years ago, management partners was asked to evaluate the city's in-house employee assistance program as compared to best practices in the marketplace. They compared our plan to other peer agencies, and they found that only one other agency had an internal ERP program like ours. They also determined, after several interviews, examination of documents looking at business practices and processes, that an external ERP program would be more well-received by our employees and also a more utilized. A request for proposal was developed and the top four firms were interviewed by an expert panel. The panel unanimously selected Managed Health Network MH N, which is a subsidiary of HealthNet, Inc.. They have provided EAP services for over 38 years and they provide services for about 350 government agencies. The financial management and human. Resources departments have determined that the services MEITUAN provides are actually superior in scope and breadth as compared to those of our former in-house program. Also, the cost of the contract is estimated to be $101,161 per year and would be funded from the appropriation that is currently budgeted for the in-house ERP program. After the program is fully implemented in FY16, the insurance fund would realize some savings and there would be some offset and there would be some reallocation to other funds that you would see as part of the budget process. It's anticipated an ongoing citywide savings of about $136,000 would be part of the FY16 budget. It's important to note that no city employees will be displaced of the two employees that were formerly providing in-house services. One employee has transferred to another position in the city and the other employee has retired. Lastly, I wanted to take the opportunity to introduce Michelle Hamilton. She's new to human resources and is going to be in charge or is in charge of our employee benefits division. So you'll see her face. She came to us from the chancellor's office with a wealth of knowledge and employee benefits. She'll be responsible responsible for implementation and management of this new ERP program. And we'd be happy to answer questions. Thank you, Miss Mills. Councilwoman Mongo. Yes. I want to think the H.R. department, IAP programs are crucial to the health and vitality of a workforce. And I think that those of us who sit on it enough and do some of the settlements know that the EAP programs can really be a mitigating factor in getting us through some of these. So I really appreciate your work on this and I'm excited that we're moving in this direction. I know that our internal staff are always capable. There's always just that perception from city staffers that if an outside organization is handling it, that it's it's a little bit different for them, their own H.R.. So I'm very supportive of this. Councilman Austin. Yes. Thank you. And as somebody who works in the labor relations field, I can tell you that EPA is is is a valuable tool for. For our city employees to utilize when in need. I did have a couple of questions regarding the the 2.5 FTC. What are what's happening with the city employees who were involved in that program? Yes. One employee has taken transferred to a job at the Health Department and the other employee has retired. The the half time was a part time clerical person that hadn't been used recently. Can't thank you enough. I just also like to just comment that this will save us and your savings of $136,000. And it's great to see that our man management partners have actually saved us some money finally. Council member Urunga. Catch your sarcasm there. Councilmember Alston Having been involved with the AP to a certain extent, when I was at the Health Department, I was aware of those employees that were working there in that capacity at that time, also had other affiliated responsibilities with our police and fire departments. And in terms of being members of the Met team, I think it was the mental evaluation team. I'm not sure if that's the correct acronym for that. But when there was a situation in the community or or a response necessary, that would require a team of professionals to evaluate a resident or a citizen in in distress or some kind of emotional disorientation that this team would go out there, make the evaluation to ensure that the that the situation was either one that was controlled. Bottom line, is this contract going to be able to address those issues? Is there another alternative method that the police and fire departments will be able to use to address such situations when there is a resident or citizen in distress on the community, whether it's a fire issue or a police issue. Yes, Councilmember, I did. I believe that most recently. The police met team is operating a little bit differently that maybe it was in the past and they are not requiring any assistance from the city EAP program, although you know, of course we know that they're there, that they're a resource that we could use. So if if the city needed them or they needed us, we would certainly. Make sure that our ERP provider would be aware of any, if any assistance was needed. Which raises the question, turning to our the employees who used to who did provide the service, they were required to maintain their licenses and their status as bona fide counselors. Is there a method for us to ensure that these consultants are going to be duly licensed and capable of doing these jobs? Yes. Immigration is a nationally a national company. So they are required to. Have licensed clinical. Technicians. That will be. Servicing. Clients such as the city of Long Beach. So that is a requirement and that would also be part of the contract as well. I thought I had some thoughts, but I'll let it go. Thank you. Councilwoman Gonzales. I'm also glad to see that we're we're relooking at this, reviewing it and seeing what else we can do. What type of outreach right now is being done for to let employees know that this program even exists? I'll take a try at that one until the council approves this. We have not done any outreach. However, that would be something that Michel would handle. There would be a timeline, an implementation timeline. And, you know, our goal would be to get it implemented as soon as possible. Great. I would love to see more. I know when we hopefully pass this. I'd love to see this pass that we do have more outreach for our employees to know what specific resources are available to them because this is such a valuable program. I can imagine that a lot of employees didn't know that this even existed, so it'd be great to have that more, you know, out in the in the public realm. I can tell you that in her short time here, Michelle has already done a lot of work in communications. Recently there was a seminar given on cancer awareness. She has another one scheduled on. Elder care and there's also some wellness thing. So I think this will be a great partnership with from the employee benefits side where there'll be a lot of synergy and you know, they can. The goal certainly is to communicate more with our employees. Great, wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wish to address the Council on item 18? Singing None on the first motion. Mr. City Attorney, is it to approve the recommendation? Yes, it would be to approve the recommendation. Adopt the specifications. Thank you. Okay, members, cast your vote. Please. Motion passes nine zero and. The second motion. Mr. City Attorney. We need a motion to declare properly ordinance, read for the first time and lead over to the next meeting. Okay. It's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wish to address council on the second motion seeing none. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries nine zero. We have already addressed item 19 and item 20, item 21.

A MOTION making an appointment to fill a judicial vacancy in the west division of King County district court.

KingCountyCC_04252016_2016-0220

Those opposed. Nay, those are the two names. Councilmember, would you now put a motion for the candidates for the West Division? And before you start, because there are two positions here we were we'll have more than two names coming forward. So with that, please make your motion. Okay. Miss Jones, do we have to delineate between the two positions, or can I just put forth five people for those two positions? I think you need to wait. Let's just put it together and then we can figure that out later. All right, I I'm going to go by what our chair said, and the five names indicate that they are being considered for filling to empty seats in our west division of the King County District Court. Therefore, I move that the following candidates be designated as our final candidates to be interviewed for two positions that are now vacant and the West Division of the King County District Court. The five names are as follows. These are Pat, Love, Sadie, Mary Lynch, Andrew Simmons, Samir Singh, Le and Greg Hara Hira Kala. Thank you. The motion is before us. Nice job. All those in favor of the five names put forward for the Seattle district. Please say i. I. Those opposed they. Their names are before us. So I want to thank all 13 of the original candidates for participating in the first phase of the process. Our county is very fortunate to have so many qualified individuals, many serving already as pro terms and who are willing to continue to serve their communities as district court judges. Those who were not chosen to be interviewed can continue to develop their judicial skills and experience. And I am sure that we will see you again at other vacancies in the court. Madam Chair, I want to mention to the public that they are also all still qualified to run for these positions. Once they are advertised the following week. That is correct. They may still be able to do that. And then after our decisions, they'll know who they are running against and in which position so they can make that choice should they choose to do so that maybe they'll think we did a fabulous job. I think that is all of the business before this committee. Is there anything else, Mr. Wagner, that we needed to bring up? No, ma'am. All right. With that, this meeting is adjourned.

On the Home Rule Petition, referred on May 25, 2022, Docket #0682, regarding Electronic Application and Transmission of Absentee Ballots for Absent Uniformed Services Voters, the committee submitted a report recommending that the petition ought to pass in a new draft. The report was accepted; the petition was passed in a new draft; yeas 12 (Absent Mejia).

BostonCC_05252022_2022-0682

Lucky Number 068 to Council on Murphy and Flynn on for the following order for a home rule petition regarding electronic application and transmission of absentee ballots for absent uniform services voters. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The Chair recognizes Councilor Murphy. Councilor Murphy has the floor. Thank you, Counsel. So I, along with President Flynn here with for your approval, a home rule petition to the General Court entitled A Petition for a Special Law regarding an Act relative to the authorization of an electronic absentee ballot application in electronic transmission of ballots for absent uniformed service voters. Massachusetts citizens have a right to vote in all elections, even if deployed or stationed overseas. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act is a federal law that guarantees voting rights for the United States military, who are known as uniformed service voters. By the federal laws definition, eligible uniformed service voters strictly include those on active duty in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, including Reservists, Space Force, and the Merchant Marine members, as well as their spouses. Independents, more specifically, absent uniformed services voters are located outside of their voting districts. In Massachusetts, absent uniform service voters are exempt from voter registration requirements, but instead must mail an absentee ballot application to their local election office in order to obtain their ballot for municipal elections. In Massachusetts, a blank ballot will only be delivered through the mail and must also be returned through the mail. However, for federal elections, a ballot can be emailed, faxed or mailed based on preference, and the voted ballot may be mailed back or electronically returned through email or fax. This is a more modern approach for absent uniformed services voters to participate in elections. Mail in ballots have already caused problems in some elections nationwide. We know in Wisconsin, 9000 requested ballots were never sent and thousands were postmarked too late to count. In New Jersey, 9.6 of mail ballots cast in the state's local elections were rejected because signatures didn't match the ones on file or arrive too late. And in Pennsylvania, tens of thousands of votes were either not cast or not counted due to deadline. Confusion through this act's electronic application for an absentee ballot for municipal elections will streamlined the absentee ballot application process by eliminating the shipping time required to receive and deliver an application. Also through this Act, electronically delivering and returning the ballots itself through email or fax will help better guarantee voting rights for absent uniformed services voters by streamlining the voting process, ensuring each ballot is counted in reducing the number of rejected ballots. So in short, I urge my fellow colleagues in this body to support this special act so that we can better help guarantee voting rights for absent uniformed service voters in accordance with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, as well as modernize the voting process in this bill, elections like they do in elections, federal elections. So thank you. Thank you. Councilor Murphy. The chair now recognizes Council President Flynn. Thank you, Councilor Arroyo. And I want to say thank you to Councilor Murphy for taking the lead on this important this important piece of policy change that we're going to make here. And I know I have talked with the mayor's team and with the election department, and they've always been strong supporters of voting for veterans and for military families and veterans overseas especially. So I'm looking forward to the next step and making sure that all active duty or reserves reservist serving overseas have the opportunity to vote in elections. It's a critical part of our democracy. Just as an example, I was I was in a small country in Bahrain, in the Persian Gulf, requested an absentee ballot. And the day my ballot was supposed to arrive to me, I was flown to another country. And what? That ballot never reached me. And it could reach me about several months later after the voting. But for military people, it's not as simple as just just getting a piece of mail delivered to you, to your home, or to to your office. It's very challenging when you're overseas. But again, I want to say thank you to Counsel Murphy and to all of my colleagues who have was advocated for veterans in military families, whether they were on the council or prior to their job on the council. But I know you've always been strong supporters of military families, so I just want to say thank you for all of the city workers that do tremendous work and helping helping our veterans. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Council President Flynn, would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Seeing no further discussion with anyone else. Like to add their name. Mr. Clarke. Please add. Councilor Baker. Councilor Box. Councilor Cullen. Councilor. Clarity. Councilor Laura. Councilor. I'm here. Councilor Braiden and Councilor morale. And also please have my name. Docket number 682 will be assigned to the Committee on Government Operations. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Miss Clark, please read Docket. 06830683 Council of the Marine and Louisiana offered the following order for a hearing to discuss solutions to historic and disproportionate state disinvestment in the city of Boston.

AS AMENDED a resolution approving the Mayor’s reappointment to the West Colfax Business Improvement District Board of Directors. Approves the Mayoral reappointment of Tomas DeFrancia to the West Colfax Business Improvement District Board of Directors for a term effective immediately and expiring 3-31-23 or until a successor is duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-9-21. Amended 2-22-21 to clarify that the appointee is appointed to the West Colfax Business Improvement District Board of Directors.

DenverCityCouncil_02222021_21-0109

No items have been called out. The first item up is Council Resolution 20 1-0109. Council Member Sandoval, would you please put Council Resolution 20 1-0109 on the floor for adoption? I move that council resolution 20 1-0109 be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and I'm going to give that second to Councilman Flynn there. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to amend. Thank you, Madam President. I move that council resolution 20 1-0109 be amended in the following particulars on line one. I'm sorry. On page one. Line five, strike Colfax and replace with West Colfax. And on page one, line nine, strike Colfax and replace with West Colfax. Okay. Thank you. It has been moved and I believe I heard that second councilman Herndon. All right. Questions or comments by members of council. Councilmember Flynn? Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Basically just a typo in the title of the resolution that needs to be corrected in order for it to be completely proper. It simply said Colfax Business Improvement District, and it's actually the West Colfax bid. And I believe there's one also in East Colfax. So when I was prepping over the weekend for this, I noticed that the omission was there and I didn't know if it needed to be amended or if we could just substitute it. The city attorney recommended that we do this by amendment. I thought it was ironic that when I emailed the city, our legal counsel over the weekend, that my email itself was also full of typos. So it's you know, it happens like. It does happen to the best of us. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. All right. Seeing other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. When I. Turned in. I. LB i cashman. I can. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. I say the burqa. I. Clark. Madam President. I. And I don't think we got Councilman Clark was muted when at least from my end did we get his. I now. I'm sorry. I thought he was gone. Clark. Hey, can you hear me now? Yes. Thank you. You have 13 eyes. All right. Thank you. 13 eyes Council Resolution 21, Dash 0109 has been amended. Councilmember Sandoval, we need a motion to adopt as amended, please. I move that council resolution 20 1-0109 be adopted as amended. Thank you. Thank you. It has been moved and I believe that second came from Councilmember Hines. I think that's where I got it from. So questions or comments by members of Council on Resolution 109. Seeing no hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Black. I see. Tobacco. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hynes. I. Cashman. I. Can I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-0109 has been adopted as amended. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that regulations be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration. And do passing a block for the following items. 21 Series 20 10123012700810110011901200122013300720124. 012501280087021200790094 and 0068. It has been moved and seconded. The only way I saw who it was was the speaker. The little glow thing went around. So Councilman Herndon has seconded it. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hynes I. Cashman I can each i. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Council will not take a recess. There be no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

Approve an amendment to an existing loan agreement with Del Norte Neighborhood Development Corporation for the acquisition of vacant land, closing costs, consultant fees, appraisal and market study costs, and tap fees associated with property to be developed at 1402 Irving Street in Council District 1 (201208314). (HEALTH SAFETY EDUCATION AND SERVICES) Approves an amendment to an existing loan agreement with Del Norte Neighborhood Development Corporation for the acquisition of vacant land, closing costs, consultant fees, appraisal and market study costs, and tap fees associated with property to be developed at 1402 Irving Street in Council District 1 (201208314). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on ???. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-7-14.

DenverCityCouncil_01272014_13-1004

Now I have asked the Office of Economic Development what is the average cost per residential unit in this particular development? And what I got back was $237,500 taken a loan. That probably doesn't mean a whole lot. I mean, what what's the average cost of anything out there? But that seemed very expensive to me. So I did send a additional email asking, well, as far as said, is the total amount of government money per unit on the cheaper or more expensive side? And the answer I got back, this is certainly a more expensive project. Now, the question is, how expensive is this? I called Paul Jacobs and asked what would be the cost of a single family home? If we're going to compare it to that. Well, the typical single family home is less by $14,000. Then I asked, Well, what would be the typical condo price? Well, the typical condo price is $92,000 less. I called the people at Denver Housing Authority because they are building a a development in my district. And I know it has the same high energy efficiency as this particular unit. So I said, what are your average units cost? And the new units cost $77,000 less for each one of them. So this is a very expensive project. The issue is not to me whether citizens value affordable housing or don't viable for affordable housing. Let's say they do value affordable housing. The question is whether they feel the sky's the limit in cost or whether we should exercise cost control. This was an expensive project when it was first brought to committee. Without this additional million dollars added, I am not willing to vote for something that adds yet another million dollars to the costs. Now the costs are well over $20 million. Thank you, Councilwoman Fox, Councilwoman Ortega, you just want to make your. I just want to indicate that I am on the board of this organization, have been for 30 years and I have two abstained from the vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sheppard. Thank you, Madam President. So I would like to ask Seneca Holmes to come to the front and talk a little bit more in depth about this situation through a conversation I had with him. I'm understanding that our per unit subsidy from Denver is actually a really fair number. I'm also understanding that our collateral is fully insured when the building is constructed. And then finally, I would like you to address Seneca, also something that we spoke about, what the overall goals of the broader Neighborhood Stabilization Program are, which is where the funding comes from for this project. Thank you, Madam President. Seneca Arms with the Office of Economic Development. Welcome. Thank you. Can I can. If I may, I'll take your last question first. The money that went into this project were from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. This is a program that came out of the American Reinvestment Recovery Act. The Stimulus Act, it's a temporary program, actually ended in 2013. Unlike other funding sources that were used for housing. And ACP is not just about unit production. It's about neighborhood investment and revitalization. Specifically, this program allows us to assemble and redevelop vacant land for the purposes of stabilizing neighborhoods by encouraging the reuse of blighted property to revitalize the neighborhood. This property was really ideal to meet all of those requirements. We've talked at length in committee about the residential and amenities that will come with the development of this project. There's going to be a grocery store within walking distance. It's proximity to bus, light rail, and there's going to be on site childcare facility. What we haven't really talked about as much is kind of the neighborhood aspect of it. This was a blighted property. There used to be a dry cleaning facility on it. So there is extensive pollution both in the soil and in the water that required remediation. It's a high quality structure, and it's adjacent to the city's almost $40 million investment for the new Corky Gonzales Library. So we've really considered this project together with the library as being a a footprint for greater catalytic investment in the neighborhood. So to just look at this, I think based on the units that are being developed out of it, you miss a lot of the neighborhood revitalization aspects of this program. And I think maybe you can argue that you're looking at it with with too narrow of a lens to speak about the actual investment from OPD. We have $1 million in NSP money and a roughly, you know, $20 million project. And so to give you an idea, I went back the last three years and did an average of our per unit subsidy for projects around the city. So we're talking about on average, $19,525 per unit for this project. We're putting in under $13,000. So in terms of city money, this is a real bargain for us. And Councilman Shepard is quite right. We're collateralized, fully collateralized once the building is complete. So upon completion, we will realize our full collateralization at this point in time. We don't want to do anything that would actually jeopardize the construction of that building. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Did you have another question? I don't have any more questions, but maybe some other folks do. But I definitely have comments, so I'll defer to others if they have questions. Now you can go ahead and make your comment. I think the others just have comments as well. Really, we can call Seneca back up. I'm sure he wouldn't mind. Okay. So I just, you know, want to say that you Urban Land Conservancy bought this land exactly. For this purpose to couple some affordable housing with the opportunity that a brand new state of the art library being created in this corridor would would provide. And currently we are 25,000 short of affordable housing units in the city, and we need a whole lot more and we need a whole lot more serious discussion and action about how we're going to create that. I've been doing a lot of data gathering on conditions in the West Colfax corridor, and I think it speaks to the broader points that you brought up, Seneca, about the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. And I just want to point out, we're talking about a severely blighted corridor where 20% of the families are currently living below the property, the poverty line, 22% of people that live in West Colfax don't have a car. Over 75% of female headed households with children under five are in poverty. Unemployment is over twice what it is citywide. We are dealing with a lot of very severe blight conditions and real challenges about how to lift up an entire corridor and a community. It's also almost 70% Hispanic in this corridor. And I was talking with the wonderful librarian who will be in charge of putting together some of the programing at that library. And I just want to talk about what some of the opportunities are that are going to be there. Number one, there's going to be 40 to 50 computers available and people in that library who are going to be helping residents with basic computer literacy skills. There's going to be programing about how to write resumes and build interview skills. There's going to be opportunities for, you know, to learn to deepen your understanding of the English language. For those that are not native speakers, there's going to be opportunities to help with children's homework. You want to build affordable housing in areas where the services are there to support that. Number one, you've got all those amazing educational opportunities at the library. As I mentioned earlier, we've got the light rail built that will connect job seekers with employment centers such as downtown and also at the federal center. You've got the busiest bus in all of Denver, the West Colfax bus coming down that line for all the people in the quarter that can't afford to own a car. You've got an elementary school right across the street. You've got the Girls Inc, which is the modern incarnation of Girls Club. Also across the street you have the Boys Club two blocks away. There's so many. And then not to mention the fact that this grocery store, the only grocery store in that entire corridor, is literally in the same complex. So the services are there to support this population and to help give them this, you know, the ability to have access to the very programs that will help them become more self-sufficient. And, you know, there will be continually new jobs created in that corridor, too. So this is exactly the place where we want affordable housing and we are getting it for a good, very good price. As Seneca pointed out in I could not support this project more, so thank you for hearing me out on that. And I ask my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard, Councilwoman Carnation. Thank you, Madam President. If I may, one question for Seneca Homes before my comments. Thank you. Seneca, can you refresh me? This is the second time we've discussed this project at council. We had a very similar debate the first time. What was the amount of the city's investment? The first time we debated the project. It's the same amount. It's still $1 million. So we have not added any more money to this contract. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. We're simply changing the order by which we would be reimbursed in the case of of, you know, being being paid back. Is that right? That's correct. To compensate for increases in construction costs, of course, we are allowing them a little bit more cushion so that they can proceed with construction. Okay. So I think that's really important. Thank you, Seneca, too. To just refresh, folks, that the amount of the city investment in this project is staying exactly the same. We are not increasing our investment at all. And so and I want to just give a one disclaimer before I start, which is that I'm sorry I missed last week . I had a family emergency and I actually had a very similar idea to Councilwoman Foster appears because I called DHS this afternoon to ask them about their average per unit costs. And they said to me, they said, well, we had another inquiry from a colleague and the question was about construction costs, but did you want the full cost, including the value of the land and the soft costs? Because we didn't provide that. So it turns out that perhaps the figures they gave you might not have included the full costs. And so they've offered to do you a fact sheet that they can get to all of us. And they didn't want me to bring any numbers because they were concerned they might have given out, you know, an earlier set of numbers that they didn't know what the purpose was for. So I just wanted to share that information that I'm not ready yet to say that these units are that much more expensive because it appears that the soft costs, which are real soft costs, are the architects designing the building and the insurance. And those are things that are they have to be paid on top of, you know, actually buying bricks and mortar and paying workers to put a building together. So I don't want to re debate all of the same wonderful points that my colleague shared and that, in fact, we debated the first time this project came through council and also the Chestnut project, but just to refresh two important concepts. So if this is too much money for units and are somehow we should do it more cheaply. I want to take that argument to its logical conclusion. How might that occur? How might we create the housing that's needed and spend a lot less? The way I see it, there's only two options. One is build in a really cheap place, put all the housing in the same place. That's really cheap. And again, we have experience with that in Sun Valley and we have experience with that in the Alma. And what we know is that concentrating poverty is not good for communities. And so it's not the right thing to do to just put the housing in the cheapest place and put it only there that mixed income, diverse communities are stronger, both for the residents of the affordable housing as well as for the market rate neighbors. Right. So we're in the process of undoing that everywhere else. I don't think we want to go backwards. Secondly, how else could we make it all cheaper? Well, we could certainly use cheaper materials. We could certainly spend less on the architects and less on the facade and and spend less on all of those things. I think what we know, though, is that, again, we did that. We did that in the fifties and sixties, and we ended up with what people refer to as projects. Right. Something that people can readily identify when they're on the outside of it, something that neighbors don't want to live by. If we want to have housing integrated in a fully diverse community, we have to be able to mix it in ways that are good for neighborhoods. So I'm not here talking to Main about the interests of low income residents, which my colleague Susan Sheppard did very eloquently. I'm here in favor of neighborhoods. High quality construction that blends with the rest of the neighborhood is something we hear from them every day that they want. And mixed income diversity, rather than concentrations of pockets is something else we hear. And this is the way to do it, which is to spread our investments prudently for the same amount that it was just a few months ago throughout various neighborhoods in the city. It doesn't mean we don't have to try to be very frugal with our dollars, but these dollars were intended for this purpose. Thank you very much, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman KALISH. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam President. I know my colleagues made a lot of the same points that a lot of us feel are on this runs council chambers. But I just wanted to just simplify it. Last last meeting, you know, it was stated that this wasn't our role, basically wasn't our role of government. We all know that this is a big issue. You know, those of us who rented very recently. Or are renting. We'll find that it's very hard to find a decent place at an affordable price. And there are a lot of people who do not have that opportunity, not just in Denver, because of the economic impact of the recession, but also because of other floods that happened in our city. You have a lot of people moving into Denver, into the metro area. Right. We cannot afford to have, you know, two or three unit apartments going for 1500 to $2000 a piece. Imagine somebody who is just, you know, making either minimum wage or just how are you making a minimum wage but your average hard working family with two incomes. It's almost impossible to do. And it's not right that they pay more than 30% of their income towards rent. It's just not right. That's not what Denver is supposed to be. You know, we got to be careful in becoming this is delusional of Manhattan in our eyes. Right. We have to make sure that we are a city of neighborhoods where people can live. This is a great project. Yeah, it's pricey. But so is building a hotel downtown and so is building the hotel at DIA. And if this city became, we can be in the business of building hotels. We can be in the business of building for rent apartments at an affordable price housing. After all, this is something that not only us as a city value, but the state values. Look at CML and you look at one of the top priorities is affordable housing all around the state. So there's a great need out there. We're trying to make it and we're not we're not trying to trump private business to be able to do it either. We're just being able to to have it available. So this is one of those great projects. Not all Denver. This is one of our nonprofits. It's one of our nonprofits in our community doing this. And we usually pass the buck on our nonprofits for a lot of the work that we cannot do as government. The least we can do is have their back with some project like this and be able to continue to support our efforts and our mayor's efforts in our own efforts to make sure this is a solid deal for our constituents. Thank you. Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Madam President. I was not here last week on a chair of the Health Safety Education Services Committee. Obviously, this came through our committee passed unanimously. I think my colleagues have made excellent points. And, you know, anyone who knows anything about construction that's going on right now knows that if you're a developer, if you're if you're constructing something in the city, you're dipping into your contingency fund because costs are on the rise. And we're just adjusting that for this development. And then secondly, I would just say that we are at a critical time in our city where disparity is existing. Right. And as we look in the news and we read about, you know, my colleague talked about Manhattan and all the issues that they've been dealing with for the last ten years and rising housing costs. And we're experiencing right now my neighborhood, City Park, is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city right now. We have an opportunity and I would say we have a call as a city to to provide housing for all. And so, you know, this is this is an excellent opportunity. And I think all my colleagues have mentioned why, and I hope that everybody up here will be voting in favor of this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Fox, I see your name back up. Did you have a second comment you'd like to make? No, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thoughts? All right. I think those are the comments. We're ready for the roll call. But no. Herndon, I can each lemon. Lopez All right. Montero. Nevitt Hi. Ortega Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown. Hi, Madam President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Close the voting. Announce the results.

Amends Chapter 24 and Chapter 32 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to persons under twenty-one years of age and require a license to operate a retail tobacco store. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-11-19.

DenverCityCouncil_09232019_19-0921

Thank you, Councilman. All right. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilman Flynn, you want to go ahead with your comments on 921? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a bill that I think has the underlying purpose of prohibiting sales of tobacco products to persons under the age of 21, the raise the age from 18 to 21. And I think everybody up and down the dais, I don't want to I don't think I'm out of line saying that. I think it would pass here pretty easily when it came to committee. However, it had something that none of us had been briefed on or expected, and that was an entirely new policy area, which was to start. Putting distancing requirements between retailers from between retailers of 500 feet and from retailers to certain prohibited locations, including daycare establishments . I understand the reasoning behind putting a distancing requirement of 1000 feet from places where young people who are mobile and can go into stores and might be able to pass for 18 or 21. But a daycare center is not one of those sites. And daycare centers are things that we encourage more and more to be located in neighborhoods, and they can be licensed almost anywhere. You can find one coming in your neighborhood tomorrow. I hope I get some down in my district tomorrow if if I could encourage that. But this was an entirely new policy area we weren't prepared to to fully examine in the committee. So some of the members up here have I've put together an amendment and gotten support from some members here that would delete the distancing from daycare centers and then also delete the distancing between retailers, because the data show that was at 84% of all current licensees, 7-Eleven supermarkets, grocery stores, you know, little neighborhood markets that currently sell cigarets along with groceries and other things. 84% of them would be in violation of the distancing requirement, and they would be grandfathered, of course. But in the backup material we were sent, it was noted that, well, we want to do this because over time maybe some of them will forget and lapse and not apply, reapply every July for that license to preserve their grandfathering, and then they will have to stop selling cigarets. And while that's a laudable goal, the purpose of this ordinance was to prevent sales to people who are under 21. It wasn't to prevent sales to anyone at all from these locations. And so I think there needs to be a broader policy discussion on that aspect of it. But, Mr. President, I wanted to I had a lot of outreach today from the administration and from other backers of the amendment. And I decided that I will hold on to the amendment tonight and offer it next week if that's if that's the course that we decide to do. But I'll be talking with some of the agency folks over the next week and contacting my colleagues with the results. And and we'll see what happens next week at the is there a public hearing on this? Also, Mr. President. I'm looking at here, Madam Secretary. We do not have a public. Okay. We'll just we'll just have a call out then. Yet requested for this? No. I'm not requesting one. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Shaping up to be an exciting week for those of you who want to tune in next week for our next episode. All right. Seeing no other comments. That concludes the items to be called out this evening.

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

DenverCityCouncil_12152014_14-0950

10 hours, two nays, one abstention. 1017 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, you want to have the next one, which I believe was 950. Councilwoman Fox called that one out. Wait for technology to catch up, but also ask, what would you like for us to do with this? Put it on for four votes. Certainly. Councilman Brown, could you please have 950 ordered published? Thank you, Mr. President. A move the council bill 950 the ordered. Publish it has been making it has been moved in seconded comments from members of council, the council and Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. There are two ordinances on the agenda tonight dealing with photo traffic enforcement. One is an ordinance extending photo radar. Speeding is a big issue in my district and to my constituents, and I have not called out that ordinance. However, over 50% of the survey respondents in my district for my annual survey wanted the state to ban the use of photo red light. I started out being a fan because it was sold to me as a way to ticket people who blow through stoplights who could oppose that traffic light. You blow through, you get a ticket. Well, that isn't exactly how it turned out. And even before I go to what it turned out, I do want to mention we also, at the same time lengthened the yellow light, which really did help. There were ways to deal with this problem other than setting a photo red light ticket. However, in reality, this program targets people whose wheels stop over the white line. If the photo shows someone in the frame and people actually review these photos so they have discretion, whether they take it or not. If somebody is actually in the frame, either in the crosswalk or preparing to enter the crosswalk, I could be persuaded that this may be a safety issue. But a journalist gave me a stack of photos to review and nearly a hundred of them from the Quebec intersection. And I went through those photos. Those people had gotten photo red life tickets. And I don't recall seeing a single person, a single bicyclist, a single disabled individual, anybody in the frame. But these people were still ticketed. The rails were over the white line. I am not willing to collect revenue off a non hazardous situation and if there is nobody there and it's a matter of the wheels stopping a little bit too far forward, that to me is not a traffic hazard. My standard is whether an officer who could be standing at that intersection would ticket under the same circumstances. But I'm not willing to support a program where that officer definitely would not. Thank you, Councilman. Thoughts, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I respectfully disagree. I think the photo relay program is very helpful, and I do so because for me, it's a safety issue. I've seen folks blow through red lights doing this. Not even paying attention to what's ahead of them, but instead liking something on Facebook and for that instant. Imagine what can happen. On Sixth and Callum, all you got to do is sit there and you watch his cars go right through. Coming to a point. I was one of those folks that blew through that red light one time. I had a big fine waiting for me at home. And guess what? I. I slowed down, like, 30 feet before that. I don't want that. I don't want that. Fine. And I honestly don't want to be responsible for somebody losing their mother, their father, or their son and daughter. On the count of me running a red light. In other states, you fined up to 400 or $500. For one of these violations. And I absolutely disagree with the notion that just because you're you're crossing the line, your front end of the cars in the passing, that line in the intersection is not hazardous. We've been told time and time again by our own People with Disabilities Commission on how they like the idea of the photo radar. And you should be able to be a fine if you're in the cross out because unlike me, thank God. And I'm blessed to have the use of both of my legs unable to cross that sidewalk or cross that crosswalk and good speed to hustle on over. There are folks in this city who cannot. They are on a wheelchair. They're in a cane or crutches. They're blind with a walking stick. And they depend on any mechanism they can to help them cross safely. And if there's too much of an inconvenience for us to get us, what is it, 70 something dollars, $40, $40 to cross 40 bucks. That's the inconvenience that I have to pay. That's bigger inconvenience and somebody who's trying to get across the street in a wheelchair. I'm sorry, but. The Battle of the inconveniences. It's pretty, pretty obvious. I don't mind having to pay that $40 fine. As opposed to watching somebody in a wheelchair have to go around the front end of your car in traffic. Just to get to the other side. Well, your car. And I agree. Councilman Fox, I would love to have an officer sit there and watch cars go through and ticket them. I like that idea. I wish I was an officer. Every intersection I do that. But guess what? The same time, we got to be frugal with our budget, and we don't have enough officers. And Councilwoman in the budget. I was with you in making sure that we had more officers. I want to do this every single year. Until we're cool. But until then, every tool that we have in the toolbox to protect people's safety as they walk in this city. As a cross in the city should be utilized. And it gets the best of us. And it's inconvenient. But imagine if that were your kid in the coffin, in a hospital bed. Because it didn't cross a line or because they crossed the red line. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's easy for all of us to be. Real clear about the fact that running a red light is. Dangerous and against the law. But many of us have forgotten, probably from long, long ago, taking our driver's ed, that it is also against the law to stop in a crosswalk for safety reasons. It might be more evident to us that how dangerous it is to run a stoplight than how dangerous it is to cross into a crosswalk. And just because the after picture of not seeing anybody in the crosswalk doesn't matter. Because when you are coming up on a light, you can't always tell whether there's somebody in that crosswalk or not. There is a reason why it is against the law. And we have seen some terrifying photos from the police department of Mothers and strollers being barely missed of people in wheelchairs being barely missed because they are in the crosswalk. And the driver who is not paying attention has is almost not stopped in time. If we would want to not give a ticket for those who are breaking the law about crossing a crosswalk, then we need to change the law. But we can't just say, let's not give a ticket. Let's give a ticket for this lawbreaking, but not for that lawbreaking. What sense does that make? And we have seen the danger that it produces for the disabled, for people in bicycles, for people in wheelchairs. It is dangerous to stop at a crosswalk. A person has an opportunity to drive more carefully. Often the lights have countdowns. And if you remember that it is illegal to stop at a crosswalk. You can be more careful about making sure that you do it. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman. Thank you, Mr. President. A lot of the things I was planning on saying have been really pointed out by Council Bin Lopez and also Councilman Sussman. I got a I got one of these ones. And it was about ten years ago. I have never gotten one since. They are about changing behavior and there is no better way of changing behavior than getting one of these types of tickets at a red light. I am. I would say one of the top five complaints I get from constituents on a regular basis is about crosswalk and intersection safety on a regular basis. I'm a mom with a seven year old kid and I am hyper hypersensitive to these issues because I regularly am crossing the street with my son. I can't tell you how often I tell him to look both ways before he steps in the street. But my son did a little bit in the clouds, and I can't tell you how often he steps out into the street without doing exactly what I'm telling him. And I, you know, because I walk him to school every day, I see horrible behavior on the parts of drivers as they go through intersections. And I notice this particularly around my son's school, but I've seen it countless other places in my district. My district is full of a lot of seniors. It is full of a lot of boomers who are eventually going to find themselves perhaps with a walker or a cane or also, you know, just wheelchairs as well. A lot of the folks that live in my West Colfax corridor are also disabled. And I cannot stress enough how important I think it is to, as Councilman Lopez said, to ensure that we use every tool in our toolbox to ensure safety for all users of our of our roads. One thing that's important to note that if a car hits a pedestrian going ten miles an hour, nine out of ten pedestrians will survive that accident. If a car hits a pedestrian at 40 miles an hour, nine out of ten pedestrians will not survive that accident. I know most of us in this room are drivers. 40 doesn't feel like very fast to a driver, but it is the difference between life and death for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. So just because a ticket met the photo generated when a ticket is issued may or may not show. Someone in the crosswalk or about to enter the crosswalk. As Councilman Sussman said, that's irrelevant because once someone is killed, they're killed. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. I received an email regarding this issue from an individual that lives in West Denver, and he asked some very, very good questions. And so I'm just going to put it out there so that I can get some answers to his questions before second reading. But there are people that feel that while this is a safety issue, they also feel that it's probably an illicit tax, that the city of Denver hasn't been very good at explaining what we're doing with with the money and where the proceeds from the from the tickets go. So that's one question that I have. And also and I think I think it's good to have this conversation about about this particular program, because every time we're supposed to vote on it, it does raise some controversy. And so the other thing that I would like to ask is. How how this revenue is really used so that it's helpful towards the safety of drivers and pedestrians. So if I could have that information to be able to send back to my constituent that lives in West Denver, I would really appreciate it. Sure. Councilman Monteiro The simple answer is, like all other fines that goes into the general fund and those dollars are allocated as part of the budget process every year for all sorts of things within the city, including safety. But there is no specific breakdown because it does all just run into the general fund. So so I think that that's probably I think that's probably the issue with this gentleman is that, you know, he lives near one of the intersections and sees people not taking it very serious at all. And it may be people that are so used to it from the neighborhood or I'm not sure, you know, chronic folks that just go through there. But I think that's part of the issue. Is that something that impacts people that we're not very good at seeing where those revenues go and for them to go into the general fund kind of diminishes the importance. So I just wanted to share that. Thank you. Happy to pass that on. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Monteiro. Councilman Fattah, I know you just ring back in, but I was going to go to some of our councilmembers having spoken. Is that okay, Councilman Nevitt? Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be real brief. I agree with Councilwoman Monteiro that we've probably done a poor job of explaining the rationale for this. Educating people and education is definitely a critical, critical component of having this program be successful. I also agree with my colleagues who talked about the importance of protecting the crosswalk for children, for the disabled. But I want to make a pitch here, but I want to stake a claim that this is for the benefit of all of us. We are all pedestrians first before we get into a car. And we have made a deep commitment as a city to transform Denver into a true, multi-modal city. Where all forms of transportation and all forms of locomotion are honored and facilitated. And that means that we need to do a better job of mediating between the different forms of transportation. So, yes, cars belong on the road, but the roads also belong to pedestrians. When the light is red, the crosswalk belongs to the pedestrian. And that is worth reinforcing to all drivers so that all of us as pedestrians know that the street is safe. Because if we don't enforce it, then when the light is red, take your chances. But that's not what we want to say when the light is red. The crosswalk belongs to pedestrians. And if we can live with that and as people begin to get the message, and if we do a better job of communicating that message, we will make a big step forward to making a multi-modal city. If we abandon the crosswalk to haphazard approach of you can invaded if you want, or if there's a policeman there, you might get a ticket. I think we won't make very much progress. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. I just want to ask a couple of specifics, and I'm not sure who is here from Public Works that can address my question. So let me just start out by saying, first of all, what we're doing here is adding $81,000 to an existing contract and extending it by six months. So, Sky, I guess you're the point person here to answer my question. It's actually safety's bill, but I'm happy to take the question. Okay. That's right. I forgot it was safety net. Public works. Do we get any additional interchanges? Because right now we only have four intersections that are photo redlining. Correct. So this doesn't do anything more than extend the contract and add those dollars. Yes, that's absolutely correct. We are in the process of developing an RFP. It's been a number of years since these two contracts were instituted, and so it's time to go back out for RFP and they intend to do that in the early part of next year. So this is an extension to get us through the first six months of the year while that RFP process takes place, and it does only include the four intersections. There will be a component of the new RFP that might consider future intersections, but that's a policy conversation to have in the future. And at. That time, we'll have another robust conversation about this, and we. Are very sure we will. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to be sure you understand that. I really do want safety measures, those things that I think are really pertinent to safety. One, as I said, was the longer yellow caution light. I think that really did help drivers be able to stop. Secondly, it was referenced a countdown mechanism that is very important to and we really should be having the larger countdown signs so that people can see how many seconds left there are. I get worried, though, when you have something that is such a generator of revenue that sometimes the safety part may take second steer, maybe not to these council members, but it may and I'm going to use a deer for an example. It was just told to me from a different city and adjacent city that uses photo red light and the citizen contacted them trying to get the larger count down measures. And the city purposely didn't want to put them in because it would cut into the revenue. And so just understand, unless you see these other safety measures in connection with this, somebody is talking out of half of their mouth, not the full story. I also had staff do some research and some cities do not ticket for white line violation. They ticket blowing through the red light. They do not ticket the white line. Other cities have found the program to be so ineffective they have discontinued it altogether. Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Good for those other cities. But in Denver, we take it for the white line, because those as my colleagues said, the crosswalk belongs to pedestrians and not just the ones that walk, but the ones that roll and the ones that can't see. That's why it's important. If they have that problem, the other city that that city council deal with it. What I see here is a solution. It is a tool that we can use to help change behavior. You know, I wouldn't mind seeing those revenues down to zero, which means not very many people at all would be crossing those crosswalks or running those red lights out. I think that's the goal. I would like to go on record saying I want that goal to see that come down to zero. That means there are less accidents, more folks that are obeying that red line. And if I can go on record, I know we're not expanding, but I have some recommendations. Alameda and federal I would say Alameda. Knox I would say 10th in federal federal next position. Man I'll have one at the end of the block. I think these work, it's not about revenue. And you're talking to somebody whose family member can no longer work because they were struck by a vehicle running a red light. It is a very hard thing to deal with. We'll still be we will still be running red lights. Absolutely. Will people still be spitting? Absolutely. But hopefully. The number of people running red lines and the number of people speeding drops dramatically. And I think that's the purpose of this program. I would like to see that zero barrel balanced one time. That would be a great day in the city. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Robb. Oh, just for people listening to this debate that we seem to have every other year or so, about three or four years ago when we had the debate, we did cut the fine for the white line violation in half. So it's half the cost of that going through the whole intersections. It's $40 and that's $10 less than a gosh darned street sweeping ticket. So I think it's as easy to stop at a white line as it is to read a street sweeping sign. So I tend to agree with Mary Beth assessment. I just wanted people to realize that it's a relatively poor Denver low cost ticket. Thank you, Councilman Rob. Any other comments? 950. Scene on Madam Secretary. Roll call. But no. Can each layman. I. Lopez. Montero. Nevitt. I. Ortega. I. Rob. Shepherd. Susman. Hi, Brooks Brown. Hi. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the result. 12 eyes, one nay, 12 eyes. One day. 950 has been ordered published. So I believe that was all the bills that are called out. So all other bills are introduction except for council bill 941 are ordered published council will postpone order and published council Bill 941 concerning the Denver Zoological Foundation Certificate of Designation Application for the proposed Waste to Energy System Methods Institute at the Denver Denver Zoo until after the required public hearing this evening. And so we are now ready for the block votes. Councilman Brown, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?

Recommendation to receive the application of Legend Energy, dba Cerritos Shell, for a person-to-person and premise-to-premise transfer of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 5740 Atlantic Avenue, determine that the application serves the public convenience and necessity, submit a Public Notice of Protest to ABC, and direct City Manager to withdraw the protest if a Conditional Use Permit is granted. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_03032015_15-0180

Next item. Item 30 Report from Police Recommendation to receive the application of legend energy for person to person and premise to premise transfer of Alcoholic Beverage Control License at 5740 Atlantic Avenue. Determined that the application serves the public convenience and necessity to submit a public notice of protest to ABC and direct the city manager to withdraw the protest if a conditional use permit is granted. District eight. There there's a motion by Councilman Austin and a second by Richardson. Councilman. Well, quite frankly, I'd like to continue this motion until March 17th, and the council will indulge us. We have a hearing that that day on this particular item, and it just makes sense to do it all in one day. Yeah, there's a motion to continue. And the second concern. Richardson Any public comment on the item to continue? CNN Please cast your votes. Motion carries seven zero. Next item. Item 31 is withdrawn. Item 32 Recommendations. I'm sorry. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending subsections. 10.14 .0208.25 I'm sorry. Point five and 10.14 .020.80.7. Relating to a one way street and alleys red and adopted as red.

Adopt resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit a request to the California Coastal Commission to certify an amendment to the Certified Local Coastal Program; and Adopt Negative Declaration ND-03-16. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_12062016_16-1059

With the councils voting on is beginning a process to allow the lifts and and the Ubers and the and the C Jane goes allowed at the airport so that that's what taxis are. Okay. Motion carries. Moving on to the next one that we pulled out, which was I'm sorry I skipped the hearing. I think so. Let me do hearing number one. Hearing one report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Declare ordinance amending the use district map by amending portions of part six from CNR to R2 one for the property to 61st place, read for the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading approval. Local Coastal Development Permit Adopt resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit a request to the California Coastal Commission to certify an amendment to the Certified Local Coastal Program and adopt a negative declaration. N.D. Dash zero three Dash 16 District three. Stafford Port Yes. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. The staff report be given by Linda Tatum, our planning bureau manager. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the council. This is an application by a property owner for a rezoning from the current seat in our community or neighborhood. Commercial residential. Designation to rezone to the AR two I. Which is the. Two family intensive. Residential zoning district. The purpose of this request is to construct a new single family dwelling on this property, and the property is located. At on. 61st place. The reason for the request for the rezoning is that the are two eyes zone that's. Being requested allows a height of up to three stories. And the current seat in our the neighborhood. Commercial zoning allows only a two story development. So I'd like to show you a quick slide to give you a little bit of context. This is the peninsula. And just to give you a context, there is this what we call the dog bone there. That's his own seat in our neighborhood on commercial and residential. And the subject site is located here on the. Very westerly edge. Of that sea in our zone. The this strip of. Sea and our zoning on the peninsula dates back to approximately the fifties. And the intent, when it was originally designated for CNR from the previous R two zoning, was to allow or to accommodate some very low density commercial within that that community. However, the market never did turn over that those residential properties to commercial. So to date the the entirety of this area is still predominantly developed, predominantly as residential. Of those 49. Addresses within that. Property, only only and 37 buildings in this strip, only. Three are actually developed as commercial. The rest of it is. Is. Residential. So therefore. Let me just give you another context. This is. You can see the. The location here where the error. Was showing this. Is the location of the the proposed property. That's the subject of the rezoning. And just another slide with a sketch of the proposed home there interspersed. You can see the context of the property. It's a proposed three storey dwelling unit. Whoops. The three storey dwelling unit. And it fits within the current context of the existing development within the CNR zone. Just to talk real briefly about the general plan for this area. The the general plan designates this area as. Eluded number two, which allows mixed style homes. And the C an R zoning currently. In place does not. Conform to this designation. However, the R2 I. That they're requesting is consistent with this general plan designation and changing the zoning as requested to the R one or the R2 ISO will bring this property into conformance with the general plan. So staff, when this. Request came through, staff. Did an analysis of. The property and the request. And. Essentially given the location of this property adjacent to. The the rest of the C, the existing two is owned throughout the rest of the peninsula on the edge. We felt that this is not considered support zoning. So the request. Is certainly appropriate. The zoning also would afford the applicant who. Happens to be the property owner for this property. It affords that property owner the same. Development rights. To do. A three storey project as is enjoyed by. The majority. Of property owners currently on the. Peninsula. It's also important to note that the scope and scale of the. Development that's being. Proposed is is. Entirely consistent and compatible with the general development pattern within that area. And the zone change will not create any. Unanticipated impacts to this site or into the surrounding property. The zone change will. Also meet all of the requirements of the city's on the existing certified. Local coastal program and approval. Of the local coastal. Development permit is an appropriate action. For this. The City Council to take. According to secure I a an environmental. And. Environmental analysis was done and a negative declaration was prepared to the project for the project. And we found no significant impacts to the environment and no impacts that are needed to mitigate this project in order. So the project does comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. We did receive. One letter and one phone call in opposition to the. Project. However, all of the communication that was received for this project is included in the council packet. We also received a letter of. Support from the property owner immediately north of. The project site in support of the project. In conclusion, based on the staff analysis that was done for this project and the finding that there are no. Significant impacts, it's compliant with sequel. Also based upon the feedback. Staff is recommending that the City Council affirm the recommendation that was made by the Planning Commission when they heard this item. And that the City Council. Adopt the negative declaration for. This project. Approve the zone. Change from CNR to R2. I also approved the local coastal development permit as well as adopt a resolution submitting. A local coastal. Program amendment to the California Coastal Commission. That concludes the staff's presentation. I'm available along with Scott Kinsey, the project planner, and we can answer any questions the Council may have. Regarding this request. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? Seeing none. Members, please, please cast your vote count. I just want to speak to the item. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't. Forgive me. For it. I want to thank Staff Scott and Linda for your great work, your thorough presentation on this topic. I think that the analysis is is very comprehensive in regards to the local area. And your your presentation did a good job in educating my colleagues and myself as well regarding the proposed development and how it fits within the current existing development in the area, as well as the general plan objectives that we have shared with the Peninsula community. I really do think it's an it's an issue of fairness. This proposed project really falls very clearly into the current housing scheme, development scheme in the area, and I urge my colleagues to approve staff's recommendation as to this item. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I think that everyone did an excellent job and I will be supporting this item. Thank you, Councilmember Arango. Thank you. QUESTION The height of the of the property is 35 feet. Is that it? The excuse me, the maximum height under our tri zoning is 32 feet, with a additional maximum of 35 to the ridge, only to the ridge of a slope, but everything else 32 feet. And the buildings that are adjacent to it, how tall? How high are they? We have a number of three and four story buildings in the immediate vicinity. Okay. Just ask it. I know it's going to be coming through the Coastal Commission, so it's going to be an issue of the height requirement. And hopefully from what I can tell, it's compatible with the rest of the territory, with the rest of the buildings around that area. So I'll be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. And seeing no public comment, members, please cast your vote. You know me? Yes.

On the message and order, referred on November 17, 2021 Docket #1182, relative to the adoption of classification in the City of Boston in Fiscal Year 2022, the committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_12012021_2021-1182

Reading. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Dock at 1166 has received its first reading and will be assigned for further action. We'll move on to docket 1182. Madam Clerk. Thank you. Docket 1182 order. Relative to the adoption of classifications in the City of Boston Fiscal Year 2022. Thank you so much. The Chair recognizes Councilor Bach, Chair of Ways and Means. Councilor, you have the floor. Thank you so much, Madam President. We also heard this docket in the same hearing yesterday. And so I want to again thank my vice chair, councilors Harvey George, Councilors Flynn, Flaherty and Braden for joining this short docket description. And it seems sort of arcane, but it is probably one of the most important and impactful things that we do each year on the Council for many of our constituents. Because what this order does is adopt classification in the city of Boston, which means that we set a different tax rate for residential property as opposed to commercial property. And I'll use round numbers here for people's reference. Our tax rate for residential property last year was a little bit north of $10 and for commercial property was a little bit north of $24. If we did not adopt this order today and we did not adopt classification in the city of Boston, that would be one uniform tax rate across the city of $14, which for the residential taxpayer would be a one third increase in their property taxes. So I just want to emphasize that this is quite a significant thing that we, the city of Boston, has historically done each year. But it takes an act of the council to shift the tax burden off of our residential payers and onto the commercial property tax base. And it's actually the ability to even do this is something that the residents of Boston fought for decades ago, a law, and then subsequently they also fought for the residential exemption, which also exempts a certain amount of residential value from the tax levy. So I think it's a it's a very important order. We discussed at the hearing the fact that because residential property values have risen at a much faster rate in recent decades than commercial property values, a dynamic which is exacerbated given the uncertainty about the future of the commercial market under COVID. And even though we make this change, we still see a slightly higher increase in the residential tax rate than the commercial one like each year, because the overall value is increasing faster and there's only so much the state allows us to shift. But in adopting this order today, the city of Boston will be adopting the maximum shift of 35% over to help provide relief for our residential tax payers. And so although I know that at each of the hearings we have on this, the City Council discusses the fact that, you know, we still feel as though there are taxpayers , especially elders on fixed incomes who are house rich and cash poor, who need more relief. And that, you know, these are programs we may want to pursue further relief for at the state right now. This is the biggest thing that we can do, um, for those residential tax payers. And I would like to recommend, Madam Chair, that today this order ought to pass. Thank you so much, Councilor Bach. Request acceptance of the Committee Report and passage of Docket 1182. All those in favor please indicate by saying I any oppose say nay. Madam Clerk, could you please call the rule? Certainly. Docket 118 to counsel. Arroyo. Yes. Counselor Arroyo. Yes. Counselor Baker. Counselor Baker. Counselor. Bar. Counselor Barca. Counselor Brady. Counselor Braedon. Counselor Campbell. Counselor Campbell. Yes. Counselor Edwards. Counselor Edwards. Yes. Counselor Sabby George. Counselor Savvy George is counsel clarity. Counsel Clarity as counselor Flynn. Counselor Flynn? Yes. Counselor Jane. Yes. Thank you. Looking the wrong way. Yes. Counselor. Me here. Counselor here. As counselor Murphy. Counselor Murphy? Yes. Encounter O'Malley? Yes. Counselor O'Malley? Yes, Madam President. 1182. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Docket 1182 has passed. We will now move on to docket 1079. Madam Clerk.

Recommendation to direct City Manager, or his designee, to communicate the City’s support for House Resolution 5101 (CA-Hahn).

LongBeachCC_08122014_14-0610

Right. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to thank the Congresswoman for being here this evening and to present this very important resolution regarding the National Freight Network Trust Fund for 2014. As you may be aware, the congresswoman established the very first port committee of the United States Congress. This committee was designed with the goal of developing a united solution towards maintaining goods, movement and productivity. Our nation faces a serious infrastructure crisis. I believe it is critical we support dedicated funding for the national freight system. It is my understanding that this legislation will not only create jobs here in Long Beach, but also serve as a vehicle for combining the economic downfall of infrastructure transportation that our nation has undergone. If we want our port to remain internationally competitive, I fear that the effective movement of our country's goods is key to our economic achievement. This bill gives us a long term fix by providing the necessary funding towards achieving our goal. Today, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the resolution. Can you make the motion? I make the motion to please. I support the resolution. Okay. There's been a motion and a second by Councilmember Andrews. And with that, I'd like to invite one of our congresswomen here, one of our two members of Congress here in the city of Long Beach. Give her a round of applause. Congresswoman Janice Hahn. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. Members of the city council. Thank you, councilmember. You're Ranga for your motion and your leadership on this issue. I want to thank you for allowing me to speak regarding this resolution that's being taken up tonight, which supports my legislation, H.R. 5101, the National Freight Network Trust Fund Act of 2014. And as everyone here knows tonight, the port of Long Beach, along with the other port over the bridge port of Los Angeles. We are America's port and was glad to meet tonight. John Slater up the new executive director of your port. And here in Long Beach, we know that the port is critical to our region and to the nation. As home to one of the world's busiest seaports, leading international trade gateway and employer to over 1 million people annually. Ensuring the global competitiveness of the Port of Long Beach is integral to the success of the employees of small businesses, of corporations, of the health of Long Beach. And I know, Mayor Garcia, you have made the growth of the Port of Long Beach, one of your number one priorities for economic empowerment here in the city. It's a top priority for Long Beach because it is your economic engine, and that's what will fuel the economic growth for this entire region. But what we know here in Long Beach about the importance of the ports, I found out that members of Congress didn't always know. And so from day one, when I went to Congress, I worked to raise the level of discussion and education of what ports mean to our economy, what it means to commerce. So I started as Councilmember Ranga talked about the bipartisan Port Caucus. I now have 91 members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, who have joined the Port Caucus. Some of them don't even have a port, but they knew that this was going to be an important vehicle for the future of this country. I've worked in Congress to increase federal funds for the Port of Long Beach, and I know that's going to increase your global competitiveness and create local jobs. This year, Congress passed and the president signed into law legislation that increases spending for our nation's port infrastructure. I fought for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to be spent rather than to be in our nation's bank account. And I fought for more money to go back to the ports that collect that tax, including the Port of Long Beach. And last month, I continued the fight when my bipartisan amendment passed the House overwhelmingly to increase funding for our ports by $57 million. And I'm not stopping there. President Obama called for $2.8 billion of freight infrastructure projects on our nation's highways and rail. However, the president did not suggest a way to pay for it. But I did. My legislation, the National Freight Network Trust Fund Act of 2014, pays for our nation's freight projects. Last year, I was selected to be on the panel of the 21st century freight transportation, and I brought other members of Congress to the Port of Long Beach. Some of these members had never even seen a port, and they did not understand what we see every day and why that matters. And from my work on that panel, I took the leadership role and figured out how to fund crucial infrastructure projects, including and like the Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement and the Demonstration Electric Truck Highway . This legislation will take 5% of all Customs and Border Protection fees and places them directly in this freight network trust fund. And this will fund projects like dedicated truck lanes on our highways, better bridges, more on dock rail, the last mile coming into our ports across the country. Railway, highway grade separations and freight corridors. The most used routes that our freight travels on and across the country. We don't raise taxes and we add at least $2 billion back into the economy every year to create good paying jobs and keep America's port strong and globally competitive. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I urge the council to consider my legislation and I and to offer your support for H.R. 5101, the Freight Network Trust Fund. I believe this is a win for the country, but this is a win for Long Beach. And your port. You. Will be the first official body on record as a city municipality that would endorse this. And I think the rest of the country will look to you as being a leader on this issue. Thank you very much. Thank you, Congresswoman. Do you have some some members that want to speak? Councilmember Austin. Thank you. And I'll be very short. I wanted to take the opportunity to, first of all, thank my colleague, Mr. Durango, Councilmember Durango, for bringing this issue forward. I've served on the 17 Oversight Committee for the City of Long Beach for the last two years. And I can tell you with the plans that we have moving forward with Caltrans MTA to improve the 710 corridor, this is a vital piece of federal legislation and we'll give hopefully when it passes, will give us the necessary funding to help move that project forward. I just wanted to also thank you for all of the work that you are doing in the district hands on grassroots. You've been meeting with constituents, utilizing our eighth district office, working with the ninth district. And I know tomorrow is your Congress on the corner, and I look forward to joining you there. Thank you very much. And I know that the region really appreciate your leadership in D.C.. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Councilmember Durango, for asking the ninth District and to sign on in support of this. I think it's a great step considering you're the chair of our 17 committee and I'm the chair of our Fed led committee. This is exactly what we should be working on. I want to acknowledge our congresswoman, Janice Hahn, who's who's really been hands on and involved in all parts of all parts of her district, which is very special to us. I look forward to welcoming you to the ninth District for the Congress on your corner at Fire Station 12 tomorrow. I think this is a great idea. I hope that we, you know, do all that we can to advocate in support of this bill. The last few years, we just heard a number of debates right here at the council about zero emissions and truck corridors, freight corridors. And and the fact that we're partnering with our local representative to advocate for a trust fund that can help to support local and regional governments, to fund projects like that is exactly the type of partnership here in Long Beach that we need. So I just wanted to chime in and say thank you, Councilmember Urunga, and thank you, Congresswoman Hart. Thank you. Councilor Andrews. Yeah. Yes. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I tell you, I won't get a chance to speak anymore. But, Congresswoman. Mrs. Hahn, I'll let you know that because of this, you know, all I could hear from you, the whole conversation was about jobs. And that was in my whole advocate about jobs. And I know how many jobs this will bring to the city of Long Beach. And I want to thank you not only Long Beach, but all over the, you know, city of Long Beach and L.A. Of course, we know the other harbor, but yet and still, you're doing a great job. Please keep up the good work. And thank you so much again. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzales. Thank you, Congresswoman. I just wanted to say we appreciate. Your tenacity. Always. And from San Pedro, my family's hometown. To here in the city of Long Beach. Thank you for keeping us on top of port issues. So appreciate it. Thank you. Is there any public comment on the item? KC None that we have a motion on the floor. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries eight zero. Congratulations. Thank you, Congressman, for coming down. And this is actually a great Segway to our first presentation. And we have our we have with us today John Slinger Up, who is our new chief executive at the Port of Long Beach.

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

LongBeachCC_03122019_19-0207

Thank you. Let's do a quick motion on the consent calendar. I think public comment on consent saying please cast your votes. Motion carries a thank you. So we're moving up item 14, Madam Clerk. Communication from Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Gonzales, Councilwoman Price, Vice Mayor Andrew's recommendation to forward a request from community members to the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee and the Harbor Commission to consider naming the new chambers at the Civic Center, the Bob Foster Civic Chambers. Let me actually, I'm going to take Councilmember Pearce. I know that she's the author of the item and then I'll go to Vice Mayor Andrews. So let's. Thank you. I just wanted to take a moment to thank the community members that sent us a letter asking for this to be named the Bob Foster City Council Chambers. And so I know that Foster Mayor Foster was a great advocate for our P3, the public private partnership that allowed the beautiful new civic center to be built , the library, and is really at the heart of revitalizing our downtown. And so I think it's appropriate to have this discussion and have this discussion at our Neighborhoods Committee. And I want to ask my colleagues to support this item. Thank you. And I want to make sure the motion is on. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Vice Mayor Andrews? Yes. Mayor, I would just like to say that I'm looking forward to hearing this item in committee. Thank you very much. Thank you. Vice Mayor Andrews, Councilmember Austin. Yes. I, too, would like to look forward to hearing this in committee. I believe I'm on that. Position of honored people. Whether our still alive to recognize some of their good works. And so as you mentioned Councilmember Pearce Mayor Foster was really the brainchild behind, you know, rebuilding our civic center and which will have a huge impact on on the downtown Long Beach and on our future. And so happy to move this to to committee and discuss. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I, too, am very happy to support this item. We've received a lot of calls in the third district office over the last week in support of this item. I know that Mayor Foster has always been a great mentor to me, always making himself available, but not intrusive and not critical. He's not the one one to give me at least unsolicited opinions, but he is there for me to run things by, and I think that has helped shape me quite a bit as I've assimilated into this position. So I'm happy to support this item and I and I do understand and appreciate the level of input that he's had into the public private partnership process. And now we are exploring on multiple projects throughout the city. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. As one of the chime in and express my support for this, I'll tell you, it's a beautiful civic center. I can't wait to move over. But, you know, I'm going to have some of nostalgia about this old building. You know, you know, one of my first jobs, you know, right here and I remember my first experience with Mayor Foster actually was at the chancellor's office. So I was I was AC President Cal State Dominguez Hills. He was student trustee. And, you know, I went, you know, me and a number of the student leaders went down to speak against tuition increases. And there was an exchange between me and and Bob Foster back then. And I have this press telegram article that I shared with him once where, you know, I'm reading them the riot act about the budget and, you know, how we shouldn't, you know, increase tuition and things like that. And he responded to me and, you know, and I think it was just interesting the fact that while I didn't get to serve with him on council, I was the chief of staff during the time when he was mayor, the chief of staff to Councilman Neal, and was able to sort of be a part of that last sort of piece of is his his legacy in public service. So I'm certainly happy to happy to support this and look forward to seeing what comes out of housing neighborhoods. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Councilmember Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes, I, too, just want to say that I'm glad we're moving forward with this. I know the same thing similar to Councilmember Richardson. I've served here for almost ten years now in the city and have worked not alongside him directly, but certainly behind the scenes, working for then Vice Mayor Robert Garcia and to be able to see Mayor Foster at the time, you know, basically, you know, just the back and forth dialog he would have with constituents and even being able personally to be able to sit down with him and have great discussions, even if we didn't agree all the time, I think it was always good to have that dialog. And so I really appreciate this item and I look forward to seeing this go through. Thank you. I want to just a couple comments and I know we're going to get a public comment. Let me just first say, I do want to point out and think I think the letter that we all received as the council was signed, I think by about 36, 36 individuals. And if you look at the list, which was impressive to me, it's obviously folks that know him at the state level like Willie Brown. And there's very few people that are more legendary in the state of California now than former Speaker Brown and former Mayor Brown, two members of the labor community certainly, and his work throughout the building trades. But then of course, most importantly, just a list of folks that have worked with him as well during his time as mayor here in the city of Long Beach, whether on the nonprofit side or on the business side or folks that work with him across the bargaining table that often sometimes even clashed with Mayor Foster , depending on on the issue. And so I want to thank all those folks that sent this letter, which I thought was really spoke to the work that Mayor Foster has done, not just as mayor, but his contributions to the state of California. I just also want to say that there's no doubt in my mind, having served with him for one term on his last term, that we have a civic center project because of Mayor Foster. He is the one working with staff that directed and crafted what is now known as our public private partnership that built this building that we're going to be moving into, and really the complex that we'll be moving into. And it was his, I think, creative vision as well as pushing and working with staff that. And the council that helped develop what is now probably one of the most successful P3 developments and projects anywhere in the state of California. And so I think to consider and for the committee to consider naming these this chamber after the architect of of that work, I think is is really great to see and one that I really support. I will also add that one thing that was not really reflected in the letter, but I want to always uplift is Bob and Nancy Foster are also two of the most generous people that the city has when it comes to their personal success and what they have done and the ways that they have given both large and small, whether it's organizations like the Ron McDonald House or Cal State, Long Beach or the numerous philanthropic organizations that they give to is really significant. And I want to thank them for those contributions as well. You know, I'll say finally and I want to add to something that Councilman Richardson said is Mayor Foster served on the California state board of trustees, leading the world's largest public education, university of its kind anywhere in the world, which is the Cal State system. And during that time as a trustee, he was a strong supporter of expanding student access, improving student success and building what the modern California State University system of which we all have benefited from. And so I view this opportunity that the committee will have in these discussions, not just to honor his legacy in creating the P3 , but in his legacy in leaving a better statewide university system. And certainly his philanthropic works and the work he's done as at the time the CEO of also a significant organization, which was Southern California Edison and the work that he did there as well. And so I, I do strongly support the work that the committee will have ahead and and this recommendation. And so thank you for that. And I do want to call for a public comment on this item. Very good who lived in this city since 1976 or 77. I fully support this concept, notwithstanding the fact that he's saddled with a Peter principal city manager that we're now stuck with, but that his other accomplishments overshadow that. I fully support this. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Her Linda Chico, representing L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn. She wanted me to read this letter and to record Dear Mayor Garcia an honorable city council. I am writing in support of naming the new Long Beach Civic Chambers after former Mayor Bob Foster. Bob and I have known each other for many years and he was even my boss at Southern California Edison. And I still feel like I need to answer to him. And to know Bob, is to know about his commitment to making Long Beach a great city. While he was mayor, Bob navigated the city through tough financial times and initiated creative solutions like public private partnerships to help continue the city's progress. The city of Long Beach has a thriving downtown, due in part to the commitment and innovation of Bob Foster. There is one thing we can all agree on. That is Bob Foster loves Long Beach. He has been a dedicated public servant, and I think it is only appropriate that we name the Civic Chambers after the man who helped the Civic Center get built. And on a personal note, I was a staff member on the 14th floor during Mayor Foster's tenure, and I remember those tough decisions, and I want to thank him personally for his leadership and his innovation, just as a Long Beach resident and a former staff member thinks. Thank you, Mr. Chico. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Kelly Lucero and president of the Long Beach Symphony. And on behalf of the Symphony Board of Directors, I'm here to share with you that we enthusiastically support this recommendation. I am thrilled to share also that we are quite proud and very grateful that the city has a long standing tradition of mayors and city council members who support a thriving arts and cultural scene. Present company included and Mayor Foster is no exception. He is a great advocate for the nonprofit sector, as he mentioned, for the arts in general, and a wonderful advocate for the symphony and helped us during also during some challenging times, helped us navigate through them successfully. And on a personal note. My first month, he welcomed me with open arms and offered to help in any way possible and in it set a very positive tone with my first meeting with my first politician in this position. So thank you very much. Thank you very much. Speaker, please. Jim Foster, president of the Long Beach Boy. I think history judges an elected official, not just by what they do, but by the context of history or time in which they're doing it. And it can't be lost on us. And what Mayor Foster did. During probably the greatest economic crisis that any of us will ever realize in our lifetimes. He was a tough adversary in a tough time when tough decisions had to be made. And if there was ever a properly selected person by. The powers that be for when history was going to hit us with this big crisis, it was to get Bob Foster in. That position at that time. We were, Mr. Mayor, one of those groups that clashed with Bob Foster. But we we. Clashed like the Lakers, clashed with the Celtics or the Dodgers clashed with the Yankees. And you walk away with great respect. For the person on the other side because they were fair. They were smart, they were tough. But most importantly, they were honest. And when you get to do some really tough things in tough times, you got to have a. Lot of faith that the person on the other side of the table is being straight with you. And he was. And so with. That, we. Wholeheartedly endorse his name being attached to the new. Council chambers. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Thanks, Peter, please. Mayors, City Council, City Management, Steve Gatling with the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Our organization as well. Supports us tonight and it's wonderful to see all of you supporting it. Bob went with us to Washington, D.C. on a lot of different sales missions. He met our clients in D.C. He met with the American Correctional Association. He met with the American Square Dance Association. And if you haven't seen Bob and Boots, cowboy boots, try it. They even had him do a dozy doe on stage. But at the end of the day, we could. Always count on Mayor Foster helping us close the business for Long Beach. And he was always there to close it. And the customers loved that personal attention because quite honestly, again, it sets us apart. Mayor Garcia, you've joined us and Mr. Modica has been with us before in D.C. when he was there, and Bob would always combine it with legislative work on the Hill. And so for us as a city, it was wonderful. Because at one lunch with 80. Customers, National Association meeting planners, Bob, who's always self-effacing, made jokes about his demeanor and his look and everything, and the audience just loved it. And then afterwards, I had many of them come up and say, Do you think he can be the mayor of our city in Washington? Anyway, with that, it's a pleasure to be. A part of this. And Bob was a wonderful partner and friend of tourism conventions and the city of Long Beach. And we appreciate all of you supporting this endeavor tonight as well. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Goodling. We have a motion by Councilmember Pierce and Vice Mayor Andrews to send this to the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee and also believe the. Right. That's right. And after that, I would go to the Harbor Commission as well for consideration before it comes back to the council. Please cast your vote. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 3325 and 3327 Tejon Street in the Highland neighborhood. Approves an official map amendment to rezone land at 3325 and 3327 Tejon Street from U-TU-B and DO-4 to PUD-G 16, from urban context, two-building lot to a planned unit development, in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-21-17.

DenverCityCouncil_04032017_17-0162

Forget the president pro tem 13 ice. All right. 13 Ice Council Bill 150 has passed. Congratulations. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 162 on the floor? Mr. President, I move the council bill 160 to be placed on final consideration to pass. It has been moved and seconded the public hearing for council about once these two is open. May we have the staff report, Jeff? Her still in the house? It's not about parking, I don't think. Yeah, I don't think it's about parking. So, Jeff Hart with community planning in development, this is a rezoning application for a properties at 33, 25 and 27 taken request for rezoning from YouTube and for two Pudi Dusty 16 located in Council District one. So it's about Mid-Block on the west side of the 300 block of take zone is where the subject property is and the highlands neighborhood. And the property is about 14,000 square feet in size. And we'll talk about the existing conditions more, but currently 1895 era residential structure along the front of tailbone and then the back is a now not used anymore was a paltry sausage factory and the property owners are requesting the rezoning to accommodate the re-use of the existing residential building along taken in to accommodate residential infill in the rear. And looking at the zoning context, you see the existing zoning YouTube and that's reflected to the north and the west of the subject property as well. But then when you look east across Dayton and to the south, you see more of the commercial zoning and the commercial existing land uses that you'll see on the slide as well. So a greater mix of uses going east and south and then to the north and west you see mostly single family and two family. And looking at the subject property. So the top image on the slide is looking north on taken with the subject property on the left hand side. And you see on the east side of town, a lot of the redevelopment in the commercial has occurred there, not as much on the west side and then on the bottom image , same thing looking south on Tahoe and with the subject property on the right hand side. And these are images of the property from when the Polidori Sausage factory was still in operation. They actually ceased operations last year. So you see the existing residential structure and that's a long take home on the top right of the screen. And you see the images of when the when the sausage facility was in operation. You had trucks coming in, going from the rear portion of the subject a lot and then images of the surrounding properties. So the images on the left kind of show how on the west side of town it's really maintains that residential character or that residential scale. And a lot of those turn of the century buildings have been retained. On the east side of town. You see a different story where you've seen several of those structures of that era razed for redevelopment, for row houses and a variety of other uses. So the purpose of the party at a high level, certainly more details in your staff report are to one promote the traditional one and a half 1 to 2 and a half story context along Tate honed, which is reflected with the existing building and to accommodate the conservation of that remaining building and to accommodate residential infill on the rear of the lot. And so this is just a graphic that we can come back to, if you'd like, showing how essentially the the uses are sort of flipped on the site under the PD. So whereas you had the industrial warehouse use on the rear of the site, which is sub area B in the PD, that actually that nonresident you use will now get flipped to summary A and subquery A which is residential, is now going to be flipped to suburb. Where that becomes residential is very confusing, I know. But essentially it's a flip of the sort of use footprints that are currently existing on the lot. And the PD does conserve the existing building along town. It doesn't preclude the demolition of that building. But essentially it requires three very strong controls, I think, through setbacks and through very prescriptive standards on what elements of the north, east and south facades have to be preserved, that the the building will be conserved and with lot an allowance for a modest addition to the west side of the building. And so some of the key difference between the difference between the PD and the you a max two zone district is that one in sub area a the height allowance goes up to 38 feet instead of 35 feet, which is what your max two X provides for. And that's simply to accommodate the existing building. So the whole site essentially has you a max two X design and development standards in terms of setbacks, height, things like that. The only difference is in sub area B, which is on the rear of the lot. The uses are per the you RH 2.5 zone district, so only allowing residential in the rear again and nonresidential on the front. And we can talk more about some of the distinctions, if you'd like. So these are the criteria that staff use to evaluate the request. I'm not going to go through each one of them within the applicable citywide plan, certainly. And then we have the Highlands neighborhood plan from 1986. And so looking at the justifying circumstances that Steph provided in the report, one in terms of a change condition, the policy satisfactory vacated the nonresidential building in May 2016 and then also various adopted plans prioritized preservation of a neighborhood character which includes the residential structure like the one on the subject property of that era. And we've seen a lot of those being raised for redevelopment, certainly throughout the Highlands, but even more specifically on this 3300 block of Tay home, which is of concern to the community. And this PD, I think, does a good job of conserving that building. And then in terms of consistency with neighborhood contexts and district purpose and intent, the PD promotes a pedestrian active street front along Tejon and brings the nonresidential uses up to date home, which is consistent with the built environment as it is today and with the zone district, with the restrictions in the PD, the the building forms are limited in scale and also the uses are fairly limited in scale, the nonresidential uses to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. And in terms of why it's a PD, we as a city don't like to do parties necessarily, but in this case it did meet the criteria because it was a very unique circumstance with the two different buildings and two very different uses. So we found the PD was appropriate and there really was no working with development services. Over many months, we really were not able to find a standard zoned district that accommodated the sort of the existing conditions and the evolution of the site over time without any waivers, conditions and variances. So I must have skipped the slide, but planning the planning board did recommend approval of this request eight to nothing in February. And we also have two letters of support from the Highland United Neighbors Group that are supporting this request, in particular that it preserves the existing building along. Tejon So staff does recommend approval for those reasons, and I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hurtt. We have two speakers this evening. If you come to the front here, this coffee bench, Alexis, Dan Hauer and Steven Latham. I am like, sustainable or just. Representing the applicant. And we're here for any questions. Great. Councilor Steve Latham visit here for questions. Great. Thank you. Have a seat in the council as any questions and direct them to you. That concludes our speakers questions by members of Council Councilman Espinosa. Shoot. Oh, yeah. Jeff. Just a quick question again. Thank you for taking over from Tim and Watkins and and everything in getting this to us. We learned a lot. This this rezoning has been going on for a really, really long time, and I'll get into that in my comments. But, you know, but some great tools have come about between 17th Avenue Tavern, I mean, and the Emily Griffith. And then this with this is own sort of preservation sort of thing, just for my own information. Do is is the city now comfortable when the the the historic when those unique circumstance conditions are met warranting a PD? Are we equipped to sort of better, more expeditiously handle these things so that we don't? I wouldn't I but I wouldn't necessarily say that I would say that the PD tool, you know, is still there for situations like this. And each one is so unique that it totally depends on the project. But the tool, I think is working in for situations like this. But as you see, it's pretty dusty 16, which means we've only had six PD since 2010, so we use them very sparingly. But but in terms of expediting the process, I can't say that we've gotten any better at it. I just think that we recognize the use of the tool little bit better and what it can and can't do. Um, through all these communities, I. Would just encourage, take that one back to CPD. I would encourage having, you know, I sort of asked if you were the specialty and sort of you backed off from that, but I would encourage us to have sort of a team that's better equipped. I mean, not not saying you're not equipped, but that a team is sort of dedicated to sort of those that flexibility so that we don't discourage developers with the sort of timetable that that we took. But but that said, like I said, I think you guys did a great job in the final write up. And so I just wanted to make sure you knew that. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask a question about the driveway that goes to the back site. So if construction of residential occurs in the back, what how will the new folks access that? Does part of that road stay? Does it go? Can you tell us what level of dialog there's been about that? Yeah. So the Pudi kind of memorializes the existing conditions which is I think a 19 foot drive I'll which is one foot short of our requirement for a two way drive. And so when we looked at it, we looked at the stalk contact which was trucks going in and out of there for various sausage delivery purposes. And and so when you look at that compared to residential infill in terms of the impacts, I think that first of all, that would be the access point. More than likely, however, there is an alley that comes north, south and kind of jogs through the 3300 block that this property doesn't currently use. I think it's fenced off. So there's there's I don't know that the access would come from that alley, but I think the intent was for it to come off of town and sort of memorialize how it's been used historically. So this is in my neighborhood and I'm really familiar with the site and I'm not familiar with an alley that runs all the way through because what you're talking about is running into the Aguirre property where Rosalind is used to be. So there's a parking lot there. So I'm not familiar with the an alley that runs all the way through. Um, we have to pull up a map here. So. So that was why I was asking about the access. So it looks like the only access is off the Tyrone Street, not through Third Avenue, because you would have to go through a private parking lot to access it. There's a zigzag alley. It's crazy. It's I wouldn't call it certainly not a traditional alley. But if you look on the screen, it does jog, as I understand it. It does jog. And you can kind of see mid-block how, you know, you come in from 34th and there's an access point just west of town, you can go south and then jog a little bit west. And the you jog like. A real crazy, circuitous route to try to get traffic into a particular property that already has access of a T-Bone. Yeah. And that's something that we wouldn't necessarily address with the rezoning that would be a later with a redevelopment. Understand that. But I'm just asking the question I think would be helpful to know that. That's a good question. Okay. Does the owner representing had anything else to add about that? At this point. There's no current plans for the residential in the back. It's just more. The renovations for the front building that has needs quite a bit of work. So I think the intent, I mean, Ali, is strangely access. I think the intent has been to use that to drive. I don't think there's any future intent to use. That access besides maybe pedestrian. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, thank you. I just wondered if I could just quick question. What sausage company is this? Paula? Doris. Oh, nice name. Okay. The public hearing is closed for 162. Council comes from as of council Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, it was the best. Now it's still great sausage, so hopefully. So, yeah, I just want to thank the developer, Steve Latham, for his incredible amount of patience, extraordinary amount of patience through this this entire process, but for also coming and coming forward with this idea and then, you know, being willing to sort of grind through a very laborious rezoning process to figure out how we how we did keep what is a identifiable and and beautiful existing Denver Square, repurpose it and redevelop the property to to your needs. I also want to let my colleagues know that when you put a building this deep into a site, you know, this is a long going concern of mine in my own neighborhood. You're definitely going to impact them immediately adjacent neighbors. And that was where we started. We started with getting the people that shared property line in the rear and to the south and to the north. I got him on board and explained what was we were trying to do and we had everybody, everybody's buy in. So as much as there was a lot of positive comments on the prior rezoning, this one was met with some very warm comments from planning board, even though they sort of questioned, you know, are we going down a slippery road of pwds? CBD assured him that there was unique circumstances, which there are, and it's a real creative project and it sort of keeps this part of Northwest Denver and Highland funky. So thank you very much for everything that you guys have done. Jeff, Lexi and Steve, thank you. So with that, I again will ask you all for your support on this really unique piece of team things. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, Raquel Espinosa. Flynn I. Gilmore. Herndon, I. Cashman Canete Lopez High New Ortega I. Assessment Black. Clarke, I. Mr. President. I. Please call the voting and thus results. 13 Eyes. 13 eyes. Uh, yeah. Can spell 162 passes. Congratulations. All right. See no other business before this body. Go and enjoy the national championship. Thank you.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP EP19-028 for the purchase and development opportunity at 925-945 East Pacific Coast Highway, Assessor Parcel Numbers 7210-013-900 and -901 (Subject Property); Declare the City-owned Subject Property as surplus; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary including a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with Mercy Housing California, Inc., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, or affiliate (Buyer/Developer), for the sale of the Subject Property in the amount of $750,000; and Accept Categorical Exemption CE 19-168. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_08132019_19-0682

Motion carries. Thank you. Next item 36. Report from Economic Development Recommendation to adopt specifications for the Purchase and Development Opportunity at 9252945 East Pacific. Coast Highway. Declare the city owned as surplus. And authorize city manager to execute all documents necessary with Mercy Housing California for the sale of the subject property in the amount of 750,000 District six. Thank you. And we have a short presentation for this. Yes, John Geisler and Sergio Romero. Perfect. Good evening, honorable mayor. Council members. This is the disposition of a very important property in Cedar Six that has been vacant for a long time. It's the corner, MLK and PCH, a property at 925 East PCH, a former RTA property. By way of background, back in 2016, the city issued an RFP and selected wood investments for the development of this property. Unfortunately, during the due diligence process, wood investments was not able to secure financing and was not able to move forward the development of the property. Back in 2018, staff issued a new RFP and through a multidisciplinary panel that was comprised of outside consultants and city staff, selected Mercy Housing, an affordable housing developer with a long track record of successful, quality, affordable housing products throughout Southern California. Mercy has proposed a project that would include incorporating the city on site with an adjacent property for the development of the frontage of almost an entire city block about 30,000, a little over 30,000 square feet. The project would bring forth about 68,068 new senior housing units with the segment for seniors who have previously experienced homelessness. The project would actually feature a community room, community outreach resource center and of course, recreation and courtyard open space. Through the process, about 140 construction jobs would be created for the development of the project, and about five permanent jobs would be created through the affordable housing project. The terms of the sale. This is the first. This tonight's actions will be the first step of the development this property and will be kicked off by the sale, the property and or the exploration of the due diligence by the developer for the acquisition of the property. Better state that the property would be sold at $750,000. The developer would conduct a due diligence for about 90 days and would have 21 months to secure financing process entitlements through the Development Services Department. So the rendering that you previously saw, that was only a concept they would be working with Christopher Kuntz, this group, to process the design and do community outreach to make sure that the community had an opportunity to have input on the project and features. And with that, staff recommends approval of the sale of the 925 Eastern Pacific Coast Highway and is happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for going to public comment. I have two members of the public eye so I can ferry and Jasmine Tong, please come forward. Please go ahead. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. City Council Vice Mayor. I want to say that I'm in complete support of this affordable housing project coming into the neighborhood here. And Africa town, I mean, central Long Beach. You know, I think this is a very appropriate, uh, you know, development in the area. This is formerly been, uh, it was formerly a liquor store that was a nuisance in the area. And I was glad when they fled it out and I knew something great was coming. And I just want to say my appreciation to the wise counsel of the sixth District, city councilman and vice mayor, for bringing these kind of occasions and opportunities to the neighborhood. That being said, I'm curious to see if maybe. Excuse me. Excuse me. You got me. Yes. Okay. I was curious to see if this will also be an opportunity for the, the Long Beach, uh, investment, whatever that program is that gave $4 million to the project on. And I'm in Walnut. You know, maybe we could shorten that at 21 months of escrow and get it, get it down to 16 or 14 with the good graces and opportunities provided by our economic development department. You know, I don't know if that's Mr. Keisler or, uh, uh, Mr. Coons, but, you know, we would love to have that. We'd love to have a clinic in that neighborhood. My family has a property on 16th and okay, so I'm right down the street and it would just be so opportune to see this empty lot be turned into something, uh, providing affordable housing for the neighborhood. So I would love to see this happen. Thank you. Thanks so much, Mr.. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Yasmin Tong, and I'm here representing Mercy Housing, California. We're a nonprofit, affordable housing developer with more than 10,000 affordable homes nationwide that we've developed, own and manage. We're delighted for this opportunity to acquire this property from the city. This will be our second development in the city of Long Beach. It will target seniors, 68 seniors, senior households, as well as formerly homeless seniors. And really, we just want to say thank you very much for the opportunity. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor Rangers. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. You know, I keep telling my. Constituents in the sixth District. You got to be around long enough if you want to see good things happen, because patience is a virtue. You know, you can't get it all done in eight, nine, ten, 11 years. It takes you little time. That's why I'm sticking around you guys to make sure that these projects come to fruition. So on that corner, if you don't know Long Beach and haven't been in the time that I've been here, that's the corner that you always said. No. That is the part where you will understand that when this project goes up, you will be able to see it from downtown on the fourth floor, the third floor. Because that's going to be one of the tallest buildings we have in the sixth District. And again, I want to let you individuals know that is a key and a section in my community. And it's been a subject of a lot of interest in over the last several years. No, not several, but seven. Last year, the council directed staff to put this workshop up and I couldn't be happier with the results. They established elected mercy housing to be a recipient of this purchase of our development opportunities. Remember, they said they've only done two and I am so happy that you took the second in my district. You guys can do two more because I'm going to make sure that our seniors get a place to live and our seniors are going to be excited about everything we do. Everything this blindness excuse me, will be filled up. I guarantee you that. Just stick around and watch us do our work. Thank you guys again. And I'm hoping my colleagues will sign on with this group also. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Councilman Austin. Yes, I'm Allison, and I support that message. Excellent. Thank you. Well, thank you. Members, please go out and cast your votes on a very exciting project. Very supportive. Oh. Person monger. Yes. They're pushing cars. They're just very cold.

On the Ordinance, referred on February 2, 2022, Docket #0240, Amending City of Boston Code, Chapter XV Section XI Creating a Commission on Black Men and Boys, the Committee submitted a report recommending the ordinance ought to pass in a new draft.

BostonCC_02022022_2022-0240

In numbers 0240 Council on Me. He offered the following an ordinance amending City of Boston Code Chapter 15, Section 11, creating a commission on Black Men and boys. Councilman here you are recognized. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. This is an amendment to the ordinance we passed last year establishing a commission on black men and boys. One of the biggest issues in ensuring that the commission is successful and has the tools to be able to do their work, is providing staffing and funding. In order to best do that, we need to formally codify an executive director position who can serve as an assistant to the Commission and to ensure that they are able to provide it with any and all materials and staffing. And this is a small amendment. So we're hoping that the review process will be short so that we can pass this and get to the work of standing up for our black men and boys here in the city of Boston. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Here. Would anyone else like to speak on this? If you want to raise your hand or raise a yellow hand. Would anyone else like to add their name to this? If you want to raise your hand or raise a yellow hand. Councilor Royal. Please our council have clarity, please ad council work. Well, please. And council adjourn, please. Councilor Murphy, please. That council. Brayden, please. Councilor Baker, please. Out the chair, please. Councilor Lara, please add Councilor Bach. Please add Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Darkened 0240 will be referred to the Committee on Government Operations. Mr. Carclaze recalled zero two for sex, please. There were two for one. So yes, please please read 024102.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement the City and County of Denver and DEN Breakfast, LLC concerning development, construction, operation, and maintenance of Snooze a.m. Eatery at Denver International Airport. Approves a concession agreement with DEN Breakfast, LLC for $674,050 annually and for ten years for the development, construction, operation, and maintenance of Snooze a.m. Eatery concession concept on the B Concourse Mezzanine at Denver International Airport (201840472). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-16-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 3-14-18.

DenverCityCouncil_03272018_18-0270

So let's bring up to 70. Madam Secretary, for a comment by Council Woman Ortega. Go ahead, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. These bills came to committee last week or the week before, and I just want to share my concern about the fact that several of these are for the mezzanine on Concourse B, which previously were done as sort of a master concession. And although there are still two years left on that contract, this particular concessionaire was allowed to select the folks that are coming in, which will have a ten year lease, and the inconsistency of which ones get to get a seven year lease versus which ones get to get a ten year lease is consistently inconsistent and extremely frustrating for me, and I'm sure it is for those concessionaires who aren't always treated equal, you know, so when you have restaurants that some get seven years and some get ten years, that where's that fairness and equity. So I'm not calling these out for a vote tonight. I abstained from the vote in committee because I was waiting for more information. But we've got one concessionaire that has 16 locations. The airport has a 25% cap on concentration of ownership. And I don't know how this particular concessionaire has not met that concentration of ownership. I know that not each one is 100% owned by that concessionaire, but the concern that I have is around our practices that consistently change. We flex the rules. It used to be a 20% concentration of ownership. We changed it because we had a concessionaire that de wanted to keep there. And so that bumped up to 25%, which is what that cap is now. And so I think we need to ensure that we have consistency in the application of the rules so that they don't deviate from one to another depending on who we want in and who we want out of these concession spaces. And that in itself ensures that we don't get sued as a city as we have seen happen in the past. And so I'm just expressing that frustration with the process and, you know, I'm going to let them go forward. But I just think that as an airport, it's something that we need to monitor more carefully and ensure that we've got consistency in how all the rules are being applied to everyone equally. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. This came up in mayor council and we had a chance to have the legal definition and protection of how this happened. And so I feel good with this legally, but I do share your concern around the consistency. And this was a different a different type of negotiation. Negotiation. So I will be supporting this as well. And it was just a comment. So we're going to move on to actually there note no bills have been called out, so we're going to move on to the black votes. All other bills have been ordered published. We're now ready for black votes on resolutions, on bills. And finally, consideration council members. Remember, this is a consent or black vote. You will you'll need to vote I or otherwise it's your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Council Member Take it. Will you please put the resolutions for adoption of the bills on final consideration and funding for final passage on the floor? Will do I move that the following resolutions and bills for final consideration be moved forward. Council Bill 261 I'm sorry Resolution Council Resolution 261 to 60 2 to 60 3 to 60 4 to 60 5 to 60 6 to 60 7 to 60 8 to 60 9 to 70 to 71 to 70 2 to 70 3 to 70 4 to 70 5 to 70 6 to 70 7 to 79. 251 to 40 5 to 40 6 to 48. Two 5253. 255. 256. 195. 221 to 35. 238, 249 and 316. And now we're in bills for final. Right? Yep. 222. Number four. 210 232 132 and 228 B all ordered, published and also adopted in final vote. Okay. Do you concur, Madam Secretary? Yes, Mr. President. All right. It's been seconded by Secretary Raquel Black. All right. Clerk Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Cashman. I can eat Lopez. Right. New Ortega. I assessment, Mr. President. I. Pluto's bringing us results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted in the bills in place for one final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be required public hearing council bill 10117 2018 correcting the legal description of specifically describing it.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 421 W. 4th Avenue in Baker. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 421 W. 4th Avenue from U-RH-2.5 to U-MX-2 (urban, row-house to urban, mixed-use) in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-8-18.

DenverCityCouncil_06182018_18-0422

Yeah. Yes, Mr. President, I move that council. Bill. 18, dash 420 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Council Bill 422 is open. Scott Robertson, please, may we have a staff report? One, two, three. Scott Robinson. Maybe. I'm just joking. Go ahead. Sorry about that. Yes. Scott Robinson with community planning and development. Thank you, Mr. President. And Council. This is a request to rezone for 21 West Fourth Avenue from you RH 2.5 to you. Annex two property is located in Council District seven in the Baker neighborhood is at the northeast corner of Fourth Avenue and a lot of street properties 15,625 square feet. It used to be a fortune cookie factory. The building is now vacant. Request is to rezone from you are h 2.5 which is urban neighborhood context row house to zoning with a two and a half storey maximum height to you annex two still urban neighborhood context mixed use zoning with a two storey maximum height. The request is to allow for an art gallery and artist studios and some residential uses on the property and add a second street addition. The property is surrounded by the you are h 2.5 zoning. But as you can see in the map, there are some you annex to properties scattered throughout the Baker neighborhood. You can see a couple on the map, but it's a pattern found throughout Baker that there are these small commercial corners with the you annexed to zoning. You can see in Baker there's a wide mix of housing types with single unit two unit and multi unit, as well as commercial and mixed use properties scattered throughout and some specific uses as well. You can see the subject property in the top left photo there and then some of the surrounding properties in the other photos. This went to the planning board on April 18th, received a unanimous recommendation of approval and there was no public comment. Went to the committee on May 8th and in your packet you have a letter of support from the bigger Historic Neighborhood Association. For her to approve a rezoning, the council must find that these five criteria have been met. First criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property. First is comprehensive plan 2000. As described in the staff report, staff has found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with these five strategies from campaign 2000 relating to infill development, mixed use development, providing services and neighborhoods, and being consistent with the the character of existing neighborhoods of which the proposed use next to would do. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 2000 to the concept plan used for this property is single family duplex, which calls for primarily residential but with complementary small scale commercial uses, such as those that would be allowed under the proposed U. And Next two zoning. There is also an area of stability which calls for maintaining the character of an area while accommodating some new development. As I mentioned, Baker has this pattern of small commercial buildings on corners, and this property is a nonresidential property already. So this would be maintaining the existing character of the area. Both a lot of Street and Fourth Avenue are designated locals consistent with the proposed you elected to zoning. The third plan is the Baker Neighborhood Plan from 23. In general, the Baker plan calls for providing a mixture of uses and providing services for the residents in the area. This property is in the single family and row house sub area, which calls for re-using vacant or underutilized commercial buildings which the proposed rezoning would allow and for removing non-conforming industrial uses. As I mentioned, this used to be a fortune cookie factory and industrial use. The rezoning to use mix two would remove the possibility of that going back as an industrial use and instead allow compatible commercial and residential development. So staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted plans and first criterion that the second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the mixed two zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating the re-use of an existing building in a currently vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the changed conditions, and there's been additional development and redevelopment in the Becker neighborhood. The population has increased. The demand for these kind of neighborhood services has increased. And so it's appropriate to rezone to allow for neighborhood serving commercial uses and residential on the property. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent. As mentioned, the existing context is urban neighborhood. The proposed context is also urban neighborhood. This is a good example of an urban neighborhood context in daycare. So it's consistent with that. And the Annex two would allow development consistent with the purpose of the intent of that zone district so that staff finds all five criteria and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. We have two speakers this evening. Bruce O'Donnell, you have 3 minutes. And Chairman Sekou, you have six. Thank you. Mr. President, members of council, I am Bruce O'Donnell, 386 Emmerson Street, Denver. I'm the owner's representative for this rezoning application, and we're in complete agreement with the staff report. I'm here to formally ask your approval and I'm available. Answer any questions you do have any. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Chairman Seiko. Chairman Sekou Coup Star Movement of self-defense. Hmm. We? Want to say. We appreciate the work that. City planning and. Folks do as they go about putting this kind of stuff together. Because you go to certain rules, regulations to do this. And this clearly comes in line with all that. Like all the others before us. And the truth is at this point as we speak. From the public's point of view. It becomes one of those. What I was going. Because you're ain't going to. Nothing. And we ain't gonna get nothing out of this. Nothing. We're not going to get the housing needs that we need, that we can afford, that you consider affordable. Thanks. I have. It's going to be passed on and looked over. And we have other conversations and you know, y'all gonna put stuff in the board and you're gonna give them stuff to work with and then, hey. Nothing's going to happen. So if I can just stop posturing. We can start coming up with hope plans. And then we can start voting for things that you morally don't agree with. Just let it roll through. Just let it roll. Because when it's all said and done at the end of the day. Very few really. One solution for all this for you. And that's revolution. That's it. And it just came down to that because we run into a wall and we keep getting different variations of themes in this saying stuff. But when it comes to actually having the people that are committed to make it happen and give up the vote and take a risk to where they're going to be reelected, did not and somebody is going to like them were not intended to do. And the mayor and the king look. How much longer do you think we going to put up with this? And why should we even put up with it? Chairman Sekou for 22. So you know what? Just so you can go home and rest, so you can silence the voice of the public. We're going to say, hey, we're going to go along with this. We're not going to postpone. I mean, everybody can go home quicker. And good luck, whatever you do, because we're going to do what we're going to do. That's it. All right. Thank you. Questions by members of council. Scott, let me ask you a quick question. This looks like a downed Sony. In terms of height. Yes, it goes from two and a half storeys to two. In terms of allowed uses, it increases the allowed use as the you are h 2.5 is strictly residential. This allows both residential and commercial. Yeah. Is this is this supported by other neighborhood groups? Yes. There's a lot of support from the big historic neighborhood association. There are only two are nos in the area of Baker. And I can. See this and I didn't hear you on the planning board. A passive unanimous support from. Correct? All right. All right. Any other questions by members of council? All right. This concludes Constable for 22 comments by members of Council. Jasmine Clarke Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to Scott and staff for putting together that report. I think it's been clearly demonstrated that this meets the five legal criteria for rezoning and I will be supporting it. I also just wanted to give a shout out to Bruce and the team for working so closely with this. Within the the baker has talked neighborhood association are no boundaries and that's always sensitive is one of Denver's biggest historic neighborhoods and I appreciate all the time and effort working with their zoning committee, working with their board to make sure that this was also a good fit for the neighborhood. And so I want to say thank you for that. And I will be supporting tonight. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Seeing all the comments. I'm Secretary Raquel. Clark. All right, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I Herndon. Cashman can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. Black guy. Mr. President. I was voting as a result. To advise. 12 up. Yes, 12 eyes for 22 passes translations. Ladies and gentlemen, we are on to the last council bill of the night. This is number four. Councilman Flynn, would you please put 474 on the floor?

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $552.50, offset by the Sixth Council District one-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a contribution to California Families in Focus a non-profit organization, for support of their Gran Bailaton event, which is an exercise program being hosted in the Sixth District; and Decrease appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $552.50 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_11052019_19-1104

Motion carries. Number 19 Communication from Vice Mayor Andrews recommendation to increase appropriations in the Special Advertising and promotion fund in the City Manager Department by $552.50. Mr. King, he's not here, so please go and cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. We are going to go back and reconsider. I think mirna yoshihiro probably is here, so we're going to reconsider. Item 16 lester's any objection to a will to reconsider? We need a moratorium. Reconsider. Okay. So we're doing a vote right now to reconsider. Please please cast your votes on that. Thank you. And we now open up for comment, please. Good evening, everyone. My name is Mana Yoshihiro. I lived at the Belmont Shores Mobile State for five years. Since last May, my family had has an ounce of family business in the sport fishing industry. My husband died of a massive heart attack last year, June of 2007, when I was only 45 years old. I left my job as a as an office manager the following year, 2008. For that, I worked who I worked for a dealership for over five, 25 years, and I managed five stores, five dealerships in the year 2002. I was diagnosed with the disease called Moyo. Moyo syndrome. After five years of living in the Machar's mobile estate, watching all the repairs and renovation, rebuilding the whole park the since year 2016 to the present time. I had sold my family family a sport fishing boat. And in 2010, in exchange for a commercial boat, which is a squid boat and a real permit, which was very lucrative during that time. Before my before my two brain surgeries, I had to sell the to two boats in order to sell my art just to pay for my surgery bills and hospital stays, hospitalization, rehabs in all . Now I'm living on disability, income and widow's benefit. No way in heaven will I be able to sustain myself. So on behalf of the mature residents living at Belmont Shore, I would like you to see if you could have how help us solve in this huge increase of our rent. Park management proposal. Retain the same amount of 355. Dollars per month. Credit plan which extended to two more years. That which is not not an it's a it's that is still an issue to all the residents living there. I had witnessed mature residents who had boarders living with them in order to make their payments meet to make their rent payments. Thank you. Thank you so much. We have a motion in a second. If I can get those, please cast your votes on that. Motion carries. That concludes the regular agenda items, Madam Clerk, I believe. Is that correct? And I'm course. That concludes the regular agenda items.

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_04252022_22-0366

All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines, and happy to do that. No motion is required. Do any other members of council have any comments? I seen none. Council Resolution 22, Dash 392 has been postponed. Will be back before Council for consideration on Monday, May 2nd. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Thank you. Council Member Flynn, would you please put resolution 366 on the floor for adoption? Yes, thank you. I move that council resolution 20 2-0366 be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member Black. Thank you, Madam President. The mayor's office has requested that this measure be voted down and staff will go back through the process for appointments and await feedback from the community. All right, thank you, Councilmember Black. And then I'll call on Councilmember CdeBaca next, and then Councilmember Ortega. Go ahead, Councilmember CdeBaca. No additional comments. That was going to be my same requests. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Sorry about that. Thank you, Madam President. This is a bill that was on our agenda last week, and we were asked to. It was held for a week. And this was for three appointments to the National Western Center Authority Board. I was at the committee meeting where this topic came up. And this really this discussion is not about all three of the appointments. It's primarily around the community appointment. And I think you all remember the last time we had appointments for this authority board come before us. It was when John Saxon from the Globeville neighborhood was being re appointed, and there was discussion about wanting someone else from the community. Senator Lewis was the person who was put into the non-voting person position. She her name was being put forth as the voting member. Some of the people in the community wanted to be involved in the process of determining who should be that voting member. And I don't agree with the move to postpone this and get away from this process. Her name very well may be the name being moved forward, but I understand the community wanting to have further input into who the voting member is. This is a name that came from the community asking for her to be appointed to the non-voting position. So it only makes sense because she's been actively involved that her name moved forward. But unfortunately the community wrote us all a letter asking that this particular name not move forward. So in effect, it holds up the other two names from being able to move forward as well. And I'm not sure what the the process is of waiting until the community process happens before all three are brought back, or if those two will be refiled. And then we wait for the community position. But I'm going to be voting for this tonight and I just don't agree with the direction. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilman Black, we've got to get you in the queue. I'll just have. A little bit of contact. So the authority board has ruled in a framework agreement regarding who's serving the community voting system, and apparently it was an oversight. And we're going to ask you to turn it on. My gosh. I'm sorry. I'll say that again. So just a little bit of context. The authority board has unique rules and the framework agreement regarding who serves in the community voting position. So there was an oversight on what was needed for the voting members. So that's why the mayor's office is asked that we vote this down. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. And per those instructions and that request. I want to definitely thank Romain Pacheco for the phone call over the weekend to just brief me on what was going on. And I'm sure other members got a call to from her. And so council members, just a reminder to please vote no on this. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 22, Dash 366. Black Male. CdeBaca No, Clark, no. Flynn. No. Herndon, no. Hines No. Cashman No. Carnage. No. Ortega. I. Sandoval No. Sawyer No. Torres No. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. One I 12 nays. 12 nays. Resolution 22, Dash 366 has failed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens for us. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Bill eight three excuse me. 383 on the floor for final passage?

A MOTION making an appointment to fill a judicial vacancy in the southwest division of King County district court.

KingCountyCC_04252016_2016-0218

Member of the Grove. Councilmember run right power here. Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we have a very exciting opportunity to fill three judicial positions on the district court. And I'd like to thank the members of the subcommittee who have worked long hours in interviewing 15 different people. And so I'd like to thank Councilmember Balducci, Councilmember Gossett and Councilmember Dombrowski for joining in on that. And as you can see from the binders that are sitting here, there was lots and lots of information. So today we will not be taking actions on the motions themselves. What we're going to be doing is reviewing the qualifications of the candidates to select final candidates to be interviewed. So what we're deciding is to decide to decide, okay, so we will look at the name and then we will be able to pick which of those candidates that we would like to interview at our next meeting, which will be Wednesday, May the fourth. All of the candidates were told the May 4th date during the interviews because we hope to choose by May the ninth, because on May 17th begins the filing week for those positions. We'll begin this meeting with a brief staff report to provide some background for those in the audience who are unfamiliar with the selection process. Then we're going to go into executive session to discuss the individual candidates qualification. Mr. Wagner, would you please begin? Thank you, Madam Chair. Nick Wagner, Counsel. Staff It is the council's job under state law to fill judicial vacancies in King County District Court. The procedure for doing so is spelled out in the county code, and it's summarized on pages 3 to 4 of your materials for this council meeting. Briefly, the count. The Council clerk publishes a notice of any vacancy, and interested individuals are required to apply either to the clerk or to one of the bar associations that has an established judicial evaluation committee. As defined in the county code to be considered for appointment by the Council, an applicant must be rated by a Bar Association's Judicial Evaluation Committee, and the committee must refer the applicant to the council. With the rating, there are three eligible candidates for the vacancy in the Southwest Division of the District Court and ten eligible candidates for the two vacancies in the West Division. The committee has received several hundred pages of written materials from the 13 candidates and from the bar and the bar associations. And each committee member has been provided a copy of those materials to review. In addition, some council members, as you mentioned, Madam Chair, have informally interviewed the candidates. The county code provides for this committee to review the candidates and select final candidates to be interviewed by the committee. And those interviews are currently scheduled for May 4th. That's when Wednesday of next week. The purpose of today's meeting is to complete the initial review process and to select the candidates to be interviewed. That concludes my staff report. Thank you very much. And on page 18 of our packet, it gives the criteria that we are looking for in selecting judges. And I think that these criteria excellent. And we're definitely what we had in mind as we were doing the interviews. So with that, Councilmember Garcia, do you have a question? Yes, thank you, sir. Who are the three candidates for consideration for southwest Marion Courthouse? Okay. That is on page four of the packet that they just gave. Or that they just gave. And are are. For today. You don't have it either. I know I have it right here in front of me. And page for. All right, Mr. Wagner? Yes, sir. I now have the three names that we considered for Miriam. Right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. At this time, the committee will go into executive session to discuss the candidate's qualifications. When we come out of the executive session, I entertain motions to select final candidates to be interviewed by the committee. On May 4th, the grounds for the executive session to evaluate the qualifications of candidates for the appointment of elective office as provided in our c w 4230 dash 110 Subsection eight. The committee will be in executive session, I thought for 20 minutes, but I'm thinking that's not going to be right. So I would say 30 minutes, which will take it until five. If we need to go beyond that, we can. And I'm asking the clerk now to post the doors to that effect. And we must now ask any member of the public and all county employees who are not directly impacted or necessary for this discussion to please leave the council chambers. So thank you very much. Okay. And. Oh. Okay. So the committee is back in open session. I'll now entertain a motion. We're going to have two motions, one for the the Southwest Division. And then after that, we'll have it for the West Division. They will be interviewed when we have the final candidates to be interviewed, and they'll be interviewed on May 4th. It will be in the morning and it's looking like we will start at 9 a.m. And I had told some of the candidates it was evening. So we'll have to make sure that they know that it is in the morning. So I'd like to call on Councilmember Gossett for a motion for the Southwest Division candidate. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. We had an excellent discussion and executive session. I thank all councilmembers will concur that these are some really outstanding and well experienced lawyers and judicial officers that we considered for this judgeship. And I'd like to move now that the following candidates be designated as our final candidates for interview by the Committee of the Whole to fill a vacancy in our Southwest Division Court of King County. And the two persons are long Gibson and Brian Todd. Thank you. And so do I call for a voice vote or do I call for a roll call vote was possible. Okay. All those in favor of the two names put forward, Laura Gibson and Brian Todd. Please say hi. Those opposed. Nay, those are the two names. Councilmember, would you now put a motion for the candidates for the West Division? And before you start, because there are two positions here we were we'll have more than two names coming forward.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating in its entirety Chapter 9.66 regarding residency restrictions for sex offenders, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06142016_16-0538

33. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code regarding residency restrictions for sex offenders. Read for the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. There's a motion in a second. Can I get a second, please? Any public comment on the item? Seen no public comment. Councilman Price. Thank you. I have a question regarding the process by which California Department of Corrections will be doing their case by case analysis. How does that process unfold? Mayor remembers the Council on Councilmember Price. The currently there's not much of a process in place. They are currently not enforcing the blanket applications for the residency restrictions. And what we're told and how they indicate they will look at it is based upon the conviction what the person was convicted for. On whether that would be a candidate in which they would have an enforcement or a restriction other than, you know, they could go anywhere on the clustering. So let's say we have somebody that has a conviction that they deem, for whatever reason, to be worthy of a second look. Do they then do we know if their process involves ascertaining where that individual plans to reside and then talking with the local municipality regarding the dynamics of that particular neighborhood or any issues that might be relevant to their analysis. How do they know, for example, that that person's going to pose that person's going to fall under the criteria where they wouldn't? That they would be they would have some sort of a an exemption from how everyone else is treated. And I do not have an answer for you this evening. We could certainly contact them and ask them how they plan to enforce that particular question. Is this going to come back for another reading? Yes, it will come back for a second reading. Is that reasonable for us to get that information? We will. Certainly attempt to get that information by that. Time. Okay. Because I think that's really important. If there is going to be a case by case analysis, what's the criteria and how is the municipality invited or allowed to participate in that analysis before a decision is made us to a particular to 90 registrants? Don't think we. Will do. That. Councilman Austin. Do you have a good. Yes. And I want to do a follow up. I think Councilmember Price asked the I think a very pertinent question in light of us not having that information. I'm curious as to whether or not we are are compelled to vote on this this evening without having that that information. Mayor's member. The council councilmember. Excuse me, Austin. The. We would request that you take action tonight. We are currently in litigation on this. Our ordinance is currently not compliant with the Supreme Court decision and the actions currently and the opinion of the attorney general. The the information that's being sought is information that we can bring back to you after we've amended the ordinance. And based upon our research, there's nothing we can do to the Department of Corrections that we can control how they do their you know, how they determine the restrictions based on the individual circumstances. The city's without that authority. Well, this is one of those those moments that I'd like to invoke or local control to the best degree possible. I have some real reservations just about this. And there are some obvious political realities to to to to supporting this action. Are you. And so I guess I need more more direction from from you, Mr. City Attorney. Can you explain to us the nature of the litigation and what would happen if, for example, this this council were to not approve this this this this item? We we are currently and being sued for violation of civil rights. We will be found to be liable for that with damages and attorney fees. The the issue arose in when the California Supreme Court held that a portion of Jessica's Law prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of schools parks was unconstitutional, as applied across the board to all registered parolees in San Diego County. Based on that case, the attorney general has advised that the restrictions would be deemed unconstitutional in all counties. We still have that restriction in place, and so we are on notice of that. And so we're amending our ordinance to comply with the Supreme Court opinion and the attorney general's opinion. The Department of Corrections, based upon the Supreme Court opinion and the Attorney General, is not enforcing their requirement on the blanket application registry. Resident Residency restrictions, I'm sorry. And so what we're asking the council to adopt tonight puts us in complete what we do believe to be in compliance with what the state law requires and removes the provision in our ordnance, which the Supreme Court, California Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional. And we are amending at the same time to what we believe clarifies the clustering prohibitions of allowing registered offenders to reside in any multiple registrants to reside in the same unit. So I'm not sure if you answered the second part of my question regarding. What sort of. This legal posturing, we will position what we we put ourselves in as a council. If we were to do to not support the side of. We would be opening and exposing ourselves to additional litigation and expenses incurred by by not complying with the the law as determined by the California Supreme Court. And we will be unable to enforce this ordinance. We would not be able to maintain those restrictions. And yet the county do not place people within that buffer area that we currently have. We have in our ordinance now, they're not they're not listening or following our ordinance right now. And we have no authority to compel them to do that, since Supreme Court says that the what we wanted to do was unconstitutional. So I'm curious to know what other if other municipalities are dealing with the same issue and how they are dealing with the. Multiple cities up and down the state have amended their code very similar to the way we're amending or some cities have repealed it altogether. I could certainly provide you with a list of cities that have amended their ordinance. I don't have that with me, but I can provide that. Thank you. Okay. Any public comment? None. Can someone please second? In terms of the police, the motion. Okay. Members, but he's going to catch the votes. Councilmember Richardson. Motion carries. Kleenex item.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1660, 1682 & 1684 Grove Street and 3088 & 3092 West 17th Avenue in West Colfax. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 1660, 1682 & 1684 Grove Street and 3088 & 3092 West 17th Avenue from G-MU-3 to C-MX-5 (general urban, multi-unit to urban center, mixed-use) in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-27-18.

DenverCityCouncil_04092018_18-0173

Madam Secretary, close of voting. And now it's the results. Eight eyes. Eight eyes. Final consideration of council 172 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, April 16th, next Monday. All right, Councilman, will you please put Council Bill 173 on the floor. And move the council? Will 173 be placed upon final consideration and do pass? It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Council Bill 173 is open. We'll start with the staff report. Hello, Miss Lucero. Good evening, Theresa Lucero with community planning and development. This is a map amendment. The addresses are 1660, 1682 and 1684 Grove Street and 30, 88 and 3092 West 17th Avenue. The request is to rezone from general urban multi-unit three storey to urban center mixed use five storeys. This is in City Council District three in the West Colfax neighborhood. It is nearly an acre. 36,900 square feet. Existing 21 multi-unit apartment are on the property. And again the request is to rezone from GMU three to cx5. It is a redevelopment of multi-unit to multi-unit structures. Existing zoning is Jehmu three surrounding on the north and south GMU three to the east C-Max five with a couple of overlays, the adult use overlay and the billboard overlay. And then to the West are to a Chapter 59 multi-unit zoned district. So the subject property is affordable housing multi-unit residential to the north across 17th avenue is parking and single unit residential to the south, multi-unit residential to the east commercial along Federal Boulevard and then to the west more affordable multi-unit residential and gives you an idea of the location and its proximity to Mile High Stadium. This gives you an idea of the form and scale of the structures in the area. The center is the structures that are proposed for rezoning. To the right is the parking lot and electric facility across 17th Avenue, some commercial on Federal Boulevard to the right below. And then the new three storey apartment building or condo building that was under construction to the south and then to the west, a more multi-unit, three storey residential. So the CMC's five would be multi-unit residential with mixed use commercial allowed, and it would call for pedestrian scaled in diverse areas and improving the transition between commercial and residential . Informational notice on this application went out in November of 2017. Planning Board Notice was posted 15 days ahead of the Planning Board hearing on February 7th of this year, and by a unanimous vote, the board recommended approval. And we were at Moody Committee on in February of this year. And then, of course, we're here this evening and proper notification has been made of this hearing. The R.A. is in the area. Our West Colfax Association of Neighbors, Sloan's Lake Citizens Group, West Colfax Business Improvement District, Federal Boulevard, Corridor Improvement Partnership and of course, I.N.S.. And to date, staff has no comment letters on this application. So, you know, the criteria I'm going to talk to heavily about those are the plans that apply. We've got four different plans, comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, West Colfax Plan of 2006, and then the Decatur Federal Stationary Plan of 2013. Current plan staff believes that these strategies from current plan are the strategies that this application conforms with and those are detailed in your staff report in Blueprint Denver. This is an area of change where we do want a channel growth that's beneficial. Urban it is an urban residential land use category. So that's calls for higher density, primarily residential, but some complementary commercial uses and a mixture of housing types, including single family townhome, multifamily apartment and some high rise structures. 17th Avenue is a residential collector, Grove Street and on designated local street Federal Boulevard, a residential arterial and an enhanced transit corridor. So. Where of course you want to or on our arterials you have city wide connections and the enhanced transit corridor is focused on transit supportive land uses. So the West Colfax Plan has two different sections. The framework plan calling for gives us guidance on the zoning changes and this property is considered part of the urban town center. And the plan talks about a compact, dense core that. Is connected and walkable and clustered near the intersection of major and major, major arterials. Sorry, and that this compact core filters out to the edges. And so there's a focus on intense development at the core and that you're maximizing development of urban land in this area . The land use recommendations talk about that dense core and walkable development and radiating that dense core to from there to the through the neighborhood and talks about promoting the inclusion of affordable units and supporting infill development and. Focusing both structural and use intensity to these town centers. So this gives you an idea of the town center and the location of the property in that town center from the Colfax Framework Plan. Then the district plans in the West Colfax plan talk about character and scale of areas and this property is within the Cheltenham Heights Town Center in this portion of the plan which talks about new development fitting seamlessly into surrounding neighborhoods, town centers functioning as the heart of the community and focusing the most intense structures and uses in the dense core and ensuring a dynamic mix of uses, focusing the most intense uses east of Julien Street and promoting significant increase in residential densities and improving the permit permeability of the town center . And this picture shows you the in the Heights Town Center as depicted in the plan. One thing you might notice between this and the other town center map was that this town center map extends a block further north than the framework town center map. And then, of course, the Decatur Federal Station Area Plan, which is the most current plan which focused primarily on the Sun Valley neighborhood, but did incorporate and refine some comprehensive plan and blueprint Denver recommendations. But the plan specifically did not change the recommendations of the West Colfax plan. So the development concept from Decatur Federal is a station area connected to downtown and the region. Federal Boulevard and 17th Avenue were called neighborhood activity nodes. Federal Boulevard and 17th Avenue are were key multi-modal connections linking the neighborhood and the region. 17th Avenue's street classification stayed residential collector in the Decatur Federal Plan, but Federal Boulevard was changed from a residential arterial to a mixed use arterial in this plan, emphasizing a variety of travel choices. There were several top recommendations in the federal Decatur federal plan, creating a compact development pattern, creating a diverse, cohesive and walkable community, encouraging both vertical and horizontal mixture of uses, and attracting high quality, mixed income residential communities. And the Blueprint Denver land use concept was not updated in the Decatur federal plan. So the property that we're talking about remains urban residential, as is in the blueprint plan. So recommendations from Decatur Federal for Residential Communities are encourage the development of a variety of high quality and attainable, high priced residential options, encourage the development of new, high quality, affordable housing units. And as you see on the map for this property, the plan recommends five storeys in height. So with that, staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the four different plans that we've discussed. That by using our standards zone districts, we are consistent in the uniform application of our zone districts by encouraging a denser mixed use redevelopment near an enhanced transit corridor and transit station where shopping, jobs and services and transit ridership will increase. We and we are implementing the city's plans and there is, as everyone in the city knows, for a lot of changes happening in the West Colfax neighborhoods. So we believe change circumstance is justifying is a correct justifying circumstance. And we believe that this is consistent with the urban center context, which allows a mixture of land use, is compatible with the area and a moderately skilled mixed use and transit oriented residential development that is characteristic of the area. So with that, staff recommends approval. Thank you very much, Mr. Sarah. We have three speakers tonight Richard Taft, Bruce O'Donnell and Sekou. Mr. Taft, would you like to start us off? Evening, Madame President, and members of council. I'm Dick Taft. I live at 817 17th Street in in Denver. I am the president and CEO of Rocky Mountain Communities, which is a501 C3 nonprofit corporation. We own manage and develop affordable rental housing communities across the state of Colorado. In addition to providing housing at four of our communities, we also provide programs and services for resident families and the families in adjacent neighborhoods. These programs and other types of support provide programs in this sorry step out of bounds there, including but not limited to early childhood education, English as a second language. Gardening plots, food pantries and senior health and wellbeing. English as a second language rent assistance. Mom baby classes. Raising a reader and the list can go on. Of the eight properties we own, three are in Denver. The 300 unit garden court property and at 12th and Syracuse is actually in your district. The Arroyo Village is a joint venture with the Dolores project and is under construction at the Knox Court Station on the west front line in Councilman Lopez's district. And our third community, the town view community, which is what we're here to talk about tonight, is also in Councilman Lopez's district. We're here this evening to request the approval for a rezoning request of a small parcel of the town view community. The entire and the entire town view community is over 50 years old and has only 122 apartments on five acres. The Grove Street parcel in the southeast corner of the site has three buildings with only 12 units and is at the end of its usable life, as actually is the case for most of the other 120 units on the site. We all know about Denver's seemingly unending upward spiral in housing costs. We also know that the current value of the full town view site across from the entry to the stadium to the Broncos stadium is significant, to say the least. However, our mission and vision is not to sell or trade. Our hope and expectation is that we will be able to rezone the balance of this five acre site in the future, in the near future, and be able to create somewhere of around 250 more rental units than we have on site there today. The apartments will be for families across a wide range of income levels, from 30% EMI up to 100% EMI. In addition, we will be providing community space in which we can grow programs and services for the families. Your time is. Up. Okay. I know it goes quickly. Thank you very much. I only got three words. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you, Madam President, and members of council. My name is Bruce O'Donnell, and I live at 386 Emerson Street in Denver. I've had the pleasure of working with. Rocky Mountain communities on this Town View Project for almost three. Years now. We've tried to sort. Our way. Through master planning the entire five acre site and. As a result of lack of plan, support for the balance of the site. The rezoning before you this. Evening is only for this small portion of it for which there is plan support. For the five story out of the Decatur Federal Stationary Plan. Throughout this process, we've had extensive community outreach and public engagement. We held three meetings each with we can and with this launch like Citizens Group, we had a seventh meeting that was convened by CPD and Councilman Lopez, his office. And the result of that, as you can see, is there's very little fanfare this evening. And I think the neighbors. Are generally on board with the concept. So consistent with the. Staff report. And with the planning board recommendation for approval. We ask that you approve Council Bill 18, dash 173 tonight and we're available for questions. Should you have any. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. Sekou. Chairman Sekou Blackstar, a movement for self-defense, primarily client based, poor, working, poor, homeless, senior citizens and youth. We support this. Change zoning. So that the area can have the economic development tools to work with to increase the housing base that is not affordable but what we can afford. And when you talk about being below these ranges of income ranges from 30% to 100%, that leaves some possibilities that maybe out of, say, 250 units, we might get by that multinational import, which means the other 400 245 go to folks who can't afford to got the money. Who's moving into this? Who's got money? And now we have replacement of local people, new people coming in who can afford it. And it's a real interesting challenge that we face. Now, we salute Councilman Lopez because out of all of the folks he has fought the hardest and against the most resistant to this income level, stuff that most poor people can afford. No. How did he bring it down? You know, from 80% to 60%, we're talking about 30%. That's outstanding. And no one can claim that in the district that they're doing that, which needs to be more that done. So we have to support this. And at the same time, Paul, we've been working very hard, especially with Councilman Newman, to look at when you're building this stuff. Like Debbie was talking about, how can the people get involved economically so that they can get paid to be on these jobs who are skilled labor that are being overlooked and not being enrolled in one of these processes. I just spent lunch at Sunny Lawson Park talking to folks who are skilled laborers who across the street they were building, but they couldn't get no work because they left. So there seems to be some kind of caveat here that if you say something about black people getting some work done, we're considered the scum of the earth because it means we should join the scum of the Earth Church. And maybe then we can find some employment because no one's willing to say that work. We are down for black people being included, but when everybody else is working in our neighborhood and we're not even working in our own neighborhood, there's. Don't say nothing. Don't rock the boat because we get what we need out of this. And there's a muffle sound. So I'm here to advocate on behalf of those who say that no voice, that we need work. And we need work now. And we need work not only in our neighborhoods, but all throughout the city because it's fair, because everybody throughout the city's working in our neighborhood but us. And so as the story goes, Mr. Stevens, you just put your top. Years is. Up. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from counsel Councilwoman Ortega? I just wanted to ask either Richard or Bruce if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. Just want to ask if the buildings are all vacant right now or what is the phasing look like? Can you just talk about that a little bit? Was the question, are the buildings still full now? Yeah. Are they vacant? Are they empty? Yes. Yes, they are. Okay. All of them. Well, except for one or two vacancies. But that's just the normal flow of business. Okay. And what is that phasing look like? You going from the south to the north? Help me. Understand with the buildings that you have identified as part of this phase. So what we're what we're intending to do is on that parcel, that Grove Street parcel, we want to put a senior building on that spot, in that spot. And the way the buildings are configured right now, they are they take up a tremendous amount of ground for no good reason. So what we're trying to do is get up to about 130 units of senior housing. About 40% would be two bedroom I'm sorry, 30% would be two bedrooms and 70% would be one bedrooms. And the other thing we're trying to do is we're trying to start building buildings that have a mix of incomes in those buildings so that we're not constantly piling low income people on low income people. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Kennish. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on Councilwoman Ortega's question about, you know, in terms of how you reach really deeply low income folks, though, because there are folks who are the most vulnerable. And so do you guys accept Section eight vouchers at all your age? So do you have residents who earn? You know who? What's the lowest amount of rent someone might be paying in one of your apartments? And regardless of whether am I level is what's an example of the lowest rent someone might pay if they have a Section eight resident out of or section four out of their pocket? Basically, permanent supportive housing is the lowest. We we get vouchers from the HRA for those those individuals. Can you just give an example of what they pay in rent out of their own pocket about. If they if they get SSI, Social Security. Income. They get, I believe up to $90 a month is their income and they're required to pay, I think, one third of their income as their rent. So your your properties generally include some folks who earn very, very little and pay only $100 or a couple hundred dollars in rent. They include that. I think that gets lost sometimes in the AMA level. So thank you for clarifying. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you. And dig the for the record. Can you please go through the amount of units? How many a certain am I bedrooms? Just so we can be clear on the records. I know a lot of folks pay attention to Channel eight late at night or about 730 right now. I think it's important point. You want the for the record, the chronology of this effort. No, just just the amount. If the rezoning is approved tonight. How many units are we upgrading and the breakdown of those units? This is the best. Yeah, it's tough to say at this point because we've only had one master plan done. And and that was somewhere around that 300 units range. The highest density is the senior building to it, because just on that block they'd have 130 units. It's one time. So we're we're trying to figure out the balance between community space, open space and the number of units and also the types of units. I think when we when we have talked with you, Councilman, we were talking that we'd seriously try to get as many four bedroom units in as we as we could just because of the fact that there's such a dearth of three and four bedroom units in affordable housing today, so that those four bedroom units would probably bring the count down just because of the size and the fact that they take up bedrooms. So just the ultimate goal is if we can max out the the the property to to the point where we have a mix of income, a serious mix of incomes, and a serious ability to provide community based programs for the residents that live there. That's that's really what we're trying to accomplish. And if I could do 500, I'd try. But it was a ballpark number of how many units. Right now I'm figuring it's going to be between 250 and 300 to 15. 300 aside from. And I really appreciate councilman, can each his line of questioning in terms of some of the vouchers to this day supportive housing. That's important. It's critical because nobody talks about those nobody mentions those. Some property owners willing to. But the army levels. If we were just talking, am I mixed of mixed income? What are the ranges of those 50? What are the ranges of am I oh. The ranges of. The way am I for those maybe 250 to 300 units depending on the on the on the master plan. Just ballpark. You know, probably it could probably go out as as just a standing percentage. We could we could break that between 30%. I up to 100%, Amy, in in 20% ranges and have, you know, five tranches of of of the income ranges. And so we're you know, we're we're also looking at the idea of 100%, Amy, is it we're going to start picking up people who actually have have jobs and are actually having a difficult time finding something that is affordable in in the Denver market. Um, but. Yeah. It's. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Kennish. Thanks. I'm sorry. I just have to jump in and clarify the record. Something you just said kind of hit me. You said people are 100% of am-I are actually working residents at 50% of. Am I also. Yes. Yeah, that's not I just don't. Can you do you want to clarify the record? Yes, yes. Yes. And there are people who are making 30% AMI and 40% alike. Yes. The whole the whole stratum has has people who are working. I apologize. Thank you. Do I have any other questions? Seeing none. I'm going to close the public hearing and comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate you coming to the microphone and staff for doing the report. Thank you very much. That is a you know, when I was first approached by. About this application, you know, of course, as council members, we have to be very objective. Right. Especially when it looks at rezoning. I know this area very well and I know that these these units have been subsidized units. I've always wondered who and before you had actually approached me, I've always wondered what's with all the land space around them and they're configured in a way that's just not efficient for the need. Right. And then I think about it and I think of when they were built in the time that they were built. And this is Old Mile High Stadium, right? This is when that does single single family, you know, two storey homes were all that existed in the area when Denver I don't think even you know, there was no eulogies. It was I mean, you started McNichols Arena in the area. I mean, it was a different time. The need always there. But now this is more of a modern way in a modern zone district, especially in this area, especially because if you looked at the prices of homes in this area, if you looked at the build in this area, everything's growing up. Everything's going higher. Higher density, higher prices, home values. The fact that we. We're growing so quickly in that area, it's hard to be able to identify areas that we could actually preserve for affordable housing and to do exactly what you're saying, to hang on to this is a big deal and to take it to the next level is a big deal. And no one really wanted to commend you for the use of mixed use, because it isn't just the affordable housing that we need. It's not just housing that is a crisis in the city. It's also wages and job opportunities. And with that commercial retail space, you have that in some areas you could actually live, work, have like a live work use, especially when it comes to affordable housing. Now it's not too far away from Sun Valley. Sun Valley is also another area that's going to be built that's going to be going higher in terms of stories and density with affordable housing. It's not too far from our Royal Village. It's not too far from other projects that are also slated for affordable housing. However, it's right across the street from probably the biggest. Some of the biggest parking lots that are unoccupied for most of the year in the west side, right in Denver, next to Pepsi Center. And we know and we know because of the announcement that CPD made and some of the intent of the Metropolitan Football District and the stadium district is that those lots are going to be developed. So much is going to be happening on the other side of Federal Boulevard. It's going to be hard for us to be able to keep keep up with the development and also making sure that it's affordable. And we have. And so this kind of this kind of rezoning application, this rezoning that actually takes it to Cemex five is is appropriate because of the density question. We need more. And so with that, I don't see why there would be I know that there's no opposition to this in the neighborhoods. I know there's no opposition to it in the communities. It's it's exactly what's needed in the area. That's why you don't see a lot of folks here. There's one rezoning that we don't have very much opposition to at all, if any. So. Madam President. I'm good with that moving forward. Thank you very much, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to thank this team for their commitment to really making a sincere effort on the affordability component. I mean, obviously, the mix of income levels, I think, is important in developments across the city. And when we allow people to buy out their affordable units and put them somewhere else. We're not creating the integrated neighborhoods that we want to have throughout the city, and you guys are doing that. I also want to thank you for the work that you're doing with your project over on Knox Court as well, which is very nearby this development as well. And I wish we had more developers that were more committed to making sure that we had integrated neighborhoods with affordability built in. You know, we're not calling this rent control, but, you know, in New York City, that's that's what they've done. They've made sure that they've got integrated projects with all income levels. And it's what makes me think any great city, you know, the outstanding city they are because it ensures that, you know, everybody in our community interfaces with one another in lots of different ways. And so I just want to say thank you for for your work in doing this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. And seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, welcome. Lopez. Hi. New Ortega. Flynn, I. Gilmore Cashman. Hi. Can eat. Madam President, I. Please close the voting. Announce the results.

Order for a hearing regarding recycling, compost, and waste services in the City of Boston.

BostonCC_03302022_2022-0242

0242024 to order for a hearing regarding recycling, compost and waste services in the city of Boston. Did she ever recognize this council chair of the Committee on City Services Innovation Technology Council? You have the floor. Thank you so much. It's excellent. Okay, great. Thank you so much, Counselor Flynn. We had a great hearing on Monday. It was really wonderful to have Brian Coughlin, our superintendent of Waste Reduction and Waste Management Services here. And he took all of our questions and talked about all different matters of what the city does on the waste management front. And then we actually heard from panelists from both Seattle and I'm ready to name right now but just are Hooksett and New Hampshire hearing about what other model cities. And so I think it was a really good model. Mr. President, of the benefit of a hybrid hearing. And I think it made a real difference for us to have Brian there in person. But then it was great to have Seattle beaming in from across the country. So I want to thank all the colleagues that attended. And in particular, I think the most exciting thing was the confirmation that the the city curbside composting pilot that this council has long been fighting for. And I want to particularly flag the work of our colleague, Councilor Matt O'Malley, on this body. We've been fighting for that and funding it for several cycles now. And and it now actually, like the RFP is come back, they're planning to launch it this summer and it's going to make curbside composting available to 10,000 families at the beginning. And my hope is that that's a a real start down a path of ramping up to a city wide service in the same way that, as we heard, Seattle has. So I thought that was really exciting. But we talked about everything from batteries and and e-waste management, hazardous materials, the fact that the five days in city halls right now are just, you know, they're way above demand to recycling and the recycling market and how we can make sure that that we really put our city on a trajectory to reach our zero waste goals. Because I think Brian was very upfront about the fact that they've taken some major strides and yet still we are not on a path to actually meeting our goals there. So it's grateful for the participation of the environmental justice chair, Kassala Lara and a whole bunch of councilors. And I think another thing that really came out of the hearing that I expect we'll do more council follow up on is as Councilor Baker has constantly pointed out, and I think it's something that Councilor Laura and I share. I know you do, Mr. President, is just the idea that, you know, as we see the contracts for us doing this externally, becoming more and more expensive, and we recognize that we need to do more effective waste management to meet our climate goals. Like let's look for ways that we can have actual processing capacity, facilities and jobs here in the city of Boston. And let's actually be the place that other cities and towns turn to for help with processing their materials, because it seems as though there's a real opportunity there and and we're going to need more capacity. So I think we learned about I can't summarize everything. I mean, we learned about the fact the state guidance is going to affect how mattresses get recycled and turned and thrown away in the city of Boston. That's going to be an upcoming challenge. And I think just it was very brass tacks, city services, you know, what we what we do and in many ways, one of the ways that cities were organized and grew in the first place was to help manage and manage trash and waste and make sure that people have the opportunity to live in a clean and sanitary city. So I was grateful to host it and will definitely be continuing follow up, Mr. Chair. And my request would be that the docket remain in committee. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Oh, sorry. And I neglected to mention my co-sponsors on the docket. Councilor Flaherty. And. Last count celebrating. He's right here with me, who were wonderful and stayed for very long here. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Would any of our colleagues like to speak on the matter? I will speak on it. I just want to say thank you to. To the chair and to the to the sponsors of this. I also want to make sure that when we roll the program out, that different neighborhoods have different needs. In the South End, I'm struggling with barrels and with the recycling and with pest control and adding composting, which which which I support. But we need to make sure that when we roll this out, we have a public awareness educational campaign that especially includes the residents, but also includes district city councils so that they can educate their constituents working with owners on the importance of this program. One of the first hearing I'm going to call for this year is on pest control, and I think that's also part of the subject of work on this issue with many of our colleagues, most recently with with Councilor Braden. But pest control is a major problem in the city of Boston. It's in my district and other districts as well. But during this budget process, we really need to advocate for basic city service funding for these critical nuts and bolts issues impacting practically every every neighborhood in the city. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? The docket zero two for Cho will remain in committee. Thank you, Counsel. Barker Mr. Clarke, will you please read docket. 01950195 order for a hearing regarding city level Conservation Corps for Boston.

A bill for an ordinance naming the park at 3200 East 52nd Avenue as “Lorraine Granado Community Park”. Approves the naming of the park at 52nd Avenue and Steele Street in the Swansea neighborhood as Lorraine Granado Community Park in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-4-20.

DenverCityCouncil_02242020_20-0088

One a public hearing 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, please 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. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 88 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 20 dash 88, be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and. Now my screen is showing. There we go. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for Councilor Bill 20 Dash 88 is open. I believe we have ten individuals signed up to speak this evening. So I'm going to read your name. When I read your name, come right up to the microphone and your time will be on the monitor. So our first speaker this evening is real quick. Did we want Parks and Rec to actually start us off? Did I miss the presentation? Do you have a presentation for us? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Why don't we do that? I totally missed that. I apologize. I did not mean to cut you short before we get to all of our wonderful for all speakers who've been hanging out waiting to speak. Parks and Recreation. Would you like to do a presentation? Thank you. Council member for the reminder. This is around the community engagement specialist with Denver Parks and Recreation. Denver Parks and Recreation will actually not be doing the presentation, will have one of the family members come up and do a presentation on the family. Myself and manager Happy Haines will be. Here after the courtesy public hearing to answer any questions from City Council if you happen to have any. All right. Good evening, Honorable Council members. I hope this finds you all in a piece. My name is Paul Garcia, and I am the second son of Lauren Granato. I am here representing our family and asking you to respectfully consider the motion to approve naming the park at 52nd Avenue and still street after our mother. Some of you may know who she is, but for those of you who don't. This is Lauren Granato. I began my introduction by leading with the phrase. Hold on just a second. We're having a technical difficulty getting the right screen up, so we're not seeing what you're seeing. Okay. So if we could get that fixed. I can start over to. There we go. Thank you. All right, take two. Good evening, Honorable Council members. I hope this finds you all in peace. My name is Paul Garcia, and I am the second son of the Granada. I am here representing our family and asking you to respectfully consider the name the motion to approve naming the park at 52nd and still street after our mother. Some of you may know who Lauren Granado is, but for those of you who don't. This is my mom. I began my introduction by leading with the phrase, I hope this finds you own a piece. I did this because this is what my mother always began of correspondence with, and it's indicative of how she always cared about how a person was doing before anything else. Lorraine is the second child of Joan Tilly Granado. She was born April 16th, 1948, in Denver, Colorado. She grew up with her brothers and sisters in a small house on 38th and Del Gainey before moving to 50th to Milwaukee at the age of 12. She graduated from Mount Carmel High School with honors and attended Metro State College, earning two degrees. She earned these two degrees while being a single mom to three boys and working several jobs at the same time, including a stint as a ceramic instructor at Swansea Recreation Center. The biggest part of Lauren's life is her family. Lorraine's father, Joe Granado, was born in Trinidad, Colorado, to a family of two, a family of farm workers during the Great Depression. They would go farm to farm, picking fruits and vegetables in order to provide for the family. My mother learned her work ethic and her dedication to family from him. Her mother, Tillie Granado, was born in 1925 in the San Luis Valley on a farm with her two brothers and sisters. Her mother passed away when she was at the age of 12, and at that point she began to care for her siblings. Her family is everything to her, and she is the embodiment of love and of nurturing. My mother learned how to love and how to care for others from her. A story my mother would tell us about this time and how it sparked her passion for equity was when my grandparents were young, they first met, they were on a date and they were asked to leave a restaurant because they hadn't noticed a sign in the window that said, No, dogs are Mexicans allowed. This taught my mother why she should fight for equity and for justice. As a young woman, Lorraine started her community organizing as a member of the American Friends Service Committee. This is a Quaker based organization whose mission it is to promote peace and justice for all humans. Her focus at the time was to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the globe. She has been nationally recognized for this work, even sitting down with heads of states from other countries to talk about nuclear disarmament. A story that she told us when she was on a month long trip across the Middle East. She was having dinner with a number of dignitaries. At one point, Yasser Arafat asked the crowd, Does anyone smoke? My mother raised her hand. He says to her, Please come sit. Let's talk. My mother was delighted at having such an honor and yet was never intimidated nor afraid. Another event that she organized that had lasting impact was a trip that she organized to take a group of 40 kids from the inner city of denver across the country to washington, d.c. for the 20th anniversary of the Martin Luther King Jr. I have a dream speech in 1983. She along with others. Took us across the country. We stayed in nonprofits and in the basement of of churches. But eventually we made it to the Lincoln Memorial, along with 200,000 other people from across the world to celebrate this anniversary. She did this in part because of her adoration for Martin Luther King Jr. And also for his messages of nonviolent protest and change. This inspired and taught these young people about the struggles and hardships suffered through the civil rights movement and how the messages of love and nonviolence reached so many different people from different races, religions and languages. In 1986, she decided to bring all of her talents and experiences back to the Swansea, Elyria, Globeville neighborhood. She started she wanted to start up the cross-community coalition Family Resource Center. The center was designed to meet the needs of our communities by providing service based programs such as GED classes, ESL programs, access to social services, parenting classes, afterschool and leadership programs for youth along with many other opportunities. This was a chance to bring together people from the surrounding neighborhoods to create positive change and provide success through education. One of my favorite quotes of quotes of hers regarding the service to others is if a person speaks only Spanish, well, that's going to limit their opportunities here. So let's teach them English. If a person never graduated from high school, they probably won't be able to get a job with decent pay. So we offer GED classes, and when they're done with those, we'll help them get a job. It's always been about, sure, you can do it. And here's the thing. When people know that you believe in them, they start to believe in themselves. This is who Lorraine was. She always said that it's not what you do. It is how you do this. This is the reason she is so loved and respected by the people who work with her for her, or were inspired by something she did. She would often tell our staff at the Cross Community Coalition. We need to recognize and honor the Spirit of God that lives within us all. If we can help each other while doing this with respect and dignity, then we truly are doing good work. As a part of her fight for justice, she took on the environmental issues that plagued our community. Most notably, she led a group of neighbors who filed a successful class action class action lawsuit against the Asarco smelting company because they had contaminated the groundwater and the soil of the nearby communities. At the time, this was the largest environmental settlement ever awarded in the state of Colorado. The settlement allowed for the soil testing and the remediation of lawns from the nearby communities. It also led to the eventual closure of this plant and launched a new focus of our work environmental justice. In 1995, the Vulcan Chemical Company had a tanker that spilled on the railroad tracks near 52nd in Milwaukee in a residential neighborhood. This released hydrochloric and muriatic acid into the air. Vulcan Chemical did nothing or did not follow the proper processes in notifying or evacuating the surrounding community. And as a result, Lorain led a group of residents who took Vulcan to court over this environmental hazard. They negotiated a settlement in the amount of $200,000. Lorain then raised the additional moneys that were used to purchase the land and all of the equipment. After designing the park with local neighbors. She then turned the property over to Parks and Recreation to keep as a city park. Laureen did not like nor craved the attention that came with her success. She always said that it was never her alone that did this work. It was always the good people along the way that made things change for the better. However, there were a few. There were two times that she was thrilled to be recognized. You'll see on the slide the top left picture. This is a picture of the human, the Martin Luther King Jr Humanitarian Award that she won in 1997. This made her incredibly proud and happy because this was her idol. The second was when she was invited to the White House by Hillary Clinton to celebrate the work that she had done with families and with children. Her legacy continues, as you can see. You probably recognize a couple of people, at least from the slide. Antonio Veal. Veal at the top left has been a principal for over ten years here in Denver. Early in his career, he worked for Lorain, the Cross Community Coalition. He attributes his evolution from a rebellious Let's Start the revolution to the understanding that peaceful conflict resolution has just as much power and more effect than anger or violence. Councilwoman CdeBaca probably said that cross-community coalition made a positive impact on her life and that Lorraine's messages of love, strength and community helped inspire her on her journey. Romelu Carillo in the top right picture. Is an elder in our community who is the perfect mom and neighbor. And she also says that she found her voice when the rain gave her the opportunity to become a community organizer. Ernestine Gallegos in the bottom left is a graduate of is a graduate of the leadership in youth programs at the Cross Community Coalition. She is a teacher in the Weld County School District, and she says that she is inspired by learning strength with compassion and the ability to bring groups of diverse people together to make positive change . In the bottom middle picture, you will see young women of color who come from similar backgrounds as Lorraine and have been inspired to follow in her footsteps. In the middle of that picture, you will see Adriana Garcia. She is Lorraine's granddaughter. She is a recent graduate of Arup, a Jesuit high school, and of the Porter Billups Leadership Academy at Regis University. After graduating from college, she wants to open up her own nonprofit, helping families and children. Lastly, you will see a picture of me. It's not impressive. But don't focus on me. Please look at the two young women in the background. I bring them up because I have the best job in the world. I'm the dean of a high school, and while I have no real talent or skill, I get to go to work every single day and I get to talk about the lessons and the love and the opportunities that education affords. All of these young people that I work with. I get to talk to Yardley and Fabiola about how they come from very similar circumstance, very humble beginnings. But that through this education, through their compassion, through their hard work, they can recognize and lift up their own communities and their own families. It is all of these voices that continue to allow. Lauren's legacy to live on. And it is with that that the Granado family humbly requests your support in naming the park at 52nd Avenue and still street the Lorraine Granado Community Park. Thank you very much progresses. Thank you. All right, Parks and Rec, did you have anything to add to that or. That's it. Thank you. Mr. President, members of council. My name is Happy Haines, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. And it was truly a pleasure for me personally to entertain this proposal and bring it to you. So before I make a couple of personal comments, I wanted to just cover with you the process that we use. The naming of this proposal does fit within the policies that we have for naming of parks in our department. It was presented to our Parks and Rec Recreation Advisory Board, which is comprised of your representatives and five additional mayoral representatives. They held a public hearing on the proposal and heard from Paul and the family members and unanimously recommended that I bring this forward to you this evening. So very pleased to do that on their behalf and just in the process, excuse me, of my staff sort of digging up the records of this of this park. And, you know, one sort of. Wondering in our minds, why. Why do. We leave a park with a, you know, a street name, a street corner for so long? And so we were just delighted that this park will contain a name of a woman who really just embodies that neighborhood in so many ways. She affected my life tremendously. And Paul has talked so much about the love that Lorain had for her community, for the people with whom she worked. I, I, I pointed out in the cab hearing she also had some tough love for for us, often in the community as an activist, she would let our city leaders and our community leaders know when she thought they weren't doing what was in the best interests of the community, especially those who were in greatest need. I had an opportunity in her work when I was an aide and to a city council member, and also when I was on City Council to work with Lorain on some of the issues around environmental justice in the communities. And she was relentless in her pursuit of justice for her community and for doing the right things, especially for children. I think she lived at the Cross Community Coalition building on the corner of 46th and York, Josephine. Josephine And it was a place where people were coming and going constantly for her help. And she never said no to anybody that I've ever heard about. And, you know, she she was just in that building all the time. So I don't know how you any of you ever saw her, but she she just was such a stalwart and somebody who cared so deeply about her community and and our entire city. So we are very proud to encourage you to vote in favor of this proposal this evening. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Now we have six people who are signed up to speak for 3 minutes each. So first up, we have Paul Anthony Garcia. Somebody signed up to speak against it. Good evening. City council members. I am Paul. Anthony Garcia, grandson of Loraine Granado. Here this evening. To express my undying gratitude for my grandmother. The work that she's done. For our community. She has inspired me since I was since I was born. To be just a good human, to be a good human being. And be kind to. Others and to be loving. This park is a representation of. Her and it is truly a gift to this community. I will visit this park. Forever. I will take my future children there and. My nieces and nephews and. Hopefully. Explain to them and. Help them understand what it. Means. You know, to be a good person. So I just hope that you take great consideration. On this matter. And thank you for hearing all that. Thank you. Next up, Sydney Gold. Not for this one. All right. Um, Jim Granado. Everyone. Good evening. My name is Jim Granato. I'm Lorraine's eldest son, and she's here to speak on this initiative to name the park in her name. I wrote down a couple of notes throughout her entire adult life for the better part of most of her 71 years. She lived within three blocks of this park. She was a resident of this neighborhood for her entire life. That park was just an open field of weeds and debris near to an industrial area with a lot of just it was in disrepair. Half of this, the second half of this block is developed and it has businesses there that are fenced off. They're there to build. But this was just an empty field. For until this park was put together. Through her life, she had a love. Of families. And her neighbors and. Particularly children. And she fought extensively for environmental justice. That was one of her main. Calling, one of her main things in life, one of the things that she loved to do. Across the street, across 52nd at about Adams Street, which is one block east of Steel Street. There's a trailer park there. And that trailer park has been there for as long as I've been around about 50 years and maybe even before my time. She recognized that the people in this trailer park had limited. Means, they had limited resources. And when Halloween came around, one of the stories is that she would always go and go to one of the stores, buy a bunch of candy, and bring it to the manager of this trailer park community. Knowing that the children in that community did not have the resources to get a costume where they would not go trick or treat and they would go without Halloween. So she would bring this candy to the manager and ask the manager to distribute that through the community to his trailer park residents. And she just loved the children and wanted to look out for them. When the environmental spill, when the train derailed and had the spill and she did all her work to get this park put together. She kept expressing that she would like to see a place for mothers and children to take their kids to go play, have a picnic, read a book. The things that you do at a park. She wanted that for our community. On the last day that we had her, on the day she passed. After the last trip out of her home, out of her community, we were left with an empty, an emptiness in the home. I took a walk over to that park with my dog. Not a pit bull, but a great dog nonetheless. And out of the trailer park came a father. Excuse me. And his two children. And they walked out and they were playing. And they will never know her name. They will never know how hard she worked so that they could spend the day in the sun together. I threw this ball to my dog. Go fetch. The ball. The dog looked. The other way and didn't go fetch the ball. One of these little boys, about six years old, ran over to it real nice. It brought it back to me. Here, mister. Here's your ball. And she did a lot to help this community and to make sure that. These children have a safe, clean place. To play with their families and to be safe. And I thank you for your consideration in naming and this proposal to name this park. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Sub Gonzalez. How are you doing? My name is Severino Gonzales and I was born and raised in Swansea and. I've known the ringer not all my whole. Life. My parents were heroin addicts growing up. I lost my father at ten years old to heroin overdose. Never really had a mom after that. I always played sports with Jimmy and Paul. Every time I look out in the stands, I'd see her. She'd always give me words of encouragement. Stuff like that. Never really had an education. And all my education on the streets. But every time I seen her, she'd always give me a little scolding and let me know what I was doing wrong. Said she had heard things about me. Never lied to her. Always told her the truth. When I got out of prison the first time, I had no place to go. So I went to the coalition. She got me. Work boots, bus pass. All of that stuff went back, did it again, came out. She helped me again, then later told her the truth. Last time I got out, she was really sick. She came to see me at a job that I had gone and served everybody food sat down. She asked me what was going to happen now because we've been through this road again. And I told her that I was going to be 40 and I didn't want to spend the rest of my life in prison. So after that, I discharged. I've been out for over ten years and working for the same company for 17, and she's put a lot of positive into my life just from being in the same neighborhood. And I'm one of those ones that you can say, I made it. You know, I have two kids that I sent to school. They both graduated because they had the homework help hotline that Paul in them always provided with cross-community coalition. I have two kids now. One's three, one's three months old, and I hope I can do the same thing for them. Give them the love and support that they need. Because I never had a father or mother, but Lorraine showed me that it was time to move on and take care of that. So. I've been a part as long as you my whole life. I live down the street from that park, and like Jimmy said, it was just a field. People would drop off their stolen cars there, strip them down, whatever, whatever. And she's changed that. Now it's a park. Now you can go play kids there. I'll take my kids there any day of the week. But she deserves that. And just to let you know. She's a good person. She's taken care of a lot of people in that neighborhood. So thank you. Thank you. Next up, Adriana Garcia. Good afternoon. My name is Adriano and I am fortunate to call her in Granada, my grandmother. I was able to grow up in the nonprofit organization that she founded. I was a I was taught since a very young age that it is very important and needed, especially in a community where minority's voice is not heard and respected . I've learned that I personally have a responsibility to help others to the best of my ability, just as my grandma did. Excuse me. So. And now it's on Regis University with the Full Ride scholarship. And I just recently started an internship at Bruce Randolph Middle School that is in Swanson neighborhood. And the short time that I have been there. I have realized how much my grandmother's legacy has impacted others, because I have had the opportunity to work with families who have who went to the Family Research Center that she founded. I have had the opportunity to work with families that were helped by her, that her parents helped or she helped the parents of the students that I am now working with. This is also sorry. One of the coolest things that I've seen is that now I do work with the children and I believe that this is what a community should be. This has also reinforced my passion to either work with a nonprofit organization or to start a. Nonprofit with families. And children. This is the impact that my grandma had on my life and on those in my community. And I thank all of you for considering the naming of the park after. Thank you. Well, and next up is Ernestina Gallegos. So my name is Cynic. I guess I am a community member. I live in Globeville and Lorain did so much for me personally, my family and our communities. So I just wanted to express how important she was in my life. There's lots of things, but I'm going to tell you two stories. First, as a young person, I saw my mom. Absolutely transform from a timid person to a confident woman with a voice, her community and her family. My mother told me that she started. My mother told me that she was sealer in. The community meetings for Globeville, and she actually thought Lorain was from Globeville because she made every single one. Every single time she would see my mom, she would go out of her. Way to. Greet her and talk to her, which my mom really appreciated that she asked my mother to participate. As a board. Member for cross-community coalition. My mother always said no, but Lorain persisted because she was relentless. And she, my mom finally told her, I'm too quiet. I shouldn't be on the board. Lorain response. Lorraine's response was, You are a good person to be on the board because when you talk, it is important and it needs to be heard . When you talk, it makes sense. This trust that my mom felt for her, gave my mom the confidence and courage to become a member of the board. And then she continued to do numerous other volunteer work in our community, going out to people's homes and informing. People about different things. My mom went on to do. So many things and for me as a young person, a very timid mother. For her to see this change as a young person, it was very. Influential. For me and. I hadn't even met Lorien at this point. When my mom did become. On the board. Of course, all of her kids, me that was still at home, had to participate in everything that cross-community was doing. So I participated in the peace project where there was videography, poetry, our artists, different artists. We painted a peace van and. All of these. Things opened my. Up in my perception of what I could do and where I could be at the same time, and promoting peace in our community. Secondly, as I became an adult, she actually hired me and I worked across community and just being under her wing and seeing all of the numerous things, all of the people that were there. How, you know. Conflict did arise between them. But they were people that were for the community and they worked through that conflict. It was very it's very. Important for me. As a young person to see that that conflict isn't something that you run from, but it's something you work through for your community. And I when I was working there, I told my dad one day, I want to I want to work at a nonprofit. I want to I want to make my own nonprofit like Cross Community. And my dad at that time said, you know. You wanted to be the first Mexican-American president. Then then you were going to be a. Doctor, then you're going. To be a teacher, and now you're going to be nonprofit. The money is getting less and less. And so I said, okay, I'll be a teacher. And when I retire, that's still my goal. Thank you very much. Consider her for the party. Thank you. All right. And we had a few technology glitches. I just want to make sure that we got to everybody who signed up to speak. Yes, you miss anyway. Okay. All right. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council members, anyone? You know, no question. Council woman ORTEGA. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to just ask Manager Haynes. The part of the PowerPoint said that the park had been designated or dedicated. But I'm trying to find out. Has it officially been dedicated? Yes, it has. It is an official park in our park system, Councilwoman Ortega. And if I may, Mr. President, it was mentioned in one of the stories sorry, I'm having a hard time. I was emotional or it was mentioned that, um, I think her son said that the kid who visited might never know who it was that made that park possible. Well, part of this proposal in naming this park is to do just that and to make sure that every kid and every family who visits that Parks knows exactly who was responsible for that park being there. So, uh, later this spring, when we finally get out of this season of snowing every other day, we do plan to have a dedication ceremony for the naming for the new sign that will be at that park. We will have interpretive signage that will share some of Lorraine's story so that future families and children who visit the park will know, in fact, who made it possible for that park to be there to serve that community. So we will invite all of you and we'll let you know when that occurs. And one last question. This is about the process. You talked about that a little bit, but I think for my colleagues, knowing that Parks and Rec has a three year, normally three years that someone has to have passed before a park could be named after them. If you could just explain how this. Yes, our policy does require under ordinary circumstances that a person will have been deceased for a minimum of three years before a naming proposal would be accepted. But there is an exception to that part of the proposal for individuals who contribute to so a gift that if the meter exceeds half of the value of the park or the facility is considered acceptable for a naming. And I will as you heard from Paul and as we certainly found in our in our records, both the acquisition and the development of the park would not have occurred. But for Lorraine Granado, she she secured all the funding. She secured some of the funding from some of the settlement, from the in the cases of contamination in that community and directed all of them to this project and then led it to make sure that it got designed and built and worked with the city planners at that time. So her proposal comes under that section of the naming proposal. Thank you for the question. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Coulson. Right. Director. Good. Two related questions. The first, why does someone why should someone be deceased? And then second, was there a thought behind the number three or was that like, why three years? Yes, Councilman, this this notion that. A park should be named for someone of a substantial note in the community and that the and it was this was a long standing policy and thinking for a long time was that a person's legacy is often not fully established until well after they are gone. And then and that that sort of when a community feels so strongly about a person's legacy after that period of time, then it really, truly is someone who has a lasting legacy. That policy originally called for seven years, and so for many years a person had to be deceased for seven years before a proposal would be considered . The Parks and Rec Advisory Board took that issue up in 2017, I believe, and decided that that it was more reasonable a three year period would be more reasonable. And so that was that that was the thinking of the. Advisory board at the time. Great. Thank you, Director Higgins. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. All right, so no other questions. Public hearing for counsel Bill 88 is closed. Comments by Members of Council Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. Lorraine was a neighbor, a revolutionary mother, a freedom fighter, an environmental justice warrior, and an overall Denver hero. This is a full circle moment for me. Lorraine came back to our community when the year that I was born. I'm a fifth generation resident of Swansea and a product of the movement that she built. Lorraine gave us this park among so many other things, and we don't always get to honor those from our community who have sacrificed blood, sweat, tears and community and family for us. When Happy made the comment about her family seeing her often. I recognize the sacrifice that you all made for her to give to our community what she gave us. And I thank all of you for that. Because to have someone be a mother to a community means that you have to share her. And you all indeed shared her. And I thank you for it. And I'm committed to making sure that I share my life with my community in the same way. Lorraine was one of the first environmental justice warriors of Denver. Before we even had a name for it, Lorraine was fighting against environmental racism with her fight and the identification of the Superfund site and consequent cleanup. She made a healthier place not just for our community, but for the top housing market in the country. This would not have been possible if she had not cleaned up our neighborhood to the degree that made it livable. She started an organization that became home to so many future organizations. She paved the way for future leaders, including myself. She taught me how to be a leader before she taught me how to be an organizer, before I even knew what organizing or issue based advocacy was. And she did that. The way Ernestine A shared she did. She. She taught you. She saw your strength and helped you elevate your strength. She helped you strengthen and refine who you were. I was six years old when Lorraine was passing out fliers to neighborhood kids to turn us into block captains so that we could get our fliers to our different houses in our neighborhood to tell our parents that they could get their yards cleaned up. I didn't know at that time that I was becoming a community organizer. The home that she created for cross-community coalition the first time was so much more than an environmental justice organization for kids like me who didn't have a computer to do my homework on. Lorraine allowed me a space to come in and to type all night. She'd leave the door, she'd lock the door and let me stay there, typing my homework, my papers. And she trusted us. And she gave us that foundation we needed to build something and to become something. But she taught us how to come back to our community. And I think that's the most important thing that she instilled in all of us, was to come back to our community and give our community what others had given us. And so naming this park is not only a reminder of who Lorraine was and the legacy she left to us, but also a reclamation, a symbol of reclaiming our neighborhood. And what and a reminder that we could do what she did. By just showing that love and pushing through conflict to tell our community that they're worth it and show them how to claim it. So thank you all for going through this. Thank you. Happy for making the exception to do this differently because of her contribution. It means so much to me and I hope that we plan her the the park naming on her birthday. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Ortega. I'm going to try to get through this. First of all. Lorraine was my friend. You couldn't work with her and not end up being an amazing friend to her because of. Just the incredible work that she did in this in this community. And Cross-community Coalition was an organization that brought those three communities together as one community. Everybody saw Globeville, Elyria and Swansea as one neighborhood. I'm not sure that people see it that way these days, but she was that unifier. She was that one catalyst in the community who could walk into all three of these neighborhoods and not be seen as, Oh, wait a minute, you can't tell us what to do. You're from you're from over there. No, she brought all these communities together and the role that she played. She was the catalyst who helped find the attorney that then filed the lawsuit against Asarco and and really kind of forced the cleanup that was being negotiated between Asarco and the state to be done at a much, much deeper level than what was being proposed. And again, it was the largest property damage settlement case in the state that resulted in the residents who lived in Globeville, whose properties were were harmed from the heavy metals from Asarco, to actually get some some benefit from all of that. I can remember being a staff person to sell Carpio and having to go out to meetings in the neighborhoods. And every single time I would get lost. You know, I mean, we didn't have MapQuest back then, right? So I. I learned all the back roads, you know, and over time, I was able to maneuver through all the back roads when people would be stuck on I-70. But you look at what's going on today in these poor neighborhoods are just being inundated with so much, so much impact from the construction, so much impact from gentrification that's been happening. And and I really I miss her so much because. She would be in the trenches making sure that the community as a whole was organized and was doing everything possible to address what's going on there today, not just what's happened in the past, but what's what's going on there today. And I just I just can't tell you how much I loved Lorraine, because she did so much for these communities in her work at Cross Community, all the programs that Councilwoman CdeBaca and her family talked about. I spent so many times there at the at cross community for different meetings and in working on on so many of the things that were happening there. And this park is so symbolic of. Showing the love she had for her own community and the work she put in to making sure that those natural resource damage funds could have gone to anything. It could have gone to programs across community. But I think it had to go towards some land use benefit. And what better place than across the street from a trailer park? We're very, very low income families with lots of small children reside and had no place else to go because those parents were not going to let their kids loose to go blocks away over to Swansea, a rec center or Swansea a park. They would they would let them play in the field across the street that didn't have the improvements. So now having that park with those improvements to benefit those kids is is. With her name on there and with information about who she was and what her contributions were to the community. I can't think of a better way. And the reason it is so important that that is a dedicated park is that that park will remain there forever unless the voters ever decide that property needs to be sold. So that legacy, her legacy and her contributions will remain there for years and years into the future. And I am honored to support this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. So I just want to start by saying thank you to the family. Not so long ago, my father passed away and I had to stand up in front of a group of people and ask for a high school to be named after the person of high school. And I remember breaking down and crying and having to say talk myself in my head that it was okay to show emotion, even though sometimes in the Latino community it's better not to cry. So you did it with such dignity. All of you would. And our ancestors never leave us. Right? We stand on their shoulders. And she is here with you today. And she is standing in heaven, smiling down at you with such honor and pride, how you recognized her and how you spoke to her, and how passionately you all talked. And that is something that death can never take away from all of you, is that connection. So I will just start with that. And I just her work changed forever. I have friends who grew up in Globeville, Elyria and Swansea, and they have all the girls have lupus. And there's I have friends who have died of cancer who have grown up in global or in Swansea. I have cousins who live there who are very sick and your mom and the Asarco ran the Superfund site, changed their lives, and people can have gardens without being scared and people can have a different way of life. So thank you so much for that. And with the naming of this, as Councilman Ortega said, it will forever be here and it will forever be told. And one day, many generations from now, someone's going to say, who is that person? And they're going to probably have Google and be able to Google it really easily. And I wrote down the quote, It's not what you do. It's how you do it. And I will remember that as a council member, because sometimes I miss my dad so much up here that I have a hard time personally. I miss his guidance. And so I know all of you and this whole community, I'm sure, miss her guidance and I will honor those words with me as I move through this journey of it's not what I do, it's how I do it. So thank you all. And it will be my honor to vote yes in favor of this naming. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Torres. Thank you so much, Mr. President. And thank you to the family for coming out. And thank you for introducing me to your mom. I really appreciate that. And I look forward to sharing who she was and what her legacy is with my West Side community. So thank you so much. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to say to the family and to the folks who might be watching that one of the most amazing things that I've discovered about serving in this role, and I know that every member up here will feel this is the opportunity to memorialize great people who have done great things for Denver, people that we knew in the flesh. You are now gone, but need to be remembered as the family. So very well said and very emotionally. I could feel that. And it was my I was honored to know your mother through my work at the newspaper over the years with the Asarco lawsuit and with the her push to relocate I-70 up north of the stock show and all sorts of of efforts and how she was a great fighter for the community. And so I wanted to share what the Councilwoman Ortega said about her. And it is just an honor. It's humbling to know that when we vote tonight, we will make this a permanent memorial. And I love I love what you said about how she converted that dirt lot, that that wasteland into a community park and how people will always remember. And finally, I think what I want to say is I am just I just think your mother's name, Lorraine Granato, it just strikes me as such a strong, wonderful name. It will never no voters will ever sell that park councilwoman. And I'm just honored and humbled to be able to vote yes for for your mother's memory. I think I still have her. I kept my old analog Rolodex from the Rocky Mountain News when you used to put them on little cards on that circular thingy before we put them on computers in the mid eighties. So I call it my analog rolodex. And your mom's name is in there somewhere I might try to find right what I do with that and dig it out and just remember her in a special way. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I can only hope that I have a sense the impact on my community, as Miss Renato has had on each of you addresses. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Gilmore. Thank you, President Clarke. Thank you so much for your amazing words about your mom and grandmother and friend. And she's legendary. I mean, you know what she did to create the park and how she went about that, and especially with the natural resource, the damage funds and really ensuring because those damaged funds don't have to go. Right next to the neighborhood. They can go wherever. And it's a very convoluted process. And following how she moved through that challenge and pulled community together and continued to do so, I want to share with you. So I started a nonprofit called Environmental Learning for Kids over 20 years ago in the Montebello community and with the close proximity to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, it was a Superfund site as well, and there were dam installers. And when we went to the attorney general's office, they were like, No, you don't need the damage funds right next to Montebello. You don't need to buy any land there. We're going to send them way over across the city. And of course, the folks in Marbella were like, what were the ones closest to that? And so really looking at and studying and and talking with people that worked with her to make that happen was really how we were able to, in the Montebello community, secure five and a half acres of land and it's being made into a park and hopefully someday that land will be designated as the Montebello Open space. And so her legacy and what she did continues on not only in your neighborhood but in other neighborhoods throughout the city. And I loved it when you shared that, you know, she had Trinidad and San Luis Valley connections. My family is from Trinidad. And and I think that that feeling of a connection to the land and how healing the outdoors and how healing nature is, it's truly a gift that you can give to your community. And it sounds like she gave that gift over and over to all of you. And so I just wanted to share that story with you around how her actions reached far and wide beyond the community. And thank you for being here and sharing sharing that. Thank you. Thank you. President Clark. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your wonderful words. All of you spoke. I did not know you miss Grenada, your mother, your grandmother, your friend. I don't know you, but I feel her through you. I grew up in a family where public service was just something you did, you know? And I remember going over to friends houses whose parents weren't involved in the community at that level. And there would be of, well, you know, Dad works hard or mom's busy and it's like, yeah, we all are, but it's your community. If you don't raise it up, who is going to, you know and. I just see that the pride that you all have in that, because I felt that I was pleased that, you know, my dad worked six days a week and found that found time to contribute at night and on weekends. And Mom worked full time and raised a family and she found time. And, you know, as a community, your mom, Canada, will be. Memorialized. At this park at 52nd Avenue, but our entire community rises up on the spirits of people like Lorraine Granado. So thank you very much. It is truly an honor. And I am just so I don't know that I'm proud of myself. I'm just amazed that I haven't started weeping yet. You very touching words. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Ortega, you back up? Yes. I just wanted to mention that Lorraine's mother, Tillie, is is still among us. And I'm sure that she wanted to be here tonight. I don't know if she's watching, but I just wanted to make sure that she knew that I appreciate her contributions to raising such an amazing young woman that had so much impact on all of us. I remember your grandpa Joe as well, and I would just say that two comments that Councilwoman Gilmore was saying, she touched so many lives across this whole city. Her work with American Friends Service Committee, I mean, she worked with people all across the city. And that was exemplified by, you know, so many people that came to her service and not only showed their love for Lorraine, but their love for the family. So I just want to, again, thank you all for coming out tonight and for your efforts and really happy, too, to be supporting this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I will just end and then we're going to vote, which is going to be a lot of fun tonight because what a great story. And I just want to echo what a lot of people have said. And thank you for sharing Lorraine with us tonight. But with the city and you know, and echo what Councilmember Gilmore was talking about with those funds and how hard it is even I mean, never name the battle to get those funds, to get that settlement, but then to get those funds back to something usable in the community . We had the same thing in the overall neighborhood in my district where there were Shattuck remediation funds. They sat for 25 years before anyone could figure out how to get those dollars out of a bank account and back into something for the community. And so, I mean, to first take on the battle to win and then to be able to get those dollars right back in into here and into a park. You know, I spent my entire career before this working in parks and connecting kids and families to parks and the power that that has to change a person's life , that access to some greenspace and some space for community and for exploration and for adventure right in the middle of your neighborhood is so important. And often we will have, you know, a great person who did lots of great things in the city, who were naming a park after does not necessarily even related to that park or that piece of land. Here we have an amazing individual who did so many amazing things, but also single handedly handed the city, the property and the park. And getting to name that park after that person is really is really amazing. It's really a treat. And again, we're you know, there's a lot of things that we do in this job and you got to maybe see some of it tonight waiting for this. And sorry that it's been such a late night for you, but it's it's moments like this that are really special to be able to be a part of your story and be able to cast one of those votes to permanently name this park. And I am excited to do so. So without further ado, Madam Secretary, let's vote. Black eye. See? CDEBACA Absolutely. When I. Gillmor. I. Herndon. Hi. Hi. Cashman. Ortega. Hi. Sandoval. Sawyer Torres. I council president. Hi. Madam Secretary, are we missing one? Okay. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 1111 Eyes Council Bill 88 has passed. Congratulations. Thank you all very much for your responsiveness, Deborah. My grandmother is at home. She's been watching this on Channel eight. Hi, Grandma. Grab that microphone so she can hear you. My grandmother is at home watching and she is still in good health. She is still leading our family. She was my mother's best friend. And so we truly thank all of you for this honor. God bless you all.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.97 relating to Tenant Relocation Assistance, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05212019_19-0502

Our next item is. 710. Item 17 Communications from City Attorney Recommendation to DEQ to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Minister Code relating to tenant relocation assistance. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading City. Okay, thank you. Let me turn this over to Mr. West or someone from staff. Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, the city attorney is going to walk through a presentation of the ordinance and then staff will be available for questions. Honorable Mayor, members of the council. As you know, on April 2nd, the council directed our office to prepare an ordinance establishing a tenant relocation assistance program, requiring that, among other things, and under certain conditions, landlords make relocation payments to tenants upon termination of their tenancy. The that motion adopted at the previous council meeting was as detailed as could be reasonably expected, and it provided our office with specific direction on substantive provisions to be included in the ordinance. And I, on behalf of myself, of course, and our office and staff would like to thank Council for taking the time to provide us with that detailed direction it provided. Very helpful in drafting the ordinance. With that said, the Council direction understandably did not provide detail on all aspects of a relocation payment program and the implementation thereof. So therefore we added certain provisions which were not discussed at the previous council meeting and which were not included in the previous direction. We are we are very sensitive to and appreciative of the fact that both supporters and opponents of this ordinance, many of whom are here now, hold their opinions dearly and are otherwise passionate about tenant relocation. So with that in mind, our intention was to make such additions and tweaks to the provisions of the ordinance as proposed by the motion, as reasonable and fair as possible, without unduly favoring either landlords or tenants. And we hope we did that. I'd like to briefly point out the additions and tweaks that I just mentioned and explain the reasoning behind them. There are three in particular that I'd like to highlight. The first one is section 8.90 7.020 gee, which is the definition of a tenant in good standing? The council motion directed our office to define good standing as a tenant who has been in a unit for more than one year. That provision has not changed and the motion directed our office to attend in good standing would be more than one year. And then the second component would be that the tenant had not violated or or committed any of the nine valid causes for eviction as outlined in by state law. There was quite a bit of discussion about those nine causes for eviction as outlined by state law. I think we were all a little misguided in that, in assuming that maybe the California civil code or code of civil procedure outlined in one place nine different reasons for eviction. That's not the case. They are sprinkled throughout the state law. And because of that, we didn't think it made a lot of sense to specifically call out each of the nine causes for eviction as a reason why a tenant might not be eligible for relocation. A lot of them had to do with specific things like engaging in cockfighting, dogfighting, the illegal discharge of ammunition in the unit. Those are basically have been simplified and boiled down into one just saying a tenant would not be eligible for relocation if they have used the unit or the surrounding property on which the unit sits for an unlawful purpose. That was while it could win against what you directed me to do. I think it was within the spirit and I think it made things simpler. There was also a fair amount of discussion regarding if a tenant had violated one of those provisions, had committed either been late in the payment of rent or had committed unlawful activity while on the premises. Would there be any way to cure that in so many words, so that if they made things right, they would thereafter be eligible for relocation assistance? My me working with staff made the determination that it would be fair. Things that are reasonably susceptible to cure, like the payment of rent. If a tenant had been late on rent several months or years prior to the trigger event, that would give them relocation and they had otherwise made things right. Paid late fees, brought rent, current, and anything else the lease required them to do. They would still be eligible for tenant relocation if the tenant in the past, however, had committed an illegal act at the property had her. And so on and so forth that would permanently render them ineligible for tenant relocation assistance. The second thing I want to highlight is the timing of the payment that Section 8.90 7.0 30c as in Cat. No specific direction was given to our office regarding when relocation payment would be paid. However, effectively, it was required to be paid on the last day of a tenant's tenancy because of the fact that failure to pay relocation would be an affirmative action to to an eviction. So a landlord would have to make payment on the last day in an effort to provide more specificity on on when tenant relocation payments need to be paid and to ensure that some of the money is paid earlier than the last day of tenancy, but also to incentivize the tenant to actually leave after they've received half of their or a portion of their tenant relocation payment in 8.90 7.30. See, I have split the baby, so to speak. Half is due within 14 days, more or less depending on the trigger event 14 days after the trigger event. And then the other half is due five days after the tenant vacates the unit. The third item I'd like to point out is that the landlords this was not discussed on April 2nd and through nobody's fault the landlord requirement to pay relocation. I think it's important that if the county or any other government agency were ever to require relocation of a landlord to a tenant, that the relocation payment due under this ordinance would be reduced by the amount that that landlord would have to pay the tenant under some other provision of law. I don't think it was anyone's intention to place two relocation payments upon a landlord, and it was something I had not considered until I reviewed some other ordinances that other municipalities have recently adopted that are very similar to what is before you tonight. That's it. As far as things I wanted to highlight in the ordinance, it's been public for some time. I'm sure there'll be some comment regarding other provisions, but I'd finally like to note that another item that was discussed quite a bit on April 2nd was an additional $2,000 in benefit payable to disabled and or and or senior citizen tenants. That is not included in this ordinance, and that's by design, because I believe that the council's direction on April 2nd was to make that a city funded program. So I just wanted everyone to understand that it wasn't left out on purpose. That is still something it would be inappropriate to have it in the ordinance. But my understanding is, is that more detail regarding that additional $2,000 of funding, therefore, will be brought before the Council at a later date by staff. That is it for my presentation. Myself and staff are standing by to take any further direction that you might have with respect to the audience and or answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Gonzales. You want to go to public comment first? Okay. Public comment on the ordinance is proposed. Please come forward. Please come forward. And so we will go down to. There's more than ten folks. So unless there's any objection from the council, we're going to go to 90 seconds. Oh, there's there's no objection from the council. So we will go to 90 seconds. Got it. Stop listening to paid speakers bustin here to tell you exactly. What they claim. A problem is there is no problem in Long Beach. For affordable housing. Look at other beach cities. Look at Manhattan Beach. Look at Malibu. Look at these places. You're fixing a problem that doesn't exist. What you're doing is you're driving out landlords. If you go ahead and pass this ordinance, my property will lose easily. $100,000 in value. If there's 1000 such five plus units in Long Beach. You're taking away $100 million from property owners. The persons here. That you're harming are going to be the tenants also. You're going to cause problems between the tenants and the landlords. In Santa monica, you will have. Tenants that are paying $800 for a property because they've been there since the 1980s. Their neighbors are paying $4,000. This is going to happen in Long Beach. You're going to have tenants that are paying extremely low rent. And the landlords are going to make up for it by charging. Other tenants more. You're harming the exact people you're claiming you're supposed to be saving. Stop this. Just be shamed at yourselves. Thank you. Next week. Hi there. I'm Linda Olsen. I'm a small property owner in Long Beach. Also, thank you for allowing me to speak here. One thing that hasn't been factored into this discussion of tenant relocation assistance is the law of unintended consequences. If you are going to ladle on to property owners and their operating expenses an additional 40 $500. Per unit. Per year potentially there's only one place for that money that's got to go into the operating budget to come from. It's only one place it comes from and that's from the rent that is collected from the tenants. Therefore, property owners are going to have to increase rents to cover that cost. So landlords throughout the city who otherwise might not increase rents, you know, maybe more two or 3% are going to have to increase 10% every single year in order to make up. That cost of 40 $500 per unit. The law. Of. Unintended consequences. This does not make for better housing for tenants. Every tenant in this room, every tenant in this city is going to see their rent go up more than it would have gone up if you had let this be the law of unintended consequences. Thank you. HUME Let's pick up. Vice Mayor Andrews. Councilmembers. My name is Mike Murchison. I'm here on behalf of quite a few rental property owners. The organization, as you know, a spot. I think one of the big concerns that I have tonight is, is that we spent a great deal of time since April 2nd when this first came up to try to get the rental property owners and the various groups on the same page. And we accomplished that. We've had significant number of briefings. We've had communications with all of you individually, and there are just two items that are left that we are advocating for change. One is 180 days notice in lieu of reload, and the other is the four units to five units. And we settled on a middle ground with that argument, too. I'm asking that after you get your viewpoint from the city attorney tonight, if it's deemed substantive, if Charlie deems it substantive, those two items, then you postpone this first reading until June 11th. There's no reason. There's no reason to not do that. There's nothing that I can figure out that makes sense why this needs to be voted on tonight. Those two issues are critical to rental property owners, and these are rental property owners that have all come together to throw away their differences, narrow it down to two items, and try to keep it as simple as possible so that the tenants and the rental property owners can move forward. But if we jam this through tonight with some promise of a future date, it puts at risk everything that the rental property owners have been discussing since April 2nd. Thank you. Thank you. Next week. Hello, City Council. My name is Bob Stallings. I'm a broker owner of Remax, real estate specialist in Long Beach for the past 32 years. Very concerned about private property rights as everybody that owns property should be. I'll read very quickly since the time is short. I'm representing, by the way, not only my company, but I'm speaking on behalf of our association, Pacific West Association of Realtors. The passage of just cause eviction laws eliminate property owner or operators right to serve on a non non-renewal notice on a resident at the end of lease term unless in case the property owner pays the tenant to move. This only creates additional housing and. Financial burdens for everyone. We respectfully request that the Long Beach City Council take a look. Slow down there. As the gentleman just said, you don't need a rush requiring because the ordinance requires means. Testing for tenants to. Receive relocation benefits, increasing the number of units that trigger tenant relocation to five units or more. We'd like to see that. And removing just cause eviction elements in order to protect the good tenants that we have from bad tenants. Very important. So please postpone any vote until you have further study. The city government should take care of hurting people from public funds, not from an individual landowner. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Joshua Christian. I'm an attorney at the Legal Aid Foundation of L.A. I work in the Long Beach Office and our homelessness prevention department. I wanted to comment on a few provisions that we propose that we do not believe are substantive to the ordinance. First, I want to talk about splitting the baby in terms of relocation assistance. Right now, the ordinance says that relocation should be paid in one piece before a tenant moves on one piece. Afterword. I think this fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the ordinance. Relocation assistance is necessary because tenants do not have the money to move. It's not a reward for moving. Tenants don't have the money for a new apartment. Now my clients don't have $1,000 for a security deposit and for some last month's rent. They need to have the full relocation prior to moving if they're even going to apply. So we proposed two straightforward and effective timelines. One is, if there's a 60 day notice, the landlord pays relocation in full within 15 days. The other one is if a landlord raises the rent and the tenant chooses to leave, the tenant lets the landlord now and the landlord pays within five days. This means that the tenant is empowered to search for an apartment immediately upon payment. I also want to note that a landlord's failure to notify a tenant of relocation rights should be added as an affirmative defense to eviction. Civil damages and penalties by themselves do not effectively enforce the ordinance. A small claims judgment and a civil penalty 18 months down the line does not help my client 18 months later when she's been evicted and she's living on the pavement. So thank you. Good evening. My name is Alex Flores. I'm also a staff attorney with. The Legal Aid Foundation. Here in Long Beach. I want to start out by. Giving you a reason why we need to vote on this tonight and have it go forward. Just last week, our office was contacted by Ms.. Gloria Varanasi. She is a tenant in Councilmember Andrew Soucek in the sixth District. She received a 218% rent increase. The only help that she could get was contact LaFleur. This is why we need this. And this is why we need this now. As my colleague explained, we have suggested three, three things that would clarify the law to make it what it's supposed to be, to allow tenants to actually leave, but do so on their feet and not evicted, not straight to the pavement. Obviously, we want this ordinance to go to be passed as soon as possible or else. The longer we wait, the more that there are. Gloria's out there, elderly, not being able to find a place to move should any of these changes be deemed substantial. I think that there are different things that we can do to be able to work with that. I would ask the. City Council to please inquire. With the city attorney to see what we can do in order to keep these. Possible suggestions alive as we move on with the statute. Today. There are other options, like removing some of the problematic language, like the 14 day requirement, like the like the requirement regarding when the realtor has to be paid by the tenant, by the landlord. Thank you. Yeah. Joe Soto, you've got my name and number on file. And, you know, I'm an investor and there's two fellows who spoke before me would scare the crap out of me. As an investor. I wouldn't come to Long Beach to put money into this this city. I wouldn't do it. I'd go somewhere else. I'd go somewhere else. That city wants to continue to grow and upgrade and make it a wonderful city. Long Beach used to be a Navy town and people bought properties, investors bought properties and they knocked down old buildings, they attracted new businesses, and all of that was capitalism. You can't put a cap on our rent and say, you're a capitalist. You can't you're not. You can't do that. In fact. You all gave your word to P.W. Ah. When you interviewed them for their support and. And their endorsement. You all said that you were against rent control. This is rent control. It's an aspect of it, but it is rent control. Now we're going to see who keeps their word tonight. Thank you. Good evening, Council. And the mayor who's just coming back. My name is Rob Feldman, my wife and I, Debbie and Rob Feldman. We've been with Keller Williams Coastal, but we've been in the real estate world for. Over 28 years. And we've seen. Ups and downs, seen it many, many times. And I could go over all the specifics tonight, but it looks like we're on the tail end of this. And all I really want to say is that the current. Proposal I. Believe and we believe excuse me, in the realty world that'll make housing crisis worse and will only have unintended consequences that will hurt our communities for years to come. At its most basic premise is government control and regulation of how much property owners can charge, undermining the key provisions of landlord and tenant relationships. Let's not forget that. Excuse me. Let me speak. We recognize the various goals and policy options the City Council is trying to balance and are confident that upon more robust discussion, a long term solution that addresses the concerns of housing, industry and homeowners and tenant groups can be achieved. A policy of this magnitude needs to be discussed more in depth, and hopefully you all will see it tonight. I understand there's going to be the vote, but love to see it discussed even more. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Jim Meyer. And we have we're we're a mom and pop operation and I'd like to address the Andrew sent me a letter on a response. I sent him and he said things like unusual, large number of rent increase. How many is unusual large number ten for three. Now, if you want. And you also want all your tenants here, your constituents. Well, you didn't bark when when the city raised the tickets for street sweeping 20%. But you only allow us 10%. There's something wrong that you do this to your constituents. And I know because I got property in your district and these people scramble every day, you should see them scrambling like like ants to move their car so they don't get that big increase in your in your penalties. So why are you rate able to raise it 20%? And you you say we can only raise 10%. This is the case of the the camel getting his head under the tent. This is all it is. So let's just let the land we get along. We have people have been with us 25, 26 years. We get people Christmas presents, we get people hams. Whenever there's a tragedy in the family, this is what individual landowners do and this is what we do. We're not the big guys, so why penalize small people? Thank you. Good evening, counsel. Robert Fox, executive director of the Council of Neighborhood Organizations. I'm here to speak on the just cause eviction aspect of this. Number one, the city attorney has made it very amorphous in terms of nuisance behavior. Very difficult to prosecute in court. We have council members who are attorneys who actually know what civil procedure is. I'm here to protect the neighborhoods. When I founded Alameda Speech, it was a drug infested, thug, gang infested neighborhood. It was not considered quality when we went to evict tenants. We had to have tenant testimony in order to have a preponderance of the estimate of the evidence. However, we forgot that there's a 3 to 4 week lockout period. These same tenants that were so brave to testify were beaten within an inch of their lives. We cannot morally ask tenants to testify when it puts their lives at risk. So I wish that we will reconsider this, take more time to not read this into the into the record tonight. I think that you have serious things to discuss. I was a tenant for 27 years. I know exactly what this is all about. I agree that we should be careful with our rent increases. But let's let the neighborhoods protect themselves. Because if we go down this path, it'll be like going back to 1990. And that was not a good year for Long Beach. Thank you. I call loosely. I'm the president of the East Side. Voice My address is on file. I just wanted to talk for a moment about just cause eviction. I was at someone's house one day that was a property owner and his property manager was there. And a phone call came in and he looked frantic and he was going to run out the door. And I said, you know, what's the problem? And he said, Oh, I just got a call from a tenant. Saying There's bugs all over the apartment. And he grabbed his stuff and ran out the door. I happened to be there when he got back and I said, What was that all about? And he said, There wasn't a single bug. That was a guy on crack. And these were nice apartments. These weren't, you know, junky apartments. So that made me think about what would you do if you were the landlord in that situation? How do you prove. Somebody is on crack? Do you get to. Go to a get together urinalysis, walk to the door and ask for that to get a blood sample? How do you prove it? In the end, what happened is, you know, the other tenants have to be brave enough to join you. And I can. Tell you from having bad neighbors myself, I was the only person willing to take them on. People are afraid of going up against someone who's working in the drug world. Imagine the cost of trying to move them out. The lawyers fees of 50 K. What ends up with your apartment building? When that happens, the other people move out. The good people move out. So just cause there's so many unintentional. Thank you. All righty. Kozol. Chuck Brewer, proud Long Beach resident since 1976. I love the city and I love what you have done to the city. So I remember the council. I like to say thank you. The place looks a lot better, but use of what's going on now will be consequences. It'll come back to bite us in the back and. But five, ten years from now, I deal with investors, and I'm a firm believer that investors are going to do exactly what we've seen in the state where you see Toyota leave Nissan, leave, Nabisco, leave, 16,000, 16,000 businesses have gone out of state. I know of investors that are all right now talking about a credit I'll get a listing of. But after that, you're going to get other people coming in to buy and they will not. Be able to keep up the places because of rents go with repair. And I'm saying to you. The landlords that I know want to have a good, solid community. To work with. They do not. Want to buy into rent control. And this is right on the edge of rent control. Don't say it. It. So it isn't. And I wish you the best in this decision. But one other item is I do not understand why in the provision and it has a 1 to 3 units are exempt. And the fourth is not that loans are not sold in that manner. Thank you. You already know, Ms.. Andrews. I'm a proud sixth district rat that took the magic school bus. That took the Magic School bus of righteousness to be here. And I'm so happy I'm here. I'm here for the tenants, you know, I'm here for the people who who pay for these. Fortune 500 companies are behind us. Coldwell Bankers, that's a Fortune 500 company owned by Realogy Remax. That's a Fortune 500 company. These are not small business owners. This is not mom and pops behind us. This is crony capitalism. Excuse you. This is crony capitalism. Who's ask? Excuse you. You need to be quiet. You need to be quiet when I'm up here. That's. That's called decorum. Please, you. Guys, please show some respect for this. Please continue. Thank you, sir. You know, proper decorum anyways. You know, we learned about that in the you know, when those hand out the the hands and everything. But, you know, here we have crony capitalism that complain about communism. Right. But they're asking for government intervention to prevent the market from doing what the market says. So it's okay for you to get Prop 13 and it's okay for you to get the inherited tax breaks and in tax incentives. But it's not okay for me to inherit the fact that the communities that I grew up in, the communities that sustained you while you talk about the nineties, well, we had to live through it. We had to live through the gangs and the crack. You didn't want to you don't want to put any money into the buildings now and now that new people are moving in. Now you want to pay an okay, guess what? Thank you. That's my time. Thank you. Well, that's something you can borrow. Oh. Hello. My name is Kathy. Edam, and I am a street minister for the last seven years living here. I moved from Lancaster. I love Long Beach. My compassion is for the homeless, the elderly and the disabled. And right now. With the relocation I have seen, many of the elderly and the disabled be displaced because of the buildings that have been made and created. Their buildings have been destroyed. They were told to leave within 60 days. They have no money. There's no way. That they're able to pay the the deposits, the rent. That's enormous. You have to have high credit scores. You have to have triple the amount of for your money for what you make. There's a lot of people don't make that kind of money. So I also have compassion for the people who have rentals. You know, it's not easy to be a rent, you know, to own businesses and have people respect your properties and stuff like that. So I think what we need to do is that we need to have equality on both sides. But with the relocation, the money needs to be right away because they can't get in apartment without the money first. God bless you. And I hope that you really think about this. All right. Thank you. Hello. Council mayor, not mayor. Okay, council away. Murchison. I'm in the second district and the lady mentioned law of unintended consequences. And I was talking to a landlord outside one of these small business landlords. They're good landlords. There's a lot of good landlords out there, too. And it's the ones that are the investors that don't really give a crap that are ruining it. And, you know, it's not good money for them if they got to attend to things properly. The good landlords do do that. If if all good landlords were good or all the other landlords were good, we wouldn't be looking at this now as regulation comes because there's not good people and it hurts. As the lady said, the law of unintended consequence hurts smaller landlords in a way. But maybe they should join with us and fight with us against these people that are giving them a bad name. I mean, they feel bad that come out of this meeting. They feel bad or were beaten up on them. No, they're good landlords. And, you know, but there's not. And that's why we're here. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm Elsa Tang, seventh. District resident and research and policy analyst at Long Beach Forward. First, a huge. Thank you to. City staff and mayor and council for your leadership in bringing this ordinance forth in such a timely manner. After Council adopted the motion last month, your urgency today echoes the urgency of our housing and homelessness crisis. Long Beach. Forward has been working. Alongside Long Beach residents, empowered housing. Long Beach Legal Aid Foundation and. Many others to support a strong. Tenant relocation assistance ordinance. As a critical homelessness. Prevention. Strategy. We want to see the ordinance adopted tonight with three common sense procedural improvements that are. Within the confines of Council's original motion and essential to the. Success of the ordinance. First, tenants should receive full. Relocation assistance upfront. Before they move out so they can. Actually use the funds. To help them move. Common sense. Second, to. Comply with state law, tenants should give landlords notice. When they intend to. Leave, not when they intend to stay. Common sense. Third, if landlords don't. Notify tenants that relocation assistance is available. Tenants facing eviction can use this as an affirmative defense in eviction court. Common sense these limited common sense approved minutes align with Council's intent to. Protect our vulnerable neighbors and are not substantive enough to warrant an additional first. Reading. Thank Council members. We urge you to ask the city attorney why he believes so. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Christine Pettit. I'm the executive director of Long Beach Forward and a member of the Everyone Home Task Force on behalf of Long Beach Forward on my task force colleagues who signed on to the letter I sent you earlier today. We appreciate the quick work of city staff and the Council to bring this ordinance back for consideration. The letter and my colleague before it touched upon three procedural issues that need to be addressed in order to ensure that the tenant relocation assistant reaches qualifying tenants and doesn't place an unreasonable burden on those that this ordinance is intended to serve. I'm going to focus on the first one of those now. It is imperative that we ensure that tenants receive the full relocation assistance payment prior to vacating their unit, regardless of when the notice is given by their landlord. Many renters, those who are low income seniors, have disabilities, etc. are living paycheck to paycheck or on fixed incomes and do not have the ability to save up for moving expenses and the equivalent of three month's rent for a new apartment. Relocation causes many disruptions to one's finances, work, school and overall well-being. It's really stressful to find a new place to live in Long Beach, given our crisis. Those who oppose tenant protections are attempting to further weaken this ordinance by proposing more exemptions. Already, the proposed ordinance excludes duplexes, triplexes and all units built after February 1995. If anything, we need to be working toward a stronger policy that will apply to more renters and protect the most vulnerable from falling into homelessness. Thank you for your leadership on this. Good evening, City Council. My name is Adriana Wences and I'm an organizer with Laundry, Long Beach resident empowered. Thank you for your votes to get this important an ordinance moving in April. I want to request that you continue to do the right thing by supporting a tenant relocation assistance policy that truly protects tenants. We want this policy to ensure that tenants receive the funds before they move out. As well as failure of notification from the landlord regarding their right to the relocation assistance must result in affirmative defense. We also want this ordinance to protect tenants from running the risk of losing their homes if they if they do not provide no notice to the landlord of their intention to continue their tenancy despite a rent increase of 10% or more. Thank you. My name is Marlene Alvarado. I'm District one and I am here for tennis. And I'm a landlord. I'm a small landlord. I haven't raised the rent to and I on my little condo in ten years. And it's great because as far as fixing the apartment goes up, they my tenants will help me fix the apartments up. I will buy the thing. They'll fix it. They put in a new sink for me. There's so many other things. Also, I get I get allowance. They're paying my mortgage. They have paid off my mortgage. I get I get exemption for depreciation allowances. Any time I do anything in the apartment, they cause, I get a tax write off. I get tax credits for taxes. I mean, this is absurd. To. Say that somehow. We poor little people who own properties are being somehow taken advantage of. We're taking advantage of our of our renters because they're paying off our mortgage. I lived in in West Hollywood before I became a property owner. And we had we had rent control. And I lived there for ten, 17 years. And gradually my rent went up, but it was okay. And guess what? West Hollywood right now is one of the wealthiest cities in in the in the in Los Angeles County. So rent control works. This ordinance is going to help your tenants. Why would you? They want to leave if you pay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Excuse me. Excuse me. We'll get started. We're going to cap it up. Are you the last one? Young lady in the back? What about you? Please. Yeah. And need. Oh. Guys got to get in line, please. So we can't keep it up up there. I don't know. The man. Oh. Okay. You want? You want to start? Okay. I'll go ahead. You can speak. Good evening, Honorable Council members. My name is Fred Sutton. I'm here on behalf of the California Apartment Association. We represent housing providers throughout the state of California and here in Long Beach. We continue to have very deep concerns as it relates to this ordinance. Although well-intentioned intentioned, the actions being taken today will have broader negative effects that will make this city more expensive in the long run and hurt tenants. The termination control provisions commonly known as just cause, have serious implications and are putting housing providers in a position of facing litigation or paying relocation to individuals who are creating nuisances in the community, as has been said prior. Property managers are your first line of defense on protecting the quiet enjoyment of the residents of this city. We urge the Council to reform aspects of the just cause provisions. If housing providers are fearful of making mistake, they will respond by raising tenant screening through screening standards. That would be counterproductive to all of our goals. It is also essential that this Council takes further steps to protect independent rental owners. Providing housing is not only an essential service to the city, but it is a vital step in the economic ladder as individuals seek to secure their own retirements and financial security. We appreciate your time and thoughtfulness on this. If it needs more time to fix these just cause issues. That's what this council should do. Greatly appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We're going to stop you right there. The young lady at the top. It's a black and gray. And it was. So you know. Okay, fine. We're going to stop. Okay. Well, how many in the world? Okay, fine. Would you hold just 1/2. We have to get the wheelchair. Yes. Yeah. Could you speak from that side of the wheelchair and you be right up to him? Young lady, please go ahead. The wheelchair up at the top. Okay. Fine, go ahead. In this you can speak. Okay. Good evening, councilman, but. Excuse me, but we're stopping in right there at the young lady in the gray sweats there in the black T-shirt. You're the last one. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Excuse me. Okay. Good evening. City council members and city staff. My name is Christine Bass and I serve as the government affairs manager for the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I'm here tonight on behalf of 800 members, leadership and community stakeholders, many of whom are property owners, to stress the need for the more robust review of the wide sweeping potential policy. Although we recognize the various goals and policy options the City Council is trying to balance, we continue to have concerns regarding the proposed tenant relocation policy. Earlier today, we signed a joint partnership letter to the council staff detailing our concerns and solutions for the city in the interest of time. A Summarize and reiterate a few of those points for your consideration tonight. We encourage the city to extended no cause noticing period of six months in lieu of the four cause provisions and relocation. And we encourage the city to extend the vesting period to two years before just call it just cause policies apply. And we encourage individuals to become housing providers by protecting independent rental owners. As you know, we face a severe housing shortage and the city should be looking for ways to ensure individuals that want to become housing providers can get to the market to do so. More regulation will only create a deterrence. A blanket exemption for buildings up to four units is an incentive to get into the market and would increase independent rental ownership. We look forward to working with all the stakeholders in order to ensure Long Beach remains an attractive place for business while seeking for ways to create extra housing. We appreciate your time and on these considerations. Thank you. Good evening, honorable counsel. My name is Manuela martinez. I am a resident and voter in District two and a member of Long Beach Residents in Power. I am here to ask that you continue doing the right thing and please revise three aspects of the Relocation Assistance Ordinance. The first tenants should receive the full amount of the relocation assistance within 15 days of notice to vacate and within five days after tenant informs landlord of move due to rent increase. This will ensure Tenant has the money and resources needed to relocate. The second tenants do not have the burden of notifying a landlord. They will stay in the unit after increase. Some tenants may not be aware of this requirement as it is different from state law in which tenants only are required to inform landlord of intent to vacate and that if the landlord fails to notify tenants of relocation assistance, this should serve as an affirmative defense to an eviction process. Thank you for your time. Good evening. My name is Lily Ocampo. I live in First District, and I come here to thank for the. For the ordinance, the tenant relocation assistance. And to ask you to give support. An ordinance that will help for low income and below low income families to ask to stay in their houses and not become. Thank you. And hello, Council. My name is Alice. Alice? I'm a proud resident of the second district and a member of Libra. I want to thank you first for the step that you took last month with the tenant relocation assistance. But our work is not done despite the callous tactics of the apartment association and landlords. We are all too aware that the housing crisis we are facing is displacing hardworking people. It is relegating people to the streets and draining people of their financial resources when they're forced to move. I encourage you to show your renter majority city that you care about their dire situation and see an ordinance that includes one timely payment of rhloh too that tenants should not have to notify landlords that they are staying in their unit following a 10% rent increase. And three, that failure to notify tenants of their right to reload allows for an affirmative defense in the eviction process. Renters are overdue for some support. We need your leadership tonight. Thank you. Good evening. Council members and staff. My name is Wendy Henning. I have had the pleasure, along with my husband, to own small properties in Long Beach for over 40 years. We have had. Tremendous respect for our tenants as they have for us, and that is because we've been very careful to not raise rents. Too much in the 40 years we. I object to any kind of rent relocation fees and I also object to any restrictions that the Council have put on rents for us, because that will make us. Continue. Make us make us raise rents every year to our tenants, which we don't want to do. Thank you for your time. Union members of the City Council. My name is Josh Butler, executive director of housing Long Beach. And I've heard for now a number of years stories, just like the woman before me who come here and say I never raise the rent on my tenants. But if you create any rules, I'll be forced to raise the rent on my tenants. These are the kind of threats that we've been hearing now for years. These are the kinds of threats that tenants have been living with for years. That we're going to raise your rent. We're going to throw you out if you ask for anything to be fixed. If you want relocation assistance, we're going to throw you to the curb. We're going to make you homeless. They want to maintain the power and control the power. They want to control the city. They can't do that anymore. They have picked the wrong time. They may not realize that there's a housing crisis going on right now. If they are if they haven't realized there's a housing crisis, I encourage them to pull their heads out of the sand and take a look around. Last week there was an article. I know you all read Long Beach Post that said Long Beach is one of the most favorable places to live in, but it's also one of the most unaffordable. And the number one complaint of residents is the lack of affordability of living here. We can do something about that here right now, today, and take the city back for the residents, for the people, and out of the hands of the landlords who are squeezing us with every last drop in the middle of a housing crisis, in the middle of an economic crisis, in the middle of their tax cuts. They still want to squeeze us even more until the city is bone dry. We got to stop that tonight. We encourage you to take action. Thank you. Right. Hello. My name is Norberto Lopez, and I'm involved in various community organizations here in the city of Long Beach. And I urge to support I urge you to support the relocation assistance policy being reviewed today, but also raise the question of the policy as approved. What is going to happen to all the people who get eviction notices from now until the day of implementation? Because there will be an increase on evictions and rent increases that cause people to move before the policy goes into play. After doing housing work for eight months and seeing the many unjust evictions and high rent increases, in some cases over 100% rent increase, there should be something to help tenants until the implementation of the policy and look further into tenant protections to help keep families in their homes and make sure we save Long Beach. People should receive a relocation assistance prior to moving. Tenants should not have to let their landlord know whether they will stay or not in 14 days and tenants should be able to defend themselves from an eviction if landlord fails to notify a tenant of the relocation assistance. Right. As many of you know. Right. The Cedar Assistance last year as well. Right. Took on their property management company and they had to delegate that company in order to get some money out of them in order to be able to move. I believe that it's only fair that the tenants receive the money before they move. Right. That's the only way that they're going to be able to do that down payment that they need to put in order to get that new unit. I urge you to support this policy and really look into further tenant protections and thank you for your time. Good evening, council members. My name is James McGrady. I've lived and owned rental properties in Long Beach since 1992 and I wanted to say when I first started saving up money to get my rental properties, minimum wage was 475 and I was pretty young. Since then, inflation has caused a lot of things to go up, including rent and including the minimum wage. It's well over $12 now. I just wanted to say, if I could do it, anyone can do it. I see both sides of the issue here. But I wanted to say that. If government intervenes with any type of my rent, I will have to increase the rents. I don't increase the rents, hardly ever. But if you guys intervene, it also forces me to take my money that I need to invest and invest in other areas of the city. I don't want to do that. I love Long Beach. I've lived in Long Beach for many years. I've invested in Long Beach. I can tell you a quick story. I had a renter that was with me for 16 years and she got separated. She could no longer afford a full rent. So what I did is I cut her rent by $800 for six months so she wouldn't have to leave. So there's landlords just like me that do that for the renters. So if you guys intervene with our rents, we have to invest somewhere else. That's all I have to say. My name is Silvana Arreola. My address is on file. I've lived in California since 1958 when we came to this state. And I have to. Say that I come from a real estate family and I have seen the progressive. Diminution of. Ownership rights, which concerns me gravely. A lot of people, a lot of my clients are now taking money out of California rather than developing in California. I see the future of real estate ownership, income, property ownership to go be going towards large syndications. Who can handle all these problems? I would counsel and beg the council members to consider, well, what you do postpone a decision until you've really worked out all the details that are so punitive towards owners and not considering the fact that the problems are a shared problem. So it isn't just a landlord problem, it's a shortage problem. Can we address that in some way? Can we create a body that would lend the tenants funds to help them through the crisis and. That way work with both owner. And tenant rather than impose the entire responsibility for making the move on the tenant. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And I think I'm just I'm I'm going to cut the speaker's list. I think that is that Ms.. Where's in the back or now? Okay, then the lady over there in the glasses will be the last one. And then the speaker's list is closed, which is where? And then the lady in the back and then the speaker's list is close. Hello. My name is Ray Mailer. I've lived in Long Beach for 30 years. Owned some residential properties for 21 years. Excuse me. Landlord ing is, as a small property owner, is fundamentally a personal business. We know our tenants well and they often become friends. We have long since we have all long since forgotten the Great Recession of 11 years ago, when low rents naturally occurred through the market. As the economy slowly improved, rents recovered. At a point, my wife and I noticed that market rates were exceeding the comfort level of the incomes of our tenant applicants. We decided to hold our rents below market. The threats of rent control, particularly the county action and the proposed ordinance here, have prompted us to stop these low rents. As each unit has turned over. All our units are now at market rate. There are now five fewer below market rates in Long Beach. Our city has experienced some excesses from some big money that came in that found our city to rehabilitate units. The ordinance under consideration moves well beyond regulating these big money interests and affects many small property owners. Like the previous motion you considered regarding airport security. I urge you to scuttle this overreaching ordinance. Thank you. Next. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Benjamin Chow. I am a ninth district resident. And I just want to thank Council Member Rex Richardson for really identifying the housing crisis and homelessness as an issue in our district. And I, I'm definitely in support of this Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance and preventing homelessness in our district. I've spent many weeks knocking on the doors of renters and the ninth. And, you know, in that time I have found that investment in our district is leading to increased displacement due to rent increases and eviction notices. And so I would really recommend the council member and other council members to really to investigate the unintended consequences of investment in commercial properties in our city. Because, you know, just just put yourself in the situation of a working class family and having to after receiving 60 day notice to find a new place to live if you're living paycheck to paycheck, raising a family, having to take your children to school while, you know, working, working day after day, finding a new place to live that is affordable to you and going through the process of moving can be very stressful and puts an unnecessary toll on the lives of the people in our city. So thank you for listening to me today. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, Linda. So, Beau, I live in the fifth district and, you know, kudos. I think the thing that strikes me with all of this is that we keep taking a big, broad stroke to solve issues. And it seems to me we're going about this wrong. I honestly think you should throw the whole thing out. And it's not because I don't. Not because I don't care about the tenants and the rising rents. But it is those big conglomerates that came in and are raising rents 218%. It's not the mom and pops as far as Fortune 500 companies. I knew several people who got up who. Were accused of that tonight. They are not Fortune 500 companies. They have nice things because they've done it under Sweat and their hard work and they're still working in their eighties. So you just all take a chill pill. I looked at rent control today and the first thing that popped up was a company called California Tenant Tenant Law dot com. And the first thing it says is rent control is a special set of laws that particular cities adopt. It generally includes rent increase limits and eviction restrictions. Some cities rent controls require relocation assistance to be paid to tenants under certain circumstances and interest on security deposits. So again, it is rent control. It is tied in with rent control. The other thing is I found something that was very interesting and said the American founders, our forefathers understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity, but of freedom itself, human being. Okay. And thank you very much. And thank you. I provide housing for human beings and I don't raise rents. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Thank you for having me here. I saw many of you in the parade I was in last week, the pride parade. Thank you all for that. Now, getting down to the point here, in fact, we talked about the law of unintended consequences. Somebody brought that up. Well, the way the landlords want to keep it now is so we have the law of unintended consequences, which is evictions without any kind of protection being forced out and having to spend money to try and relocate without any kind of benefit to help do that. What we see is a lot of, quote, unintended consequences, which are intended consequences. Now, you almost always speak when I come to these things, not about how much money or the interest rate, but the fact that when we have stable neighborhoods and children grow up to be better people, when we take away stability from families because they can be evicted easily and because of this, because of that or old people get put out on the street. What we are doing is destabilizing our society and a possibility of having a good life for many families and many young people. Now, I don't say the landlords want to take that kind of thing against young children, but they do it and there has to be some kind of protection so that we have a way of working out the different strings that come on in neighborhoods and through housing. And it's one of our biggest problems. And what I want you to do is take and make go forward with this thing because it's a good idea and then try to make it as fair as possible. But do it so it protects families and those children we have growing up that we need in our society to be healthy and good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi there. I'm a resident of the seventh District and I fully support the Tenant Relocation Assistance Policy at its full power. I just want to say, we've heard a lot of people say they don't raise rents. If there wasn't a rent increase issue, none of us would be here tonight in the first place. I want to say I just want to spew some statistics here. Long Beach ranks number seven, least affordable city in the entire country. Recent report came out just a few weeks ago. 8.1 guys, everyone over Long Beach is population. I really think this is important to hear. 58.1% of Long Beach is population is cost burdened by housing. That's nearly 300,000 people in our town. Let's also talk about the homelessness crisis here, because housing and homelessness are interrelated. Let's look at what's happening in California, Long Beach's numbers. In Los Angeles, numbers are yet to come, but in Orange County, 43% increase in homelessness from 2017. In San Bernardino County, that number jumped 23%. In Riverside County, 22%. Ventura County, 28%. In San Francisco City alone, 17% increase in homelessness. We control we are. Seeing guys on both sides. Please, on both sides. When someone is speaking, regardless of their position, please let them speak. Thank you. Do you mind? I got a little bit run over here, but I'm going to try and finish this up. Basically, what I'm trying to say is we need to think about the human problem here. We need to think about the people, the old people, the young people, the people who cannot move out of their homes , who are at threat every day of being evicted of facilities. Thank you very much. And I incentivize you to please. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good. My name is Richard Keller's city attorney. I take great exception with your attitude of simply splitting the baby. That's a very, very casual solution to a very real problem for many of the tenants who advocated tonight. You said we need the money right away so we can move. I get that. I really understand that. But for the landlords tonight, you do happen to be split up side by side. But anyway, for the landlords tonight, our concern is if we give you that money up front, then guess what happens in the next 30, 60 , 90 days? You don't pay rent, you trash the unit, you move out. We lose twice. Not fair. So, you. Know, guys, we just let the speaker speak so everyone can speak. Continue, sir. So somebody else talked about unintended consequences tonight. When the ordinance is written so poorly like this, the unintended consequence will happen. The tenants will not be served. The landlords will not be served. There are there is a way to address this that can serve both sides. It's called an escrow account. And the escrow landlords can immediately, immediately fund the escrow account. The tenant can take that account to the next landlord and say, I have the money. Here it is. And they that the landlord heard that payment will come. I strongly recommend that we back up, take a little time and figure out how. To thank you, sir. Right. Thank you. Thanks, Speaker. Good evening. My name is Juanita Gallo. I am a lifelong renter. Five of those years in New York City. And my experience in New York City firsthand with tenant relocation assistance is it was a lose lose proposition for both renters and landlords. First of all, there is upfront discrimination when screening tenants. Secondly, there's no guarantee that the tenants will depart. So it's a lose lose situation on both sides, as the gentleman just said. And also, the tenants lose out because eventually the rents get so high, there is nowhere else for them to go, even if they get relocation assistance . So it increases homelessness all the way around. It's an endless cycle. This is really a policy housing policy issue which should be taken up at a higher level. It's a Band-Aid solution for a lack of affordable housing. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you, David Clement, third district. When I came here to Long Beach in 2002, Long Beach was not such a desirable place to live as it is now. It's improved drastically. And a lot of that is because of our property values have gone up and and our taxes are paying for that. I own a few properties in Long Beach. I've lived in each of them, fix them up with my own blood and sweat. And I have only raised rents very irregularly. I fully support keeping families in their homes. And and I think it's the big corporations that are really giving the small mom pop operators like myself and the rest of us here a bad name. So if we're going to you know, I'm opposed to this because 40 $500 is a lot of money. And and it shouldn't be a burden on me. This is an excessive burden. Okay. So I think we're good at raising taxes, sales taxes. One, we just add a quarter to our to our sales and be done with it. I'm kidding, by the way. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My council and mayor. My name is Laura. I am a tenant at a building where all my neighbors and I received a rent increase at the time the property was being sold. We all expect that a, uh, a fair increase. Instead, this is what we got. A two bedroom. We have an increase of $550 a tree, which is 48% for a three bedroom. We got an increase of 775, which is a 67%. I believe this increases are too high and only work to price our families. These families, my neighbors and I deserve relocation assistance and fully support this lot to pass today. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Okay. Great. Okay. We know Rafael Castillo is tearing up la la la lay there as he stays here. Then move onto. If you have the assignment, we will leave on the in. In a kilometer. He'll be on that one. You need to think of all the red tape. Not a puzzle. America. Your long travels story. This ability to read that he. He built up. Okay. But he's sympathetic to Malala like a. A lot more than that, he says he. I thought, Oh, gracious. And never. Okay. Good evening, counsel. My name's Kevin Yeager. I'm a resident of District two and a member of Democratic Socialists of America Long Beach Chapter. I want to echo a lot of the points that tenant advocates have already made, and I just wanted to emphasize the aspect of the hap now half later, relocation funds. It's really concerning to hear city staff proposing that landlords could withhold relocation assistance from tenants until up to five days after vacating in order to incentivize tenants to leave. That seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of this ordinance. The purpose is that low income, fixed income, senior disabled folks, etc. There are tenants in this city who don't have the resources to relocate. The ordinance is supposed to help those tenants and make sure that they have the money to get into another place and not end up falling into homelessness and on our streets. And so this compromise where a tenant could be kicked out of their home and fall into homelessness, but only up to five days, and then the landlord could get the funds for them in order to relocate five days later. That's not preventing homelessness. We need to act immediately and make sure these people have somewhere to stay. So I just want to thank City Council for acting tonight and recognizing that this is a crisis with 58% of tenants rent burden in the city even higher for women of color. So thank you for acting. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Andrew, a community organizer with Long Beach Forward working on the best art center, a Long Beach initiative working on issues related to the birth to five population. Housing was recently identified as one of the top issues our groups wanted to work on. What I found working with parents, caregivers and children is that displacement is all too apparent in their lives. It's important that you ensure these families are given relocation assistance at an appropriate time, are notified of their right to relocation, ample time to see if they still can reside in their homes. And the next time a five year old comes up to me crying, asking why they're being uplifted, uprooted and displaced from their homes, I'm gonna ask you all to explain, because it shouldn't be our burden as black and brown folks to explain. It should be you and your privilege. And the next time and the next time. All right, let's let the speaker speak. Thank you. I don't know how you think you can properly manage property. Can't even manage to spell destroys on your signs. So thank you for your attention to this important issue. Mayor and City Council, I really appreciate it. And hopefully we can get this resolved. Thank you. Thank you. And before they get before our before our next speaker, just as a as a general reminder, please, when we're addressing public comment and you're addressing it to the body, so think please to the body and next speaker. Hello. My name is Vanessa. My building is currently facing the crisis of eviction. On March 20, 21st, 2000 1919, families and my own receive 60 day notice. It's around 8 p.m.. All our families woke up to displacement in this sit in and this. It is only reasonable that all 20 family receive relocation assistance and all families facing this tragedy. I support this law because it means we will get a chance to find a home and most importantly, not become homeless. Pass passes today. And we thank you for our leadership. Your leadership. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, council mayor and members of the public. My name is Maria. I'm a proud one resident since I migrated here at the age of three. I'm undocumented, unafraid and unapologetic. Plus, I am the director of Community Organizing for Housing Long Beach. It has been my pleasure and my pain for the past three years to work with loving, hard working, responsible tenants that are being evicted, tactfully pushed out, and maliciously increase the rent by 50, 60, and even 90% to price them out. Today, on behalf of all those renters, we applaud you for taking up this policy and urge you to pass something today and then work along community to give it shaping based on community needs and for the benefit of community. And I must remind you for when eyes cities thrive. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker, please. Good evening, Council. My name is Johnny Weir and I'm with better housing for Long Beach. And I was told by my attorney to let you put you on notice that this what you are passing is not constitutionally sound and that you should revisit it and not pass it tonight. If you pass this tonight, you are breaking the law and you're encouraging people to break the law. It's not okay to push something that is illegal. So I want to show you something. These are the petitions that we collected throughout all of Long Beach. We have 10,000 petitions of tenants in this community that do not want rent control. I want you take a look if you want to look at every one of these petitions. So we have them here and I made a copy of them. You got to look at your community. You're pushing stuff that is not supporting the community. You're pushing rent control, Robert. This is not a dictatorship. This is a community. This is a democracy. And you're pushing your push, your policy. But the people in Long Beach don't want. So I don't understand why you would do it. Why would you push something you told everyone you didn't want? Rachel, this is Rachel Alston. Bird says this is rent control. The woman that spoke earlier said this is rent control. Why push, Rachel? If it's going to drive the tenants out, it's going to drive the tenants out. It's going to raise rents. Tell me a city that has Rachel that has affordable rent. People. Google. Google. Highest rates in the nation. Google it. San Francisco. Santa monica, New York. What other ones? Highest rent animation. And they all are sorry for hurting your ears, Susie, but I'm passionate. Thank you. Very much. Good night, everybody. Time's up. Thank you. And then our last speaker. I'm sorry. I didn't see the gentleman here, so. Sir, why don't you go ahead and go speak, sir? Just. This is perfect, right? Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I just. We've been to this place so many times. I just wanted to say. Not this side. Not this side will be happy tonight. Either way it goes. My thing is this. I totally understand all those renters. When they get this large corporation, when they buy the place, when they get to 200% whatever increase, let's slow down. Let's sit down. Let's discuss what needs to be done to have this site and this site. This is not going anywhere like this because you're really going to piss somebody tonight. Not only that, the previous one, the airport guys and everything else. You guys have no business to get in that business. Thank. Thank you for doing what you did on that one. Please do the same thing on us tonight. Thank you. Thank you. And our last think. Our last speaker. Yes. My name is Ben Damascus. I live in the beautiful second district. I'm here today to speak to you as a tenant. I'm also disabled. I am a mother of four children. And like everybody else, I'm not going to ask you, Mayor Garcia or anybody else on here, if not congratulate you, because this is a very difficult matter . You have two sides that have different points of view. And I'm going to be real with you. No matter how many times you go back and forth. We're never going to agree. We're never going to agree. And. Q for coming up with this. It is the grace. The best thing possible that we as tenants have right now. And I just want to urge you guys to. Really keep doing. What you're doing. You're always going to hear bad things no matter what you do. Being in leadership comes with a lot of burdens. And I just want to commend you guys and also just wanted to clarify real quick something that we noticed and I just wanted to mention that is that while all those opposed to the tenants are up here speaking. I didn't see. Nobody. That resembled anybody that I speak to on a daily basis that is getting displaced, that is getting evicted. So I just find it hard to see their point of. View. When you're not living what I'm living or my tenants or my neighbors or my children or anybody else's child. So thank you very much for your time and I won't take any more of your time. Thank you. That concludes public comment. So we'll close from a comment. There is a motion on the floor for the ordinance. And so we'll go first to Councilwoman Gonzales. Thanks again for everybody for being here. So I'll be pretty quick because I know we don't want this to be a very long night, but I'll just be short when I say very, very quickly that I do support this as it stands. And I do have a quick a few quick questions, but I'm going to be supportive of this. As mentioned in the statistics, you know, we know that 60% of our city are renters. So we have an obligation, I believe, as elected leaders, to ensure that renters have a voice and a very strong voice. And I hope tonight we we we make you proud and making sure that we push something forward that really will be able to support a lot of the strife that we've been seeing, and especially in places like we've seen in downtown that have been incredibly difficult for renters. So a couple of questions I have for a city attorney, and I know I love that you've brought this back very quickly, and I really appreciate that from on behalf of my office and city staff. Thank you very much. A couple one question on the repayment, because I do think to that to the points that we've been hearing, I do believe the repayment should be done quicker than later. And I know and I'm not really of the mindset that we should split the baby in half of it, should be before, should be up front and then the other half afterwards. That also wasn't discussed in detail by the city council. So can we. Propose to include that repayment be done within 15 days to ensure that it's done before someone receives a 30 or 60 day notice. Certainly that would not be a problem at all. If I could address generally there were a lot of suggestions made by members of the public without writing down every one of them. I've also received a lot of suggestions in writing from various interest groups and stakeholders. For the most part, all of those suggestions are reasonable. They're policy decisions. None of them give me any trouble as far as they would violate the law. However, with respect to every one of them, and I know this is disappointing to people on both sides of the aisle and maybe many people behind the dais. However, all of those changes would be substantive. They could be made. If I'm given direction to make them by the council. But that would require a second first reading of the ordinance. Whenever the next meeting is. But but certainly I stand ready to take direction from any of you, particularly on the payment issue. I am not wedded to half and half. It could all be paid at one time as you so direct. Okay. All right. So I want to make sure that for because this wasn't discussed at all. So I'm just trying to understand this in the beginning because we didn't discuss the relocation payment at all in the very you know, when we took this up back in April. And so why would that trigger a another reading? Because that's what I do not want to do. Right? Well, primarily because it wasn't discussed the first time the public saw it was on Monday or whenever the ordinance that I drafted went public, there would be I would consider that change, a substantive change to that ordinance. And and it needs to it would need to be read again. And the reason why generally we take this position our office takes the position is three reasons, really. Number one, it promotes transparency. Number two, it minimizes any legal risk that someone challenges under the Brown Act, that they didn't have the appropriate notice. They didn't know what was going to be voted on tonight. Something changed. There's really no downside in reading. Having another first reading on June 11th, exactly as the ordinance is to be, is to be read based on the direction that I receive from this body. And then the third reason is it's consistent with the position that our office has taken for several years when it comes to making amendments to ordinances. We require a second first reading before the second reading, which effectively becomes the third. Okay. Well, thank you for the explanation and I look forward to hearing more from my colleagues. But I do like the ordinance. I want to make sure we push this through. We absolutely owe it to our tenants and our residents here in the in the city of Long Beach. And I also am looking forward to hearing more about that. We we also discussed seniors and people with disabilities. We know that it's so much more difficult for them to move. I have someone in my office who has a wheelchair. And not only is it more difficult or more costly for her to move, the options are limited, especially with an older housing stock. So I want make I want to make sure we remind ourselves of that. And what I'll also say is, you know, to our landlords, you know, I certainly respect every single one of you and what you're doing. And to the mom and pops, if you're not raising your rents, this need not apply to you. This need not apply to you at all if you're not raising your rents. And I just hope that you hear us out that this is not rent control, this is certainly a protection for tenants. You can you know, you can laugh at that however you'd like. But we see it very differently. And this is something that our residents and we were elected to to to represent our residents and to do. The city has been very mindful. I will just mention as well, affordable housing plan, land use plan. Homeless shelters. And many times we've been set. We've been told, no, not in my backyard. Now this time, we're going to say yes, yes, in my backyard. So I will just leave it there and I will just say thank you so much for your time. And I look forward to moving this forward a. Thank you. I really think everybody that came out tonight, I didn't necessarily appreciate the catcalling on either side because it did make it hard to follow. But I appreciate the passion that you guys bring to this and recognizing that it's a really big issue for a lot of us, for landlords. I recognize that you have bought a piece of property and you're allowing strangers to come in and live in something that you own. That is something that I don't think I could ever do because that would make a night with anxiety. So I applaud you for that business decision. And for those that have decided to make Long Beach their home renters like myself, we often feel at the whim of what might happen and not having any control over that. We know that stress when we talk about mental health, when we talk about how we as a as a community live together in a healthy way, those little stresses, like not knowing if your rent is going to be increased, not knowing that tomorrow you're going to get that $500 increase is a big deal and it is a big deal to be removed from your community and moved somewhere else, often outside of Long Beach. So while we're doing rent control to me, while we're not doing rent control, while we're doing relocation, you guys got me what we're doing relocation. This is not rent control because it does not keep people. This is a way for you to relocate people. And so I do not want us to get the too mixed up whenever we do this. I want to applaud staff. I know that we have nine of us up here, a mayor and lots of stakeholders in the community. So I want to applaud you for heard with us. I do want to just echo the same concern that Councilmember Gonzalez brought up in my mind when you say when we said we want to go forward with a relocation policy that provides relocation funds, that those are funds that are supposed to help somebody get into their next place. And if it's five days later, how in the world is that supposed to help them get into their next place? So I recognize the position of the landlords and wanting to make sure that they have a guarantee. I mean, there are lots of mechanisms to do that, and so I don't want to make that vote tonight, but I would like to revisit that in the future. So my question is, if we vote tonight and we come back with, say, a cleanup item that not only includes that, but possibly the six month or some other items that the landlords would also look at, what is the quickest timeline that that could happen, that it would get into the ordinance? Such an item wouldn't be appropriate before the second reading, but after the second reading of the ordinance, once it's adopted, any Tuesday thereafter would work. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. The ordinance is not a while. It goes on the books after the second reading. It doesn't become effective until August 1st. So great. You can bring anything back after. The session, after the second reading. Wonderful. And one of the items that we talked about in detail when I met with you and also when I met with city management today, was around the one pager that we, the city, would be drafting, that landlords would be required to provide to tenants. Can you walk through that one more time for us and just some of the things that would be in there so that we can make sure that both landlords feel like they have something that protects them in getting out a bad tenant and tenants have information that protects them to move forward with legal action. Councilwoman. First and foremost, we would have to summarize the ordinance so that it was readable by both tenants and landlords. We would spell out the process in detail and we would include information on our website. In addition to that one pager. But but that would ideally would help both tenants and owners navigate the ordinance. So I know city attorney, when we spoke, you were able to give me some more specifics about what you wanted to have included in there? I think it's in the ordinance, but just for community members that are here, if we could. Well, yeah, there's one other one other clarification. Part of the motion on April 2nd was to include information. And I think it may have been in you one of your your substitute, if I recall correctly. And I think there were two things needed to be included information to each tenant about the availability of renters insurance, information to all tenants, about the possibility that their landlords could report on time payment of rent to credit rating agencies, and that would become part of their credit score. That is not in the ordinance, but we intend, based on your motion and direction, to put that into that one pager. Great. I appreciate that. I also wanted to make sure that the legal language is in that one, that tenants legally know that they can go forward if they do not receive reflow, and that that's included in the one pager. And that landlords will have spelled out that if as defined in the ordinance, if someone is a bad tenant, that they have the ability to take action without a very long, drawn out process before they get to court. Thank you. That's what I wanted to clarify. One other thing I wanted to mention is I do feel like this is a balanced approach for those mom and pop landlords. We made sure to include a mom and pop. Exclusion. We've lowered the original amounts as proposed by staff. Staff originally proposed that landlords pay an additional fee for seniors, and that is included that the council will create their own fund. We still have to fund that, but the Council will do that. And so we have really not tried to split the baby on those things, but figure out where the government can can play their role and where landlords can play there. So I'm really proud of the step that the council is taking today. I think it's important that we take the vote tonight, move forward, and we can come back and make sure that we have a little bit more time to kind of finesse some of those other details. But I'm pleased where we're at. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So it's been a it's been a long evening. I want to thank all of you who've come out time and time again on this issue to speak with us. I'm tired. I know that you're tired. And so we won't take a lot of time speaking this evening. Want to lift up the last young lady who spoke who said, you know, we've you know, every time we come, it's sort of the same two factions are never going to completely agree. We understand that. That's why we have to not be confused about what it is we're doing tonight. We asked city staff to prepare this ordinance as defined by the motion, that one, and that's what city staff brought forward. And so I'm supportive of what was brought forward tonight. I think that I appreciate that there were some you know, a lot of feedback has come in, but I want to lift up two letters that I think made a lot of sense to me or some recommendations that made a lot of sense to me. The whole first reading, second reading. This allows us to get feedback and figure out how best to tweak it. So there is an opportunity, I believe, to move forward with this tonight, but take some of this feedback that we've received and make this ordinance better. So just to raise up some of them, I'm looking at this this everyone home task force letter signed by a number of community leaders, from clergy to community members, and the three things that were asked were already raised by the last two speakers. And I think that that makes sense. I think the idea that, you know, someone gets a portion of their the reload at some point and then the second part would come at turn in the moment you turning your key that that kind of makes sense. And this conversation that I know that there's always a risk. But at the same time, we do know that the landlord also holds a deposit. So there is something to back it up if 50% of that is is sort of taken. So, you know, there's always a little bit of trust on both ends on who's going to do the right thing about money. So so I understand that. So that's something that I think makes sense. I'm supportive of doing in some other iteration. This these clean this clean up. Now, it seems like it's reasonable about removing the the, you know, wording that's not consistent with state law. I think that makes sense. I think some of the the things that are raised up by some of the landlord groups, you know, I think there's something we can do there. So particularly this conversation about, you know, I think the trigger of rent remains in place. I think the 10% rent remains in place. I think the trigger on if you're being displaced because they're turn around the property makes sense. And then if you're relocating someone with a 60 day notice for no reason at all, give them a little bit more. Heads up in, Lou. I think that makes sense. That came up last time in the conversation. I said if it's legal, if it's feasible, that's something I'm open to. So I'll reiterate that tonight. But I don't think that's something I think we should pass the ordinance as written and then bring it forward sometime in the next few months. There's there's you know, one other thing. This conversation of switching from, you know, 4 to 4 plus, there are simply just too many for Plex's to exclude that . I'm not comfortable with that. I did lift up res up the conversation about the mom and pops and there were some, you know, good conversation that's happened since then about expanding that definition of mom and pop. I'm open to that. I'm completely open to expanding the definition of mom and pop. If someone is buying a duplex or two duplexes, I mean, four plex or two, four plex is. I completely get it. Those are some of the only opportunities you have as a residential person to use conventional financing to to buy for plex. That just that makes sense to me. So I'm okay with having another look at the mom and pop provision. But I think the integrity of the ordinance that's in front of us is what I support. That's what that's what garnered six votes last time. That's what I'm going to be supporting tonight. And I'll just say I'm open to where if if there are councilmembers that feel like this needs to get a little bit better. If we're talking about within the framework of the five things we just mentioned, I'm willing to, you know, in the next few months work together on item to help tighten it up. But it's important to me that that, you know, we've heard a lot of things take place in the last few weeks of people being displaced. And so I don't want to delay that process. I think people need benefits as soon as possible. And this ordinance in front of us provides that. And so I will encourage the Council for us to support this tonight. And we work together to see what we can do to adjust it in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I want to thank everyone who came out tonight and everyone has passion for this topic on both sides. But one of the things that I'm getting a sense of is that there is an urgency to pass something tonight. I've heard things like, let's push it through. Things like there may be ways to tighten it up, but let's wait to do it in the next few months. This is a major, major policy change for the city of Long Beach. And I don't understand why it's not effective until August 1st anyway. So I don't understand why we wouldn't try to tighten it up tonight and vote on it on June the 11th. It still won't go into effect until August 1st. So I'm not really sure. Maybe there's something going on here that I don't know that somebody needs to to use this outside of this room for some benefit, I don't know. But the ordinance would not be in effect until August 1st anyway. So coming back on June the 11th really wouldn't put us behind in terms of this issue of displacement. Now, political win, that's a whole other issue. But the issue of displacement, this law would not be in effect until August 1st. So I would I would recommend that we take the time tonight to have a conversation about what tightening it up looks like and what people are open to, and add that as an amendment and ask the city attorney's office to come back with a recommendation that not while not everyone will like, we'll be a little bit more in line with what good policymaking for the city would be, because we're all in agreement tonight, even if we vote on it, that it's not where we want it to be. So I'm not sure why we would vote on an ordinance that we're all saying is not where it needs to be. I don't understand that. But if there is but if there's people out there who feel like that's a huge political win for whoever votes yes tonight, for an ordinance that they're agreeing as they're voting yes, is not the full policy for a major policy change regarding displacement. Then, you know, I guess we all have a different definition of of what progress is. But I think what I would like to do is continue to hear from my colleagues regarding this idea of adding in some amendments that we agree with or maybe not agree with, but having that discussion and coming back on June the 11th for a first reading. I also want to reiterate that there are three triggers under this ordinance that. Put relocation fees into play. The triggers regarding a rent increase I have zero issue with. I think that's a very fair trigger. The trigger regarding a major rehab and relocation being necessary. I have no trouble with the trigger that I have trouble with that. I already stated at the last meeting and I'll reiterate today is the 30 to 60 days notice still triggering relocation? Because there are many situations where a landlord should, in my opinion, have the control and the freedom to be able to to determine the type of living spaces they're creating for the other tenants. And right now, as it is, unless it's one of the enumerated sections under state law, they cannot get rid of a tenant. So if the tenant is doing something that's detrimental to the other tenants, that's short of one of the enumerated sections in the state code that landlord has to pay a penalty to ask them to leave. This is just cause eviction because we're asking the the landlord to pay a penalty. We, we can't say, oh, sure you can, you can let them go in just cause eviction. You can't let them go in our statute. You can let them go with a penalty. That's still a deterrent to being able to exercise your rights as a landlord. So I think it's an it's an intellectually dishonest to say that it is something other than a ban from being able to exercise your rights because. Yes, right. But you have to pay a penalty. And that, I think, is not fair. And so that's the one that I don't like. And that's something that I feel if we had more time as a council, I really think we could reach some resolution on that. I really do. And I would vote for this in a heartbeat if we could find some resolution on that trigger. So that's where I'm at on this topic. And again, I thank my colleagues for coming forward with their thoughts. It is a passionate issue. We're going to have to agree to disagree. My request would be for more time for us to be able to put in some of the suggestions that were made by some of the advocacy groups. I think those were great suggestions. The tenants advocacy groups. I think there were some great suggestions. Why wouldn't we put those in tonight? I'd vote for them on some of them. So that's where I'm at. Okay. Thank you. Next, guys, please. Thank you. Next up is Councilmember Herring. Thank you, Mary. You know, I really have a lot of respect for my colleague from the second district. But however, everything we do, whether it's a yes vote or a no vote, is political. Everything we do is political. And everything that we do is going to have one effect or another, whether it's on the right side or the left side, whether it's affirmation or a negative, it's political. What we do here, we get elected by people to do a job. And because we are here to do a job, we really have to lay this over and talk about it a lot. And, you know, this is not a new issue. This this has been an issue that's been. Going on for a great. Number of years. Getting here to tonight is not something that just happened in April. And we're here with an audience tonight. It's been a long time in the making, so I'm very supportive of the motion on the floor. One question in terms of the the senior financing that was discussed earlier, I think Council Councilmember Jenny Pierce brought it up. Is there a timeline for that? Is there a plan? It's really an action that we can take forward. But what can we do with that, if anything? Yes. So, Councilmember, we reported back to you based on the direction that we got. So if you remember, the council considered a number of options of how to do senior or senior or disabled payments and chose to look at the city fund rather than putting that on the landlord . So we provided some information in order to from forum. And it really is it comes down to money. So what we have outlined is that we try to estimate how many people might be eligible that are living in housing. And when said, if 1% of those people or up to 5% of those people would need to use this fund going forward on an annual basis, what would that cost be? And so we came up with a cost of about $600,000 if one person, a 1% would use it, and up to $2.5 million if it was that 5% every year. So we're really kind of looking for direction from the council. We don't have those funds identified, given that there's an ongoing shortfall that we're dealing with. And therefore, at 20 budget, we can continue to look for funding sources. But or it can you can go a different route either tonight or in the future. So we'd be looking for direction. Thank you very much. And I was looking down the down the day I met third district colleague, not second. So but thank you for being here. Civic engagement is very important because you tell us what you're saying, what you're thinking, and we need to know what you're thinking. Thank you very much here. Okay. Thank you. Next up is Councilman Mongo. Thank you. City Attorney. I know that the current. Timeline is before us. Would you be open to communicating. What that current timeline is if it were to pass tonight and then. My understanding is. If it were to pass on first reading tonight, maybe I should just say what my understanding is. My understanding is if it were passed at first reading tonight, the second reading would be June 11th with an implementation date of August 1st. That's correct. If we were to make some substantive changes tonight, the first reading. Would be June 11th with the second reading. June 18th with an implementation date of August 1st. That's correct. So it sounds. Like we're all on the same. Page, that there are some challenges with the ordinance. And that we're all on the same page, that we want it implemented August 1st. And so I'm going to try to bring some things into. I think we all agreed on Mr. Anthony. On our previous council meeting. We discussed an item that was. Determined. In a memo. You sent out to be legal in the case that. I've spoken with some tenants and some landlords and both were in agreement, that time's the biggest barrier is not financial. Oftentimes the biggest barrier to finding a new place is time because there are challenges. Related to availability. There's a very, very low rental inventory available. And so I had asked whether or not a a. Friendly amendment of a six month. 180 day noticing would be possible. I know that at the time the motion was being handled by Councilmember. Richardson and there was. Concerns about legality. But I believe that you made an opine on that. Yeah, that's right. If the council were to adopt a provision which allowed a landlord not to pay relocation, if they gave six months notice to a tenant of their intent to terminate tenancy, that would be legal. Wonderful. Then I'd like to make a substitute motion to include my. Original friendly amendment. This would still mean that the first reading would be on June 11th. Or would that be able to be included tonight without a substantive change? No, that's a substantive change. Great. So the first reading of that item, which you've already determined to be legal, would be on June 11th with the second reading on June 18th, and there would be no impact to the implementation. We would still be able. To implement this and help renters. Effective August 1st. Thank you. I appreciate your work on that. I know this was an extremely. Hard lift for you and your office to get back to us very quickly. I appreciate the hard work done on that. I had thought that my friendly amendment asked the legal language to be available and as an option tonight. And that it wouldn't have had to have been a new first reading. And I apologize for that. But I'm also open to friendly amendments from my colleagues on both sides of the issue to make it more agreeable to everyone. And so I'm open to hearing more from my colleagues. Next up is council member not. Okay. I would like to add to that. So technically, this would be a substitute substitute motion that we add the change from 4 to 5 units. What we're calling the 4 to 5. I'm not sure I'm clear on exactly what that means. Could you could you provide some more detail on what part of the ordinance is switching from 4 to 5? Okay. Page three, subsection H. But the vernacular we're using is the threshold being I'm sorry to use the shorthand, but the five units as opposed to four. Got it. So. So the tenant relocation payment regime would completely exempt four unit buildings. Correct. Okay. And otherwise that motion was everything that council member Mungo's motion was the sub sub now added that change to 8.97.0 20h. I think it's, it's clear to me what the sub sub is on the floor. Hopefully it is to everybody else. I think I think I think that's a subset subsub. So we have a sub sub on the floor. Let me just keep going down the line. Next up is Vice Mayor Andrew's comment. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I've been listening the most and I believe the most landlords are responsible and they're fair in their dealings with, you know, our tenants. But I also don't believe that that the tenant relocation measures, you know, are really rent control. You know, but under this ordinance, I think landlords will still be able to charge as much as they want, ask people to leave whenever they choose, subject to any lease agreement. The only difference in this is when people enforce the tenets to their tenants, the tenants that they're from, the convenience of, you know, landlords, that the lenders will have the financial assistance of tenants and their relocations. So further, this ordinance will only apply to the narrow number of situations such as mass eviction, high rental increase. People are asked to leave because of the reason beyond their control and only in the rental for five units or more. This is a very, I think, situation. And the problem that we are having in seen in my district and across the city, I think too many residents have been, you know, evicted. But for reasons that landlords wish to raise rents beyond the capability of the current tenant to pay. And we've seen a lot of that. But the thing about it, I think a landlord you don't really see really very fair in a lot of these situations because I'm hoping that our tenants and landlords can, after we tweak a lot of this, will come together and try to find out because I think a lot of the individuals see what we're going through with this day and time. You know, they said we're going to have a massive eviction and we're going to have, you know, homelessness. But that could go either way. It just all depends the way individuals if you have a place that you're renting, I think you should be able to understand that is your place at that time. Take care of it. And I think a lot of these landlords, we don't really understand to keep the rent the way it is. I heard the individual say he hadn't raises rent in ten years. That's fine and dandy, but we would hope everybody else will understand because you guys realize everything is going up. And I'm hoping that tenants really seriously will understand that we have a responsibility, just like our landlords. And I'm definitely going to vote on this measure tonight, you know, because it'll be able to stabilize some of the enjoyment rent and increase on any other thing. So thank you very much. Next up, thank you, vice mayor. Next up is Councilman Austin. Thank you. I've been entertained by public comment here this evening and I learned a few things. So thank you very much and also with my colleagues. I appreciate it. Councilmember Granger's comments regarding truth in politics and sometimes, you know, that gets confused in reality. You know, people want us to tell the truth. But if the the the truth is and what they want to hear is not the truth. So there there there's been much discussion about this issue, a lot of public comment for for several months. But what I've heard here tonight from both sides is that this this before us is not perfect. I've heard from my colleagues that, hey, we want to make it better. I've heard staff compliment it for, you know, bringing this council, this this item to council at like a rapid pace. I don't think I've ever seen a item with this this gravity come back so quickly. And so they should be commended for their their work on this. Obviously, they're taking it very seriously and understanding that this is an issue that is important to not only this council, but the entire a lot of people in this city on one side or the other. I want to be reminded of our goal here. The goal was to provide a tenant relocation policy, but also protect tenant tenant protections. Right. And what it was one of the the the individuals who council members who voted to bring this or this policy to to the city attorney's office for for drafting , but also expressed some reservations about it, because I expressed it that I wasn't completely comfortable with what was in front of us. There were a number of questions posed to city staff during that last meeting a month ago. Right. And then the last couple of days we received answers to those questions. Right. One was regarding the impact on on cost of Hawkins. Another was regarding the legalities of creating a a an extended noticing from 60 days to 180 days as an option to tenant relocation. And and those answers, I think, have. Merit in terms of the policy that we're looking at tonight. They're significant in terms of impacting the policy. I think some of the points raised by the Legal Aid Foundation and some of the tenant rights activists or advocates were duly noted in terms of the the when the relocation payment is actually made. That is that's significant and I think should be massaged through this process. I'm not completely, again, comfortable with what's in front of us, but I do support I will say I do support the and I do with the second on the motion to provide an option in terms of a 180 day notice. I think that is is fair. And I think it does add an element of protection for for our our our tenants. I'm a little disappointed that this policy before us also came back empty. On disabled the benefits for the extended benefits for the disabled and elderly. Because when I signed on to this as an initial cosigner on this issue several months ago, that was a priority, kind of lay it out and for us to come back empty on that is disappointing. It also sends a message that it's okay for for for for the burden to be on you, but not for us, except on our end of the burden. I thought that was an excellent, excellent addition. I think it was a creative point. I think Councilmember Pearce brought that forward. But I think we need to to really show our commitment as a city council to making this policy whole and in protecting and creating extra protections for those who are disabled and elderly. Our seniors are are vulnerable. Those with disabilities are most vulnerable. And I know that that was a a foundation of the policy that we set to create. The timing, I think, is is unique for for a lot of reasons. I personally don't know that that moving this two weeks is going to be a big difference. And in understanding that staff went and made significant changes, put together a policy in one month. I think the additions could certainly be be worked out in the next couple of weeks. And so my my objective is to make sure that we come out with a good policy, a well, big policy. If you put a put a. A cake in the oven and you take it out early. You don't have a good cake. So I think you have to to make sure that we bake this fully. And one thing that this continues to continue to struggle with, I know that we're going to create some and I want to say ten protections. We will create a policy that will trigger relocations if if if anybody or property or landowners landlords abuse. But at the same time, I think the question that keeps kind of bugging me is, does this policy make housing in Long Beach more affordable? And I'm not sure that that that it does. And we still are going to continue to have substantive and ongoing conversations about this issue moving forward. I know. So on with that. Those are my comments and I look forward to taking this to a vote. Councilmember Councilman Price. Thank you. I appreciate all the comments. I want to to just comment on the the point about everything being political. I have deep, deep respect for my colleagues. But I will say this is local politics, which is supposed to be mostly about doing good for the community and focusing on community needs that are very specific. And so we are. All. Talk and I get it, everything is political. I completely agree with them. I have nothing but respect like in District seven, but I do hear that a lot is that everything is political, but it's true. But what we do as a city council is we're setting policy that involves day to day lives of people on both sides of this particular issue. And so we have to look at factors like the fact that Councilman Austin just said there was an aspect of the item that's not even included in today's ordinance and we're going to vote on it tonight is is surprising to me because we had a long debate and we tried to listen to all the stakeholders. So my recommendation is, is that we we wait. I'm going to be supporting the subsub and the sub. The one thing that I will ask my colleague who's made the sub sub council. There are two things that I would like to ask you to consider as a friendly for the sub sub. And the first is that the tenant should not have to notify the tenant that they are staying. I mean, the landlord that they are staying. I think that is a fair request, and I would ask if you would consider that friendly. Okay. And then what's the second? The second one is that the landlords would have to notify the tenants of their rights to relocation. Okay. So those are intercepted. Hold on a second. Ordinance already requires the landlord to notify the tenant of their rights. I think without putting words in your mouth, I think what you're getting at is that failure to provide such notice should be an affirmative defense to eviction. Is that right? Yes, I think that was one of the requests that the tenant organizations made. And I think that's very fair. That's correct. Yeah. I anything on the disabled there. Oh. And that we include the disabled provision that Councilman Austin had asked for and made as an issue when we last discussed this. That didn't make it into the current ordinance. I'm. Well, that shouldn't be in the ordinance unless you're proposing that the apartment owners fund that, which I don't think is what you're proposing. That's a city funded program that wouldn't be in an ordinance. It would just be at the direction of the council. So would that still be included tonight or are we not voting? Voting on. That? Not voting on that. Okay. So we couldn't vote on that tonight anyway because that's not agenda. That's right. Understood. Okay. Thank you. So. So there's two friendly amendments. I think I understand them. You're good with them. Mover, council member. Both. Both accepted. And I assume that the since the secondary was Councilwoman Pryce. You're good with them as well. Okay. Yes. As amended. Okay. Thank you. Consumer prices. Anything else? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. I initially cued up to highlight that point that was just highlighted that when we initially brought up the conversation about the disabled program and the senior program, it was that we intentionally said we wanted to keep it separate so there wouldn't be discrimination on the part of landlords on who they're going to, you know, lease to seniors or disabled, but that the city would create a program and not place that burden on the landlords. So I'm glad that was clarified. I also want to say that, you know, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. This is a good ordinance in front of us. It's good enough to pass today, and we can always improve on every single ordinance on the books. The question for me is did staff do what we asked them to do? When we made this motion. And they did. And that's what's in front of us. And we voted for that with an expectation that this is what's going forward. Now, we've learned that there are some pieces that we didn't give direction on and it wasn't clarified. So. So the city attorney's office clarifying on some of it, like when the relocation is paid, we didn't give direction on that. And that's a tweak that we can do later, but by no means should we slow down the process of moving forward. So in my opinion, what we should do tonight, what we should do tonight. I've already said that I am willing to work with council members on both sides to bring forward something, something different, you know, a tweak from both sides of the issue. Right. To come together and address some cleanup because it will it's not something it's something that will need a little bit of fine tuning. The angel is in the details and I will do that work over the next month or two to make to make it happen. But what I think we have tonight is an ordinance that's ready to go. It's ready to go. So I would encourage so I would encourage right now that we get back to the main motion that would be a no vote on the substitute substitute. A no vote on the substitute. And I vote on the motion that yes, motion. And the other thing is to assume and I'll just live in the room to assume that someone who has been a good ally and champion this issue, that they might want to actually vote on this. You know, Councilwoman Gonzalez, I think that's okay thing. Right. She's going to be elected to the Senate. And and to do that with this ordinance, I think it's okay. And we don't have to dance around it. I don't think we're shortchanging the process. We have plenty of time, you know, to have more conversations. But the ordinance today is it's an ordinance that's ready to the city attorney put his stamp on it already is ready to go. So I would encourage a no vote on the sub sub a no vote on the sub. And I vote on the main motion made by Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Thank you very much. I just wanted to to address the elephant in the room. And first of all, let me just say congratulations in advance to Councilmember Gonzalez for it. And what was that? The the and I don't know what the timeline is. You know, there will there will be we're dark on June 5th. Fourth. Okay. June the fourth. Yeah, I forgot the date. So we're dark on the fourth. There's no reason why we can't be here to to vote on this on the 11th. Right. Well, in the question is, Councilmember Gonzales, will you be here on the 11th? Keep. Maybe that's a question. Mr. Mayor, can I can I pose that question to my colleague? Yeah. I mean, I don't know the answer to that. Do you plan to be here on the 11th? Here? I will be here on the 11th. But I would like to move this forward today. Right. So I would just like to say. I think that that's. Either way, Councilmember Gonzalez will have an opportunity to vote on this, whether or not we we work to fine tune this with the motions on the floor. And and I will just tell you, you know, I've been in tricky situations. I've understood how these votes go. I will not be voting no on any of the items before me, because that's always twisted against you in the truth of politics. Excuse me. Just excuse me. Okay. Well, thank you. We had the first vote. Right now is a is the sub sub, which is council member supervised motion. So it's councilmember supervised motion. Please cast your votes. Guys. We got it. Thank you. I'm. Push and fail. Okay. Thank you. The. The next. The next motion is the substitute motion, which is Councilman Mango motion. So this is the councilwoman mongo motion. Motion fail. Okay. And the last the last motion is the main motion, which is the Lina Gonzalez motion. How many? Motion carries. Great. Thank you very much. We are we're we're we're going to go ahead and. Thank you, Renee. We still have a little bit of the meeting left, so please, people can just please exit quietly. Would appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Recommendation to suspend Council rule contained in Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.03.020(B) relating to the meeting schedule of the City Council in order to cancel the meeting of April 14, 2015, due to the Special Municipal Election.

LongBeachCC_03032015_15-0190

Item 22 report from Mir Mir Garcia. Recommendation to suspend council rule containing in Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.03.020 relating to the municipal schedule of the City Council in order to cancel the meeting of April 14, 2015, due to the special municipal election. Okay. There's been a motion in a second by accounts from Richardson. And you recognize or any public comment on the item. Say, Mr. Goodhue, please. Yes, Larry. Good. You click as I address once again I would suggest holding this off until. I would suggest, based upon the recent communications from the ninth District, I would say ninth District Court. Until July, at which time we will have a opportunity to vote for also a new mayor, and that will consolidate the efforts and so forth. And the new mayor. Incidentally, given the budget situation, we'll have a salary equal to $1 more than the council people until our situation in this city is squared away. That's going to be one of the issues that will come up with the new mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goodhew. We have a motion. No other public comment. Okay. Members, please go and cast your votes. Motion carries seven zero. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next item.

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving and adopting the official budget of the City of Long Beach for the Fiscal Year 2014 - 2015, 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, 2014, read and adopted as read. (Ordinance No. ORD-14-0013) (A-16)

LongBeachCC_09022014_14-0692

Item 1.16. I moved to declare the appropriations ordinance for fiscal year 15, creating and establishing the funds of the municipal government and appropriating money to and authorizing expenditures from said funds and force said fiscal year as an emergency ordinance read an adopted as read and laid over to the actually no, just read and adopted as read. Are we laying it over for? Yes, we are yet and laying it over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading and council members. We have the hand out that's been passed out is. ERICKSEN Did you want to speak to it? Yes. Vice Mayor, you have at your desk three handouts. The first is the amended motion that includes both what was recommended by the U.S. and what was amended on the floor of council. So you this is the same as what you had before. But then there's a new section called Additional Changes on the floor of council, and there you'll have the $100,000 that goes to the language access plan from artificial turf conversion. And it makes note about the using money for the voice mail conversion to go towards L.A. P implementation to CUDA one phone number initiative and also includes the contingent appropriation for police overtime for residential burglary up to $350,000 from the FY 2014 up on surplus. And it also lastly includes the transfer of the park ranger program in parks to police and that is also subject to the meeting confer process. Also in front of you, you have exhibit A and Exhibit B, these are the appropriation ordinances, these appropriation ordinances with Exhibit A appropriate by fund the entire budget, and that includes the changes that were modified today. And then Exhibit B does the appropriation by department also includes the changes that were discussed today? And by approving this, you are approving and appropriating. The F 15 budget. Thank you. Ms.. ERICKSON And so council members, my motion is to include the amendments that we had agreed to, as well as both in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, the transfer amounts. There's been a there's been a motion and a second. Councilor Richardson. Just a point of clarification on the not exhibit A or Exhibit B, but the Bill C recommendations as amended on the floor. The use of the the use on the the one time council divided by nine funds, the description seems a little bit different. Is that a mistake? We're prepared this madam or councilmember. That actually wasn't amended. So that that should be noted that we did talk about was it up to $100,000 for 50 sorry, $50,000 per district for the park ranger program. Thank you. Not park range. Programing for. Part programing. Part programing. Part programing. So excellent. So we have a motion on the floor. I would take any public comment. Good evening, Suzanne Brown, senior attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation. Here in Long Beach. Congratulations. You're almost there. It's been a long night. One thing we just want to point out with respect to the language access motion, there might be a little bit of confusion. I think there was discussion about the 311 phone line and how it's a really good idea, but that it's not actually part of the policy. It's something that would be done separately. And so we would ask that that language be removed from the proposal before you and that the 311 line be examined separately, because that's really about general access for the city. It's not the language access issue. It's no matter what your language is, if you want to have a a policy where the doors and shut on you. So we would ask that that please be removed in the hundred thousand. Be fully dedicated to language access. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Closed public comment. Please cast your votes. Motion carries nine zero. Thank you. Just want to say just a few things. First, I want to congratulate the full City Council on passing a responsible, balanced and budget that really looks towards towards the future as far as putting my dollars aside. There's certainly always more need than there is resources. And I think that there are a lot of very credible programs, projects out there that were not as part of this budget that we all would like to see. And I think it's obviously up to us to move forward and work with the community and all of our and all of the stakeholders to ensure that we're able to meet the needs as far as we can afford that moving forward. So I wanted to congratulate the Council again on passing the budget early, which I think is says a lot about this new this new council coming in as well. They've been doing their work and it's been a thoughtful process. I also want to thank the members of the B or C, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell and Councilmember Stacy Mongeau for their work, as well as all the the meetings that happened throughout the community. Vice Chair Patrick O'Donnell And just that and and also I think we owe a big thank you to staff and not just obviously financial management and the city manager, but all of the employees and all the budget officers. And we have a significant amount of reason this work happens all year. They're working on the budget. They will start working on the budget again tomorrow. And so this is this is the kind of work that happens at the city. And so I wanted to thank all the budget staff and everyone that's involved in putting this budget together. This is a responsible budget, and I think everyone did a great job. So let's give them a round of applause. Council for for their hard work. And and with that, we will move on to the rest of the City Council meeting. Madam Clerk. Item 14 Report from Health and Human Services Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents with the State of California Department of Public Health in the amount of 4,540,000 for the Women, Infant and Children Nutrition Supplemental Program Citywide.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5231, 5301-5307, 5335 Leetsdale Drive, and 420 and 450 South Grape Street in Washington Virginia Vale. Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from PUD 627 and B-3 Waivers and Conditions to E-CC-3 (planned development to urban edge, commercial corridor), located at 5231, 5301-5307, 5335 Leetsdale Drive and 420, 450 South Grape Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-21-19.

DenverCityCouncil_07082019_19-0446

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill four for six on the floor? Yes, President Clark, I move that council bill 19 dash 0446 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 446 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. Council President and council members. My name is Liz Waghorn with Community Planning and Development and this is an official map amendment application. Four 5231 5301 through 5307 5335 leads, dale drive and 420 and 450 South Grape Street from planned unit development 6 to 27 and B three with waivers and conditions to SCC three. The MAP Amendment is located in Council District five in the Washington, Virginia Vail neighborhood. It is located on along Lee's Dale Drive between Forest Street and Hudson Street on the North Side. It's approximately five acres and it's currently developed with two retail buildings and undeveloped land. As I mentioned, this is a rezoning from former Chapter 59 custom zoned districts to the SCC three district, and this is requested to facilitate redevelopment of the site with mixed uses. The requested zone district is in the urban edged neighborhood context. It is a commercial corridor that would allow up to three stories or 45 feet. This district allows for a mix of uses that's intended to balance the need for pedestrian, skilled, diverse areas with need needs for a convenient automobile access. It allows the general drive thru services and drive thru restaurant forms. The subject site shown here is currently zoned within former Chapter 59 and I'll go through the details of those. The surrounding properties are generally single unit to the north and then a mix of districts, commercial districts, residential districts and other custom districts along Leeds. Dell Drive the Putty, which is a large portion of the proposed parcel, was established in 2009. This was an update from a previous PD and a portion of the site is also zoned as B3, which is a commercial district in former Chapter 59 with waivers and conditions, and that dates back to 1998. Both districts generally allow commercial uses, but they specifically prohibit residential. They include setback requirements, use limitations, requirements for buffering and screening, and also a maximum heights in elevation. There is a large grade change that happens on the site from leads due to the north. There are portions of the PD that are not included in this application and they would remain empty. 627 Going forward. As I mentioned, the subject property is currently developed with retail and there is some undeveloped land there, single unit residential generally to the north and then a mix of retail office and residential along Leeds Dell Drive. This is an image of the site looking north where you can see the existing buildings on the site and these are images of those buildings. Here are some retail commercial and office uses to the east. Here you can see additional retail office uses along sorry to the west and then some of the residential use that are to the north along Dakota Avenue that the MAP Amendment went to the planning board on May 1st, where the planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval. Three members of the public spoke at that hearing, related very much to the public comments that I have listed on this slide. We had comments from to our nose in the area, the preservation of Residential South Hilltop Neighborhood Association and the Dakota Hills Homeowner's Association. Also, the Dakota Hills are now they have been working with the applicant over a couple of years now to establish a covenant agreement that would go along with this rezoning between the applicant and the neighborhood they were. That was still in process. Also when we brought this to the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee, they have since come to an agreement that includes additional use limitations, a height in elevation for the site and set back requirements. And that agreement has been signed and we now have a letter of support from the Prishtina Neighborhood Association. In addition to that, we did receive two emails also in support of the application. I will go through the five review criteria that is set forth in the Denver zoning code for maximum applications, the first being consistency with adopted plans of which we have a comprehensive plan. 20:40 a.m.. Blueprint. Denver We do find that the MAP amendment is consistent with our comprehensive 2040, a number of plan, guidance and strategies that we have around infill development, encouraging mixed use community communities, and putting infill development in places that have amenities and access to transit, which you do have long leads. Dale Drive Blueprint Denver calls out this area as the urban edge neighborhood context, which is predominantly residential and tends to act as a transition between urban and suburban areas. A commercial and mixed use development tends to be found along corridors, which is very consistent with what you see in this neighborhood. This area is called out as a community corridor and blueprint, which provides that mix of uses and a mix of larger and small scale buildings. In the urban edge context, particularly, some of them can be set back from the street to accommodate parking and it says its heights can be generally up to five stories that just to the proposed SCC three district is consistent with this. This is a commercial corridor district that would allow that mix of uses and particularly is called out in the intent as being appropriate along arterials such as leads to so leased out in Blueprint. Denver is also called out as the commercial arterial street. These are designed for a high amount of through movement and they typically contain commercial uses such as shopping centers along them. The blueprint over growth strategy says that generally in the city we should be directing our growth to community corridors with with them being anticipated to see 25% of new housing growth and 20% of new employment growth by 2040. And providing this growth in these centers and corridors increases access to amenities for alternative Denver rates. And this gives us makes us move closer to our goals for complete neighborhoods. The proposal rezoning that would allow for residential uses along with site is consistent with our growth strategy. CPD staff does also find that the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with the uniformity of district regulations or results, in that it would further our public health, safety and welfare by being consistent with our adopted plans and also bringing this site into use by the modern zoning code regulations that are in the Denver zoning code. The application calls out changed and changing conditions for justifying circumstance, specifically that this site remains in former Chapter 59 zoning and this rezoning would bring it into the Denver zoning code. So we do find that to be an appropriate justifying circumstance. Lastly, we find that the proposed amendment is consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. As I describe the urban neighborhood, urban edge neighborhood context primarily has single and two unit residential uses and that commercial uses a mixed use are generally around local arterial and main streets of the commercial corridor district specifically are intended to ensure that new development contributes positively to neighborhood character and improves that transition between commercial development in adjacent residential areas. And specifically the SCC three district is intended for arterial street corridors and again that is what we have a long leads do. So with that, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you very much. We do have four individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if you signed up to speak on this item, I'll ask if you can come up to the front bench here and if you make some room for them to come up here so that we can get through everybody. So when your name is called, step right up and your time will start. First up is Grant Nelson. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Grant Nelson and with Republic Investment Group here. On behalf of the applicants, the applicant in this property is 226 Monroe. It is local family. Paula Arnold and her son Ken Arnold are the owners of this property. They originally purchased the property to move their businesses to the property, and she currently operates a business that her and her family have operated in Denver since 1947 on the property. So they did not start out to be real estate developers or owners. In this case, they bought one property to build a building on. Determined it wasn't a great property to build a building on. The natural grocery building came for sale so they bought that to move her business into and it's always a good idea if you owned properties on either side to the one in the middle as well . So they ended up buying the one in the middle to make sure that they can control their own destiny. They have been working for the last couple of years on this rezoning, and we've been working hard with the neighbors, Brad and the the parishioner we've met with for the last couple of years. We have a signed neighborhood agreement here on behalf of the Arnolds. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pearce. Jesse Pierce represented for Denver Homicide, Low Black Star Action Moment for self defense and positive commitment for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for City Council. While large this past May 2019 election, I got almost 15,000 votes with no money. I'm neither for or against this. I thought this was going to be another rezoning for a more gentrification that's rapidly happening throughout this city. This previous speaker just confirmed that that is not the case and that these people are just looking to relocate their business. So I made a four against it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Brad Yoshimoto who? Thank you. Good evening, City Council. My name is Brad Yoshimi two 5300 East Dakota Avenue. And I am the president of Krishna, the R.A., which was formed in 1996. Our boundaries are. Alameda to the north. Lee still to the south. Holly to the east and Delta to the west. My speech will be brief this evening in the. Because of the time limit and because I know you guys are busy this evening, but person has been negotiating, like Grant said, for about a year and a half now. And we recently came to an agreement. We've signed a restrictive covenant agreement with the applicant a couple of weeks ago, and I'm here today on behalf of personnel to officially support the rezoning. We want to thank the applicant for their willingness to work with us throughout the process and address some of our major concerns. We believe that this restrictive covenant agreement gives us some of the protections we had under the current zoning, including height, restrictions, setbacks and uses. In the interest of time. There are other board members here, but I will be the only one speaking tonight. I have Monica Hess, who was also part of the negotiations, as well as Jane Broda. They are both on the board as well. I'd also like to thank Mary Beth Susman for her direction and communication throughout the process and application and want to thank her for her years of service. We are hopeful that this rezoning will bring good, thorough and productive development that we can. Welcome to our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou. The German so-called black star movement. Self-defense. We support this zoning change and we want to salute Councilwoman Sussman for her outstanding leadership and getting this thing done over a two year period. Now, that requires perseverance and commitment to getting this thing done. And with the approval of the neighborhood organizations, we feel confident that there will be a what's. Organization that would monitor this so that as things happen and things changes over the course of projects such as this, the intent and essence of the project that this council will approve tonight will not be altered anyway. Significantly, that will put the neighborhood in a jeopardizing position of principal. So congratulations for the hard work. And this is how the partnership between community organizations and developers work, where we create a win win situation and the possibilities where you have adversarial relationship between developers and neighborhood are minimized and that we can move forward because there is life after development. Thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council on this item? Councilman Espinosa. One question for the prisoner representative and one question for CPD for staff. Let's do the shift to the staff. Can you explain the Graves Street address? There was a formerly a street there sometime ago that was vacated at some point that the addresses still remain along, that. You didn't actually connect north? It does not connect currently. Yeah, I didn't see that. All right. Thanks. On the so to the representative for the association. Do you know if your restrictive covenant has two signatories? Is it just the owner or is the owner and your your organization? It's the owner and the organization both. Yes. Terrific. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Mr. President, I am not sure. Probably someone from staff, if you can answer. So under the previous zoning, the limit was five storeys. So we now have a covenant on the property. What is that? Restrict it to. The. So the previous zoning. Actually, there were two height limits. One with the PD 627 was an elevation in height. So it wasn't a storeys piece but a specific elevation. And then the B3 with waivers and conditions had a maximum of two stories, 39 feet, and also an elevation with that piece. So the the new zone district would allow 45 feet and three stories. And I believe that the the covenant that the applicant and the neighborhood has agreed to is 5410. Correct. That's the elevation height, which is approximately equal to about the the fence line of the houses at the top of the hill. And does that height include the all the mechanical on on top of the structure as well? So the agreement limits those to nine feet. Okay. Generally, by zoning, they could get up to 12 feet for certain types of like the elevator overrun in those types of mechanical pieces. Great. I have no further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right, see no other questions. The public hearing for comfortable four, four, six is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. This was a rather complicated piece of property because of the unusual topography that it had, the the extreme elevation from street level to the neighborhood just above it. And I just want to congratulate first the neighborhoods who worked so hard with the with the project, who who had to, along with me, understand that the previous zoning was about elevation and not storeys. And if the elevation changed, how did the stories change? It wasn't an easy sort of project to understand. But I also want to thank the family that wants to do something with this property and do something that I think is very valuable to the city and to the neighborhood and still maintains the beauty of the person and neighborhood. Well, I won't recommend that everybody go there because then you'd have a whole bunch of traffic. But it's a it's a beautiful, beautiful neighborhood. And thank you. Thank you so much for all the work you did. I'm almost two years of back and forth ing between all of the neighborhoods, and I'm pleased that we could reach that, that you all could reach an agreement about, well, what will work there. And I urge my fellow council members to vote yes for this. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel Sussman. Hi. Black. Hi. Brooks Hi. Espinosa, I. Flynt II. The Fillmore Herndon Cashier. I can teach Lopez. I knew Ortega, I. Mr. President. I am secretary. Please, cause the voting in those results. 11.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 8.101.030, relating to tenant harassment; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12082020_20-1202

I'm 56. Please. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to tenant harassment and declaring the urgency thereof. Read the first time and later the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. Is there any public comment on this? There is no public comment on this item. Okay. Can I get a motion in a second, please? Mostly Councilmember Pearce. Can I get a second, please? Councilor. Can I get a second on the motion? Okay. Second back, Councilwoman Pryce, please cast your votes. Rourke over. District one. Any district to. Hi. District three. I district for my district five. I. District seven. District eight. District nine. I. Motion carries. Okay, great. We'll go back to the regular agenda. I think just the rest of the remaining items should go fairly quickly. Councilman woman pearce had a motion. Frightened 52. Do you want to go and make that?

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute amendments to Contract No. 33071 with Azteca Landscape, Inc., of Ontario, CA, and Contract No. 33259 with Merchants Landscape Services, Inc., of Santa Ana, CA, for grounds maintenance services; extend the term to August 31, 2018 with an option to extend for a period of three months, at the discretion of City Manager; and, increase the aggregate contract amount by $1,932,666, plus $966,333 if the optional three-month extension is exercised, for a total aggregate contract amount not to exceed $9,663,330. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02202018_18-0173

Thank you. We just did 31, so we're moving on to 33. Item 33 is a report from Parks Recreation, Marine Financial Management Recommendation to execute amendments to contracts with Azteca Landscape and Merchant Landscape Services for grounds maintenance services citywide. There's a motion in a second. Is there any public comment? I'm sorry, was that public comment up there for this item? No. Okay. Then please. Councilman Mongo. I just hope that everyone knows what a big deal this is and how hard Parks and Rec worked to put in some measures where when Azteca doesn't perform properly, there are penalties and responsibilities and accountability. And we had a time when we were first elected where they would clean up an area and then. Literally drive their truck across our fields. And so those things won't be possible anymore. And we're putting in accountability. And measures that the former council before us did not have for us to be able to execute. So I'm really, really proud of the staff and I know how much time it took for you guys to accomplish this. So thank you. Thank you. Please cast your votes.

A proclamation in celebration of Denver’s 25 Years of National Trajectory for Equal Rights and LGBTQ Protection.

DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0420

President. We do have one proclamation. Proclamation for 20. Really? For 20 oak anyway. Councilor has a. Woman. I just know. Does that councilwoman can age? Will you please read proclamation 420? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I proclamation 420 in celebration of Denver's 25 year history of nondiscrimination and equal rights for LGBTQ people. Whereas in 1973, Denver officially repealed ordinances used to criminalize homosexuality. And in the 1980s and nineties, society was beginning to see gay and lesbian individuals more visibly. But understanding was still limited and bias was still legally sanctioned, persistent. And many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people were still afraid to live openly for fear of violence, discrimination or other forms of non acceptance. And. Whereas, despite the antagonistic climate, Denver was a home and a regional destination for many LGBTQ persons with community institutions like the Center and Society providing support and advocacy and a number of accepting businesses serving the community. And. Whereas, local community leaders began appealing to the Denver City Council for Legal Protection from discrimination resulting in the Denver City Council adopting Ordinance 623 of 1990, a comprehensive civil rights urban ordinance that prohibited discrimination in employment, housing, education, health, welfare , public accommodations and commercial space on the basis of sexual orientation. And. Whereas, 25 years ago this month, opponents of LGBTQ equality responded with a ballot measure to repeal the protections for sexual orientation, which galvanized the LGBTQ community and allies to campaign to defeat the measure, resulting in 54.7% of Denver voters rejecting the backlash, affirming the legal right of their gay and lesbian family members, neighbors, friends and coworkers to live free of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Denver. And. Whereas, opponents of LGBTQ equality who lost Denver's municipal vote then took their fight to the voters of the state of Colorado in a high profile loss for LGBTQ Equality Amendment two, which would have prohibited cities like Denver and Boulder from including sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination ordinances. And. Whereas, once again, 20 years ago this month, justice prevailed in a Supreme Court decision striking down Colorado's amendment to Romer v Evans, which was also cited by the Supreme Court in striking down state bans on same sex marriage in 2015. Obergefell versus Hodges decision, therefore paving the way both for nondiscrimination and relationship protections for couples. Whereas the city and county of Denver and our elected officials have routinely served as national leaders in the advancement of LGBTQ equality, including the creation of the first Mayor's LGBT Advisory Committee, a zoning code amendment to ensure unmarried couples could legally live in single family zoned areas, and the creation of a registry for couples to document their committed relationships. And. WHEREAS, the city and county of Denver as an employer has also long provided equality for our employees by defining family to include intimate partners of the same gender for purposes of employee benefits like sick leave and health insurance. And. Whereas, legal protection from discrimination and equal access to benefits has freed many LGBTQ persons to more fully participate in Denver's community and economy, enriching the lives of not only those individuals and their families, but all of Denver. And. Whereas, the recognition and celebration of these historic civil rights milestones is especially important given the recent backlashes occurring in states like North Carolina and Mississippi, which have sought to sanction and institutionalized discrimination against LGBTQ people. And given the work we still have to do right here in Denver and Colorado, including overcoming lingering disparities in LGBTQ health , the struggles of youth who are coming out, and the barriers to full acceptance and economic opportunity for transgender and gender non-conforming residents. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, we honor our predecessors serving on the Denver City Council and in the office of Mayor in 1994. Their courage, courageous leadership in adopting civil rights protections for the gay and lesbian community and celebrate the voters of Denver. Upon the 20th anniversary of our rejection of hate in our great city, Section two, we honor all LGBTQ persons who came out from the margins to tell their stories and to be visible in ways that helped make these advancements possible. And we thank all the leaders, activists and allies who led these movements for justice. Section three We celebrate the 20th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's favorable decision in Romer v Evans to uphold Denver's place on the right side of history. And for all the advancements in progress that have taken place since that decision. Section four We denounce the proliferation of efforts to prevent or roll back progress for LGBTQ dignity or equal access to employment across this country. And we applaud the Department of Justice for its strong stance in opposition to these measures. And we stand in solidarity with those withholding travel and economic investments in states who have adopted anti equality measures in section five that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test, in effect, the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and then a copy be transmitted to Tina Scardina, the center and to the elected officials present today who played a role in this historic progress. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill six council proclamation 16 to ask for it to be adopted. It has been moved and seconded, commented Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. It's very humbling to read this proclamation today from this dais. It's always humbling to serve the city and county of Denver as a transplant. To be accepted by your adopted city is always an honor, especially when you need to be intentional about learning the history that came before you. And it's especially humbling because I live so openly and freely with ease about who I am in a city that was built on the work of those who came before me. And so when I ran for office as an out lesbian, it was not difficult for me because of the work that happens before. My constituents rarely wanted to talk about it. It was not that noteworthy. And those who did were affirming. And that continues to be the case in my five years in service. These two things are related. The history of those who came before and the privilege of those who can live in our community, out, who can go to their jobs, who can contribute their talents in whatever department of the city it may be, from public works to parks to the contributions they make in every employment possible in this city, and to the places they can stay, restaurants they can go to, hotels they can stay at things that were not always possible, but did become so because of the work of those who came before. There are many folks here to be honored. I'm going to mention a few of them. Some of them will be coming up to acknowledge or to accept their proclamation. But please bear with me as I acknowledge council members who served in the 1990 City Council, my colleague Debbie Ortega , Councilwoman Happy Haines was also serving on that council at the time. I believe those are the only two we have from that year. If anyone's walked in. I missed you. I apologize. We have several council members who served afterwards during the litigation that followed during the policy changes for employment rates, and that includes Councilwoman Joyce Foster. And we also have Councilwoman Susan Casey here, who is writing a book actually about another woman. I'm about to acknowledge, Jean de Baffsky, who is the lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Romer v Evans case. So it was her litigation that allowed cities like Denver to keep the nondiscrimination clauses that we had long before the states were ready to do that kind of protection. We have Pat Stedman, who we know now is our state senator, but at that time was a new law school graduate and a leader organizing others against these measures. And if you council secretary could please put the the switch the screen. Oh, it's up there already. I'm sorry I missed it. What you see here is a poster that was used in the campaign to defeat this ordinance. And you can see the number of names of individuals. Many of those individuals were not gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender. They were straight allies who stood up and said, this is wrong. And they put their names there. And you can see on the top, I was kind of confused. It has the results of the vote. I had never seen a campaign poster with the results, the results of the vote on it, but that was added afterwards. So this was used to help to defeat this. We have here I mentioned that we have the center's president, Deb Pollock, is here. The center is celebrating 40 years this year of serving the LGBTQ community at a time when folks didn't even know how to come out of the closet and they needed that supportive environment and they hosted our pride parade. If you want to learn more about the history on June 13th, they're going to have a panel with some of the folks who were involved, even in the decriminalization that came in the 1970s. Right. So used to be arrested. For those you loved, if you got caught having a conversation about that, you could be arrested. And so we've come such a very long way. We have a new generation of folks with us today. The LGBTQ Commission of Denver has two representatives here, as well as derives from the Human Rights and Community Partnerships. He, for the past 12 years has been the one taking complaints which we still get. Sometimes we are work is our work is not done. And so it's important that we have these laws on the books because there are times when we still need to make sure that there is a legal process for folks who face discrimination. And so Darius does that for us. With that, I want to thank my many colleagues for your support on LGBT issues every day. Frankly, you're always there on these issues. This is not unique to this proclamation, but especially for co-sponsoring tonight. And I want to thank all of you for the work that you did to bring us to this day. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilwoman Black. Thank you. And thank you, Councilwoman Kennish. That was very, all very well said. So I'm not going to add anything except for to acknowledge a few other people who are here tonight. Darlene Ebert was a city attorney at the time and she helped to draft the ordinance. She is my friend and my constituent. So thank you, Darlene, for coming. And I also wanted to recognize, in addition to Joyce Foster, who is a former city council person, to city council people before me and my friend, she also was a state senator and her husband, Rabbi Stephen Foster, who have been long time advocates for this community and against discrimination. Rabbi Foster worked with Councilwoman Kathy Reynolds and Reverend Gil Horne on the ordinance, and Rabbi Foster also was a cochairman on the No on two campaign. So thank you both for all of your hard work. Thanks and thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm so excited and honored to be able to sit up here and support this today and to be able to say thank you from up here to all the people who have fought so hard to get us where we are. I don't usually quote musicians. I've really bad taste in music generally, but in this case there's a line that I take with me every single day in my life. It's from Nakamura's song, Same Love, where he says No Freedom Tower Equal. And I take that with me every day. It really spoke to me. I do believe that the chains that bind any one of us bind us all, and we are not truly free as a people until everyone enjoys the same freedoms and the same rights. We're not free until each and every person can be celebrated for who they are and live a life that is free from hate and discrimination. And as you see from this proclamation, we have come so far on on equal rights for our LGBTQ family members. And but that doesn't mean that we're done. And so I just wanted to take this opportunity to say thank you. Thank you. To celebrate for a second. But also just to say here that I stand ready. And I think it's pretty evident from this proclamation that this council stands ready to continue this fight and to continue to work until we are truly free, because we are truly equal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of each other. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I am honored to be a co-sponsor tonight, as I was when Ordinance 623 was brought forward. Councilwoman, can you thank you for the 25 year reminder to the rest of the world all of what has transpired in in that time frame. I want to give a special shout out to Cathy Reynolds, who was the catalyst on city council that worked tirelessly with her aide, Judy Gold, who worked with the LGBT community to bring this legislation forward. They met for months and months to craft the language and then bring it forward. And it was passed by city council. And then to see what followed was a little challenging, but to see how the community really stuck together. And the night of the Supreme Court vote to see all the people celebrating in the streets of downtown, to realize that our United States Supreme Court saw that, you know, for local governments to be able to adopt their own legislation to deal with the rights of individuals and to treat everybody equally, was important to allow local governments to take the lead in doing that. And as several of my colleagues have said, the work is not done. I can remember just a few years ago working with one of the commissioners from the LGBT commission, making sure that our schools had a no bullying policy because there were LGBT students who were being harassed. And, you know, we worked with Denver Public Schools to make sure that they had an adopted policy that would be followed by all the schools to ensure that students could go to school and be able to learn freely without being intimidated or harassed by their, you know, by their their fellow students. So, you know, that's just one example of some of the challenges that we still deal with day in and day out. But just to be at this place in this city is a huge victory for all of my colleagues who were involved in this whole process to ensure that all individuals in this city are treated equally. So congratulations to everyone who was involved in the process. And again, you know, thanks for bringing this forward. I think this is one that is important to celebrate. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, councilman, new. Thank you and congratulations council acacia and really so proud to support this proclamation. And I'm so glad that we're here proclaiming equal rights for all of our citizens in our entire city and across this nation. And so I'm so glad we're getting past this stigma and having equal opportunities and rights for for everyone. During my campaign, I had some of the most fun. I did some political meeting, Senator blushing blue, one of the gay nightclubs on Colfax. And it was so incredible. I get the hardest questions about campaigning, both politics and and Denver at that meeting than any other setting I have. So I was so impressed with the quality of and the caring and the then the love that all our citizens have for our city. So especially having that night in black and blue and if you haven't been down to the gay rights gay pride parade, it was so much fun to do. Float there and see the thousands of citizen. Is it all along the streets just just celebrating and having fun and and it's quite an event. So I encourage you to go this year. And and thank you, councilwoman. Can you bring this up and proudly look forward to supporting it? Thank you. Councilman new Councilman Espinosa. Again, thank you for for bringing the proclamation forward. I just going to say that I one of the things that I relish about this position is the ability to sort of act on behalf of minority voices. That, to me, is a critical component to representative government. And so sometimes the majority is in the wrong and and they need somebody on this desk to be standing up on their behalf, you know, to see that there wasn't an initiated opposition. It's just I mean, it happened. It happened in California with Prop eight and where the majority was in the wrong. And I just it's never I mean, it's real easy to be on the right side of history when you know it's the right thing. I hope we don't have these things continue to come up, but they do. And I mean, we see it in national politics. And so and what's happening in North Carolina and time and time again, this is just going on and it's just awesome. It's just rambling. But I just want to say that I do relish this aspect in the representative form of government to actually act on behalf of the minority when they're in the right. And because a lot of times, more often than not, you would be surprised at how right the minority is in these things. So but thanks again for bringing this forward, Robin, and I hope I didn't deviate too far, but thank you to the community as well. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank my colleague, Councilwoman Canete, for bringing this forward and providing the opportunity to lend support. You know, I shared for the first time during the campaign a couple of years ago that I grew up at a time where it was not uncommon for adolescent males to make very bad and very cruel jokes about people who lived a different lifestyle. And I remain embarrassed and ashamed at my participation in that. And while my mind began to open during my college years, it was not until my children got into their junior high and high school years and began bringing home friends from the LGBTQ community. That I truly began to understand the breadth of the need for us to expand civil rights to all corners of our population. And I thank my children very much for that. You know, the old thing about the child being father to the man, and there's another personal note. As I was sitting at home yesterday enjoying my Memorial Day, I got a call from a friend who's whose son was in the ICU at a local hospital with a rather severe health challenge. And his son, who's 20 or 21 now, had been born and raised as a young girl and is identified as a male for about the last year. So in the midst of this young man's crisis, health crisis, I watched not just hospital staff, but friends and family struggle with him and her. His birth name is who's taken name. And it was just a poignant reminder about the complexity of these issues. And as has been said, I'm so proud of where we are as a city and just recognizing the long road yet ahead. And I just appreciate all of you who have worked so hard over the years in this area to make things a little bit easier for my young friend. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you. Councilwoman Kennish, for bringing this forward and. For your leadership and many things like this and for all of those. Here and out out of these. Chambers for fighting so strongly for these rights. And I am struck with. How connected we all are. In our history and our. Places, members of. Our family. Members of our. Friends. City leaders, city constituency. I am so proud to live in the Denver community, to live among the people who fight for things like this. Thank you all for all that you have done. And I hope that we can bring it. Keep bringing it forward. And follow your model. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, because I want to take I'm going to go to Flint and Brooks as they hadn't. Had a chance. I don't know why they're showing up. Okay. I did not. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very proud to support this. And I just wanted to bring out one other name that hasn't been mentioned yet. And having been around at the time that all this was occurring in the immediate aftermath of the vote, within a week in the Webb administration, Mayor Wellington Webb, City Attorney Dan Muse announced his intention to challenge this in court on several grounds, one of which was Denver's home rule status. And I think we joined with Aspen and a few other localities, Boulder, and I think there was one other in that action. And Dan Muse, with whom I had the newspaper and many other folks at the other newspaper, had many go rounds over the eight years, I believe he was in the city attorney for Mayor Webb on this matter. It was to see him stand for this and to pursue it and to file the briefs and to follow it through all the way to to the resolution. It was very inspiring. And I just wanted to bring bring up Dan Muse, his name as well. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilwoman Canete, for bringing this forward. And also just inspired by my colleagues words. And I just want to just end it with the obviously a little quote from our main man, MLK. You know, who who just said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. And and that's why we're doing this. And we as allies, this is this is our duty and this is our responsibility. And as leaders, this is our responsibility in this city. So excited to stand up and be a co-sponsor to this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Any other comments on our commission for 20? I will I will simply add. Thank you, Councilman Kenneth, for bringing this forward. I say all the time, Denver is a remarkable city for for a number of reasons. But if you look at the diversity of this council body, it's probably, I believe, the most diverse in Colorado and other parts, because Denver is the city that really looks at people for what they bring to the table. And as Councilwoman Kinney's talked about, things that shouldn't matter don't in Denver. But the reality is, if some of us were running for office and other parts of this country, we would have no shot because prejudice is alive and well. Hatred is alive and well. And we must never forget that. We must continually fight that. I think about it wasn't that long ago in the time when I served in the military. You could openly love your country, but you couldn't openly love your partner. And I know several vets who had to get out of the military because of that law. And the absurdity of that, it's so obvious to us now, but it wasn't at that time where people had to hide who they were, if they wanted to, if they wanted to serve their country. So I'm thankful for Denver, for they continue to fight, but we must recognize there's still more work to be done. And thank you to all the people who came before us to blaze this path for us. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. Brooks. Hi. Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn, I. Gillmor, I. Cashman. Hi. Can each. I. Knew Ortega I. Susman Hi, Mr. President. All right. Madam Secretary, clean clothes are very nice results. 12 days to apply for 20 has been adopted. Councilman Canete. Is there someone you like or people to invite to the podium or see the proclamation? Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to invite four representatives. They'll be very brief, but Tina Scardina, who is a public works employee and one of the activists who really helped to spur this this movement and lead some of these efforts for the ordinance. Happy Haines and Darlene Ebert, who, as Councilwoman Black mentioned, helped to write the ordinance, and Jean Dabrowski, who led the effort to defeat Amendment two in the courts. So they'll they'll just going to speak in quick succession. Thank you. Thank you very much for the acknowledgment tonight. Members of council, this is a humbling occasion. I just can't even believe my. I'm here. It's kind of like a dream. This is just absolutely wonderful. As you outlined in when you read it? Councilwoman Kennish There is a lot of things that happened and each one of those things that she mentioned has a story and has a timeline on it and had a lot of people that worked on it. And that's a lot of activism that happened in the city that made it better. I spent the good part of my twenties and thirties doing it, and it really did. It changed my life for the better. What I would like to do tonight is to acknowledge the straight allies that really made this work. As much as the activism, as much of the activism that we did, we didn't really know what we were doing. But Councilwoman Reynolds did. Councilwoman Donahue did, Wellington Webb did. Those were some of the leaders that we went to when we didn't know what the heck to do. A lot of the history that you talked about happened in this room or it happened in the mayor's office or it happened in one of the courtrooms in this building. This building in this city means that an awful lot to me. This is my hometown. I'm so proud to be here. And if it wasn't for Reynolds and Donahue and Mayor Webb, I probably wouldn't be here either. But my gratitude goes out to you, Councilwoman Kenney, and all members of city council to have a unanimous proclamation. As you said before, nothing was so obvious back in the eighties and nineties we had to count votes when we didn't really know how to do that, but we were successful. And there are a lot of folks here today in this room that did a lot of work and a lot of people who aren't here that did a heck of a lot of work. I'd like to thank them for everything that they did. And again, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President, members of council, I'm honored and proud to stand here on behalf of my former colleagues on the city council. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennish, for reminding us of a history that we might be doomed to repeat if we don't take these moments to think about the history. I have to echo people's sentiments about the leadership of Councilwoman Cathy Reynolds and her aide, Judy Gold, who worked tirelessly with other members of the city council. And two mayors that started this process started with Mayor Federico Pena, and it was carried through and really completed under Mayor Wellington Webb and and my extraordinary friends and colleagues, Rabbi and the Honorable Joyce Foster, who have been on the front lines of every battle for justice and equality in this town for as long as I can remember. I just kudos to that extraordinary leadership and to those young activists who wouldn't say no and who stood in front of this whole community and and really displayed their leadership . One final thing. As you saw the the poster. We'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge the citizens of this wonderful city that we're all proud to serve and time and again stand on the right side of justice. And they did that in 1991. And so we would be remiss if we didn't say thank you to our voters and to the citizens of this city. Thank you very much. Hello members of Council and thank you for this opportunity to recognize this ordinance. So my name is Darlene Egbert. And I was in the city attorney's office here in Denver for 17 years and was honored to be asked to work on drafting this anti-discrimination ordinance, which was one of the most significant ordinances that I was involved with. And there was a team that took over a. Year to carefully craft every provision of this ordinance. And it was such a. Dedicated and devoted team of people that really wanted to to make a. A very ironclad law which amendment to tried to strike down. But Denver was. And was a plaintiff in. That lawsuit, along with the cities of Boulder and Aspen and Telluride, whose ordinances were also would also have been struck down by Amendment two. And really through the yeoman efforts. Of Jean de Borowski. As lead attorney in that case, but so many other. Devoted attorneys and and members of the community who fought that fight. We had cases in Denver County excuse me, Denver District Court that we won. I think we were one of the first cases live on court. Television, which existed at the time. And then we went on to the Colorado Supreme Court, one there, and then ultimately in the United States Supreme Court, which was a tremendous victory for the city of Denver and its citizens. So I was very. Proud to have been part of that effort. Thank you. Thank you all for supporting all of the efforts. That have been made over the years and for the proclamation today. There were several plaintiffs in the Amendment two case who lived in Denver. Couple of them. Richard Evans, who was the lead. Plaintiff, was an. Employee of. The city and county of Denver. And Angela Romero was a police officer. And we felt that we had the individual plaintiffs. We needed to make our case. And it would help immensely if particularly the city. And county of Denver would be a plaintiff. The reason for that was because court precedent, an amendment to was passed, was against LGBT rights across the board. The U.S. Supreme Court's. Only precedent in the area. Was a case called Bowers versus Hardwick. Which upheld an anti-sodomy law in Georgia. And the language in that opinion. Was just horrific. So we thought it would be very, very useful. To have the. City and county of Denver as a. Plaintiff. Because it would make it easier for a district court judge sitting in this building to find that Amendment. Two was unconstitutional. And I can't tell you how much I. Think that was important. Because the prestige of the city and the elected officials of the city saying. We think this initiative is awful, was very helpful. Jeff Bayless was the trial court judge here. And as Darleen. Said, it was a royal. Event. Her words, four weeks. One week of. Preliminary hearing and. Forum and three more weeks of trial, first in. January 1993 for the preliminary injunction. And then again in October. 1993, when we. Came back from the Colorado Supreme Court for the full trial Court TV broadcast. The entire trial across the nation live. And the Colorado Supreme Court arguments were broadcast on a local television live. So it. Was an opportunity. To help educate and begin to educate people across the country about what this type of. Discrimination meant, what kinds of things we certainly did not want to do. And really began a road that has not been nearly as long as I thought it was going to be to get as much successfully obtained to protect LGBT rights. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete, and thank you all so much for speaking on this. All right. That was our only proclamation. So we're moving on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read please read the resolutions.

Recommendation to request City Manager to communicate the City of Long Beach’s opposition to Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 10 to the Governor and urge his veto of these bills.

LongBeachCC_09072021_21-0921

Okay. So, nonmembers, please cast your vote. Just one part. Most cars. Thank you. I remember 20. Recommendation to request city manager communicate the city of Long Beach in opposition to Senate Bill nine and Senate Bill ten to our state legislative delegation and governor's office. Thank you. And before we go, I don't see emotion yet, but before we go to the motion, I want to raise it with the city attorney concerned about Brown next and raised on this item. Could you speak to that, please, vice mayor, members of the council. Thank you. Yes. On Friday afternoon, I received a call from the vice mayor and Councilmember Urunga alleging a possible Brown Act violation regarding this item before you this evening. The both the vice mayor and the councilmember provided copies of emails they received from Council District eight asking if the Councilmember wish to sign on to the item. In addition, they indicated that Council District eight, since upper request to Council District three and five, also requesting their signature on the item. I have confirmed that these four emails were sent and the alleged violation is that Council District eight communicated with a majority of the council members outside of the public meeting concerning this upcoming item on the agenda. It is my opinion that there is sufficient evidence to show a direct communication with the majority of the Council members concerning an item within the jurisdiction of the Council outside of a public meeting, and then at in fact the item that was attached to the emails requesting they sign is the item placed on the agenda this evening. I understand the position of Council District eight that the Communication was only seeking the members to sign on to the item. However, as I mentioned, the communication requested. The letter was shared with the majority of the council and the item is taken a position on a state legislation. It would be reasonable to assume that those members of the Council agreeing to sign on to this letter, reviewed the council letter and would be or are in support of the position, and therefore it appears a collective occurrence of a majority of the Council was being sought in advance of the public meeting. So based upon my limited information here, it is my opinion that a Brown Act violation would occur if this item is considered, debated or voted on this evening. Further, my recommendation would be to withdraw or receive and file this item for a future meeting in order to cure this alleged violation. I would also recommend the Council consider adopting a Council policy that you would have no more than three members of a council sign on to any agenda item to help eliminate this possible violation. It's just very easy to occur unintentionally, of course, that the if one of the council members is not available or they discussed it and they are unable to sign on and they go to another council member and all of a sudden you might have five members inadvertently now discussing it or having it in front of you. So it something that the council hopefully will consider in the future. But for this particular item, I believe you could cure it by receiving and filing it this evening. And the council member from the eighth District or any other council member could bring this back as early as next week, and we would be able to move forward and discuss and consider it. Thank you. Thank you. And I think we should. You know, be mindful of the advice of the city attorney. Councilman Alston, would you like to respond? Sure. And possibly in the zeal of of trying to in urgency try of trying to get this item before the city council. Procedural errors were were made which I will assume responsibility because they were staff to staff communications and worked work member to member communications. I want to be clear on that. But in July, the City Council approved a motion for staff to review the potential impacts of SB nine and SB ten very, very important items of legislation here in Long Beach and throughout the state. And to report back to the state led committee. And typically that state led committee would take that information and then will consider making the recommendation to a full city council about whether to take a position on such a legislation. However, the state large committee met when we met to discuss this item on Wednesday, August 25th. It was agenda that they received and file item of a report so the committee could not even consider a motion to take on the particular bill. Of great importance to the city. This is despite the fact that all three city council members at the state led committee stated during the meetings that they did not support the bills. So given the timing of these bills, both now SB nine and SB ten have now passed the legislature and are on the governor's desk. We cannot wait for another committee meeting to be schedule. I felt it was important to bring these items forward to full consideration of the City Council to discuss and to consider taking a position on. I believe that we should urge a veto of both of these bills because they are bad for Long Beach. We have a history of cracker work legislation here and we know what the impacts are on our communities and neighborhoods. We work hard to create more affordable housing, workforce housing in our community. And we've had extensive community engagement as we've worked through and adopted a new land use element in housing policy. These bills apply to a one size fits all approach to the entire state without the benefit of community input and extensive work that we put in at our local level to address the housing crisis. And we all know it takes time for new housing to be built. And we are seeing new housing opportunities, including affordable housing in many parts of our city. We're also seeing great success with our 80 new policy built throughout the city. I think Mr. Turner wants to get to know I'm not done. I know he just came from county council and I would add when the council from the eighth District concludes, I would caution the rest of the council members to respond or debate this issue. It's clear the council member from the eighth District isn't finished. And I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I don't want to anyone to respond or to reply to that because then we would be debating the issue. So with that. Okay. But at the same time, we have work to preserve the integrity of the distinct character of many of our neighborhoods in our city. So tonight, understanding the advice of the city council and ask for my colleagues to join me at some point in urging the governor to veto these bills and instead let our city continue to work to meet our housing need. And then, as I love mayor likes to say, the Long Beach Way with local community input and policies and zoning that take into account all of our local needs. And again, Council, I do hear that that there is a receiving flow option to to to to. To to vote on that that that is completely okay with me. And again, I will just reiterate that I do not and it was not intentional to to violate any any procedural rules, any Brown act. Because if you walk down the line here, I have not had contact or conversation with more than two of my colleagues on this particular item in any way. Thank you. And just to be clear, that motion received five. There's also a government office that received promotion. Okay. So there's a motion receiver file that is that we your second in fall in price. Um, I was going to I actually had a couple procedural questions not about the merits. But just quickly, I just want to be clear on what we're debating. Yeah, well, I didn't know what Councilman Austin was going to say when I said he's given me a lot to think about here. So I think what I would like to do is make a friendly that this item come back. Does it have to be refiled or can it can we make a motion to bring it back on another time? Can we just put it on for next week? Just got to put it back on. Absolutely. We can bring it back. Anyone could put it on the supplemental for next week. That's right. Okay. So so the procedural question I had is so I was one of the recipients of the email asking if I would sign on to the item, but I don't know who else was asked. And so is it is it the case? And this is just a clarifying question. I answer don't know the answer to this question. If you ask three colleagues to sign on to an item and let's say one of them signs on and two and says, you know what, I'm not interested in signing on. I don't support that. Are you then precluded from asking someone else to sign on? That's correct. Okay. So then do you have to rewrite your I mean, then what do you do? The item can't come forward. You could still bring the council member could bring an item forward by themselves. You may not be able to put it on the supplemental, but you could bring it forward as an individual council member. And that's why I would strongly encourage you to consider a policy where you limit it to three total council members, because that's where the BRANNICK violation occurs is by the now we've shared this and reached and maybe had a debate and as Council member often points out, this was maybe chiefs of staff, two chiefs of staff, but that's attributable to the council office. And so that information has been shared and the courts have been really clear. Aye, aye. Like button shared on an email account could be a brannick violation if five council members just hit that. So you don't have to have substantial debate. It just has to be outside of the public forum with more than a majority. So yeah, I understand that. Nine Appreciate that clarification. I mean, there's been times where there's been four people on an item and then someone on that item has sent me a text or reached out and said, Hey, I want to talk about this. And I've said, I can't talk to you because there's already four people on the item and I've known that that was an okay, but I didn't know that if somebody refuses to sign on the item, which I think is what happened here, then you're precluded from bringing it forth. If four people had been asked. That's correct. Because now you've you've discussed it with a majority of the members outside the presence of the council out of the public meeting. I understood and I appreciate that clarification. So so I guess the only thing we can do tonight is receive and file on this. That that's. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Not on the mango. Thank you. I guess I have a couple of questions. One is that I choose not to sign on to items or to sign onto items without providing any feedback to my colleagues. Ever. I mean, often. I don't mean ever. Often, because I'm not here to block them from getting another signer. I can think of a time where Councilman Price and I may have agreed on coyotes in the city, but at the time she had asked me to sign on to an item and I did not tell her whether I supported or did not support the item, just that I was not prepared to sign onto the item. What she did not know is that I was working with the university on my own item and I just chose not to participate. So that was, in my opinion, not a discussion. And I think that gaining consensus is really the intent of the Brown Act. And in no way do I feel that a council member, especially in this case, choosing not to sign on to the item, is getting us towards consensus, especially when a lot of our chiefs of staff knowing us individually, know our positions generally and sign on or don't sign on or recommend because sometimes it's just not the time. And so I guess I would say that I've actually consulted two attorneys because I was very shocked that this was a potential Brown Act violation. And this particular individual who has served as a city attorney to other cities has stated that their position is that it's on building a consensus around an item or about a discussion, which I don't think either of which happened at this case. And while I respect your opinion, Mr. City Attorney, is it not a justification and opportunity as a board to still move forward with the item and deal with the potential remedies that are required? And if so, what do you believe those remedies would be? Well, first, I totally disagree with your comment. I think that this is a Brownback violation if you act on it and if you debate it this evening, because the letter in which is in your agenda package was shared with a majority of the council members outside of the meeting before the meeting. And so taking an action, your action would be considered null and void. And your direction to the city manager in this case would be come back. You would have to rescind the action and then reconsider it to try and cure it. So you're you're not. Plus, it could be referred to the PPC and potential fines and penalties. But I think if I'm giving you what I believe is practical advice here too, is how do we fix this and cure it and move forward? We can certainly have a longer debate on what you believe is reaching a consensus or reaching an agreement, and that would be facts specific on each one of the times when you're looking at the Brownback violation. So you can't have a general statement that says, well, if I just didn't talk to him, I didn't violate Brownback. That's not how it works. Well, I respect that. I also read every single agenda item every single week. And so every single agenda item is shared with the majority of the council in advance of the discussion of the item. That's that's true. When the agenda package goes out to the public. At the same time you're talking about before the item is submitted to the city clerk is what I'm talking about for consideration are placed on the agenda. So if the media shared the agenda item publicly in the local news with that potentially and we read it, would that be a violation? If you communicated with your members of the council about it or their staffs of your offices, communicate with each other. Yes. Look, I. Didn't communicate that. That's I think right now you're assessing that there's a potential branch violation, but there hasn't been discussion with me or I don't know any of the other colleagues I know, not me, about if it was potential that I had a discussion with Councilmember Asad about this item. So we received the package and you signed on to the items. It's assumed that you read the item and agreed to sign on to that. I was asked if I wanted to sign on to an SB ten SB nine item by my chief of staff, and I said Yes. That agenda item, if you checked my email, has not been opened and has still not been open to this day just because I didn't have time to open it. And I guess going into these details is important, and I feel that there's a little bit of procedural gaming going on because we already had a position stated by I. Just another point the committee is Councilmember Austin Councilmember Muranga and Councilmember Richardson all stated their opposition. If Council member Austin would have come to other members of the body. And not the members of his committee would be have also had the violation. I just don't know. I'm not sure I'm following your logic here, but I think that the if the question is, could the council member, Austin, have approached someone other than on the pub on the state led agenda to bring this item forward? The answer is yes. Even though they also publicly already stated their position on the item in committee. The question was whether the person on the state led committee could approach a different council member not on that committee, to ask them to sign on the answer. On an item already heard by the committee. That's correct. Okay. Well, I think we're always learning. Thank you. I just want to say I think we need to be cautious with the president with that and there's elected official and let me just say, I don't believe Councilman Alston was intentional or anything. I think it was a procedural mistake among chief of staff of a previous chief of staff. I understand. But this is not where we should split hairs or cut corners or debate whether or not if you want to have a council discussion and a study session on the Brown Act, we certainly should do that. But trust in public officials has waned. That's the truth. And we shouldn't cut corners. The city attorney had a recommendation. I think we should respect that recommendation. His recommendation is also to go from 4 to 3, because this isn't the only time this has happened. And so we should, you know, rather than accuse gaming of the system, we should just follow the rules and do what's supposed to be done. And I don't think this was intentional. But the accusation of gaming the system is just knowing the rules and knowing the process. And we should follow that process and move forward together, protect our city, bring the item back, and we'll have the debate that you want to have. But that's what I think we should do. How come the Super Bowl? Thank you. Two things. This this question is procedural, number one. And number two. I was not asked to sign on to the item, so I think I'm in a safe zone here. So my question would be, moving forward, if this were to be heard one week from tonight, that would require a supplemental to be submitted by noon on Friday, which requires three signatures. Am I correct on that? That's correct. Okay. So is it the opinion of the city attorney that that could be accomplished? Based on the conversation we've had here tonight? That's a very good question. But I believe the answer is yes. I mean, what the allegation is this evening and what I'm dealing with this evening is the item before you on the agenda tonight was delivered to and discussed by at least by the staff members, five members of the council. So I am encouraging not to consider that tonight to re agenda is it to cure it. So if if for example, the council violated the Brown Act, generally speaking, the one of the remedies could be to place the item on the agenda and rescind the action taken by the council to cure it and then reconsider that item . The that so in essence, that's what you would be doing. You would be saying we could put this forward. And for example, the council member from the eighth District wouldn't couldn't maybe doesn't put it on the supplemental, but a different council member puts it on and gets two other people to sign it. There is no Brown Act violation there. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for that. And I'm going to guess your recommendation. We'd have only three people sign that supplemental. That would be my recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. To follow up on the procedural questions of council member super or not, does the item need to be any different than the item that is before us tonight? This particular item? I think the answer is no. I mean, you're asking and going to have a discussion or a debate, I assume, on the merits of whether you're going to ask the governor at this point in the legislation to veto the legislation that's carrying on is apparently on the desk of the governor. So I think the answer is no. It does not have to be any different. You just need to bring it back. And it. Will have an. Elevation outside of. Every member of the dais before it was filed. I think that's my concern. Am I wrong? It has now been shared with every member of the staff before it was filed. So why is it not the same violation? Councilwoman Margo Let's be respectful of everyone's time, but we can. Councilmember Richardson, I think you have already accused us of trying to cut corners, in your opinion, as welcome and appreciated. But thank you. For your opinion of my time. This is an important item to my district and my council. Like my completion on the agenda so we can debate it. We did. Thank you. And you broke the Brown Act, so. I did not make the accusation. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. City Attorney, for winning and explaining your position. Again, I take full responsibility for the the procedural error, and I look forward to debating this matter next week and taking the position one way or another at the full city council. I think this this this item deserves our attention. And we are clear on how to how to move forward. I move to vote. Fantastic. Very public comment on this item. It's like there's one. Janet Foster. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. I'll be back next week. But I just wanted to ask your support of SB nine and SB ten. And primarily it's because these two bills will contribute to building housing that we so need, and Long Beach needs to be a part of it. I know their views about what neighborhoods, but their neighborhoods that are bearing the brunt of a lot of the development. It's not shared equally. I think that we can talk about this a lot more reasonably than I think what fears that are out about what type of housing being built? Who gets controlled? What does a neighborhood look like if this is allowed? I think it can be reasonably done. But I just wanted to be here in support and to ask the city council to not not lobby the governor about this, but let it stand. We've had great representation locally who stood who stood and supported this. And I'm here for Long Beach, Yimby, the Long Beach Yimby chapter. So I'll be back next week. Thank you. Thank you. No further public comment. Members, please cast your vote. Motion is carried. Thank you. Our final item of the item of the evening. Item number 32.22, please.

A bill for an ordinance making an appropriation from the General Government Special Revenue Fund to the Energy Efficiency Assistance fund. (GOVERNMENT & FINANCE) Approves an annual appropriation for the Energy Efficiency Assistance Fund in the General Government Special Revenue Fund. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-24-14.

DenverCityCouncil_02032014_14-0023

What I'm trying to find out is if this is the twas the $2 million franchise renewal free fee that we get from Excel and is administered by the Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships. Is that the same fund? That's all I'm trying to find out about. For some reason, it's not getting pulled up here for me. Is there somebody here to come talk to us about that? Hi. Kelly Grant here from the Budget Management Office. The answer to that question is yes. That is the $2 million that we get from the Excel franchise fee. Okay. And this is the process of just appropriating that fee to be administered by the Denver Office of Strategic Partnership, which is then used to support many of our nonprofits that are trying to do energy efficiency in their buildings, etc., etc.. That is correct. It should have been in the long bill, but we. Inadvertently left it out. Okay. Great. Thank you. I have no further questions. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Now under bills for final consideration, we had Bill 988 pulled out by Councilwoman Ortega.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Anaheim & Stanley, LLC, dba Supply & Demand, at 2500 East Anaheim Street, for Entertainment Without Dancing. (District 4)

LongBeachCC_01072020_19-1259

Okay. Thank you. We do have some hearings and some items that are being moved up. So let me begin by. The first two hearings we're going to do tonight is hearing 16 and then 18. Both should be fairly short hearing. So let me start with item 16. And if we can begin that by having the clerk read the item. Report from financial management to recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application. Supply and demand at 2500 East Anaheim Street for Entertainment Without Dancing District four. I. I'd like to introduce our acting assistant city manager, Rebecca Garner. And we have Brett, the Yankees business services officer percent in the report. So there is an oath required for this. If I could get all the witnesses to stand and raise your right hand, please. 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. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you have before you an application for entertainment without dancing for Anaheim and Stanley LLC doing business of Supply and demand located at 2500 East Anaheim Street Opera operating as a bar tavern lounge. In Council District for all the necessary. Departments have reviewed the application and have provided their. Recommended conditions as. Contained in the hearing packet. I, as well as the police department, stand ready to answer any questions. Council may have. And that concludes staff's report. Thank you. And before we get to the deliberation room, the council and Councilmember Supernova, we do have three members of the public that have signed up and they can say and control and Christiansen all three can please come forward to the mic at this time. Uh. So I came for six. Um, I've come. Thank you. I've come tonight in support of supply and demand as an establishment in business and on corridor. I think they provide a vital service, um, for this part of the fourth district, um, supernormal territory and the, the couple, Kevin and his wife, who run the business, they do a very exemplary job of providing the space for a lot of local artists and musicians to perform and the very diverse lineups that they have there throughout the week. And, uh, you know, I just come to support them. I think then where that is on and I'm in, uh, Stanley just down the street from one apparel, you know, it's a very sleepy area . And so by allowing them to, uh, you know, get this entertainment permit, it'll drive a lot more future foot traffic in that part of Vietnam. So I'm here to support. Thank you. Thank you. Controversial opener. Thank you, Mary Garcia. I would like to amend staff's recommendation to add tiered conditions identical in regulation to that of the downtown dining and entertainment district with Tier one restricting entertainment until 1 a.m. seven days a week, tier two until 11 p.m., seven days a week, and tier three until 10 p.m. seven days a week. Our office thinks the public speaker and we stand in support and ask for my council colleagues support. Thank you. Thank you. With that, there's a motion and a second. We're going to close this hearing by taking a vote and I'll do the roll call, please. District one. Mr. to District three. I worked for my district. Five, six, seven, eight and nine.

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

DenverCityCouncil_12232019_19-1330

I move that council bill 19 dash 1330 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you Councilman Hines, your motion to amend it. Thank you Mr. President. I move that council don't 19 dash 1330 be amended with the following particulars one on page one line 21 strike 20190104 and replace with December 20, 2019 and two on line 22, strike 20190104 and replace with 20190108. Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the Amendment. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Right now, elevator mechanics have no required timeframe in which they need to respond to people trapped in elevators here in Denver. Denver, excuse me, Denver fire reports responding to an average of eight elevator entrapments daily, which means about 3000 a year. Also in 2017, in Denver, a man died while trapped in an elevator despite pressing the emergency call button twice. Although elevator companies are supposed to monitor elevators, no one responded to this man's calls. Inoperable emergency phones are a common issue per Denver fire. Having a timely response from the elevator mechanic has become increasingly important. Public safety is at risk with so many entrapments each day, and safety is also at risk when fire teams are unavailable to respond to other calls. While at these entrapments, the building code does allow for Denver fire to issue fines for noncompliance. However, Denver Fire stated in committee that they have never issued a citation for an entity acting in good faith. Thank you for that. I would understand and support their decision. Should Denver Fire want to consider the maintenance record of elevators when considering good feet? A properly maintained elevator does not fail as often is a poorly maintained one, and I would encourage building owners and elevator companies to maintain their elevators. We use elevators as a means to an end and no one enters an elevator expecting to get trapped in it. Finally, I want to thank Denver Fire for their commitment to public safety and for all you do for our city, they are here and available. Should you have questions? Otherwise, I ask for an I vote to the amendment and to the bill. And I'm sorry. One other thing, Mr. President, your comment about this bill was spot on. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. See no other comments on the amendment. Madam Secretary, as you work on the amendment. I black i. CdeBaca I. Flynn I. Gilmore I. Herndon, I. Cashman, i. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I swear, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting announced the results. 1339 is comfortable. 1330 has been amended. So now we're going to vote on the bill as amended? Yes, Madam Secretary, do we need that that one on the floor as amended or we just need to go on to the vote? Yeah, we can just go ahead and vote. Okay. Unless there are comments by members of council, then we're going to vote on the bill as amended, seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call on 1330 as amended. Black Eye. CdeBaca Eye for an eye. Gilmore I heard it. I had Eye Cashman. By. Kenny Ortega, i. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please go to the voting announce announced results. 1339. As Gainesville 1330 has passed and I did fail to mention back on 1313 for the Botanic Gardens that we will have a courtesy public hearing on final consideration of Council Bill 19 1313 on Monday, January 6th. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilwoman said, if you please put Council

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and adopt resolution amending the Local Coastal Program per the California Coastal Commission for consistency with the adopted Mobility Element of the General Plan; and accept the Categorical Exemption CE-15-165. (Districts 2,3)

LongBeachCC_01052016_16-0001

Okay. Just keep going through the agenda here. We have two hearings tonight, hearing item number one, oath as required. So the city clerk will introduce the item. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution amending the local coastal program. Per the California Coastal Commission for Consistency with the adopted mobility element of the General Plan and accept the categorical exemption of 15165 districts. Two and three. Steph. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The staff report will be given by Amy Burdick, our director of development services. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, as you know, the city adopted its award winning mobility element a couple of years ago because it is a citywide policy document, it is required to go to the Coastal Commission for certification for those aspects of the mobility element that are within the coastal zone. Coastal Commission staff has asked that the city make some minor revisions to the mobility element to ensure that it is consistent with our adopted local coastal plan. We have presented to you the information in the back on where we would strike out language in the LCP and then add language as well to ensure consistency. The biggest issue I think that I want to bring to your attention is that the Coastal Commission has asked us to exempt out a map in the mobility element. As it relates to preferential. Parking districts, because we do have two preferential parking districts in the coastal zone that the Coastal Commission says have not been certified by the Coastal Commission. So we would like to proceed with the changes that have been requested by the Coastal Commission, exempt out the map, showing the preferential parking districts and then submit the revised mobility element and the LCP to the Coastal Commission for their eventual certification. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Let me close the hearing and take any public comment on this, if there is any. Yes, sir. Very good. You clear? Because the address, just for the record. Where are these specific areas located? Where are the parking districts located? Mr. Rudd, as you know the process is your comment. It's not questions it's. Wasn't that you haven't indicated where you indicate you're asking for preferential parking spaces. I think the public has a right to know where those are located. That's I don't see that in the plan unless I overlooked it. There's also council questions that will be coming up as well. And do you have any other comments? I would hope that you would not pass this unless you put forward so the public knows where the preferential parking districts are. Period. Maybe there's some people that want to be included in that. Maybe there's some people that object to having press residential parking districts and so forth. Let's see what the impacts are in the neighborhood. You haven't list. There's nothing in. Unless I miss something, I don't see it in the file as to what block it is. Who's going to be blocked out? Who's going to get preferential treatment? Start earning your salaries. Start asking questions. Start putting the details out in the record. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goodhue. Councilwoman Price, we've got a motion and then it has comments as well. Thank you. I have a couple of questions for Miss Bodak. So the. Preferential parking district. That is in district three. That's in Naples. Is that right? Yes, ma'am. It was established in 1988, I believe. One of the questions we often get and I'm sure a lot of coastal communities deal with this, is we have a lot of residents asking for preferential parking districts in parking impacted areas along the coast. And we're often told or we often advise them that Coastal Commission won't approve such restricted parking along the coast. But sometimes people will rebut that with by saying, well, what about SEAL Beach or other neighboring cities in the region that have it? Can you speak to that at all in terms of what? When do they allow it? When do they not allow it? How is it that this particular district in Naples was established after Coastal Commission had already been in existence? It appears. That this district. Was established and did not seek Coastal Commission authorization. Okay. So I and I can't speak to other coastal cities on how they've gotten their preferential parking districts approved. But we as city staff recognize the two parking districts in the coastal zone as being in existence. The Coastal Commission does not recognize those two districts as being in existence. If there were an attempt to establish a new preferential parking district, it would have to go to the Coastal Commission. I do suspect, based on their discussions with us related to this issue, that they would not be supportive of new preferential parking districts. And that has to do largely with access. It does have to do with access. They have a a requirement to encourage access to the coast that does not necessarily take into consideration an individual residential need to have parking in their neighborhood. So they really are two different policy issues that are at odds with each other. Thank you for answering those questions. And I will be making a motion at this time to approve the recommendation. Okay. Thank you. There's emotion. Any second. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Dave, any comments? Nope. See no other council questions or comments. Then we will go ahead and take a vote on hearing one. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson, a motion carries. Thank you. Next item, we have a second hearing. Hearing item number two, please.

Recommendation to receive the application of Legend Energy, dba Cerritos Shell, for a person-to-person and premise-to-premise transfer of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 5740 Atlantic Avenue, determine that the application serves the public convenience and necessity, submit a Public Notice of Protest to ABC, and direct City Manager to withdraw the protest if a Conditional Use Permit is granted. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_03242015_15-0180

Item 23 Report from police recommendation to receive the application of Cerritos Shell from a person to person and premise to premise transfer of an ABC license at 5740 Atlantic Avenue determined that the application serves the public convenience and necessity. Submit a public notice of protest to ABC and direct the city manager to withdraw the protest if if a conditional use permit is granted. District eight. Thank you. Can I get a motion, please? Well. I taking a motion and a second. Is there any public comment on 23? Mr. Mayor. Yes, I'd like to. The moment. Sorry. I was going to. I know. Give me 1/2. The clerk needs a minute to. To clear something here. I'm just waiting to get. Okay. Great. So the motion has been read, Councilman Ross. And you wanna make the motion and see if you comments? Yes. Thank you very much. And obviously, this is an issue that that relates to the previous hearing. And so with that, I'd like to move to receive the application and submit the public notice of protest to the ABC on the basis of the applicant does not have a copy with the city as well as the high crime area churches within 600 feet in the school, within 600 feet. So moved. Okay. There's a second to the motion in a second and there's no public comment on the item saying none. Members, please go and cast your vote. Motion carries eight zero. Thank you. We we have hearing to next what I'm what I'm going to try to do though, is there's a lot of people here, I think, that want to either are part of public comment or are here to support somebody doing public comment. So right after hearing two, I'm going to move up public comment and just do it right after this next hearing. That should be a rather quick one. But I just want to I want to read who's on the public comment, because we have as we know, it's a maximum of ten. So I want to read the names in an order of who I have of the ten so that we can all get prepared for for that process. So under public comment, I have Alexander Torres. Alexander Torres, Glenside. Pastor Tommy Hunter. Diane Moore. Tori Russell Senior. Terri Miller. Bishop W Todd Ervin. Gregory Sanders. Melissa martinez, Carrie Gallagher. And then I want to thank Derrick Simpson for giving up his seat so that a representative from Imam could be on the list. And so that's going to be Sal Vasquez. And I'm going to take Mr. Vasquez first and then the other speakers on the list. Okay. So that's the ten speakers on the list. Now we're going to hearing two and then public comment about. Item two, report from Development Services, recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and declare the ordinance. Amending the amending Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code related to alcohol, beverage manufacturing and accessory tasting room.

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning housing, establishing permanent funds to support city affordable housing programs, adopting an affordable housing linkage fee applicable to new construction to be effective October 1, 2017, and dedicating a portion of the city’s existing property tax revenue capacity to the funding of affordable housing programs beginning with 2017 property taxes to be collected in 2018. Approves creating a permanent fund for affordable housing programs, adopting an affordable housing linkage fee, and dedicating a portion of the city’s existing property tax revenue capacity to funding affordable housing programs. This bill was approved for filing by Councilmember Herndon. Amended 9-12-16 to change the composition of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. The change would remove one of the mayor’s appointments to the advisory committee from an “at large” appointment to a requirement that the appointment be a non-profit affordable housing developer; thus, resulting in two slots on the committee

DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0626

Thank you. That is duly noted. And we will have a courtesy public hearing on that. Thank you. All right. We we're going to go to Council Bill seven. I'm sorry. 626 Bill for introduction. And I'm going to call on Councilman Herndon to kick off, make a comment on this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I would like to say that was not in the script. Should 626 go on to second reading? I would like to request a one hour courtesy public hearing on that. And then, Mr. President, I'd like to offer a comment and then overview. And Councilman Ortega has an amendment to offer as well. Go read it. I just read you and I. Do you want to have it ordered, published, and then comments? Which would you prefer, Mr. President? You know, no one has. You know, let's it let's put it this order. It published, but no one has asked to vote for this yet. But yes, I. Did I. And we had a request for a vote on the other one as well. Okay. So Councilwoman Gilmore. Yes, Mr. Parker, will you please put 626 in order? Publish? Yes, I move that council bill 626 be ordered published. All right. It has been. Oh, wait. 1/2. Yeah. It's been moved in second to comments. Something happened. Oh. I'm sorry. Okay. Because she made the motion. It's moving only. There you go. There you go. Okay. Sort of publishing this on the floor. Councilman, do you want to make your comment? Yes, Mr. President, I am. I'm excited. I'm making progress. I got a second this time is you've got to add some levity to this, because what we're both doing, both bills are moving forward to creating funds for affordable housing. Typically, when there's disagreement among council, one bill goes one way and another one goes and it goes the opposite. So I think it's important to recognize whichever Bill gets the majority of council on second reading is going to create funds for affordable housing, and that is a good thing. We all recognize the dire straits we have for those trying to find all different types of housing stock. And I appreciate all the work that my other colleagues, Councilwoman Kennedy, Councilman Brooks and all the stakeholders have been a part of this for so long. They're doing because I wouldn't have the bill if it wasn't for the work that you all done. And so that's why I always try to start off conversations by saying this. But as I would start this conversation, I would hear I would hear comments like it does. It's a great start, but it's not enough. We should do more. Can we do more? I believe that we can. I believe that we should do it immediately. And that is the genesis for this alternative bill. And I think not getting the second was actually a blessing in disguise because I had the opportunity to continue to have conversations with my other colleagues. And I appreciate Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Ortega having conversations with me about how we could create a bill that I believe does even more to allow that. My original bill that didn't get a second, just ask for a contribution from the general fund and then have a conversation later on 90 to 120 days when I was asking the bill before you, what it actually does is creates the linkage fee, creates the mil, but it's delayed. It is delayed a year and that's intentional. It's intentional because I believe that as a body we can come together and say, how can we create more funds sooner than the 150 approximately million over ten years who most people will say that doesn't do enough. So I would like to take the time as a committee of the whole to evaluate and fully vet all of the other funding possibilities to do more money faster. And so people will ask me, Well then where do you expect to do January one, 2017? Because neither one of these bills appropriates funds. We can't. David Roswell did a great job explaining that and committee. The mayor released his budget today, putting 5 million towards the Affordable Fund and a proposal you're going to hear about later on . Additional revenue will come in, the amount of 50 million total for year one in the form of a mil and in a linkage fee. What I am proposing is that as a council, as we go through the budget process, we go back to the administration and say we would like to see 20 million come from our general fund coffers in year one. So I would love to start year one with a significant amount, $20 million. And then as a body, we take this time to fully vet other options that we can have more money, quicker for affordable housing. And should everything option we vet, nothing come to fruition, which I don't believe that will happen. But should that happen, then we have the mill and the linkage fee that will kick in the following year. But as my time on council, I know what a creative financing city this is and how we have found ways and found money for the priorities that we care about. And I do believe as well, that is funding affordable housing is an absolute priority. Everybody says that. It does give me pause that we were only allocating 5 million out of our general funds for 2017. I believe 20 million would be a great statement. I believe we have the fiscal ability to do it as well. And that, Mr. President, is an overview. This is on first reading. I would love for this bill. I would love for both bills to go so we can hear from the public. So there are options to speak on. I suppose we could certainly do the committee work right now and kill one bill versus the other. But I do believe we have two viable alternatives to ensure that we move forward with funds for affordable housing starting on day one. And I would certainly ask that my colleagues would support and moving this to second reading and for one hour our public hearing. I can certainly say more, but I am sure there will be other comments. And so thank you, Mr. President, for that overview. And Councilwoman Ortega is going to make a amendment as well for our advisory committee that we call. And I appreciate some of the committee members who caught that. So it's coming from you. And I look forward to that, to the dialog. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. So point of order. We have several folks in the queue to make comments. I think it's appropriate that we do the amendment first. And if the amendment passes, we order published as amended, and then we can make comments over the overall bill. Okay, everyone. Mr. Mayor. Okay, great. Councilman Ortega, you're a member. Mr. President, I move that council bill 1666 be amended in the following particulars on page 17, strike the line for and substitute the following language. Four in five nonprofit affordable housing developer. It has been moved. And the second. All right. Comes by members of council. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment would change the composition of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. The change would remove one of the mayor's appointments to the advisory committee from an at large appointment to a requirement that the appointment be a nonprofit, affordable housing developer, thus resulting in two slots on the Committee for Nonprofit Developers in order to equal the number of for profit housing developers on the committee. All right. Any other members of council want to make a comment on this council? Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment takes the body of 11 that is dramatically changed from the original bill. And I do want to thank Councilman Herndon for his kind and professional introduction, as well as for the committee work. But this is an area of the bill that is 626 is dramatically different than the stakeholder requests we had throughout the process. Our original proposal to the community stakeholders was a 15 member body and we spent the better part of two different meetings a couple of months apart, hearing lots of feedback from those stakeholders about the membership of this body. And repeatedly, both industry representatives, as well as kind of nonprofit advocates, said they cared more about representation than they did the small size of the body. And so, for example, some of the seats that got struck from this body include the Housing Authority, the Urban Renewal Authority, and there is no expert on homelessness on the body in this bill that we are discussing right now. Bill 626, sponsored by Councilman Herndon, Ortega and Espinoza. I'm going to keep referring to the bills because I'm afraid it will get confusing if we don't. So I am going to support this amendment because it adds affordable housing expertize back in. But I want to make clear that it in no way is sufficient to meet the expectations we heard from the stakeholders. This body still lacks homeless expertize. It lacks expertize from the Housing Authority and the Urban Renewal Authority who have significant responsibilities in this area. And it is not enough to cure the insufficiencies in the governing body. So although I'll be supporting the amendment, I just want to make clear that it in no way endorses the governing body that's in this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. I'm looking across to see if there are any other comments on this particular amendment, not the bill as published. Okay. Yeah. Elvis. Yes, I would like to respond to that, actually. Go ahead. So, yeah, you know. Yeah. What we've done is we've created a smaller, more nimble and responsible group to actually hammer out some very hard questions that supposedly had been raised over the course of the last year, just with stakeholder groups, not with actual council members, aside from those who voluntarily showed up at those meetings. And so the thing is, is that there's a large body of work with a huge amount of input, including homeless advocates and other sources that have been specifically written out in this amendment. But what I do want to say is Denver's road home is not going away with these bills. And the advocates that that exist out there, the resources that the city has already has still maintain. And I firmly believe that the appointments that council will subsequently approve on the body, Wolf, will add to adequately represent and address the breadth, the entire breadth that this fund is meant to address. So it's just it's sort of shameless to sort of sort of, you know, pander to certain groups and say that we didn't include what we need is actual a Denver solution. We need real, real results driven body. And what we can't have is an all inclusive body. We need adequate representation, just like you elected 13 of us to represent 600,000 of you. We have 11 to represent a body. I mean, a group of special specialists that need to address this issue citywide. And so trying to capture it all and have a good working group and with adequate mean, you know, with adequate attendance, a body of 23 just gets unmanageable. The intent to sort of capture everybody, I mean, this is what while we not getting rid of Denver's road home, what we are getting rid of with the subsequent bill as amended in in both cases is the air show which attempted to sort of be this catchall and address everybody's needs. And we didn't do it right the first time. And we do need the actual working group that is something that is manageable and that we can we can actually get the work product that is necessary. So I think we have good representation from both the funders, the banking industry and the nonprofits and the developers, both for profit and nonprofit. And that's the ideal sort of mix. If there's if there's amendments that you want to put forward to address that, I'm happy to entertain it. Thanks. President. All right. I don't know how to weigh in on this, are you Brooks? But. You can weigh in right now, Ortega. All right. So I think it's important to note that the mayor will still make this appointment so it doesn't take his authority away. It just changes it to being one of the nonprofits. And, you know, my expectation is we would have one nonprofit that probably works with the homeless community and one that works with the broader community . The other thing is DACA, the Denver Housing Authority, and the Denver Urban Renewal Authority already have automatic input into the city because they're part of ongoing conversations. I mean, Dora doesn't bring anything before this body that isn't already run through the administration. So they're already sort of embedded in in decision making processes and giving input. So I think this request to lower the numbers so that it is an effective body that can get the work done, that needs to happen in that time frame is really important. The other thing that I want to mention about this bill is it also calls for a comprehensive plan to be created that looks at all of the funding sources. So, for example, we have $600,000 that's going to be in the 2017 budget for the Office of Hope. It's still not clear to me exactly what the Office of Hope is going to be doing. That's different from the Office of Economic Development that will be doing housing. And the Office of Hope is housing opportunities. So housing is an inherent piece of what that office is going to be doing. So the comprehensive plan is asking that the city present to city council a plan that looks at how all of the various funding sources that go into housing are going to be allocated. And I think that's very critical so that it ensures that the decisions that are being made on which projects get funded is based on criteria and not simply political decisions. So that's why I am supporting this bill tonight in the amendment. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, a roll call on the amendment. Ortega. Ortega Sussman I Black Eye Clark. Espinosa. Flinn Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. I knew. Mr. President. I. Please count the voting us or close the voting unless the results. 11 eyes. Zero nays. 11 eyes. Zero nays. But on the amendment passes the statute. 12. Okay. Ms.. Mr. President, I just got some of the vote that was 11 was 12. And so I can I can hold that vote for later on if I can. You didn't you didn't vote. Council President. I have it on here as voting. You do? Yeah. I'm going to add it. Okay. You want to add me as voting? Okay, great. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put Council Bill 626 as amended on the floor for publication? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 626 as amended, be ordered published. All right. It has been moved in second to comments by members of council. Councilwoman Kinney. Thank you, Mr. President. If I may, I would like to start with a couple of questions. First of all, for David Broadwell. Councilman Espinosa just mentioned that both bills, regardless of whether which one passes, would eliminate the I. Can you please clarify if the bill in front of us 626 indeed eliminates the H0. The first david broadwell, assistant city attorney, the original bill 625 which we'll be discussing in a moment, does switch off the the iho make it no longer applicable after January one. This one, 625 does not touch the inclusionary housing ordinance at this time. It eliminates that language in this version of the bill such that you have the delayed implementation of the of the linkage fee until next year, the delayed implementation of the bill until next year. But in the meantime, the inclusionary housing ordinance remains in place. Now, there may be an effort to come back next year and do something with that ordinance in conjunction with with further discussions of the entire matter from this year to next year. But the bill in front of you right now doesn't touch the inclusionary housing ordinance 626 and leaves it in place for the time being. Thank you. My next question was for the Department of Finance. If the CFO may come forward, please. And while you're asking that question, I want to to direct all of city council members to the comparison of the alternative housing fund bills, this document that was created by David Broadwell, so that folks can go back and forth and not get confused by council bill 626 and 625. Thank you. Please introduce yourself. Good evening. Brendan Hanlon, the city's chief financial officer. Thank you, Brendan. Can you please explain a little bit? One of the things that the sponsor mentioned is that both of these bills create funds. And so I have two questions for you. First of all, does the bill create any funds that will be generated in 2017 as written? I don't believe so. Over and above the 5 million, it has already been identified in the proposed 2017 budget. So the bill itself doesn't create any new funds in 2017. Not in 2017. Okay. My second question, so and I just want to clarify, it does turn the linkage fee on in October of 2017, but that doesn't result in funds right away. Is that right? It wouldn't be immediate. We're expecting some amount of delay for implementation at this point in time. So my guess is that those funds would not be delivered until you might get some in in December of 2017. But probability suggests that maybe it's January or February. Awesome. Okay. Thank you for explaining that. Can you also talk a little bit about the property tax? So on the surface, it may look like both bills turn the property tax on in the exact same way. But can you please clarify whether that's the case and in particular what the impact to other city services is in this bill? Sure, I'll I'll explain. Bill 625 first, the original proposal for affordable housing. So that proposed activating leveraging a half mil starting on January 1st, 2017. That would generate about $6.64 million in 2017, which would be dedicated towards affordable housing. The new proposal, 626 proposes activating a mil half mil in 2018. This this is based on the premise, though, that we would have sufficient capacity within our revenue growth constraints to program those funds. Otherwise you would be essentially using funds from either the general fund or human services in programing that programing those for affordable housing. The reason I'm bringing up the the revenue cap is because to the extent that we see reassessment value of about 6%, which is the maximum amount that we can retain underneath that underneath that revenue provision, you would have those available funds. But I should note that in reassessment years, we have used those funds to program services for the General Fund for Human Services and for other purposes that are already identified in the formulas that currently exist. So can I say that back to you and council? Sure. Yeah, that was a lot of mechanics. That was very thorough. I just want to make sure I'm understanding so. The original proposal. We know that we have capacity to use new mills. The original proposal uses new mills. It does not compete with any existing service. Correct. If property values continue to rise in Denver and are reassessed at that increased value, then it's unlikely that we will have new mills in 2018, in which case this proposal would be using existing mills that are currently funding other programs. That's that's a good way of saying it would use the value of existing mills to to carve out this dedication in 2018. And can you just say very in plain English what that means? So so so that would mean we would have a choice or this this bill would preemptively make that choice for us to say we're not going to use the funds from those mills for other city services. It shall be used for affordable housing. So it could result in cuts to base service levels or to other, you know, programs increases due to inflation. We wouldn't be able to leverage those funds for other city services. Okay. Thank you. And then I have one other question for another department. Is the Office of Economic Development able to come forward, please? I want to ask you about the language in this document that relates to the plan. So I have a lot of admiration for Councilwoman Ortega's raising of this housing plan topic because it's one that's near and dear to my heart. Councilman Brooks and I spent a lot of time talking with the administration, and so I wanted to ask whether or not you all have had some discussion about going about doing housing planning differently in the future in general. And then what I want to ask you is whether or not you feel comfortable with the exact language we have before us today. So if you want to just address whether or not you've heard some of Councilwoman Ortega's concerns and whether you've had some conversation about that. No, absolutely. My name is Rick Padilla. I'm the director of housing for the OED. Yes, we have had we have heard Councilwoman Ortega's concerns, and we have done a lot of preliminary planning in terms of how we would look at implementing, whether it's whatever the amount may be in 2017, including preparing for whether it's an 11 or 23 member body, preparing a business plan, preparing a product term sheet. So we have really looked at how do we address those issues. And I mean, maybe I'll ask Andrea to come forward. So there is some existing plans that this bill and that the Office of Economic Development have committed to for the 2017. And for that for these funds, the request from Councilman Ortega has been for a broader approach. And so can you just share what the mayor's position is on that conversation as of tonight? Evan Dreier, Mayor Hancock's deputy chief of staff, to want to make sure I understand the question, broader approach toward a comprehensive housing plan. The mayor is committed to taking a serious look at a comprehensive housing plan, not just a serious look, but how would we do that together? I think we're going to ask you all, though, if we could delay action on an amendment or a proposal that speaks to a compassionate, comprehensive housing plan tonight so that we have a little bit of time between now and second reading to develop that thinking. A little bit more. Thank you very much. I'll withhold my comments for now, but thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. The bad news is that we have a serious housing crisis and we have imperfect solutions. The good news is that everyone up here is in support of a fund. And as Councilman Herndon said, one way or another, we're going to come out with something. Again, I also want to thank Councilwoman Kenney. Councilman Brooks Dreier, the mayor's office and all the stakeholders for all their hard work. I do support a fund, and I think we all also agree that we would like to have more money in the fund. I'm going to support both bills tonight moving forward to Second Reading next week and I look forward to the public comment next week. But I am in favor of more time for the Council to delve more deeply. I would personally like to hear from objective experts. We've heard from housing advocates and we've heard from developers, and our job on the council is sort of to weigh them all. And I would like to hear from some objective experts, like some economists, because I'm concerned about some unintended consequences of adding costs to market rate housing. And if we cause market rate housing to become more expensive around the city, we're actually exacerbating the problem. I'm also concerned about deterring development in parts of our city that actually need more development. We know that Montebello needs a grocery store and for developers to develop in certain parts of the cities, it's less attractive financially for them to do so, and I want to make sure that we're not deterring that. And I also am very interested in exploring more carrots and less stick. I'd like to look at some incentives. And lastly, I know we talk about marijuana. Money is certainly not unlimited, but. Hearing from my own constituents, they aren't satisfied that marijuana money goes into the general fund. They would like to know that it's going to some common good. And I'd really like to have a bigger conversation about where marijuana money is going in 2015. The city collected $29 million in marijuana revenue. 9 million of it went to enforcement, regulation and education, and 20 million went into the general fund. I think it would be a great common good for that marijuana money to go find affordable housing. And I think that's something that we could really sell to our taxpayers. I know we'd have to make up the general fund. We'd have to make that money up elsewhere. But that's the conversation I'd like to have. I just think be a really great thing to tell our constituents that we're using that money for something for our community. So thank you to everyone. Look forward to hearing more next week. And I know one way or another we're going to come out with a new affordable housing fund. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Herndon, you were on there. I wasn't surprised, but I'm happy to wait. If other people had questions in the queue. Okay, great. Either way. Yep. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you very much, Mr. President. One of the things that was new to me just today was this this question about whether we would be able to attach the mill levy next year as we are today. And I'd like to. Brenda, could you come back up so I could make sure I understand this? We have a cap on how much of a mill levy we can do. Correct. There is a revenue limitation on our property taxes as it was contained in ballot measure two way 6%. So to the extent that we exceed that, we have to credit mills to stay underneath that cap, much like how Tabor worked in the past. There is a limit. Yes. Okay. So right now we know that we would be able to attach this mill and not surpass the limit. Right. In 2017. 2017. But in 2018, as if values go up on on our on what we take in, we may not be able to attach the mill levy. So to find the money, we would have to dip into our general fund that had already been is being spent on other needs, right. It depends on that reassessment value in 2018 that really drives the conversation. And we don't have numbers as to what that looks like at this point in time. So that's the big uncertainty at this point is to the extent it from my calculations, if we were to grow by that 6% revenue limit, we would have sufficient capacity to fund that half mill. But that value has typically been programed to other city services in those reassessment years. But to your point, if we are under that 6% amount, then you would be carving from the base budget, that base property tax revenue in order to program it. Right. So right now we know that we could assess this mill levy in 2017, but next year, we're not sure we'd be able to. We'd have to sort of rob Peter to pay Paul to ensure the the money that the mill levy could bring this year. Right. It could happen. It just depends on those reassess. It's not a sure thing next year as it is this year. Correct. Thank you very much. Right. Councilwoman Kennedy, I'm going to go pop on to Gilmore. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Brooks. You know, I have had a lot of careful consideration, and I've heard passionately from stakeholders, development, community and families and service providers for District 11. And I, unfortunately, will be voting against 626 tonight. And the reason is because we have an overwhelming need in our communities in specifically Montebello and Green Valley Ranch. We have to act now. Families are struggling in our city, and when families are struggling, our children are at a far greater risk for many adverse circumstances. That, especially for African-American young men, can change the trajectory of their entire lives. And housing is a foundation for our families. And this past months, my council office, we've been helping families who are on survival mode. They can't find places to live. They're Section eight vouchers. There's no place for them to go. And we're just trying to keep them where they're at. And there's one woman who really put it home for me. She has five children. She was in a housing situation with her husband and her five children that they were going to be evicted. And she came into my office and she has her little kids with her. And she's telling me this story and she's sobbing and for, you know, a child to see their mom in that sort of situation, that's an environmental stress that that child will never forget that experience with their mom. And we have to do something now. We cannot wait another year. Montebello, where I live, is one of the most diverse communities in Denver, combined with Green Valley Ranch. The community that I'm part of, I'm very, very proud to say, is over 76% people of color, 76% people of color, African-American and Latino. And the statistics show that people of color have been disproportionately affected by housing and how it affects their families. And the median income in Montebello is a little bit more than $44,000. In my opinion, we need to give the Office of Economic Development the opportunity to set up right, to do this right, and to start out slow and be strategic and make sure that we're setting up a great foundation for us to build this fund even bigger. But at the end of the day, I have to be able to go back to my constituents and say that we are hearing them, we're hearing their cries, we're hearing their pleas, and we're making sure that we're doing this for our families in our community. And that reason I will be voting against 626 because we need to do something now. Thank you, President Brooks. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. I'm going to skip down from her neck in each and go to Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. This evening I'll be supporting the original Bill 625 to expand the inventory and the opportunities for affordable housing in Denver. I want the pot of money to be larger, and we'll continue to work for that outcome. We'll hear about the length of time that locks in the development impact fee in Bill 625. And I want that to be shorter. And we'll continue to work for that outcome, no matter how large a piece of the pie we carve out this evening. We're not going to solve this problem on the short term. But by starting this program now, we can begin to bring a new funding stream into reality and begin the process of a more aggressive approach to affordable housing now. I recognize that the development community is not happy with the new impact fee and feels already overburdened by the Gallagher amendment, which slants the majority of property tax toward the commercial sector. I take no issue with that concern and I think it's valid. I also recognize that homeowners are not pleased to take an additional hit on their property taxes because they already feel overburdened by continued cost of living increases that are outpacing increases to their income. We are simply in a situation where our needs as a city are exceeding our current level of funding capacity, and we're asking everybody to take a bigger bite. It's an important issue and we're asking everybody to take a bigger bite. While I appreciate the mayor's willingness to carve $5 million out of our general fund revenues to give this program a quicker leg up, I would ask my colleagues to temper their enthusiasm to dig into our city's budget reserves. I understand we're currently comparatively flush in excess of our statutory requirement for budget reserves. But I also remember that during our recent downturn, we were forced to reduce funding for critical services and when some five years without hiring a police officer. I don't want that to happen to us again. It put us in a bad position that I'd like to protect against. I'd also urge my colleagues to be patient in their call to use, quote, that marijuana money. While 20 million did go into our general fund and I share the desire of many of my colleagues to see that that money are used in a more transparent manner. My preference would be if we're going to single that particular stream of money out and to pinpoint it, I'd like to see it earmarked for critically needed mental health and drug treatment services. Finally, I want to sincerely thank Councilman Herndon and Espinosa and Councilwoman Ortega for their hard work on this issue, because I think the fact of their I've seen it happening, that the fact that they're proposing this alternative ordinance and raising a number of very important issues is is going to make the original bill far stronger. And I look forward to the discussion in the next couple of weeks to making it even stronger yet. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman, I. I see all sponsors on here except for the bottom. Councilman knew someone to go to him, and then we'll take it from Councilman Neal. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Like all the major issues this year, I've always enjoyed serving my constituents to find out how they feel about issues. And I did that with this bill. And I've had over 500 responses so far. The survey is still going on, and it's very interesting results. There's no question all the residents who are responding agree with us that there is a crying need, a significant need to have for affordable housing, not only in terms of funding, but also in the number of units that we need to produce. You know, much more than probably what the mayor's proposing. Also there, there's a real confusion about the sources of revenue. There's a there's so much confusion. And what troubles me the most about my survey is that 20% of the residents say we need more information. We need to know more about what this program's all about. And I looked and I as I listened to that and thought about it and. Last Friday morning, we had a very good little discussion with Jonathan Rose, who is a real developer of affordable housing, is very smart, intelligent man. And everyone was discussing there how much we need to educate the public, understand how to communicate to the public using social media videos or whatever. And I'm not sure we've done that. I went back and looked at our website and looked at the OED website. I could barely find affordable housing on the website I found I saw a permanent fund. There it was. And we're still talking about the same number of units, 600 units a year and not anything more than what's being projected. So I really I'm going to support I really want to support both bills tonight because we really need another more discussion and especially about what we're going to be doing and the amount of money we need to to make a real difference in affordable housing. I'm not sure the food we've been talking about $15 million for a whole year. I don't see how we've done anything better than they're still talking about 600 units rather than more than that. So I think we really need to have a much more in-depth discussion over this next week, two and two from both bills. So I'll be supporting both bills tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Noon. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. Brendan, because you want to ask a couple of follow up questions. I want to make sure a person may ask this question. So when it seems as if people will say, well, 628 I'm sorry, 626 will cut services in a future budget cycle which you said it depends and that and but but you were making that conversation off of some assumptions. So I was hoping if you could talk about some of those assumptions so I can make sure I understand it. So so what I was representing before is that if we maximize that, that, that revenue cap so that 6%, if we have 6% or more reassessment growth in 2018, there would be sufficient revenue available to dedicate a half mil as part of that conversation. That said, before I even go to an alternative from that, we have typically used that reassessment value to be programed for other city services in the general fund in our Human Services funds. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear, like, like we did last year. We use those funds for city services. So that would be a tradeoff if we were to use the that that capacity in 2018 for affordable housing. What I was representing is my second part though is let's say that it came in something underneath 6%. Well, then that revenue cap wouldn't be maximized and there would be you would have to convert some mills that were based on reevaluation, but some that were based off of just the existing mills that we've already have on our books at this point in time. So it really depends on what that reassessment level is. I was not trying to suggest that we would be cutting services due to that tradeoff, but it is a is a competitive environment in the 2018 budget to either program, those revenues for city for city services that are not affordable housing or for dedicating it to affordable housing solely. Correct. Well, whether you allocate a mill next year or you allocate a mill this year, you're taking away money that could go to something else that will now go towards affordable housing. So the plan from 625 is a half mil this year. There is we have not proposed in the 2017 budget process that you see in the book an alternative that we'd say, well, it's either a half mil for affordable housing or you could have done this. You're right, there is not an option or an alternative there that is not contained in the budget process. That is more likely a situation in the 2018 budget in terms of the funding for affordable housing in and of itself. You're right that the value of a mill in 17 and what we would probably see in 18 is around the same value. There could be a few hundred thousand dollars worth of difference. So in terms of the value created that would be dedicated to affordable housing for a value of half of mil, it would be about the same. Correct. So and this is what I would make sure that I'm understanding whether you allocate a mill, a half a mill this year or next year. That's a half a mill that you no longer have to go toward something else. Correct. It is. Okay. And there are a total of essentially, I understand that question, how much money did we get? And this past year from marijuana revenue, the 3.5%. The 2016 number from this past year? Oh, I believe that was the that was the number that Councilman Black stated in 2015. I don't remember it off the top of my head, but I'll I'll say that she's done her research. And I believe she had stated it was a total of 22 million. I'm sorry, 29. I don't I didn't have that with me. Sorry. And so that was just from the 3.5%. That is not just from the 3.5% annual rate. That's from the special rates. What I'm getting at the 3.5. The 3.5% special rate, I believe, was about seven, $8 million. Seven, $8 million. And so we have a latitude as a council to increase that all the way up to 15. Not that I'm suggesting that we do that, but with that is the flexibility that the Council has. I believe when the special rate was passed, it allowed a ceiling of 15%. Okay. Quick questions about our general reserves. So the mayor's proposed budget, I believe he brings down the general fund revenue to 15.2%. The general fund, the proposal would be proposed to stand at 15.2% effect. If this bill moves forward and has the conversation about taking an additional money out of the reserves, assuming the administration doesn't want to take from anywhere else the additional 15 million, what would that take our reserves to? So I believe that the the proposal that's in front of us funds $20 million total. If you assume that the 5 million that is already contained in the 2017 budget counts, against that, you would be looking to fund $15 million. We would move from 15.2% to 14.1% and. Reserves 15.2 to 14.1. And I do want to correct one of my counsel. There's not statutory requirements for budgets, a policy in 10% in recessionary times, 15% in good times. It is not statutory. It's financial policy. And it's something that the bond ratings look at when we review our credit rating. Absolutely. So to go 15, an additional 15 million would take us to 14.1. We program the budget every year to bring us down to 15%. Correct. That is typically our target. It's hovered around 15.1. 15.2, I think last year was 15.3. So last year, 2016, our budget revenues, our reserves ended up even though we programed it to 15%, we ended at what percent. We ended last year, I believe it is at 24.2%. 24.2. So and this year was 19%. Right now, our year end forecast for our reserves for 2016 is 19.3%. Okay? So we're consistently doing better than we have. And not to imply that that is would ever remotely continue on to that type of level. But we have we're you know, we're making a couple of assumptions of doom. So I like to make some assumptions of, hey, we're doing really well. And I guess my last part. Thank you, Brian. And Mr. President, comment, you know, the the the mill linkage fee a year from now is if as this body cannot come up with more money quicker and I certainly can't guarantee that that is something that we will do. But we had this conversation about marijuana that we weren't comfortable with the legislation and we took 120 days and this body came up with Maryland marijuana legislation. So I believe I am I am confident and comfortable that this will not even be an issue. But it's certainly a realization and a possibility. That's why I just wanted to point out, where do you allocate a mill next year or a half mill next year or half mill this year? There is less money in the pot and that's a policy choice that we make because affordable housing is important. But I'm willing to make that to know that we can do more sooner. Figures present. All right, Councilman Espinosa. Brendan, the how many available mills do we have this year? If we wanted to capture. For the the general fund and human services. His funds, I believe it's 11.400. They're available this year. I'm sorry. I was talking about the total. Yeah. Johnson. Yeah, 1.3 million. That would be underneath that that 6% cap. And about how much money would that generate? That's approximately 17.3 million. So we could put a bill for infrastructure, for arterial paving, additional police. Actually, we have those both in there. Do you know what those numbers are? And I apologize. I just got back at 3:00 to. Sure. I believe the arterial paving. So that's the 37 position. Street crew and capital funds is about $7.78 million in total. The police officers that we've added in terms of authorized strength, I think are about four and a half, $5 million. But that's without. Equipment. Yeah. So we could add we could pay for those with an additional 1.3 and now we liberated $17 million into that. We've added $17 million into our general fund. That's the prerogative of counsel to to respond to the mayor's proposed budget. And that would be more we wouldn't get into that. So how much while you answered this, said the 8 million. I mean, last year we we allocated $8 million out of our budget where we're allocating $5 million this year. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Question for Evan. So at the last council presentation on this, you stated that the mayor was going to allocate $9 million to this and now it's five in the budget. What happened? I don't recall the $9 million figure. Oh, was I? What was the $9 million? How is that? My wrong. No. All right. I stand corrected then. No problem. The. The question for I regarding the Nexus study, when was that finalized? Sure. So this is I'm Laura Fortensky with the Office of Economic Development. We have the final Nexis study uploaded as part of your documents for tonight. It was submitted to the city on September 8th last week in conjunction with the bill. Yeah. So I just that's that's going to be crucial information in my final comments. But yeah, literally last Thursday is when we finalized the next US study, even though the bill was submitted. Well well, essentially the same time. But will note that there were almost no changes between the final draft and the public review draft that was submitted to council as part of a committee meeting in July. So there were some final touches put together in the final draft that was submitted to council for your review. But it did not have substantive changes since the last public review draft that was submitted earlier this summer. But so, I mean, that's what the part is. The narrative that I'll go into subsequently later and thank you for whoever produced this fine timeline is is that really literally if we hadn't delayed, we are spending eight weeks hammering out this affordable housing bill as a body with the draft version of the Nexus study. When we actually delayed it, when we were actually going to fast track it even faster. One of the things the key points in in the bill that we're doing, that Councilman Herndon and Councilwoman Ortega and I are sponsoring, is to buy the time for council to be involved in that discussion, not just as reported by John Murray in the in the Denver Post Council President Mina Council President Brooks, Robin Kennedy and the mayor. I mean, that is we're the body of council. We're the ones that are going to be passing this legislation. And I believe that there are better tools that we can actually come up with at this time, because the need is very clearly stated in the declaration portion of this ordinance. Yet even you can actually. Here's a question I can't ask you. Did you not state at that last meeting that this was a modest and balanced approach and that's what you attempted to do, even though the declaration makes it very clear that there's a pressing need for affordability that we have lagged behind on? That is correct. Yeah. And so we have the political will on this body and that actually I'm going to stay off the comments until the questions have been answered. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Guess when. Espinosa Councilwoman Ortega, thank you. I have a couple of questions for Brandon. So the first one is just asking for clarification on whether or not we have. Utilized. Or I should say, expended the obligation to the. So under Denver Road Home, we built new units we and the mill levee, the DHS mill levee was utilized to I don't remember if it was for the service side or it was actually for the Hart cost side. But we obligated those dollars for 20 years. So has that been exhausted? Have we read? What have we done? Anything different with the those particular meals that were obligated for that housing that was done by Denver at home? I don't have that information with me tonight, but I can follow up with my staff on that. Okay. That would that would be good to know because it lets us know kind of where we're at and what's still available. So you indicated that we're 1.3 meals under the 6% cap. And initially these housing conversations started at the possibility of utilizing a full meal. Right. I'm not sure why we didn't stick with that full meal and ended up just being a half meal. But my question to you is whether or not the administration intends to utilize the remainder of that 1.3 mil if we're using half of it for housing. So that 8/10 of a mil is not programed in the 2017 budget. Okay. All right. Let me go on to my next question. How? How far? So every year the administration draws down on the reserve fund. What is the expectation of how far that's going to be taken down to by the end of 2016? I mean, I heard the conversation earlier, but. Our current. Is asking directly would we anticipate to draw that down to. Our current year end forecast for the reserve balance for 2016 is 19.3%. Okay. Okay. You've answered all my questions. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Can someone can reach us? I see that you're up. Yup. Thank you. Brendan, one more question. So I want to do some different math. Councilman Herndon asked the question about if you took the entire 15 million and you know, what would the reserves go down to? And your answer was 14.1%. If members of this body wanted to honor our adopted policy to maintain reserves of 15%. Can you walk me through the math of what would have to happen for this body to fund $20 million of affordable housing in 2017? Sure. I want to really keep emphasizing this bill does not fund $1 in 2017. It will require a different action and that different action will occur in the context of a budget that has already been proposed. So I want to just clarify how or whether we could stay at 15% reserves and what that would look like. So I would assume that the Council would then propose to draw down and move from 15.2% reserves to 15 even that would draw it make $2.6 million available. So we've got five plus 2.6, right. Okay. So that would mean another $12.4 million would have to be identified out of the existing proposed budget. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I see we have others chiming in. And so I'm just going to go ahead and just make a few of my comments now, which is that I also appreciate that there is a desire to continue the conversation for more sources, and there is no reason why those conversations can't continue with the two sources that we have in front of us. Dedicated. This city has a five year housing plan. We did not adopt it as a council, but it is a city plan. It has been guiding the department. We got briefed on it. We all had one on ones. And that plan number one goal is a dedicated revenue stream, not a one time, not a scraped from the reserves, not a, you know, out of the couch cushions in a good year. It's a dedicated fund. The mayor held a housing task force. Every letter we've received talks about permanent revenue. Permanent revenue. This bill puts that at risk. It puts it at risk by putting it in competition. So we don't we will have certain certain competition for 2017. We will either be competing with our reserves or we will be competing with other services, period. That's what we have. We have $7.6 million. We do not have 15. We don't have 20. So you'll either be competing with our own reserve policy and our bond ratings or you'll be competing with other services. So be very clear. 2017, not more money, not free money. Not easy money. Competing money 2018 and beyond. We risk not certain, but we risk competing with other services. We also will lose money on the linkage fee side. Even if you adopt the same linkage fees in 2018, there will probably be less development occurring because of natural rhythms of cycles. So you will capture less of that of that development due to the natural downturn that comes right. We all hope it's not deep. We all hope it's not long lasting. But I think we've all been around long enough to know that it comes. You also will lose one year of CPI index on the linkage fee rate. So every year the the the the original bill 625 has the has the index on the linkage fee index to CPI, which means that if you start the base a year later, you lose the CPI for an entire year. Those are real dollars. So in reality in reality, this bill competes with 2017 with other uses in policy. And in 2018 it will be less money, it will be less money because it will miss an entire year of CPI. So those are the realities. We can continue to debate all the other potential sources. There is a timeline in front of folks and maybe we can wait and talk more about that on the other bill. Happy, too, to defend the public process and acknowledge that no process is perfect. But this council, this council has been briefed on this concept since early last year. Since July of last year. So this council was not the last one to hear about these two sources. They were not the last ones to give input. They have been briefed for over a year. And I realize that these things are hard and we need to keep debating them. And I'm happy to keep doing that. We'll keep doing it probably for a couple more hours. But I would ask that we make a prudent decision tonight and vote down this bill in favor of the later bill so that we can both responsibly fund 2017 and so that we can put in a permanent ground game, not just a first quarter Hail Mary, but a permanent, slow growing, permanent ground game for decades to come . Mr. Leader. Bill, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Appreciate the football analogies. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Brendan, can you come back up? First of all, I just want to commend you. I was sitting here watching you answer all of these budget questions, pulling numbers out of thin air. My favorite moment is when you got the question about 1.3 mills and you're like, Oh, that would be approximately $17.3 million in my brain. Approximate would have rounded to a round million. So it's just very impressive. And taking all the questions and I apologize because you answering my questions must feel a little bit like talking to a kindergartner about this. So I apologize in advance. Walk me through total revenue. Let's not talk about Mills and let's assume that we can capture the mill in either year. So making some general assumptions that may or may not be true, total revenue coming into the city if we capture the mill in 17 versus capturing it in 18 at that point in 18, are we capturing the same amount of money? Total revenue. So it depends. I'm sorry to start with that explanation. I don't like doing it, but I have to. It depends on the reassessment values in 2018. So let's just let's just imagine a situation, though, where there are there's no reassessment growth at all. It's just flat. There's no growth. If you just held the mills constant, the $6.5 million that we're estimating that the mills are worth in 2017 would be the same value that would be collected in 2018. But but if assuming we still have the ability to capture that half mill rate, there is some lost revenue by capturing it in 18 versus 17, even if the mills total mill rate is the same at that point. It would be it would be small in terms of the overall value of a half mill at that point in time. And. Okay. I'm a man. Am I answering your question? I hope so. Yeah, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around it. And then my other question is in terms of, you know, lost capacity. Right. So if we capture if we were to capture the full 1.3 this year, is that then 6% growth based on that new floor or is that still an 18 still based I mean, do we permanently move that up when we capture them at the point at which we. Get it is a new base that that 6% is calculated off of. So that the total potential revenue to the city if you capture in 17 is 6% above what's captured versus not capturing at all. We go to 18 and our even even if we were to still have the opportunity to take 1.3. You're working from a lower floor. Hmm. I'm doing the math, and I'm trying to. To to make sure I'm following. Maybe one more. Say one more time for me. I'm just in search of the 6%, which is the anti spiking provision rate. So that 6% is set every year based on what we actually capture. So if we capture it. From the half year or. Whatever we capture this year, that moves the floor and 6% goes up from there. Correct. In terms of the other mills that were already authorized by voters and whether we capture them or not. Right. Moving to 18 and we haven't captured those, that's 6%. So our ceiling is based on lower floors. Based on a lower base. Absent the mills different, total revenue is slightly lower at some level because. If you want to take into consideration the difference in the base, it would be incrementally different. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. All right, Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all. When we're not in public hearing, we don't have question period and then comment period, do it. We can do both of those at the same time. Right. We don't separate them out. Yeah, I just want to make that clear. Also, I wanted to say that one of the things that it's pleasurable for me up here is that we all want the same thing. We want to find as much affordable housing as we can in the best way we at West Best Way We Can and in the work that Councilman Cornelius done and Councilman Brooks has happened over several years, and it wasn't done just by Councilman Brooks and Councilwoman CORNISH and the mayor. It was done by lots of people, and there were lots of opportunities for council to engage in those meetings and talk about it. It's very difficult tonight to have a very complex bill come at this time. It would be nice to have more time to consider a bill. And again, you know, I find us doing a lot of committee work on the on the dais, and that's uncomfortable. I really appreciate what Brendan has done and trying to explain to us about what the differences are. I need to put it all in a pencil and a pencil myself. It's unfortunate that I probably have only one week to do that to see what the differences between 626 and 625 and wish that the the ideas had come a little sooner in the in the process. But I will be putting this forward for next week to give myself a little bit of time, although I am still very much in favor of the original 625 Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman. Assessment. Councilwoman. Councilman. New. Question, say, on the property tax assessment. You know what? We've I guess we estimate, what, about $360 million in property tax this year for the city? Right. I believe that's a across all sources. Across all sources. And so for an assessment, what what percent would it have to be to get the, say, ten or $15 million in additional tax? Just raw from the assessment in and of itself, you needed to. Say we're going to say we're going to that we're going to generate additional tax because of the assessments are going to. Go up. I'm not texting on my phone. I'm like calculator really quickly because I do not want to state the wrong number. I'm guessing three or 4%. So. Well, that's a cross that's all across all funding sources. So probably which wouldn't all be available in order to fund this proposal. If we don't run into 6%, then we would have. All right. Well, let's just let's just say that we use the value of our general fund at this point in time. So that's $180 million that is currently being proposed in the 2017 budget. At this point in time. Again, remember, the half mil is not in that general fund estimate. You would need 12.7% growth. In order to collect $15 million more in the next year. So that would be well in excess of the the anti spiking provision. That was the easiest math for me to do right now. All right. So it's not a proportion of the increase in property tax only. So the assessments go up 4%. We're not going to generate 4% more in property tax. We would because that is under the anti or the revenue limit and to to pay only for the affected funds. And I'm sorry, I'm getting into like a big time property tax inside baseball here because. If we don't run into the cap, then we could we have that money available to, you know, 4%. It's like 12 to $15 million. With if you had growth rate of 4%, that would be within the cap. Okay. Thank you very much. All right, Councilman Flynn. Brandon. I think I'm just going to stay up here. As much as you want to rest on those hard pews out there. Couple of questions now. The mayor's budget came out today and I know this isn't a budget hearing, but just just to clarify segments, the next question, you would probably know that the first two pages I would look at would be the police academy class. Thank you very much. 100 new officers, the way I read it and in academy next year. Thank you. And but the second one thing I would look at would be schedule 100. Right. And in last year's budget, we thought that we would end this year with an unassigned fund balance of $191 million, give or take. And I see that we actually are now projecting about $60 million more than that. Is that am I reading. That correctly for the revised 2016 budget? Yes. So I think that was the 196 that you mentioned. 191 191. You could compare that against to 51. So that's. Exactly right. That's right. Okay. So in 2012, I just want to make sure I understood that correctly. In 2012, the voters passed to a which allows us to increase up to our maximum lawful mill levy, which is what it's 20, 22 point something. Right. And where are we now? We are at I believe it is 80, 17, 18. Mm hmm. Okay. And just a devil's advocate question. You said that we have under the the growth that 6% in the growth and the cap for the cap on growth, we could go up 1.3 mills. Correct. But this budget only recommends point five. Because the voters. Contained the point five yet. But yes, it would if the 625 was correct. Okay. Because the voters told us in 2012 that we we may go up to our lawful maximum. Why are we not taking advantage of that from year to year? So I think we've tried have been be been sensitive to the fact that we've seen such large valuation increases in previous years. Last year the average was 26%. Having gone to community meetings, I've I've met folks who have had 50 to 100% valuation increases and that's just on residential property. So we've been trying to be sensitive to that. Okay. Very good. So that will preserve our cap, our capacity for down into the future years where we can use and those inactive mills for other purposes down the line as opposed to once we hit our maximum, then we're done with to a correct. Correct. We have that ability to manage those. Okay. I appreciate that you said that because 26% was exactly how much my own property tax was. Thank you. Sure. Councilman Espinosa. Okay. I think I have a question. I don't know who it's for, but again. I thought I saw a commitment to 9 million and maybe it's maybe my my years are wrong or what have you. But it was reported in the Denver Post that the this is a quote the plan did called for devoting about $10 million to the new program next year, but has been increased to $15 million by drawing on reserves, including 1.5 million in proceeds from the city's special 3.5 sales tax on recreational marijuana sales, which was mentioned in the committee. What but does anyone want to address that? I mean, tell me how that how that got reported to the public and what that means. Councilman. I think that originally we were not proposing the $5 million in the 2017 budget, but in response to, I think, input and feedback from City Council, we went ahead and proposed our proposing $5 million from a couple of different sources in the 2017 budget. It is our hope that City Council would pass 625, which would essentially provide another $10 million also in 2017 for a total of $15 million. Okay. So it's the the $10 million is the blend of the linkage fee and the 6.73 million and property tax. Correct. So 3.7. So about a third is from the developer fee and a in three quarters is from mean two thirds is from the property tax on property. For what would be year one of the program contemplated in. 625. Yes. And that's based on sort of record levels of development right now. Okay. So we do we expect that ratio to maintain at one or two thirds or actually decrease on the development side. Over time, over ten years, over the first ten years of this program. It's pretty close to even. Property tax. Three. Linkage fee. So on a. Jump in real quick council can each. Can can I help answer your question Councilman Espinosa the reason the figure is so low for year one is because projects that are already in the pipeline, that have already passed site review and building permit, even if they haven't broken ground yet, won't be required to pay the fee. So a whole bunch of the projects, even though the ordinance goes into effect January 1st. But if you think about it, the first six months of the year, the construction that you see around town, we'll have gotten site review and permits six months prior. So we are only applying the fee to folks who have not yet gone through that gate. And we do have CPD here if you have any questions about that. But this is this number is a one time delay due to the start up of when new projects are are brought into the system. But due future years it will be based on the total development cycle. But but this year's delay is this year's amount is lower not because of the development cycle. It's it's because of the start up delay that most of the construction you see got its permit earlier. Do we have to maintain these sort of astronomical records of developed square footage to maintain that 5050 ratio? Or what what what is the sort of amount of development relative to what we're producing today? To maintain that ratio. We may want to ask Justin to come up. The the answer is that the department did a 15 year look back and they chose not the most conservative estimate and not the most aggressive estimate. They chose what they called the average estimate of of development activity to to achieve the development revenue that we have projected. Justin Sykes The Budget Management Office. Yes, we worked with the assessor's office to pull data historically on how much new development has there been in Denver. And then we use that 15 year lookback period average. And so the linkage fees that are in the proposals are based on the average amount of new development over the past 15 years, which includes two economic up cycles as well as two economic down cycles. And so working with CPD, working with the assessor's office, that seemed to be a good balance on which to base the revenue estimates. And that's great because again, what I had heard overwhelmingly was that it wouldn't be that from the from the from the people, at least in my district. And I think similar numbers are represented in councilman news is that the expectation was is that the public meeting that the development community actually bear a greater burden in this in this fund? Not a they weren't looking at a balanced approach. I understand why, but it just seems like that has been. Well, actually, I'll just go into my comments because that's where I that's where I started in the development committee is not going to I hear this, but who do I credit for this public and council process ? Timeline developed for CB 625 that was presented here on our dais. I'm not taking any credit, so I know what shots I'm taking. Okay. No, this is this is wonderful. This is great because you did my work for me. But if you look at this, the thing that I started with, the very, very first item and it's dated July 2015 and it states one on one conversations with returning council members and newly elected members on the concept of exploring the property tax and linkage fee as a permanent funding source for affordable housing. That's where we were in July of 2015, actually, before I was sworn in and I in that meeting because I did have that one on one, I clearly stated why only 15 million knowing full well that we had greater need than 15 million. And I also asked for it to. I don't care whether that blend is as long as it's weighted towards the development community. That was not a public meeting, it was one on one, but it is documented here. And I thought it was important to to because one of the things that hasn't happened, the only thing that was decided since that moment in July of 2015 is what the blend was. We've always been talking about up to one mill and a linkage fee, but it was all remaining TBD. The Nexus study was in its formative stages. It hadn't been contracted yet at that point in time. But yet also in this document is the mayor's State of the City speech on 720 when we were all sworn in. Which states? Denver's Hancock says $15 million goal for new affordable housing fund. And so anybody who's been paying attention knows that that's all we've been talking about is $15 million and 600 units per year. 6000. Anybody else who knows this need knows that that is woefully deficient and doesn't come close to addressing the need that we have as a city. And so my issue is with how this proposal just maintains the status quo. And that is what 626 is intended to do, is actually have that discussion that I don't feel council has been proactively involved in, despite the constant briefings over the last year because we've been updated on the status of that thing. In general, generalizations are made about the comments from the stakeholders, but we don't have a robust solution. We just are going to generate money and we're going to spend money the way we always have. Another thing in this timeline is July 13th, as as Laura mentioned, which is when the draft nexus study came out, we were actually promised that in in late spring, July is is a healthy part of the summer. I was expecting it in May and this is a full two months later. And then on July 17th was this draft ordinance. And so, you know, a lot of us, you know, yeah, I'm a affordable housing former practicing architect in affordable housing. My the company I used to work for Northeast Denver housing is an advocate proponent of this, a 6 to 5 and probably not in favor of 6 to 6 because of the political process that has lined up all the usual suspects in generating support for this on the assumption that more money fixes more problems. But the problem is our solutions and how woefully they've been able to address the problem thus far. So more money doesn't in this case fix more problems. What we need is more creative solutions to actually get units into into a covenant, either short term, long term or permanent. But we we don't even talk about that because that's all deferred to some other board to have a discussion at some point in time. And why aren't we having that discussion about how do we actually do legislation and guide this process so that we're actually generating ample amounts of resources to actually creatively incentivize the industry to generate units or convert existing units into affordable. Those are all things that were discussed at the stakeholder meetings but aren't part of this ordinance. And so that's one of those aims of this 11 member panel is to finally vet those solutions and hopefully find something that would offset the need for a linkage fee. But if not, we'll go right back to this linkage fee. I mean, it's in the bill exactly the way it is right now. In 6 to 5, it's in six, two, six. And I happy with that. No, I'm sorry. Development community. I wish it were all higher across the board, especially in multifamily rental and yes, sorry of apartment lobby, but I would rather have that discussion and let the industry know that I stand firmly with the idea that we should put more money and more resources into this thing, but let the industry come out with systems and approaches and bring those to the city council modeled on the last five years of data. And I want that because the city generated that gentrification report. I represent Northwest Denver. No area has been greatly impacted by gentrification in Northwest Denver and losing affordable units. And they're getting displaced. It's displacing families. And so let's look at it. Let's see what's being proposed. Let's model it based on the last five years and see if we would have gotten different outcomes in northwest Denver. That's that should be fairly simple for a group of professionals. And the amount of money that we can put towards this, especially given the data is there the so it's it's and it's frustrating you hear me talk about the I show in my frustrations there and yes my bill our bill doesn't kill it right now because I don't want to create this sort of 12 month of 13 month open window where we don't have a linkage fee. We have delayed property taxes and we don't have an IATO. Well, it would be good in a lot of ways. I actually think we would get a lot of. Permit requests for a bunch of projects that would then try to circumvent a linkage fee, which is three times the amount of this mean an h o fee, which is three times the amount of the proposed linkage fee. So what this represents right now is a very significant discount to what somebody would have to pay if they were doing multifamily for sale product. And it's distributing that among every square foot that's being built in the city, whether it's single family, duplex, multifamily, commercial and and and not. And so it's a good idea. It's but it's it's it's not strong enough. It is a modest and balanced approach. I mean, but we could have had that conversation back in July. Let's go half a mill and get the other half of the $15 million from the public. And it seems like all we did was spend a year vetting that. I mean, you know, writing the legislation and getting the proof to get that outcome when in fact, we have a Nexis study that says we could slap a very, very substantial fee on the development industry, you know, in the $7 range that we keep saying about Seattle, and then you generate millions, tens of millions of dollars more, which is actually what you need for this. So we have Brendan explaining that we could we could actually generate $17 Million, putting 1.3 in a bill for 1.3 mills and capturing it for arterial paving and sidewalks, extra police and some community planning staff to actually address the needs that I keep hearing about. You know, why is 38 not paid? Why is Colfax in crummy condition, you know, nor federal I mean grants there see that stuff and we don't go in there but oh so it's just it's just it it is a it is a sort of very calculated political process. And, yes, that's what I'm here for as an elected official now. But I still don't I still buy it. You know, we don't we shouldn't be in this business to sort of score points. We should be in this business to really aggressively handle the outcomes, especially when this day, as members of this dais, all sort of almost the majority, I think, feel that this is not going far enough because the tools aren't there. It's just more money. And I'm sorry, but everybody right now pays in the federal who pays an income tax is already paying for the affordable housing programs that we have in the city through federal grants, through the state, and through this through through HUD, into the state. And so now we're going to charge property taxpayers a portion of this amount while they're still going to have their federal income tax going to something else. I mean, that's what we're doing is we're offsetting losses in federal revenue. There's been losses in federal sources that we've relied on in years past that are going away. But so rather than and we're filling it up a little bit more than we were, and so that's what I'm saying, is the status quo has created an issue, I mean, has created an issue, but has not been able to adequately address the situation. And this solution is just a slightly higher amount. And we're going to continue addressing the situation as we have been and we don't really have tools. And so we need a year in a very focused effort, just like we did having having talks, but not to justify a 5050 modest and balanced solution. We can fund that through our existing general fund or through an extra mil. And then capturing that saving. I mean, that that net increase I mean, what Brandon just said is we had a we have 9 million in net, we're at 19, 19% and change. So even if we were to draw down a 1.1 and maybe I'm screwing up my, my, your my CFO skills, we would still not we would be at at 18 and change and and we would still be well in excess of our 15. Now you can't budget that way, but that's that's relative to our actual spending. So let's look at I mean, that's his job. Look at your actual spending and say, well, is there actual savings here that can in fact pay for this without a tax increase? But even if we do, let's do a tax increase for the things that people paid. I mean, that we were sold when we did to a. Because I was sold on improved paving through streets and a whole bunch of other needs that were being neglected during a recession that still seem to some, to some degree beginning neglected and capture that money for those resources, mean for those needs and then use that surplus or not surplus, but additional revenue to then fund this to the degree that we're talking about, which isn't $15 million or $10 million, it's 2020 plus. And that's right now. So I'm rambling. So, gentlemen, you got Joe and Clark still waiting and just wanted to make sure we still got another bill on the floor that you can get comments to as well. All right. I did have a messy sketch. Here of what I. Want to say, so I'll go through it real quick. People of color were mentioned, and that's what I'm saying. They have been disproportionately it was stated that they have been disproportionately affected, but they've been disproportionately affected by the status quo. Again, I've said it before, this just perpetuates the status quo and a lack strength, credit, creativity and guidance to do the much more. Much more than satisfied the political narrative of 150,006,000 units, which falls woefully short of the need. In the future. The political right now these days has the political will to do more and actually existing. On this day, I said, I've got a nice scratch, this girl. So yet the sponsors of this moderate and balanced proposal are trying to kill the debate by kill it by putting this measure on the floor and trying to kill it right now. I just asked that my colleagues move both for the benefit of Denver and its citizens. We need to be talking about real, real digging deep and finding solutions. And that's all that's all I'm looking for and doing because I can I'm happy to put this on tape right now, just like I would have done on the show had I been sitting at the dais here. It's not sufficient. And this we're going to be having this thing and there's a lot of talk about this is just a baby stepping. It's a foot in the door. And and now you got the justification. Now you've got the need. Now it's stated in the legislation on both of them, unprecedented level of property, population growth in the housing of the city has not kept pace with demand. So I don't know. I just urge my colleagues to move both and let us continue to have a discussion about how we actually can address true affordable housing needs, get the funding to the people that are doing the work and figuring out incentives to capture our are proposed upcoming legislation and and mobilize our industry to actually find ways to deliver units faster than we can because the units that we fund right now aren't going to go on market next year. There's a design process, a permitting process and a construction process, but yet there are units out there that we could capture, but we don't have the mechanism right now. Thanks. Councilman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. CFO, can I ask one more question? You had mentioned the bond rating. Our bond rating. And one of the things that they look at is that percentage of reserves. So is that is there a magic number in there? I know we've set a policy at 15. Is there a magic number on that side at 15 or is higher always better than lower as a general rule? They've affirmed our policy as strong financial management practices as well as the level itself. Back in 2007, when we established the Department of Finance, we did a blue ribbon task force that reviewed our fund balance policy because we got into conversations like this often about it, can we go below a certain level? And they established that policy to maintain a strong financial position that the credit rating agencies to look at for some sort of certainty. So that way they know that we're properly managing our reserves. So there isn't an absolute number. Believe me, I've asked about that in passing conversation because if the number, you know, 15 needed to be higher than that as we grew as a city, I would certainly be advocating for that as well. But they have continued to affirm that 15% is a strong financial position. So they've affirmed that 15 is strong, but they haven't told us that 14 would not be there. There's not there's not an equation that they would they would advocate for. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clarke. And I'll just make a closing comment on on the bill that's on the floor as amended. You know, I have said this before. I said this over and over again, and I'll say it again, having been a part of a more open, inclusive, thorough process, both folks who are for against and everybody in the middle. And I'm so glad that councilwoman can each took time to put this thorough outreach process down. You know, Councilman Councilman Herndon said, you know, let's let the council get the opportunity to do this. Councilman Espinosa said, we haven't had the opportunity to get in. How we do business on this council is when we will deal with large issues. A couple council folks lead them. So for Sidewalks Councilman Clark, Councilman Cashman or Lena for short term rentals, you only have one partner and we didn't have a partner council assessment led that process. That's how we do things because we can't be experts or or passionate about everything. We let other council folks take the lead and we never get upset about that. That's just how we do business. And so I think it's important for the public to know that and clear for the folks up here. There was a comment that kind of irked me. It was called someone said usual suspects. These weren't usual suspects. These are called experts, both on the development side, on the on the affordable housing side. And so these are people that we go to to get advice. We are not experts in here, but there are people in our community that we trust. And we've had many public meetings where where community folks have gotten the opportunity to to share their opinion and most of the public meetings. The theme was, you're not doing enough. And gosh, I, you know, as a leader, really believe that. But there's this deal called fiduciary responsibility up here. And we have to know with the money that we have that we can actually build the units that we can actually deliver. No one in here can build 20,000 units. No one. But I know that if we can ramp up on a moderate and responsible plan, we can do that. I won't be supporting 626 because I've been a part of this thorough process, because I have been at the table when others who have been invited did not come and didn't show up. And I really believe that 626 is just another effort to go another year. We're going to come back to the table. No one's going to agree because someone at the end of the day is going to be unhappy. And we're going to be right here where we were on marijuana at a six, seven vote. We're in the exact same place and someone will not agree. So I will not be supporting this. I'll be supporting the bill next time. 625. I will say this. This bill and this discussion in this conversation has helped us all think about a bigger, bolder vision in the future. But the question is, what are we going to do today? That's the question. What are we going to do today? And so we all agree that we need to be bigger. We need to be bolder. And everyone out here is going to get that opportunity because you're all on record. So what are we going to do today? Madam Secretary, roll call. Herndon, I. CASHMAN No. Kennedy No. Knew Ortega. Sussman All right, black eye. CLARK All right. Espinosa, I. FLYNN Hey. GILMORE No, Mr. President. No. And that's the voting. I close the voting, announce the results. Seven eyes, five knees. Seven eyes, five knees. Counsel Bill 626 has been ordered published counseling can each. Will you? You've caught out 625. What would you like to do with this bill? Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to request a combined public hearing of one hour combined with Council Bill 626 on September 19th, 2016.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 21.25.903, Subsection 21.25.904.C, Section 21.31.110, Table 31-1, Table 32-1, Table 32-1A, Subsection 21.33.060.C, Table 33-2, Section 21.52.232, Section 21.52.260, Subsection 21.56.030.C, Subsection 21.56.100.J, Section 21.56.120, and Subsection 21.56.140.C, relating to various sections of Title 21 Zoning Regulations relating to assembly uses, urban agriculture, wireless telecommunication facilities, and adult-use cannabis incorporating the suggested modifications by the California coastal commission, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06232020_20-0587

Thank you. Next up is the hour. We have two hearings, hearing item 12, please. Or from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, include the public hearing and find the project exempt from secure declare or simply. You know what? Madam Clerk, I'm sorry. I think we have a full public speakers. This will go in just to public speakers right now. So, Madam Clerk, if you want to just do the public speakers that we have, I know we've hit our ten limit, so there will be 90 seconds. Why don't you go and go through those right now? Thank you. And you can just you could just take those one after the other. Thank you. We don't have public comment callers queued up at this time. Oh, okay. You're kidding. You're still keeping them up? Yes. Okay then please go and cue them up and we'll do the hearings and then it'll be queued up right after that. Okay. Thank you. It's a report from Development Services recommendations received supporting documentation and of the record to conclude the public hearing and find the project exempt from secure declared ordinance, amending various sections of Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of City Council for final reading and adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance amendments to the Coastal Commission for Certification Citywide. Okay. Go ahead, please. Oscar Orsi are development services director there. This is Councilwoman Pierce. I'm going to recuse myself from this item for working with from the earth. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the City Council in accordance with the city's local coastal program, various zoning code amendments were that were approved by the City Council or were submitted to the Coastal Commission for the LCP amendment. The Coastal Commission considered the amendments and took action to approve them, subject to certain modifications. Those modifications are minor in nature. They include some type of in some clarifications, adjustments to our tables, allowing for minor deviations from the LCP to comply with the Lupa, as well as some standards for lighting and etc.. That said, staff is requesting that the Council approve the modifications and if approved, the audience will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval. That concludes my presentations will be more than happy to answer any questions. Okay. Is there any public comment on the hearing? There is no public comment on this hearing. Okay. Then we'll call it public comment. And can I see a motion to approve a accounts from Ranga? Can I get a second? Can I get a second, please? Okay. Speaking about Councilman Price, unless there's any comment from either the motion or the second or Councilmember Ringa, we'll go ahead and do a roll call vote. District one. I district to. District three, I. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. Art District seven. I District eight. District nine. High emotion carries. Okay. Thank you. Next is hearing 13. And Madam Crook, I'll be going right into public comment after this hearing, just so you know. So hearing item 13.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to submit a grant application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Outdoor Environmental Education Facilities Grant Program; accept said grant, if awarded, in an amount up to $500,000, for completion of the Willow Springs Outdoor Education Trailhead and Trail Network; and, execute all documents necessary to accept the funds and implement the project. (District 7)

LongBeachCC_09192017_17-0821

Councilman Austin. Vice Mayor Richardson. Mayor Garcia. Okay. We're going to go ahead. And Councilman Byrd, we had a consent item number 17. Yes. Our consent item number 17 deals with the park project in my district, the Willow Springs Park. And I like to hold that for the next meeting, either October 5th or October 12th. Okay. There's a there's a motion to do to hold it over for two weeks. Uh, is there a second on that motion? This is any public comment on consent item 17. Okay, please cast your votes. I am glad to see some of the donors here. The Court. Could we get the tally? Okay. That passes. We're going to do we only had one member of public comment. We're still waiting for Councilman Gonzales to be able to do this item. She's an introducer to Mr. Goodhue. Did you want to come forward and do your public comment? 3 minutes.

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

LongBeachCC_06012021_21-0284

Russian Kurds. Item 19, please. Communication in Councilman. Super Nature of Government Personnel and Election Oversight Committee Recommendation to approve renaming the Community Center at Horton Park the Doris Topsy Alvord Community Center. Somewhere. I'd like to go ahead and move the motion. Yup. And you're can you please go ahead, councilman. Okay. So this is a. This comes from our committee and we unanimously supported this naming. So I'd like to make the motion. Thank you. And there is a second by. I believe this is Councilman Austin. This was for this item, not the not the last one. Correct. Correct. Okay, great. There's the motion in a second. Obviously I want to lend my support to this item. I think there's a lot to be said about the process. This came before the city council received unanimous support, went to the Parks and Recreation Marine Commission and received unanimous support, and then then back to the Governance and Personnel Committee where it received unanimous support. Obviously. Mother Dawes, former vice mayor, former harbor commissioner, is a iconic figure in her own self, somebody who was a trailblazer in our city, someone who was a mentor to many, many, many city employees, but also elected officials in the city and around the region. It is only fitting that we we name of the Highland Park Center for her. And I want to just give a nod to Vice Mayor Richardson for his leadership in getting this issue to this point. And I would encourage our full support of the council. Thank you. Thank you. By Sam Waterston. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just want to take a moment, and I thank everyone who's been involved from the committee that helped put all this together, community committee to the Parks and Rec Commission, the Government Oversight Commission, to get this done. Prior to my daughter's 90th birthday, we set a goal to get it done this June. And today, pending this vote, we are we are going to make sure that Mother Doors has a well-deserved and happy birthday and thanks to city staff for all of their work to make sure that we have a good plan on how we're going to recognize this this moment. This is this is I mean, this is great. We're we're you know, this is recognition of, you know, the first black councilwoman, the trailblazer of the term vice mayor. And, you know, she one of her quotes that she you know, that she know for is you can get anything done if you don't care who gets the glory. And I think, you know, I certainly, you know, mother daughter could teach me and a whole lot of folks that lesson right there. So, you know, I certainly want to thank Mother Doors and look and thank everybody involved and look forward to opening up the tops, the other community center. How important. Thank you. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I'm a big supporter of the councilwoman. And and as a former councilwoman, I think it is appropriate that perhaps this is a time that we could have that discussion. I think that this is one of many names that have come before us through an amazing process. But there is a administrative declaration that we don't name things after people who are alive or have passed recently. And I think perhaps it might be appropriate to ask council member Soup or not to provide some recommendations to us if that is a necessary policy anymore. We have some pretty amazing people who have done some amazing things in the city, and that administrative mandate was not from a city council. And so I think when you have great people like the councilwoman and the legacy that she had among others, I see that it is an exception to the rule. But there have been a lot of exceptions lately, and I am wholeheartedly in support of this. But as a leader and a former councilman, I know that she would be a person who would want us to to look at what we're doing and make sure that we are being honest with ourselves about what our true policies are . So, again, thank you to her for everything she's done for the city. It has been an amazing legacy, and I'm honored to be a part of the council that makes this happen. And I just can't thank her and the committee enough. Thank you. Councilman Allen. Thank you, Mayor. I also support the committee's recommendation. Of vice mayor. Doorstop Silver is a truck with a just a total trailblazer in our city, and I firmly believe that public facilities and spaces should be named after upstanding leaders who represent the best of us and vice mayor. Doris certainly fits the bill. So, so happy to support this. Thank you. Councilman Sorrell. Mayor. I want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for his leadership on this item. And, you know, I think it's fitting that this renaming the community center follows Juneteenth because it's really important to celebrate the amazing work and legacy of a black women, particularly because I think that, you know, there are numerous obstacle I'm sure she has had to overcome in order to be able to do the work that she does. And I think it's important that those that come, we follow her, know that and hear about her history and celebrate her. So thank you, Vice Mayor, for honoring and celebrating the Honorable Doris Tulsa, Albert. So thank you so much. And I support this item. Thank you, Councilman Ringo. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you very much for bringing this forward. Now, before we were friends, we were opponents. Doris and I ran campaigns against each other. And for jealousy, she won over me. But she was also one of my mentors. When I was 20, she was a civil service commissioner. Not many people remember that, that before she was elected to the city council, she was a commissioner in a civil service commission work where I worked and we became friends there. And I just been proud to follow her legacy, to see how she's gone, just from an individual who was very important to the community, to one who is become an iconic. And the name of this building will certainly be that for her and for us in that community forever. So I'm glad to support this. Congratulations, Doris. Let me be. Thank you, Councilman Superman. Thank you. And thanks to Councilman Munga for bringing that point up on on our policies. So what I did was I had a conversation with Deputy Deputy City Attorney Gary Anderson prior to that meeting, and I asked him to go ahead and please be on that meeting with us. And we took the time to explain the policies and how it does not apply to council. So I think it is an important point of clarification. And and so we did it by the book. So thank you for asking that question. Thank you. And I want to just add again, I think this is a wonderful opportunity to name what a great building, really. I'm after a really great person and has such a strong legacy within the broader language community, but also specifically just the history made within our own black community. So just echoing what everyone else said, and I think it's the really great, great naming is your public comment? Yes, Mayor, we have public comment. Karl Kemp, please begin. Yeah. I just want to again thank the city council. You guys are on fire and doing great things. It's so great to give this woman who has dedicated her life to this city before she was on the city council while she was on the city council, served as vice mayor two times, went over to the Harbor Commission and made history there. And at each one of her stations, she has done something revolutionary to make lasting change in policy, to make lasting change in the lives of the people that our city and its institutions interact with. All of us probably have individual stories. I have a bunch. I will simply say that I would not be here today if it were not for doorstops. The board president, Bob Maxim, identified me as somebody that needed somebody like her, and she took me under her wing. My first job out of college was working for the city of Long Beach, and she is nurtured and looked after me every step of the way. My mom gave her permission to engage, I'll say simply for the public to engage in corporal punishment if necessary. She was truly she is truly another mother for me and has served of that while my mother was here and after my mother passed. And it's just beautiful that Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilman Austin and the entire city council have saw fit to give her this wonderful tribute and give her a chance to smell her flowers right now. And I just want to thank you on behalf of all the people like me who have had their lives changed by by this wonderful, wonderful blessing that we call mother daughters. Michelle Dobson, please be in. Michelle Dobson, please begin. Thank you. My name is Michelle Dobson, and I wanted to take a moment to thank each one of you for supporting this. I read the minutes as this has gone along the way, and the unanimous support all the way through is just heart warming for a woman who is an inspiration to many of us here in the city, raising her sons while getting her master's degree to the Long Beach Original from Saint Anthony High School. She remains a proud alumni and supporter of that school. And I know personally she was extremely supportive of us as a youth group. To me, ACP, when I was coming, who she helped as a city city council member, sent us to several national arts and academic competitions, and the timing here is just perfect. As was mentioned previously, there's a gospel song that's sung in our community called Give Me My Flowers While I Can Smell Them, which is just say this could not have been brought forward at a better time. And I want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for leading the effort and for bringing this to the community and the council and anything that we can do as a community to support it. Of course, we are here and I think it was unanimously supporting this all the way through. Thank you. Any more public comment? No, that concludes public comment. Okay. Then with that, we will go take a roll call vote. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. I. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. I think we have to a one time certain item which is supposed to be after 630 and then another request to come up to move early. So let me let me do item 17. And then after that I am 13, which is which is a row for the transfer on rowing. We'll do right after that. I think that was supposed to be anytime after 630. So those will be the next two items. The next item 17. Communication from Councilwoman Mongeau. Councilwoman Dan Diaz, Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Your UNGA recommendation to direct city manager and the Fireworks Committee to develop a fireworks free neighborhood incentive program and waive the fees of all submitted and approved block party applications for this upcoming July 4th, 2021 holiday.

Recommendation to adopt resolution declaring an Inclusive Language Policy for all future Long Beach Municipal Code Ordinances, Ballot Proposals for Long Beach City Charter Amendments, City Council Resolutions, and City Council Policies; and

LongBeachCC_02012022_22-0116

Motion is carried. Thank you. Item 29, please. Report from City Attorney Recommendation to adopt a resolution declaring an inclusive language policy and declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to gender references. Read the first time laid over the next regular meeting of City Council for Final Reading Citywide. I have a motion that comes from around. Can I get a second, please? And I got a second. So I want my customer. Austin Any public comment? If there's any members of the public that wish to speak on this item, please press star nine or use the raise hand function. Seen none. That concludes public comment. Great. Thank you. There is emotion in the second members. Please go ahead and talk over District one. I district to my district three. I. District four. I. District five. District six. I. District seven. By District eight, District nine, my motion is carried. Thank you. And I didn't miss any items. Right. Madam President, I thought for a little bit that missing the items earlier are all the items. We have open public comment. And second public comment. Was a general comment that wasn't done earlier. No, that was not completed.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP EP16-004 for the purchase and development opportunity at Broadway and Long Beach Boulevard (125-133 North Long Beach Boulevard and 234-248 East Broadway), Assessor Parcel Numbers 7280-025-903, -917, -922, -923 (Subject Property); Declare the City-owned Subject Property as surplus; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all necessary documents including a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Raintree-Evergreen, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for the sale of the Subject Property in the amount of $7,300,000; and Accept Categorical Exemption CE 16-148. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_06212016_16-0563

Came Item 18. Clark, if you could please read the item. Report from Economic and Property Development and Development Services Recommendation to adopt specifications for the Purchase and Development Opportunity at Broadway and Long Beach Boulevard. Declare the property a surplus and authorize the city manager to execute all necessary documents with Raintree Evergreen for the sale of the property in the amount of 7.3 million District two. Thank you. Members I've moved to approve the item are actually seconded to approve the item. Councilman Gonzalez. Oh. Okay. I appreciate that. So let's do that again. Okay. There we go. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any member of the public that wish to address the Council on item 18? And before I take that, I'm sorry, let me ask for a staff report really briefly. Would you just take a seat in the front and then I'll call you back up? Vice Mayor Council Members. As mandated by the State of California, we continue to work to dispose of our former redevelopment agency properties through our successor agency. We have one of the final projects in the pipeline is going to be for you tonight in the downtown. And our economic development and property services manager Mike Conry will walk us through it. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, members of the City Council, the property located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Long Beach Boulevard, is a vacant lot, containing 44,249 square feet and is being temporarily used as a parking lot. The property is former redevelopment property and is categorized as future development of the city's long range property management plan that was approved by the state in March of 2015. Future development properties are disposed through a request for proposals process with a selection based on best value to the city rather than the highest purchase price. An RFP was issued and four proposals were received. A selection panel consisting of representatives from the Departments of Development, Services and Economic and Property Development and the city's real estate and economics consultant Kaiser Master reviewed the four proposals. While all proposals provided excellent opportunity for the city, the panel unanimously selected Raintree Evergreen as its preferred proposer to recommend to City Council. Raintree proposes to develop modern luxury apartments with co-working, flexible space, retail space and an outdoor public plaza, creating a high degree of activity on the street level and providing residents with a place to live, workshop and connect. The proposal offered the highest price for the property and the highest estimated development cost and the highest density. Raintree has also agreed to provide ten parking spaces for exclusive use by the adjoining psychic temple. On May 24th, City Council authorize the sale of property located at Broadway in the Promenade to Raintree Evergreen for a similar high density mixed use development. If City Council approves this item tonight, this would be the second property to be developed by Raintree in the downtown. Raintree submitted proposals for both Broadway properties and the Promenade and at Long Beach Boulevard. And their concept was to offer a cohesive and synergistic project, creating a dual campus like setting conducive to the downtown. Staff believes that this co-branding approach has merit and the proposed development offers the best value to the city. Purchase and Sale Agreement has been prepared with certain entitlement and development performance milestones that are detailed in the staff report. It is anticipated that entitlement required 12 months with the close of escrow, not later than 18 months, and construction is anticipated to take up to 24 months to complete. As these timelines are, estimates staff request some flexibility for unanticipated delays. It is also important to state for the record, that council's action this evening is for the sale of property and does not approve a development on the site and without staff requests that City Council adopt specifications number of Pep 16 Dash 004 for the purchase and development of property located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Long Beach Boulevard. Authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary for sale of the property in the amount of 7.3 million except categorical exemption. S.E. 16 DASH 148 And this concludes my report. That was a fast report, Mr. Conway. You get faster and faster. So I know we have a couple of speakers and would you like to come forward? High Long Beach transportation and parking solution, which is also called Tips objects to this project on the basis that the city has failed to conduct any environmental review for the project under secret. The city claims that the project is exempt from secret because it has a Class 12 exemption for the project which pertains to the sale of the surplus property. However, the project is not so narrowly defined. The staff report prepared. The city prepared by the city specifically states that the project includes the development of modern luxury apartments work, work, flexible space, electric vehicle charging station space and electric vehicle charging stations and retail space. The project is not simply the sale of surplus property and therefore the Class 12 exemption does not apply. The city must conduct a secure review at the earliest possible opportunity and deferring seek review until after the purchase and sale agreement has been approved would amount to piece mealing which is prohibited under section. Further, even if the 12th class 12th exemption were applicable, there are unusual circumstances here that render it unavailable. Namely, the project is not simply the sale of surplus property, but the proposal to build a large, multi-purpose building as described in the separate staff report. This is not a simple real estate transaction, which is what the Class 12 exemption was designed for. There are numerous environment issues that must be considered. TAPS is particularly concerned that the environmental impacts that derive from loss of parking, from the loss of public parking due to the creation of new density with inadequate parking. As you know, downtown Long Beach is already severely impaired. With parking impaired, and this will exacerbate the problem by resulting in traffic and air pollution. We urge you to conduct a square review now and reject the proposed purchase and sale agreement. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Would you state your name? I don't think I. Sorry. I'm Debbie Tobias. Wonderful. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Warren Lisowski. Oh, excuse me, second district resident. Just to follow up on what the previous speaker was saying, maybe to break it down a little more simple terms. We all know the council is not going to respond to any type of public input or commentary. We can pretty much predict this will be a eight to nothing unanimous vote per the staff's recommendation. That's pretty typical around here. But what the. Previous speaker was saying was that city of Long Beach and their staff reports there's a law called Secure. It's a California Environmental Quality Act. And what the city has been doing as they've been disposing of these former redevelopment agencies properties is using what's called categorical exemptions. Now, if you go ahead and look at Sequoia's website and do any research on the law, you'll find out that each of the exemptions has exemptions to them. And so the city is using their staff reports, signing one page exemptions and pushing them through to sell these properties. There's some problems with the way they're doing it. Just to follow up on what Debbie was saying about the project, it's interesting how Mike Conway will say that we are only approving the sale of the property, not the project being developed on it. Well, sir, if you're not if you're not approving the project, why is there pictures of the project in the sale contract? I mean, it's pretty obvious that you guys have already approved this or are going to approve this high density project near the promenade. The same developer has another high density project on the promenade, and whether it's parking or quality of life, by designating these properties surplus, the council would like to use the Class 12 exemption. And so we were long wondered why the council was using designating these properties as. As surplus property. And now the answer is because they want to use the the Class 12 exemption. As W was saying, there's problems with the Class 12 exemption and there are also exemptions to the exemptions. So we're going to go ahead and file a lawsuit against this property as well. And when you go ahead and post the sequel exemption category exemption tomorrow, we can go ahead down to the recorder's office, take a picture of it, and we'll be filing another lawsuit against this development as well. The way that the city of Long Beach is disposing of the RDA properties is unfair to both the taxpayers. It's a noncompetitive bidding system. Just saying that you've got 3200 people looked at the RFP and four bids were put in on it. There's something wrong with the way the city of Long Beach is selling these properties and you've you'd like to quickly just kind of brush them under the rug with one page categorical exemptions. But we're going to bring a little light to this and we're going to use the power of the courts to do so. So I'm sure you guys don't have any questions or don't want to address this now and go ahead and enjoy your vote and we'll just settle in court. Thanks so much. So, Mr. Conway, I'll ask you a few questions. But just to remind members of the audience that have followed this council for perhaps the last several years, nearly a decade, we spent about five, six, almost seven years on updating the downtown plan and in doing so conducted an ER as part of it. And so the density that is approved for the downtown might not have been what certainly it was ten years ago, but that is why the downtown plan was updated. All the projects that have come before us for the second District comport with what that plan provides, and that process involved a tremendous amount of community outreach and for those that were not able to participate or chose not to. It is unfortunate, but it is a disrespect to those individuals who spent countless hours with this city for several years participating in updating the downtown plan. And I value that and cherish that and thank them for their time. Therefore, I am very confident in the way that we are approaching our disposition of surplus funds. If we were to follow what the State had advised us to do when redevelopment was disbanded, we would be putting up all our properties for fire sale. So what would then happen is it would go to the highest bidder, not necessarily what is in the best interest of community development or what is in the best interest of an actual plan for an area. So I'm not only thankful for the process that we are approaching, but I am actually very proud of it. Mr. Conway, would you share with us about the er confusion that the members of the audience may have? I'd be happy to give that a try. Vice Mayor Again, what council is doing this evening is selecting a developer, essentially a purchaser of property. You're not approving a project. There are concepts by which the panel made a decision on whom to select to purchase the property. The concepts as presented in staff's estimate estimation is consistent with the downtown plan, but that is something that would be determined through the secret process once an actual development proposal is submitted to the city for review. And when that occurs, they'll be a full scale review consistent with square guidelines and hopefully consistent with the downtown plan. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second, and I want to thank you, Mr. Good. Here. Please come forward. Very good. You. Clarke has the address. Noticeably absent at this? Of course. Is a review and position by our city auditor on his very face. If you have nothing to hide. It seems to me that on any piece of property that we're dealing with, the city auditor should be entitled to weigh in. And perhaps the biggest piece of evidence of why this should not go forward is contained and codified well set forth in the new business section. Item 37, which goes to the issue of how woefully inadequate trained is our city staff on such matters. I call your attention to item 37, where it says the city essentially is needing developing a training program for project managers, both employees and consultants for managing projects, preparing scope of work, reviewing the proposals, develop a training program on contract administration best practices, establish policies, procedures for overseeing, overseeing standardized city contracts. Developing a policy to ensure our project managers are certified and certifications are current. What you're saying here and somebody is to be certainly given credit for recognizing how woefully inadequate the city staff is, as many people have pointed out over the past years. That's one of the reasons we're in the process and in the situation we find ourselves now. So I would suggest that the very first thing is request a review from the city auditor unless you have something to hide. If you don't have something to hide, then you should step. You should request the report from the auditor. She has nothing to gain, nothing to lose. And she has. She's biased. Would bring a bias unbiased review and I think combined with item the idea implicit in 37. Any reason community of mind would find the issue before you today is one that you're ill prepared. To move forward on an intelligent basis. Yes, you could move forward using the disease. And in the end, it is thinking. But if that is what you want as your legacy, I think the voters need to know that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goodyear. And I'd like to thank the staff for the work that they've done on putting this report together as well as the item for tonight. And I know Mr. Ruddock is not here but has spent a tremendous amount of time on redevelop this year. Sorry. That's not where you normally sit. We have our assigned seating. She has spent probably. 14 years. 13 years on making sure that the promenade is reintroduced to this city. As a splendid piece of development, but really more of a neighborhood. I think we look at certain projects as just development, but what we've done is created a neighborhood and the promenade today. For those of us who have lived here, at least since the nineties, looks far different from what it was in the nineties. And I want to thank the staff for that. BLOCK by block, piece by piece, there is a cohesion to that space that isn't just retail and it isn't just residential, but it's truly mixed use with the walkability that a promenade should be. A lot of areas around the country are referred to as the promenade, but very few allow us that walkability among a. Set of retail options and neighborhood options. And so this is the last parcel to complete that Promenade project, and I'm very pleased with it. And I want to look at the staff that's here today and also speak to those that are not here. Thank you for your commitment to redeveloping the promenade. It didn't take one or two years. It took over ten years. And I want to thank you for that. With that colleagues, I am very much in support of moving forward with this item today. Members cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Item. 1/2. 39.

A bill for an ordinance vacating portions of right of way at 17th Street, 18th Street, Pecos Street and the alley bounded by 17th Street, 18th Street, Platte Street and Interstate 25, with reservations. Vacates portions of 17th Street, 18th Street, Pecos Street, and the public alley bounded by 17th Street, 18th Street, Platte Street, and Interstate 25 with a partial reservation in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-26-18.

DenverCityCouncil_07162018_18-0580

Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. Moving on. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And Councilman Herndon, will you put Council Bill 580 on the floor? Yes, miss. There's no need for a vote. Oh, it's 580. Did we already get to no one? There's no need for a vote. But I would like to make a brief comment. A comment? Okay. Never mind. We don't need it on the floor. Councilman Ortega, go ahead with your comment. Thank you, Mr. President. I was able to get my question clarified by Councilman Espinosa. This is for right of way an alley property being vacated. And it wasn't clear that this was part of the original sale of the property, that the acquisitions were built in to the sale price that we approved some time ago when we sold the property to the developer that's going to build on this site. And he did clarify that the cost of the alley and right of way was included in that sale price. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. I believe that concludes all the items to be called out. Did I miss anything, Madam Secretary? None, Mr. President. Thank you. All other bills for introduction are ordered, published, and we are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call it an item for a separate vote. Councilman Herndon, will you put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? That was president. I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in the block for the following items. All series of 2018 711 712 713 704707 717 7284728666687709 718 779. 780 1673680580689 670 2685. I believe that's it. All right. I think we got them all. Madam Secretary, do you concur? Yes, Mr. President. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. Brooks. I Espinosa. Flinn. I Gilmore. I Herndon. I Cashman. Can eat Lopez. Hi. New Ortega Susman. I. Mr. President. I. I'm sorry. Could you please close the voting and announce the results? 3939 As the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill six, for one referring a measure to the eligible voters in Denver to extend the

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_01212020_Res 31926

The chair will sign. Oh. Agenda Item two Resolution 319 26 reaffirming Seattle as a welcoming city, expressing the Seattle City Council's solidarity with Seattle's South Asian community regardless of religion, caste and opposing India's National Register of Citizens and Citizenship. Citizenship Amendment Act. I moved to hold Resolution 31926 until February 3rd, 2020. Second. Appreciate that. A lot of folks took time out of their day to come and speak to us today in anticipation of a vote on this resolution. The legislative process always has as a potential the a request for for a hold. I am asking that my colleagues support me in my request for a hold. We have heard from the Washington State Trade Relations Action Committee, as well as we have heard from a number of individuals representing themselves. And we have heard also from the the Indian consulate in in San Francisco that this resolution would benefit from a little bit more time and care. I'm very sensitive to how these resolutions are appropriately and powerfully used, and they are used in an in a way that encourages other legislative bodies to adopt them. And for that reason, I want to really make sure that we have taken the extra time and care to make sure that everything in this resolution before bringing it forward to vote is characterized in a way that we can stand by and say that we have done our due diligence and that we are certain that the information contained in the resolution is accurate. We're working with our Office of Inter-Governmental Relations because, as Councilmember Peterson mentions, our staff, because of the heavy workload that we have working on city business doesn't have the time to to fact check resolutions like this. So we have an Office of Intergovernmental Relations that has reached out to an individual who is with the Seattle International Affairs Advisory Board at the Jackson School of University of Washington, who's working to connect OIRA with subject matter experts in south the South in the South Asian Center for additional feedback. And so I'm confident I was willing to hold this for one additional week. Council member Swan asked that it be held instead until February 3rd, when she will be able to be in attendance because she will not be here next week. And with that, I would request the support of my colleagues on the Council for the hold until February 3rd. It has been moved and seconded that the resolution be held until February 3rd. Are there any comments members want. Just in terms of process? I have comment on the hold itself, but I also have comment on the base legislation which I think I have the right to speak to it as well because it's on the agenda. So do you want me to say it all at once or. I think all at once would be great. Okay. So first I want to speak to the hold up. And, you know, again, I'm speaking to members of the public in the movement who are here and also who are watching. I know many, many, including people in other countries, are watching the proceedings of this city council today. I want to be clear whether the resolution is passed today or at a future date in a couple of weeks. We are going to make sure that council members are going to vote yes on this resolution because it will be up to them to explain why they would why they would not support a fight, a global fight against egregious injustices. And I'm confident that that's going to happen. But I do not but I do not support delaying this vote. I think as many of you yourselves who have taken time off from work, I know some of you have actually taken the day off. Some of you got your children early from school because you wanted them to be here as well. I think it's disrespectful to all of you and people who are watching this. And also it it sort of quells the you know, it has a dampening effect on the movement. But I want to urge you to not be discouraged by this, because, as I said, we're going to make this happen and. But I do want to state for the record that it is it is unfortunate and disrespectful to the ordinary people who have come here. You know, we we as council members do a lot of work. Yes, I should know that because my office fight on a lot of issues on the ground. However, people here are also hardworking. They have their day jobs. They are there looking after their families and they make time to come here. So I want to say that it's really unfortunate and also a wonder to point out that the council has had access to my draft resolution for a week now, but I hadn't heard any questions about it or any comments for it for all of that time until just 2 hours before this before this meeting today. And I am. Can I. Let me. Let me speak. Let me. No, no, no, no. Nobody's lying. It's just. I just want to clarify. We had some fire. We. I completely agree. I mean, as an economist myself, I completely agree with fact checking. But I don't believe that the origination of the delay is is from a fact checking concerning the origination of the delay is because the consul general of India sent an email to the establishment, and they are worried by that. So it's fine. It's fine. We will we I'm going to vote. I'm let me speak I'm going to vote no on the on the delay. But I also I'm completely willing and able I mean, I'm I'm looking forward to working with the whole council to make sure everything is fact checked. However, I do want to point out that some of those are some of the entities. I think I remember her well. You mention I don't see them as neutral agencies on fact checking. So we our movement will also be doing its own fact checking. And from there, from whatever amendments are proposed, and we are going to make sure that the essential character of the resolution is not taken away. And we also I also just wanted to share that just as a point of information that I've been in touch with myself, with professors at the Jackson School of International Studies who are also experts on this. And so I look forward to a a frank discussion on this. But I want to be clear that we are not we're not accepting the consul general's position because the consul general is nothing but a modi representative. It's an extension of the administration. So and and I want to talk about I look, I want to I want to talk about the base resolution in a second. But just want to point out that I just want to point out I have gone through the consul general general's letter. I am not misguided. I am not misinformed. You know, as people would like to believe, some people would like to believe. I'll tell you the most striking thing, and I urge you all to read that letter as well, we can share it with you. The most striking thing about that letter, and this is what makes that letter completely dishonest and basically useless, is that it avoids any mention of the National Register of Citizens. That is where the problem starts and ends, because that's where the crux of the problem lies. And that's what I want to get to, because that's the explanation of why the combination of Syria and anarchy is so bad and why it's a blatant threat to the citizenship rights of India's 200 million Muslims, hundreds of millions of poor people, indigenous communities, oppressed, gassed women, women and LGBTQ people are going to be at some point that made for the benefit of my colleagues in the morning. But since you all are here, it's important to share this. The National Register of Citizens came long before the Citizenship Amendment Act even existed. There was no Citizenship Amendment Act. US There was a National Register of citizens. This requires that every person in India produce proof of citizenship. But not a passport, not your Aadhaar card, nothing like that. But a new set of criteria have been devised by the NRC. The NRC was tried out in one state in Assam, which others have mentioned. What are the documents required under the Assam National Register of Citizens? I want you to read that pre you if you have a pre 1971 self-identity, you know, like a birth certificate, you're fine. If you don't have that, then you have to present both a pre 1971 parents identity proof and a relationship proof with your parents or grandparents. Think about this. I was born after 1971. I have none of those documents, so technically I would not get that. I would be rejected as a citizen personally in India. But I won't be affected. Why? Because when they saw the Nazis, disastrous effects were. Indians were. I mean, Hindus were falling into the non-citizen category. They immediately had to act and, you know, make make something happen so that Hindus were not unintentionally getting caught because their intention was to put Muslims in the non-citizen category. And so then they quickly came up with the Citizenship Amendment Act, which basically says that if you have a Hindu name, you don't have to provide documentation. So in other words, because I come from a Hindu family, even though I don't have any of the documentation I am, I'm all set . I will get citizenship. But those of you who are Muslim will not get a citizenship. And not only that, if you can't provide the documentation as a muslim or as a person of other religion or whatever, then you are facing the prospect of detention centers or prisons. And again, this is not speculative. This is actually happening in Assam. We have seen 2 million people become stateless, being declared stateless, and many of them are languishing in detention centers. You know, people said, you know, little children are dying. So protests have been happening throughout the nation. They started on university campuses, but now they are all over the country. And as piece I note said in recent, you know, in my lifetime, I have not seen India, the whole of India wake up in the way that it has. And we've seen massive actions. I, I, I wanted to quickly read out the message of solidarity that Arundhati Roy, famed writer and activist, has sent to me personally on this resolution. I wanted to quote that quickly because it's very brief. It says, quote, The Indian government Citizenship Amendment Act, coupled with a national citizenship register, resemble the Nuremberg citizenship laws of the Third Reich. They go generate panic, uncontrollable chaos, and a population of stateless people on an unimaginable scale in the state of Assam alone, pending a last round of appeals. The number is close to 2 million. The government must be prevailed upon to repeal these laws as quickly as possible. I support Seattle City Councilmember Sharma Salman's resolution. I hope others around the world will follow its example. And I'm happy to say also that the City of Seattle LGBTQ commission voted unanimously last week to support this resolution . We will make sure other commissions also follow. We also have API Chia and the Indian American Islamic Council and we also had the continent American Islamic relations give us solidarity and there are hundreds of South Asians who are not necessarily under any group but are organizing together. And it's all the way from tech workers to less paid workers to small business owners who are all coming together. And just last point that I want to make, the people who are supporting Modi are saying that our resolution is divisive. Let me tell you, it's exactly the opposite. Is the Citizenship Amendment Act on the National Register of Citizens that is deeply divisive and actually what they are doing is uniting people. I wanted I wanted to quote the last paragraph of B.S. letter that Sujata read out, but she couldn't finish B.S. and says. The one. Thing that can be said for the authors of these vicious laws, they have succeeded in uniting countless millions of people across the length and breadth of the land, many of whom are out there showing the world what democracy is all about. So let's remember these encouraging words. If the vote is for February 3rd, then and I'm sorry because I'm out of town next Monday, but let's make sure we keep getting organized. Let's not stop here. Let's bring more people on February and let's make sure we win this. And let's and the next stop is, you know, where it's Bellevue City Council. Let's demand Bellevue City Council. Doesn't this. So it has been moved and seconded that the resolution would be held until February 3rd. Are there any additional comments? Councilmember Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to first off, thank everybody here on both sides of this discussion who came out and commented publicly. It's always hard to get up in front of your neighbors and express strong opinions on these public matters. I want to start out by saying I didn't run for Seattle City Council to opine on matters of international relations. I certainly didn't to comment on the internal politics of India. But we as council members aren't always the people that decide what is important. The community does as well. And as you coming out here tonight have shown, there is massive interest in Seattle in debating and discussing this matter. And I think it is appropriate that we take it up. I do want to comment, and I think that the Iran resolution we passed earlier is a good example of this, that while I think we on occasion we can or should comment on matters of international relations, I think it's most proper to do it in the form of instructing our congressional delegation or instructing the federal authorities in our system that have the power to take action most immediately on addressing these concerns. I think we have a very strong partner in Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, who has taken on leadership in this issue in the United States Congress. So I would just saying this by way of flagging from my colleagues that going forward, I would like to work on potentially strengthening the resolution going forward and structuring it more toward instructing our congressional delegation in the kind of things that we would like to see addressed. Just for the record, I believe it's House Resolution 745, but I'm not sure that Congresswoman Jayapal has introduced that. I did read this morning that touches some of the same issues, but not all of them. The process that we went through with the Iran resolution did produce a I believe, a stronger resolution. I don't think that delaying for a little bit of time, especially on issues that I am not personally at this moment, a proficient expert in, without further deliberation and broader consultation. And I have the humility to recognize that. I don't think that that is going to make the final product suffer. And I look forward to folks continuing to express through email their sentiment on this issue. I have gotten a considerable amount of emails from all sides of this issue over the last couple of days, and I do appreciate that feedback in that outreach and look forward to working with my colleagues and everyone in this room in this conversation going forward for a meeting on February 3rd. And do you support holding the ordinance or resolution? Okay. All right. So those in favor of holding the resolution vote i, i. I. I, those oppose vote. No, no, no. I believe the motion carries and the resolution is held until February 3rd, 2020. We will be back. All right. Look forward to seeing you again. So other business, adoption of other resolutions, please read into the record.

A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Axon Enterprise, Inc., f/k/a Taser International, Inc., to extend the term, increase the maximum contract amount and add additional terms and conditions for body worn cameras, supporting equipment, software, and data storage and Tasers for the Denver Police and Denver Sheriff Departments. Amends a contract with Axon Enterprise, Inc., formerly known as Taser International, Inc., by adding $15,996,615.10 for a new total of $22,097,650.10 and five years for a new end date of 12-15-25 to purchase body worn cameras, supporting equipment, software, and data storage and Tasers for the Denver Police and Denver Sheriff Departments (202054764). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-18-20. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember CdeBaca called out this resolution at the 11-30-20 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to Monday, 12-7-20.

DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1356

Thank you, Madam President. I have a few outstanding questions and a couple that will reiterate from the safety committee. Is there anybody on the call who can answer questions on this contract? Mm hmm. We have, I believe, Laura Walker and Chief Payton. Got it. We did some digging after safety committee and are concerned about the use of the body cameras and when they will be turning on. And I'm wondering when there will be opportunity, if this is passed tonight for the public and for city council members to weigh in on how the new equipment is utilized and recorded and made available. All right. Thank you for that question. We'll go ahead and let either Laura or Chief Payson chime in. Councilwoman, thanks for the question. There's a policy that was done with community input on release of body cam footage so the upgraded cameras would follow the same policy. Will you be reopening that policy after this summer's events? We continuously look at policies and procedures for improvement, and we would do that with all policies that dictate performance of officers. What? Can you make a commitment that you will be responsive to? The report out from the Independent Monitor's office in a couple of weeks regarding body cameras and the policies surrounding the Tasers. So I'm sure if tasers are addressed in the monitors report. But we are looking forward to that report we have signed as well as the executive director of Public Safety requesting this. We consider ourselves a learning organization and we look forward to what the monitors report has and what we can improve upon. Great Segway research doesn't really show us that body cams curtail violence and they don't really change officer behavior. And so I'm wondering how DPD is planning to use the body cam footage to identify ingrained police behavior and where training has failed? Well, the purpose of the body cam is about accountability. You can identify the officers performance. Overwhelmingly, the body cam footage not only in Denver but across the country has led to meaningful change, has led to meaningful correcting behavior, as well as holding individuals accountable for their own actions. And that's what we would expect to see moving forward. And Denver doesn't have a good policy, a uniform policy that lets the public know when video footage will be available or released. And so now I'm wondering when we, as the public and members of council can expect such a policy to be crafted by DPD rather than going with a case by case basis decision making that we've been going with. So again, you know, this original policy was crafted with input from the community. There's also additional layers with SB 217 that we are in compliance with and will be in compliance with in the future. We're talking about this camera compared to the last camera. We believe that the policies that are in effect give that level of transparency, particularly with the Office of Independent Monitor, who has access and reviews, body would body worn camera footage on a regular basis. And the transparency is a huge gap that we have here in Denver. And I'm wondering, when you became chief, we were expecting a report detailing when an officer points a firearm at someone. And I imagine that this is data that's captured on the excessive amount of body cam footage that we must have stored somewhere. But no report has been released. And so I'm wondering when the public can expect that data and that report. Great question. And actually a great segway into how we have worked with our community. Pointing a firearm and documenting that as part of comprehensive reporting is how we worked with the Use of Force Committee on or in June of 2020. We amended our policy and have begun collecting that data as we announced at that time frame. And just like we do with all use of force data, again, part of that that use of force, a committee of diverse community members from all across our city helped us craft. We report out on that on or before February 1st of the following year. So all of that data, just like you can go back and look at 2019 data or 2018 data, it is prominently posted. And that was a suggestion from the use of force committee from a committee member that we have followed through with. And I do want to point out that and give credit to our community, because the use of force policy done in conjunction with our community is as strong and as progressive as any in the nation, and it is fully complies with the eight Can't Wait, which includes what you're asking for in the comprehensive reporting. We're definitely past eight. Can't wait as a general public where we're eight to the abolition now. But I am curious about two things. Where in the escalation of force do tasers fit with respect to pepper balls and the tear gas? So again, that policy is online, it's open. You describe it. Is. As far as the use of force policy that is available online, that was designed in conjunction with our community, talks about usage with defensive resistance, active aggression and aggravated active aggression for each. Do we use Tasers first or do we use pepper balls and tear gas first? There is not a used one before another. Our goal in all of this and is clearly stated in the policy manual, not only in the use of force section, but throughout is the goal is verbal de-escalation is to get voluntary compliance before having to use any type of force. The less force used is good for everybody. Would love to get to a position where no force is used. That's good for our community and it's good for our officers. Does every officer read that policy manual? Yes. And we have a a system, an electronic system that requires signoff upon completion. How many pages is it? The use of force policy manual? Yep. I don't have the exact number of pages. So when I download it, it's over 800 pages. And when I've asked different officers about different sections in that policy manual, it doesn't seem. Like it is something that every officer reads from cover to cover. And so beyond the sign off that they've read it, what other kind of quiz or testing is involved to make sure that they've read it and know the content within it? So there is the academy that has tests, both quizzes and major tests that are associated with the policy manual. There are all updates are pushed out electronically to indicate adherence and knowledge of the particular policy. Any time something has changed, for example, the changes that were made with regards to your initial question on comprehensive reporting that goes out and each officer or supervisor is required to then read that and then sign off acknowledging that they know and understand the changes. I'm very concerned with just the signoff and not the the content knowledge. That seems to be the priority. I'm wondering also if this contract has any kind of clause in it that does not allow this company to. Transfer over data if it is purchased by another company. How we monitor and protect people's data. We do not allow in our contracts for folks to just to sell data to a third party. That's not exactly what I'm talking about. Say, for example, we collect all of this data. We have a full database of body cam footage, and then one day Palantir buys Axn. They buy the the data service. They buy all of the footage. Even though it belongs to us, they have access to it. I didn't see anything in our contract that would trigger. A renegotiation of the contract if the company is purchased or a termination of the contract. That would be a city attorney question. Is there a city attorney on the line to speak to that? And so, I mean, this is Steve Horn with the Denver City Attorney's Office. And my recollection of reading the contract is, of course, as you mentioned, the data belongs to the city. And as with all of our contracts, we can terminate at any point in time. The language is clear that it belongs, that the data belongs to the city. And so what I think you're describing is a scenario where if Axon were to be acquired by another company in that company attempted to access the city's data, that would be a breach on their part. And we have a commitment from the city not to collaborate and share data with entities like ICE. Correct. I believe that we have an ordinance not to provide certain information concerning citizens in the city. And so I'm not sure if if you're where that intersects with this contract. I want certain verification that this contract, this footage is protected under that ordinance and will not be shared with any outside entities. Councilwoman. That's something I'd need to come back with. Is it? Thank you. Council President. Is it possible to delay this until we have an answer on that? We could most likely delay it to a date certain, if you'd. I know Councilman Hines had his hand up as well. If you'd allow us to get a couple questions, more questions up into the queue, and then we can get back to you as to next steps. Awesome. Sounds good. That's it for my questions. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Very good. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Chief and Sheriff, both for for being here tonight and for doing what is clearly a difficult job in any situation, even more difficult in 2020. So. Hats off to you. I would not want to have your job. So thank you for for being willing to do it. I have received conflicting reports about how tasers are safe. They don't reduce violence on underserved communities like our bipoc neighbors. But there are also a. I get information from constituents that say the data shows that kids, which do not do any of the things that are purported to do, like prevent use of firearms by police or de-escalate police interactions. And so this particular email asks me to tell you to look at data. This particular one also didn't provide any any references to data. So I can't, you know, cite any particular source. But I wonder if if you have any knowledge of data in the police department of how tasers are used, how they reduce violence on underserved communities. I know that's kind of a softball question, but. But here we are. And I got the email today so I wasn't able to provide this to you in advance. So I can tell you that, you know, there have been hundreds of studies on the safety and effectiveness of tasers that has been to you referencing a constituent that reached out to you, saying that their knowledge of of a particular study counters that without seeing in that report, seeing if at source and if it's peer reviewed, it would be impossible for me to answer that particular question. What I can say is we have documented incidences where Taber Tasers have helped in very dangerous and violent situations of armed individuals that have been able to safely been addressed. And, you know, speaking a body cams, there's a city in Wisconsin that delayed the purchase of body cams and regrets that decision and now is expediting, getting those purchased. There's a city in Pennsylvania, a major city that made the same decision with regards to tasers and unfortunately in the very near time have dealt with a subsequent tragedy as well. So it's important that we have safe tools, that we have strong policy, and that we provide training around that policy to ensure adherence to this. You know, I'd have to point to the hundreds of studies, including independent academic, institutional studies, that point to the safety and effectiveness of that. And you'd have to look at that data or those resources to make an informed decision based on what you read. So. Thank you, Chief. Do you do you have data in the city of Denver? You know, specifically as opposed to studies elsewhere? The city of Denver. Do we have data that shows that there there has been a reduction in lethal force because we have used Tasers in a less than lethal situation. So this is this is not part of the use of force report. And this is an area that we seek to improve upon in the future. We don't have a checkbox. And Taser was used to save a life or in a in a lethal force encounter. We do know based on accommodations or situations where we have been able to help an individual that had a knife and is threatening family members where you're able to utilize less lethal tools in order to save individual lives. And again, the goal here is that you have the appropriate tools, the appropriate policy and the appropriate training around it. Thank you, Chief. The and you mentioned that we don't currently have a policy about tasers. I think you have mentioned that our policy document is a living document. It was most recently changed, I think, in perhaps response to some of the protests and speeches 17 that this the new body cameras automatically are automatically triggered when a firearm is on holstered or a taser in a holster. Is that correct? That is correct. That's an available feature that we think is important. With the upgrade in technology. So to that end, that we have this upgraded technology for the body cameras and cameras and supported equipment and software, etc., that would allow police department to more quickly update its document so that as soon as there is a report of a firearm being holstered or a taser being holstered, that could that could immediately trigger some other process. And we have hard data that shows exactly when each of that each of those events happened. Is that is that a fair statement? I yes. Let me just give additional context. So we currently require that report, and now this dataset would be used to cross-reference the reporting of it. So if you know, we had. 36 Taser deployments in 2020. You would then be able to cross-reference the use of force reports that 12 F to say officers completed 36 reports, and then you would have this data to say 36 times. A taser was removed from a holster. And if it turns out one says 36 and one says 35, we can point to just do a quick cross-reference. And we see that the officer that that hasn't submitted their report, correct? That is correct. We would initiate an investigation, an internal investigation that is then shared with the Office of Independent Monitor or Review. And then I also want to just go backwards for a second. You said something to the effect of we don't currently have a policy for Tasers. It may have just been a slip. We have a very strong policy for Tasers. It's part of the use of force policy, the very strong and progressive use of force policy that was done in conjunction with with input from various community members and community groups. So we could say we have one of, if not the strongest, most progressive use of force policy in the country. Over the next 12 to 17 days, does S.B. 217 change our data retention and release policy regarding body cameras? In some aspects with regards to, you know, the highest levels of use of force. It mandates that that that the DA's office that that those types of situations are released much sooner. And so does does it require body camera footage to be automatically released after a certain period of time, like, I think two weeks, 14 days and but like that of mine, my misremembering. For certain circumstances. Yes. In. Okay. Are. Okay. I think that's that's fair. Fair for now. I would agree with Councilmember Hastert about his concerns. I mean, this is the public's information and are that the public purchased the body cameras. And so I think there could be a case to be made to have all body camera information available upon request. But we're not talking about that to do so. So thank you for that. Your your response is the last thing that I would say is a mr. Horn over the city attorney's office mentioned that we have we have we published something regarding. Or rather, we we have a policy regarding publishing information regarding citizens in the city. I think, as members said about his point, was specifically about non-citizens. And so we want to make sure. I do want to ask the question, because you use the phrase citizen and I catch myself often using citizen. So, Mr. Holland, we have a policy regarding releasing information about anyone in this city, citizen or not. Is that is that right? We have a in reference to the immigration ordinance to answer Councilwoman Dukakis question. The city is precluded from use. Any officer employee is precluded from using any city city resources for federal immigration enforcement. In terms of body cameras, the question concerning citizens there is the press sometimes will request. Images or records because they are records under Cora. So it's my understanding that. They could be released under a court request. For citizens or for anyone. For. For the images in general as a record could be released. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Herndon thinking I'm president, just in the spirit of making sure everyone know their roles and responsibility. I just wanted to remind this council that this is a one reading resolution and any council member can delay a resolution for one week without a vote. And if any council member wants to do that, they have that option. Just reminding folks of what our responsibilities are. Thank you, Madam President. Very good. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. We are back up, Councilman CdeBaca. To Councilman Herndon's point. You are more than welcome to delay this for one week by invoking Council Rule 3.7. In order to accomplish that, we would just need to ask the folks who made the motion and second, to withdraw that. If that's your intent. Thank you, Madam President. I would love to delay for a week. Drawing its name. There's no motion or second necessary. Point of order. This rule change does not require withdrawal of the motion. It is under the rule. You just cite the rule. And so I just I think that this this additional step has never before been required and I don't believe is necessary. Sorry for the interruption in order. No worries. I appreciate that we have a motion and a second that put it on the floor for adoption. And so we would just ask that those be withdrawn because it's not on the floor right at this point, that that's the advice I'm getting from our council secretary right now. And so and then we can allow Councilwoman Sade Abarca to invoke 3.7 on withdrawal. Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Hines. Withdraw my ticket. Very good. Again, you can't invoke the rule for a bill that's not on the floor. I think this is with all due. We had moved and put it on the floor. Councilman Flynn had moved that council resolution 20 dash 1356 be adopted. Yes. And it has to be on the floor for the rule to then take effect. If we withdraw the motions, it becomes part of the consent agenda again and the rule can't be invoked. So I think the motions were proper. Sorry, I know this is. I think accomplishing we're accomplishing the same intent. And that was the direction that I had been given. Either way, we have that motion pulled back and we have a vote. 3.7 will double check on that, but there's no motion or second to invoke that. And so I'm getting the thumbs up from everybody on that. And so if we're all right, we'll go ahead and move on to the next item on the agenda council. Woman Say to Barca, you still have your hand up. Was there an additional question that you had or comment? No, ma'am. Just waiting in queue. Thank you. Okay. Very good. Very good. The next item up is Council Bill 1320. Councilmember CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on Council Bill 1320. Thank you, Madam President. And I actually got my questions answered on this one, so I don't have any questions on this one. All right. Very good. The next item up is Council Bill 1390. Council member State Abarca. Go ahead with your questions on Bill 1390, please. Thank you, Madam President. I am curious about a couple of pieces that are in this change and that were presented to us. There is a piece that allows the executive director of Human Services the ability to adopt rules and guidelines for this tax. And I wanted to know what is the plan to engage the public, either on the front end or after the rules are changed so that we're aware of what happens under this new power? Good evening. Thank you so much for the question, Councilman CdeBaca. My name is Krystal Porter. I am the program manager for the Ideas Program at DHS, which brought forth these ordinance revisions. And so I'm happy to answer your question about that. Our plan is to engage stakeholders prior to pursuing any rules and to follow the public rulemaking process that's outlined in the ordinance in the DRC. So we would plan to have some kind of stakeholder meetings that we've already had some thoughts and conversations that have been put forward to us from community members and stakeholders as part of some of the advisory groups that our our program engages. And we are looking forward to continuing those conversations. We didn't want to run before we had the ability to do so. So we haven't fully mapped out what that engagement process will look like. But we do plan for there to be several opportunities for people to weigh in. Thank you, Ms.. Porter. And if there's a stakeholder group or a committee set up, can you make sure that our officers get notice of that so that we can have somebody present? I'm also curious about a piece of the PowerPoint that had mentioned a community housing report, and I'm wondering what exists already to tell us a little bit about how our dollars are spent on housing under ideas. So under ideas, we have not pursued a lot of housing initiatives to date. We've worked through our advisory council at DHS to learn from them. What they wanted to see with that initial recommendation from a community needs assessment completed in 2018, what we have done is already invested dollars in housing stabilization efforts ramped that up quite a bit this year in response to COVID 19. So we're already in that space in different ways, but now we want to look at some opportunities to really change the landscape for housing. Opportunity for people with A.D.D. in this housing report will give us a level of detail specific to Denver that we don't have at this point. That'll be awesome. Can you tell me a little bit about classification? And if you require individuals to already have their I.D. classification when they come to you for services, or do you guys do any eligibility or classification services themselves? That is a great question. So the the what the classification or what we call eligibility determinations done through the community center board serving Denver. It's part of the state program administering funds for Medicaid waivers and and supports for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. And so they often go through that process. What our ordinance does allow is it creates space for people that have an intellectual developmental disability but may not have been identified, or it may have at some point left the system and may have themselves experienced homelessness or been shuffled around and want to return back. So we do have the ability, if people have not received that designation before and need to be evaluated, our funds are still able to provide some resources and support to them as they pursue that eligibility. And do we do any of the outreach for that classification service in shelters or the jails? That would be a question that I could take back to the community center board partner that we work with, Rocky Mountain Human Services. I know they do some pretty extensive outreach. We also are looking for opportunities to do presentations and meet with different partners to learn how we can better educate people that are accessing these services from different points. And so if you have some ideas, we would love to meet with you further on that and we can certainly circle back with you on information about what's already happening through our partner with Rocky Mountain Human Services. Absolutely. I've done federal compliance for people with disabilities and find that a lot of people don't actually get the right classification or don't have a classification at all, especially in our jails and shelters, and want to make sure that that is one of the indirect costs that could be included. I'm also wondering if legal services for individuals with ADR are included in the indirect costs that this now allows us more flexibility to spend on. Um, Councilwoman CdeBaca, could you clarify which part? When you're discussing indirect costs, you're talking about indirect costs for our service providers through their contracts with us. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So. So, actually, the kind of services that you're describing would still be considered a direct service. So if we were providing legal services and sports for people with intellectual developmental disabilities, we would engage that service directly. It's a it's a direct labor cost. So the indirect costs that that cap refers to are meant to capture other costs that are necessary to running a business and having good infrastructure to actually deliver those direct programs. And so with your also, since you did clarify that, it's primarily about administrative and overhead costs. I'm wondering if you guys have a gold standard for the percentage split in the nonprofit world that they try to keep overhead to 5% or less. And so I'm wondering if we have set any thresholds or gold standards for us. That's a really great question. I would love to refer you to a memo that Denver Human Services worked on in response to questions kind of of a similar nature from Councilman Flynn at our November 18th safety housing presentation. I can speak briefly to it, though. What they're finding and really what actually the standard recommendation is moving forward is that and how the federal government actually does this with their agreements is to work with partners to understand their costs and to classify those costs so that no, they can actually take a realistic look at what's needed to be able to have a good impact and a good outcome for the people that are on the receiving end of that service. And in fact, there is the possibility that the the rate that you're describing is actually a rate that is insufficient to support the operating needs of an organization, particularly for organizations that are smaller and can't spread that that indirect cost around to various funding sources or projects. Awesome. How will the public get information about that? Because I'm less worried about the small organizations doing a million different things. I'm more concerned about our big boys on campus who, you know, have. Six figure salaries for their executives and the workers are getting $30,000 a year. I don't want to I don't want the city to be paying for those executive salaries. Now, that is a really great question. I mean, currently, the way that we've we've engaged that thus far is twofold. Certainly, people can see the contracts that we execute and can request those from the clerk in recorder's office. And so they have access to the various rates that we've negotiated with our partners. I mean, additionally, we do a lot of our reporting out on how our programs and services are operating through our advisory council based on questions that they've asked and information that they're interested in receiving. For our biggest player, in particular, the Rocky Mountain Human Services contract. They also come and do an annual report to City Council on the services provided and talk about the various aspects of those services and programs. And so I think we have multiple areas where there is the ability for light to be shed on those activities. But if you have some other ideas on how we can be as transparent as possible, that is absolutely our goal with this program and we look forward to hearing that from you. Awesome. And do we collect audited financials from our partners prior to releasing dollars to them either through grants or contracts? That is a great question. I would have to defer to Lori Noble, who is our financial services director, and she's on the call to kind of talk about our general practice with that. Thank you. And that's my last question. So when she answers that, that's it for me, Madam President. All right. Great. Thank you, Councilwoman. Go ahead, Lori. Hello. Thank you so much, Councilwoman, for your question. Yes, we actually do, as part of our risk assessment, understand what kinds of areas need to be looked at. And part of that risk assessment that is performed by our internal audit function and group is to look at any kind of audit reports that have come out for Rocky Mountain and other contractors. Awesome. Thank you very much. All right. Great. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I guess I'm going to. I think, Ms.. Porter, maybe you could answer this. How is the how is the contract with Rocky Mountain Human Services going? I think they took over on July 1st, right when they the fiscal year rolled over to the new fiscal year. All right. So, Councilman Hines, I think you're referring to the state contract for single entry point services for Medicaid waivers that are for that that can be accessed by people with ID, but are actually covering a wide span of other areas of service, including mental, mental health, mental illness, things like that. So talking about Human Services has, I believe, for over 25 years been serving Denver as the community centered boarding has been over the the Medicaid waivers that are specific for people with intellectual developmental disabilities. But to answer your question, from what I what I've seen and heard so far, I think it's going well. For the Heidi, 25 year history. Sorry. I know I was referring to your question about the recent transition. We do still follow kind of the general updates and activities about that, especially because there are a lot of people with ADT that may have opted to receive services through this other waiver, other waivers that are available to them. And so that transition has gone, I think, pretty well, pretty smoothly so far. And we look forward to hearing more from Rocky Mountain human sources about that. I would be happy to provide feedback about that too. I am on the sci fi through my flight, but that's not a waiver and thank you for pointing it out that that is not part of what we're discussing tonight. So, Madam President, thank you. I'm done. Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Ortega. Get a muted here. Thank you, Madam President. So I wanted to ask Christo. You're the DHS point person. Right. So we do in a three year contract. Just out. Of curiosity. Yeah, I think that's a really great question. We in the past have done longer contracts with IHS. The contract that most recently ended was also a three year contract, and there are some really great opportunities there to ensure that there is some continuity in services. A lot of the services the military is supporting are services that people are accessing day in and day out. And so as much as possible, it just kind of helps us with our planning process and we still have the opportunity, you know, should an appropriation change from what we believe it could be in future based on what we believe revenues would be coming in from this council, then we have the opportunity to go in and amend the agreement. Same if there are any other issues that may come up over time. So the three year the three year agreement is is based on annual terms and performance and negotiating kind of a new budget for the next year. And so even though it's a three year agreement overall, it's segmented out pretty clearly into these individual terms that allows us to kind of evaluate services as we're going. So a number of years ago, it was agreed that. DHS would be holding back a percentage of. The dollars and allocating them. Yourselves, as opposed to the entirety of it. All being administered. By. Rocky Mountain Human Services. Because the history had been that although they could be contracting out. Some of those dollars, that wasn't really happening in real practice. So I guess I want to know a couple of things. How, what's what's the amount. Each year that's being held back? And is that being accrued with other dollars that haven't been allocated? Or are you guys allocating the full amount each year? And then as part of that, one of the provisions that I didn't agree with is that Rocky Mountain could also apply for the same amount that DHS was holding. Back and trying to reallocate to. Other providers in the community. And I haven't seen any data showing whether or. Not they are. Applying and getting some of that funding or whether it's actually going to other providers. So can you speak to some of that? Certainly I'd be happy to to answer those, and I'll try to kind of track through your question. It's been a lot of questions. Yeah. So firstly, when we look at how we're allocating our funds, we actually aren't basing it on a set percentage. We're not saying, you know, 75, 85, 95% go to Rocky Mountain Human Services. We're meeting with them and working with them and listening to what's happening to services at the state level and listening to what needs are elevated to us through our various stakeholder engagement and community conversations, so that we're actually funding services that are really pivotal to people's lives and wellbeing. And so we don't hold ourselves to a set amount because we want to be responsive to the need. And what is there, I will say of our for our agreement this year, it was a $15 million agreement for 2020. Over $3 million of that was contracted out to providers of various sizes through our Rocky Mountain services for initiatives and projects separate from the community center board that does not include services that are contracted in the day to day as part of our Mill Levy Service Plan program, which basically means if someone is only has it in their service plan to be able to access the program four days a week, the bill of funds can fund that fifth day if if there's a need for that, and so that those funds then go out through contract to those providers that are providing that service for that individual and is based on that individual's selection of that provider. Currently, any funds that are not being spent are through our mutual agreement are either contracted through. We have about five partners, I believe right now, five active partners that are not Rocky Mountain Human Services, that are doing great work in the community. And we're really looking to seek out several more partners in the next year. That's part of what we're hoping to accomplish with some of these ordinance changes, is to create space for those providers because we recognize that there's going to be a lot more diversity than the direct assistance that we provide through Rocky Mountain. So will you clarify. If that's just US dollars you're. Talking about, or is that a combination of the dollars that they contract out. As well as the DHS dollars? So that's the DHS dollars. Okay. Rocky Mount Human Services contracts with over I would say last year in their 2019 report, they reported 103 community provider agencies. So completely separate of that, we've got five we're working with, one of which is Rocky Mountain Human Services. We have several more on deck. We're working through those various contracts and projects to get them established. And and we're looking forward to bringing at least two of those to you guys in the near future. So it would be helpful to get a list of all of those community provider agencies that Rocky Mountain contracts with. I know that what were the discussions we had some time ago was around trying to meet the needs of individual clients. That are currently under. The Rocky. Mountains. Purview, if you will. And, you know, it's it's a lengthy and complex process that people have to follow to get in, to be able to access services. You've got to be on the wait list, you know, all of that stuff. And so I'm just curious to know how that's going in terms of whether individuals ability to get more services now has been expanded as the amount of money has increased since. I mean, COVID has had a huge impact on it. But when I. Came on in 2011, we were at somewhere in the ballpark. Of about 11 to $12 million a year, and now it's way in excess of that. And so I guess I'm just curious whether we're getting more people in the pipeline and and their services or being met. I know we can do some services. While they're on or awaiting. Getting on the waitlist. But I just looking at the PowerPoint, which I have in front of me that you all presented to the the committee, I can't tell whether or not we're giving more services to individuals or whether we've gotten more people into the pipeline that need them. And again, it would be helpful to know kind of where are we on the waitlist as well? Absolutely. That's something that we connect with Rocky Mountain on fairly frequently. And I would love to set up a follow up with you and possibly share. Happy to do that. Little more. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. I think. You know, this is a program. That Cathy Reynolds actually was the catalyst in, in moving forward by creating this special mill levy for the developmentally disabled community in Denver. And over time, it has. Since the inception, it's been the same entity doing this. And I know that they have to be approved through the state, but it it almost also violates our executive order that tries to put these things out to be it on a regular basis. And when it started, all of the different providers in our community were getting a share of these dollars to serve their their clients. And now it's kind of like the Rocky Mountain is is the sole entity that. You know, that is our community service provider through sort of approved by the state. But at the same time, some of those others have tried to gain access to the resources and some have been successful. Others have not been as successful. And so the access continues to be an ongoing. Concern and making sure that you all are tracking that. And I know that's part of why. You hold those extra dollars aside to ensure that the needs are. Being met in our community. So it would be helpful to have that. Follow up with you, to. Just understand a little bit more detail, kind of where are we with the waitlist and where are we in in terms of spreading those dollars further? Or are we putting more. Dollars into each individual that's already in the you know, in the system? Thank you. Certainly. And if it's okay, Madam President, I'd love to just create a couple of points of clarity there. I think you're right in the sense that we've worked with this energy for a really long time, and there have been times where that hasn't gone as well as I'm going right now. What I will say, though, is that they are because of their state designation and the role that they played in the community, they are kind of this nucleus for services in Denver and it is challenging and not really necessarily our intention to create different entry points for services when we have a population that is especially vulnerable and may have difficulty navigating a more complex system. So I would love to have more conversation with you about that. I think we've done a lot to try to diversify our provider network, and we're looking forward to doing more of that. And one of the things I would love to point all council members to, since this deadline is coming up, we actually have one of our new partners, Point B strategies is working with organizations on the smaller side to work with them on projects up to $10,000. And that application window is open until December 4th, which is Friday. And hopefully you you all are able to push that out quickly without. Cumbersome contracting. Nightmare. We do our best well following what's necessary to adhere to our contracting process, but I hear that feedback. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you. Madam President. Thank you. I have no further. Questions or comments. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Ah, and thank you, Crystal, as well. Our next item up is Council Bill 1271. And Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Bill 1271 on the floor for final passage?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2655 and 2659 Downing Street in Five Points. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from G-RO-3 to U-MX-3 (general urban office, to urban mixed-use); located at 2655 and 2659 Downing Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-20-20.

DenverCityCouncil_11232020_20-1127

I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 1313 ies council bills 20 dash 1086 has passed. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 1127 on the floor for final passage? I move that bill 20 dash 1127 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Holmes. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1127 is open. May we please have the staff report? Yes. Can you hear me and see my screen? Okay. Awesome. And so my name is Libby Adams, and I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment at 26, 55 and 2659 Downing Street. This application is located in Council District nine. In the Five Points neighborhood. The property is located on the corner of Downing Street and Fremont Place. Its approximately 8080 square feet and is currently occupied by an industrial warehouse in a single unit home. It's currently in the general urban residential office, three zone district and the applicant is proposing to rezone to urban mixed use three stories . As stated previously, the existing zoning is a grocery which is a multi-unit, residential and office district, allowing the urban house, duplex, townhouse and apartment primary building forms. The maximum height allowed is three stories or 35 to 40 feet, depending on the primary building form. The site is currently occupied by an industrial warehouse and a single unit home. As mentioned, it's surrounded by mostly other residential uses with more commercial closer to the Welton corridor. This shows the existing building form and scale. The subject site is on the bottom. Right. And you can see there's some new townhomes across Fremont Place. Some existing row homes just to the northwest. And then a duplex directly north of the site. The MAP amendment was complete at the beginning of May, and a postcard notifying property owners within 200 feet of the site was sent out on May six. This was originally scheduled for planning board in mid-September, but one of the neighboring property owners actually noticed that it was noticed to the incorrect council district. So this was a notice to Councilmember Cashman instead of Councilwoman CdeBaca. So then it was pushed back. And so the public hearing for planning board was held on September 30th once that new notice had been sent out 15 days prior and they unanimously recommended approval. We did receive five public comments about this case and three were emails in support of the proposal, the proposed rezoning, and then two were emails from neighboring property owners requesting more information. One wanted to know about parking and which would be determined at the time of the site development plan. And then the other. They wanted some assurances that this would include some commercial development and not just be residential. There are five review criteria in the Denver zoning code, which I'll go over. The first criterion is consistency, adapt the plans, and there are three that are applicable to this site. The rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040, but I'll just go over a few of them. This MAP amendment will promote promote equity by ensuring all Denver residents have access to basic services and amenities. It will promote strong and authentic neighborhoods by encouraging quality infill development that is consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods. And it will promote an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where there's already infrastructure in place and encouraging mixed use communities. Blueprint identifies the future neighborhood context and blueprint is urban. These areas are characterized by multi-unit and mixed use areas embedded in single or two unit residential areas. The block patterns are regular and there is a high degree of walkability. Blueprint identifies this property as a local corridor place type. These place types provide options for dining, entertainment and shopping. With building heights up to three stories. Downing Street in Blueprint is a residential arterial. These see the highest amount of through movement and are mostly characterized by residential uses with some small retail nodes and other similar uses. The growth area strategy is all other areas of the city. This is where we anticipate to see 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing by 2040. And this site is what's also within the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan and the land use concept identified in this plan is transit oriented development. This is where we want to see a mix of uses, particularly near transit stations. And then the height concept in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan is three stories, which is consistent with what the applicant is proposing. Sapp also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it will promote the public health, safety and welfare primarily by implementing adopted plans, but also fostering the creation of a walkable, mixed use area near transit. Staff finds there is a justifying circumstance for this MAP amendment with the adopted plan guidance of a transit oriented development as designated in the 2011 Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. And lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context and the mixed use zone districts. Purpose and the specific intent of the unmatched three zone district. So staff recommends approval based on finding all criteria have been met. And that concludes the staff presentation. All right. Thank you, Libby. There has been no written testimony submitted regarding Council Bill 1127. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening and we have Jesse Paris. Go ahead, Jesse. Good evening from the council. My name is Jessie Pearce. I live in District eight and Christopher Hernandez district. And I represent for the homeless. Allow Blackstar some more for self-defense. Has a passion for social change as well as related party of Colorado and Mile-High News and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I wanted to know what the AMA level was going to be for this proposed rezoning. What is going to happen to the existing structures that are on the site? The neighbors of the home that Occupy Occupy say notified of this rezoning. This is right next to Councilwoman Casey, the box office. So I'm very familiar with this area. Pretty much grew up in this side of town on the east side called the hood. So I want to know what is being done to minimize or lessen the rapid gentrification that is going on in this side of town as well . And was there a neighborhood agreement put in place to guarantee that there was going to be actually affordable units built on this property for 99 years? And was there a traffic study done? And what is going to be done to minimize or lessen the traffic that already exists in this area. This is the most frequent location down this way and arterial to this part of town. So I would really like to know if someone can answer those questions. I would really appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Bill 1127. Councilwoman Sade Abarca. Thank you, Madam President. I see Miss Hoover join the call and would love to give her an opportunity as the applicant to speak a little bit about what's proposed for this site and just let my council colleagues know what what's planned here. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Go ahead. Good evening. This is Lorraine Hoover and I reside at 1556 South Lansing Street in Aurora, Colorado. I'm a native of Colorado. This building 2655 Downing was my father's from plumbing business, which we are third generation native of Colorado. It was my grandfather was round tree and son on the five points in the 1960s. And then my dad became more commercial and moved over to. It was artistic plumbing at 2655 Downing. My dad is site impaired and lives in the unit at 2659. Downey And this location for us as African-Americans is very important that we stay in the community so we can develop it along with all of the plans that have been taking place. And at this point in time, we wanted to make sure we could grow to have units as well as. Commercial. Or commercial as well as retail. And then also the capability to grow. Up three with residential. At this point, the goal is just to be in line with the community. We have no future plans except were to align with the zoning. So that's where we are at this point. Thank you, Miss Hoover. And for my council colleagues. Mr. Roundtree is very involved in our community and just trying to make sure his property is consistent. And we support this application. And I hope you all will as well. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Abarca and Ms.. Hoover. See no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1127 is closed. Council members say tobacco. Would you like to make a comment. Consciences in your. District. Just that we we support. It when we don't believe that this will change that corner significantly and it and it doesn't essentially change the height that they could currently go up to. He is just making sure that his zoning is consistent with the plans and up to. Date and. We. Support it. All right. Very good. Thank you. Seeing no other hands raised. This looks like it meets the criteria. And I will also be supporting it tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. See the market, I. Plus I. When I. Saw him. I. Hi. I'm. Catherine. All right. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. For us, I. Well. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 3913 EIS Council Bill 20 1127 has passed Council members Sandoval all you please put Council Bill 1128 on the floor for final passage.

A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Butler Snow LLP for an increase to the maximum contract amount. Adds $199,500 to a contract with Butler Snow, LLP for a new total of $592,000 for outside legal services for implementation of the National Western Complex project in Council District 9 (201629665-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-20-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 1-16-18.

DenverCityCouncil_01292018_18-0040

You did good. You answered a question. Good job. Way to go. All right. So we're going to go on to the next one. Madam Secretary, please bring up 40. Yes. Go ahead and ask your question. Counsel, Marty. Okay. So this one was a. So my question in this one was whether or not the cost of the legal services has come out of the 800 million earmarked for national Western or if it is general fund dollars that are paying the cost of the legal services for National Western Center. So I think we have someone who can answer that question. Hi, Councilwoman. I'm Joann. Walburn. Assistant city. Attorney. Those dollars. Are general fund dollars that were appropriated to the city attorney's. Office. We don't we. Can't use the capital dollars that are set aside for the capital build. For those purposes. So this is part of the overall cost that the city is incurring, which is part of the National Western Center office, if you will, that is paying part of the costs that are not covered by the. The funds that were approved by the voters. Correct. I just want to be clear. They're a part of the city attorney's budget and not the mayor's office of the National Western Center. Okay. That's right. But otherwise, yes, they are city dollars going to support the National Western Center project. Okay. Thank you. I think at some point it would be a great opportunity to have an update. I know periodically they do updates on the progress of the the project itself. But, you know, where are we in in the finances and the spin that we have been drawing down on the National Western Center, both both city as well as from the the the funds from the project. Right. Councilmember take I'm looking at our chair of LUDI for just a little head nod and also Gretchen, who's the head of National Western Authority. So, um. Yesterday at our regular. Updates, they also gave us a report on the finances of the, of the project. Okay. If you can just let us those of us who are not on the committee know when that's coming. That would be helpful. Thank you.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 8.101.030, relating to tenant harassment; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12152020_20-1202

Okay. These are, I think, just wrapping up ordnances we have with do item 30 and 32. Item 30, please. I am 30. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance relating to tenant harassment, declaring the urgency thereof and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately. Read and adopt as read citywide. Item 32 Communication from Councilwoman Mango Former Councilmember Pierce. Oh, no, I'm sorry. I didn't. I didn't mean to take them together. They're very separate issue. So I'm item 30 we'll do first is really we I think we have one public comment on 30, correct? Yes. Tiffany Davey. Good evening. I'm just looking forward to the publication of this information. In. All languages. To be accessed by residents. And clear guidelines for. Residents and landlords. Alike. And I'm really. Looking forward to what type of enforcement measures perhaps we can discuss in the recovery process that we are beginning to tackle, specifically addressing equity. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have a motion and a second by Councilmember your rangan, councilwoman mongo. Unless somebody wants to comment, let's go and go to a vote. Please welcome. Councilwoman is I Councilwoman Ellen? Hi, Councilwoman Price. I am Councilman Sabrina. I am. Councilwoman Mongeau. I am. Councilwoman Sara. I'm Councilmember Ranga. I had some in Austin. Vice Mayor Richardson.

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_03082022_22-0234

Thank you. And before we move on to the next item, if you want to queue up, just raise your hand or either virtually or just wave and I'll call on you. Next up is item 22. Please report from city attorney recommendation declare ordinance amending and restating chapter 5.53 and repealing Section 5.53.090 relating to COVID 19 worker retention read and adapted as read citywide. Got a motion by Council member Austin. Can I get a second please? Second backcountry country. Is there any public comment on this? There are any members of the public that would like to speak on the side and please use the raise hand feature or doust or nine. CNN. That concludes public comment. Okay, great. Unless there's anyone who wants to comment from the makers of the motion, I will move on to a vote, roll call vote police district one. I am district two. I. District three. High District four. I'm District five, district six. I District seven. I'm District eight. A motion carries eight zero.

A bill for an ordinance designating 1400 Lafayette Street, the First Unitarian Society of Denver Church, as a structure for preservation. Designates 1400 Lafayette Street as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 10. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-3-16.

DenverCityCouncil_08222016_16-0566

Good evening. My name is Kara Hahn. I'm a senior city planner with Landmark Preservation at Community Planning and Development. This is a landmark designation for 1400 Lafayette Street, the First Unitarian Society of Denver, and this is an owner supported designation. There are approximately 6600 properties that have been designated since the ordinance passed in 1967. The owners of the property are aware that it would that if it is designated, it would go through a design review. It would be designated as is, and there would be no required changes. But that it would have to go through design review and there would be a demolition would be discouraged of the property. Additionally, though, they know there are benefits to the property. If it is landmarked, they would be eligible for a variety of grants, including a state historical fund grant, which is a 7520 5% match. They would also be eligible for historic preservation, rehabilitation, tax credits. And so even though they are a nonprofit, if there's any part of their entity that is income producing, they would be eligible for the state commercial tax credits, which for projects under $2 million would be 25% and capped at $1,000,000. The applicant submitted an application in May. City staff reviewed it and found that it met all the requirements. It went before the Landmark Preservation Commission as well as Council Committee and is currently here at the Second Reading Community Planning and Development posted all of the notifications, toured the property and has been in contact with the applicants throughout the process. So what we're looking at is that at the corner of 14th and Lafayette, the applicant is the First Unitarian Society of Denver. And within Blueprint Denver, it is an area of stability. The Church was initially constructed by the Plymouth Congregational Church in 1893 and then completed in 1899 after they had recovered from the silver crisis . The First Unitarian Society was established in the early 1870s and they occupied many buildings before they found another building of their own. They were oftentimes considered too progressive or too liberal, and they couldn't find housing of their own. They finally built a building in 1873, and this property, which they moved to in 1958, is their third building. The only primary change that has occurred since then is there was a major fire in 1985 that did some significant damage to the interior of the building. In order for something to be designated a landmark, it has to retain integrity. Meet one criteria out of the following three categories History of architecture and geography and the relate to a historic context or theme in Denver history. This property has excellent integrity. There are a few minor changes that have occurred an enclosure in the 1920s, a response to the 1985 fire with some changes to the interior and exterior, as well as the changes to the addition of an ADA ramp. And then in the early 2000, in the mid 2000, they added an elevator. Overall, the property has excellent integrity. The property has direct association with the history and development of the city and county of Denver. Typically, they provided space for historically marginal, marginalized groups that couldn't find a space for themselves. They were very active in the civil rights movement and became a home for the local Congress of Racial Equality. They were very involved in the fair housing movement. They had a free pulpit that allowed other groups to come in and speak when they couldn't find access to something. And then they were heavily involved in the gay rights movement and marriage equality. They held events for other churches. The NCC Church often met here, and then they were heavily involved in the gay coalition of Denver, which started in the mid 19, early 1970s, and they provided space for this group. It then morphed into the Gay and Lesbian Community Center and now is just currently what is the center. They also hosted a variety of weddings in 1975, which was one of the first gay weddings that was held within the within the nation. So this would be the first LGBT site within the state of Colorado that would be designated as historic on either the local, state or national level. So community planning in development is very excited to be able to put something forward that isn't just the history of the wealthy doctor on the corner or the fancy, you know, the fancy Victorian house, but really speaks to all members of our community. The property is also associated with a persons of importance or influence on society, including Governor Lam, as well as his wife, Lady Dottie, Liam and also Helen Walcott, who is significant in the civil rights movement and was very involved with the Congress of Racial Equality and specifically with unfair housing practices and working it for that. Additionally, it is significant under architecture for its Richard Sony in Romanesque style. Its seen in the Ashland Masonry, which is basically the square masonry, the rounded arches, the cross gables and the parapets. It is also significant for the work of a master architect or a master builder or a recognized architect. And in this case, it's for both of those. For Ernest Varian and Frederick Sterner, who are well-known local architects, as well as for a master builder. In this case, it's the Walk in stained glass studio. This the stained glass was created in 1893 by Clarence Watkins, and then the 1985 fire severely damaged it. So Clarence's great grandson recreated the stained glass window from the original drawings. And finally, it's significant for its geography. It has a prominent location on the corner of 14th and Lafayette, and it's a very highly recognizable building. Members of the congregation often speak that when they're giving directions to someone and they're like, Oh, it's that castle building on on 14th. So it's really very community. The community's familiar with it and it's a wayfinding us building. So the property relates to late 19th century architecture, the development and growth of Denver, specifically the Capitol Hill area, and for its role in the social justice movements within the city and county of Denver. At the Landmark Preservation Public Hearing, we had received a letter from the original congregation that was signed a petition as well as three emails of support, and then the application included a letter from the current owners. All were in support of this application. The Landmark Preservation Commission evaluated the building and felt that it maintained integrity, that it met all three of the criteria under history, architecture and geography, and that related to the historic context or themes of Denver history. The LPC voted unanimously six zero to recommend designation of the property. Great. All right. We have three speakers. I'm going to call them all up right now, Karen, Derrick Davis, Susan Robertson and John Olson. Susan Roberts in here. Oh, yeah. Great. Yeah. All right. And then Jonathan. So, Karen, you can go first. Okay. Thank you. I know that Kara just told you just about everything about our church, but I am here as a congregant of the church. And one of the reasons I am so proud to be a member of that church is because of our social justice activities. It's we have extensive history of social action. And for decades we've been at the forefront of local and national issues. We have many firsts. Kara mentioned a few. One that we're really proud of is we were integrally involved in one of the first well, the first charitable organization in Colorado, Pioneer Ladies Aid Society, which was led by a member of our church, Augusta Tabor. And there's a landmark downtown for her and the location of our congregation at the time of that. Women's suffrage also was a thing that she was involved in while she was a member of our church, which at that time was called Unity Church. We were, as Karen mentioned, one of the first churches, the first church in Colorado to conduct gay weddings and one of the first in the nation, first home of many organizations that currently we now take for granted, like the center. And we actually are the first church in Colorado to achieve Energy Star rating. So we really try very hard to walk our talk and live our values. We're really excited about being the first landmark that's recognized for LGBTQ activism. That's something that we've been very involved with the civil unions. And I was remembering with Susan when we first started doing the standing on the side of love services on the Capitol steps. It started out with about ten, 15 people and wondering what was going to happen with it. And then civil unions passed and we have hundreds of people that come and now we actually are changing to standing on the side of love is now our focus is on other issues like Black Lives Matter and immigration. Our congregation explicitly decided to remain on Capitol Hill rather than moving. And we want to improve our building and take care of it and make it restore it back to its beauty, shining beauty in Capitol Hill. Thank you. Thank you. Soaps. Karen, can you come back up here and just state your full name for the record? Karen, Derek Davis. Perfect. And Councilman Brooks as my councilman. Yeah. Good to see you. All right. Susan Robertson. Thank you for having us here. And I want to thank you on behalf of our entire congregation for considering this proposal. This effort to secure landmark designation for our church was really a long process for our church. We went through a lot of sort of community meeting process and so forth. We ended up with a near unanimous vote. Only one person in our entire congregation voted against it. So I come tonight representing all those people and also representing the first Plymouth Church, which is now located over at Hampton and Carter Boulevard. And they have we have the strong support of their congregation as well. They occupied the building from 1893 until 1958, and it was very fun to go see their archives. And we actually learned a lot about the early history of our building from them. So it's very interesting. The educational process that we went through in exploring our history was really, I think, something that empowered us as a congregation. And I think some people knew some of the history, but I think it's become much more a central focus to really try to bring that history alive. And so, for example, nowadays when we're working on Black Lives Matter, we can do that sort of rooted in the history that our congregation was actively leading efforts during the 1960s and Denver to make sure that that African-Americans could be hired at places like Safeway and King Soopers in the Denver Dry Goods. And so it's really empowering for the the work that we're doing today to understand, you know, where we've all come from and the importance of all that. We also in the 1970s, we hosted a variety of organizations in our basement and in buildings adjoining us. And there were organizations such as the National Organization of Women, the American Civil Liberties Union metric, Metropolitan Community, Church of the Rockies. Even organizations like Community College of Denver that first started out in the basement of our church. And so we really are very proud of all the organizations that were incubated in our space, the historic well, the current uses of our building. I think a couple of things too that are really important is that our building is currently used for many social justice issues, such as housing homeless populations. We host House to Populations of People Women, Women's Homeless Initiative every other Friday night and family promise for 7 to 10 nights every quarter. So there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people who have been housed in our building, fed in our building and volunteer hours that support those people. The historic landmark application. Our process well designation will certainly help us to access the state historic funds, which we feel are really important because we are working to preserve our building and we need to make some repairs that are really important to a beautiful stonework on the outside and so forth, which is failing at this point. And so we are planning to access the historic grants, but we also feel that it's important at this point to help raise awareness of some of the social justice issues that we're so proud of. We're excited to have the recognition for LGBT, and we feel like this is a great public venue to really bring that history alive . So all that said, we are very grateful for your support and it's been a wonderful opportunity to go through this process and work with your staff. And we thank you for it all. Thank you. Can you state your name for the record? Susan Bridges Robertson. Thank you. John Olsen. Last but not least. Last but not least. My name is John Olsen. I'm director of preservation programs at Historic Denver. I'm here to fully support this designation of the First Unitarian Church at 14th and Lafayette. I'm very proud to be working with this group. I think this is a group that is completely invested in their property, in their neighborhood and the state they've been around dealing with the many social issues that we've talked about women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, immigration reform, all different kinds of things, including bless you, including the the many social activities that are happening right now. And they have made just a concentrated effort to really make this their home. And because this is their home, they're very proud of their home. And they have talked through their full congregation about how they could reinvest in their property yet again. And one of the first steps was to recognize the history that this property had for the city, for the state of Colorado, as well as for them as a congregation, and for all of the many people that need this building to continue the social services that are in there. I just want to, you know, commend them on all of their amazing effort, the effort that they've done with the LPC to get this done. And I hope that you will vote for the designation of this property. One of the great benefits of the designation, if this were to pass, which I very much hope that it does , is the grants that are out there for buildings like this so that they can have the improvements to make all of these social programs happen. And we're very hopeful that this is a grant that's going to be approved by the state historical fund so that they can continue their work there and do all of the things that really make this neighborhood in this city special. So thank you very much. Thank you, John. Questions. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Seeing none comments councilman do. Well, districting has the largest percentage of historic structures and districts and we're so proud of of what what you're all doing to help preserve. And this this building is a perfect example of what's going on in district ten and how the need to preserve that. So it's a beautiful building. I love those stained glass windows and it's just gorgeous. And I'm looking forward to the improvement and the expansion of service programs. So thank you so much for working so hard to do this. And and John, thanks for your leadership and appreciate all that you're doing for historic preservation in District ten. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. You and I'm going to close that public hearing because I should have done that before you spoke council counsel that that's the public hearing for council. Well. 566 Councilman Espinosa. Sorry. So the architecture of the building is impressive and undeniable. But what's more impressive is the history. And there's no way of. For me anyway. As an architect. No. To know that history. Just by looking at the building. And so. But it makes me very proud to know what sort of things were. Were originated there and had go on there. Because those are important important things to be ahead of and be part of. For this society to move forward progressively. And so the only thing I just wanted to throw out in my commentary was this this idea that something you should consider is partnering with a nonprofit and looking at the Denver Arts and venues piece You Are Here grant program because I think it's a real opportunity to bring awareness to that history, that legacy and that the work continues and to sort of that passers by just not only recognize it and it's great architecture, but actually there's a prominent, important piece of Denver history socially that has gone on here so that programs out there, that grant deadline is the end of September. Something to think about is you've got a lot of right away there. Maybe there's something creative that can be a temporary installation. So look into that program. I think it's a great opportunity to sort of bring what we was just presented to us and which is summarized in beautifully in the write up to bring some notion of that so that people who are driving by or passing by or walking by or biking by can actually go, whoa, this is this happened here, and the work still continues. So it's totally an aside, but I just know that I'm greater for having heard it and maybe others would be too. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I really look forward to supporting this designation. I've been in the building any number of times over the years, but I've driven down 14th Avenue thousands and thousands of times since 1971 and never failed to look over at that building. That's a beautiful structure. I mean, it is this is one of those designations that in any number of ways is pretty easy. I would designate the building if it your congregation didn't exist and I would designate your congregation if the building didn't exist. It truly is. It's special to to have the opportunity to recognize what goes on within the building. And yeah, I could talk on for hours, so I'll just say thank you for what you do. And I will support this. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I just, you know, couldn't resist chiming in affordable housing and LGBT rights. I always knew those two things went together. But seriously, recently, we had a very tragic incident in Orlando. And right around that time, I had the privilege of being at the Stonewall Inn, which was the first major LGBT national landmark that was designated. And I think this is a really important bookend to that in some ways. I mean, the LGBT community for many years. Bars were a place where, you know, they could we could commune and find fellow travelers and, you know, sometimes be safe, sometimes not so safe. But I think that, you know, those stereotypes, too, about, you know, the beer community. And I think that having a faith community also being designated and I think not just because of perhaps LGBT folks who may have been attending, but because I would imagine then and maybe still now because of the straight allies who took up the fight. And it's funny what I always notice when I drive by because I drive by, you know, almost every day on my way to and from Park Hill is that the Black Lives Matter sign? It's one of the few Black Lives Matter signs that I see outside of northeast Denver. And it's always noticeable to me and it almost feels more significant. And so that that that theme of being an ally. Right. So again, you know, it is you know, the architecture is amazing, but I want to just thank you for for being that voice as as whether it's with members of those communities or as allies. So with that, I will happily support this designation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Canady, Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I still remember the very first time I ever saw this building, and it stuck with me because it was so striking. And, you know, I think my colleagues have said everything so well that I wish I could just say. And that, too, I think that the significance of the building, the significance of the history, there are so many things that we do in this job and a year and still getting used to the whole gamut that that runs. But to have the opportunity to have a vote in this is really something that's very special for me to be a part of that. So thank you for all the work. I know it wasn't easy to bring it. It's one of those stories and structures, as Councilman Cashman, I think, captured when he said it, that you kind of look at it, you're like, wait, that's not already protected. That's not already designated. But, you know, there are structures like that in our city, and it takes the hard work and dedication of the people who are there to bring this forward and to provide that. And so we are all in your debt, and I'm just so excited and honored to be a part of it tonight. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, thank you, Councilman Clarke. I'll just I'll just add this, that all of our city, we have a huge problem in CPD because there are congregations that are dying and we're going to, you know, folks want to come in and redevelop and redevelop the property. And as a person of faith, it's a little sad to see. But this congregation here is so alive and so passionate about what's going on in the city and it's so encouraging to see. So just thank you guys for sharing that. And hopefully you can be an encouragement to some other communities of faith to to get involved and be socially active. I know we're talking about a building here, but what makes this building beautiful is the people inside it and who are alive and have a historical way of doing that. So thank you so much. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. New Ortega Black Eye Clark Espinosa. Flynn Hi. Gilmore, I. Catherine Hi. Carnage. Lopez. Hi, Mr. President. I Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 11 Eyes 11 eyes council bill 566 has passed. There is no pre adjournment announcement I think for the first time ever. So seeing no other business before today. This meeting is adjourned. Are you on the bus? Folks in a greatly appreciate it. Say your last name. I'm sorry if I mispronounce it. Amy. From a. Performer. I live here in Denver. I'm also an organizer with the Denver Justice Project. And I just want to follow up Paul. Lopez's words that if any council members here tonight are on the fence about passing this measure that you consider. Letting letting it go to. The ballot and letting the. People vote on this. Also, I want to. Again, kind of reiterate what I might have spoken in the Charter and Governance Committee meeting, which is that I really appreciate the current OEMs offers. Not only are they extremely knowledgeable, they're forward thinking, they're progressive. And I think their recommendations and policy recommendations reflect this. I also think they do something. That we don't acknowledge. Often is how proactive. They are in terms of addressing. Police. Practices and patterns. And like you said in the committee. That that is. An office when they are so forward thinking and part of the solution that should be institutionalized, respected. And. Given more. Authority. They're also setting a precedent for being proactive. You know, of course, they're dealing. With abuse complaints and dealing with. The different investigations. And things like that that are in line with I think their approach is in line. With. What is going on nationally in terms of reform. But like I said. I really want to emphasize the fact of. How proactive they are being in terms of. Whether it is adopting technology that helps improve or improve police practices, whether it is community outreach or bridging the gap. All of those things should be valued, and. I think it's. Definitely something that needs to be have that respect and authority by being put in. The charter. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. We have. I'm going to call out your applause, please. I'm going to call five other folks up to the front. Michael Raich, James seven, Dale McDonald, David Larsen and Alex Lando. Michael Raich, you will be first. R e y i k is what I have, but maybe that's Hugh. Come on up. Maybe we got entered in wrong. Michael Barisic. Yes. Your first year. On Park Avenue. I've never spoke before acceptance speech class in high school and I wasn't prepared for this anyway. What's coming up? I'll make it quick. I went and talked to the state representative, Joe Salazar, not long ago in his office for a half hour. He immediately I told him the little story. He says, may I see the documentation? I.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare a resolution in support of the Los Angeles Region Safe, Clean Water Program Special Parcel Tax, which will be considered countywide by voters on the November 6, 2018 ballot. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08142018_18-0686

And the next item is the the last item that we will try to time certain but it's the budget so it's been difficult is item 19. Report from city manager recommendation or request city attorney to prepare a resolution in support of the Los Angeles region's Safe, Clean Water Program. Special Partial Parcel Tax being considered for the November six, 2018 ballot citywide. Sure do have an announcement before we start this. Councilwoman. Councilmember pearce. I. Yes, I have to recuse myself of this for doing consulting work with them. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, I'll turn this over to Mr. West. Diana Tang has been leading this effort. Diana? Good evening. Is members of the City Council. I will be brief because I believe about two or three weeks ago you got an in-depth presentation on the Safe, Clean Water Program. But before we dove into this, I wanted to talk briefly about the actual costs of meeting stormwater compliance. The costs have been debated for about a decade, but since these standards have become a part of every city's obligations over the last ten years or so, the estimates have gotten better. In Long Beach, we estimate the cost for the city to meet stormwater compliance is between 600 to $900 million over the next 30 years. We have 11 specific team deals or total maximum daily loads that we have to comply with. And these team deals require that our city watches and limits pollutants such as E.coli and the L.A. River Copper Lead and zinc in the Los Angeles Channel and the San Gabriel River PCBs, DDT and other stormwater pollutants in the Colorado Lagoon , as well as trash in the San Gabriel River Listeriosis Channel and near-shore areas such as Alamitos Bay. So we as a city are responsible for meeting these stormwater standards and each of these water bodies, regardless of whether the pollution is generated in Long Beach or if it comes to us from upstream, that means that our city has been disproportionately bearing the burden of stormwater compliance. And this since this time deals have been established where we have before us with the Safe Clean Water Program is an opportunity for funding to be generated in every city within the Los Angeles County flood control district that can be used for stormwater compliance in each of those cities. And where possible, there may also be the opportunity to increase water supply by offsetting potable water use with recycled water. If every city upstream of Long Beach has more resources to address stormwater pollution before the water enters the storm drains, then that means that stormwater making its way down the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers will be cleaner when it enters the Pacific Ocean, the Colorado Lagoon, Mother's Beach and other waterbodies in Long Beach without going over the personal toxin depth. As I mentioned since just a few weeks ago, you got that end of presentation. I'll touch upon the highlights in this proposed parcel tax and take questions at the end of the presentation. So again, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors approved this ballot ballot measure for the November ballot by a vote of 4 to 1 on July 17th. It will require a two thirds vote to pass. And this is a special parcel tax that will be serviced by the Los Angeles Flood Control District. The tax rate is at 2.5 cents per square feet of impermeable surface. And so the average parcel tax for single family residents in L.A. County is about $83 per year, and total revenues that we're looking at are about 300 million per year. So again, the program proposes to improve water quality by increasing stormwater and urban runoff and reducing pollution. There's also the opportunity to increase water supply, provided that there is a nexus to stormwater and the overall funding allocation. So 40% goes directly back to cities based on the amount generated by each city. 50% goes into a regional program and winemakers into regional watershed groups, and so will have the opportunity to compete for funding in the lower Los Anderson River watershed and also the San Gabriel River watershed. And then 10% of total revenues generated go to a district program and then we'll go over each of these. Very briefly again, the municipal program for language. That's about $5 million a year that we can use for stormwater compliance information against stormwater. When you hear stormwater complaints, you can think water quality improvements for to really do go hand in hand. Again, funding must be used for water quality programs and projects. And then the proposed ordinance provides for local control, which is something that the city of one beach and a couple other cities, but very hard for with respect to the original program, is 50% of the funds. And these are competitive. But as I mentioned before, any funding that is invested in stormwater improvements, whether in Long Beach or upstream of one which eventually does benefit Long Beach, as all stormwater does flow towards the ocean and the program creates nine watersheds in the safe clean water program. Again. Let me just in two. And in the lower L.A. River watershed, there'll be about $14 million in competitive funds. And in the Lower San Gabriel represent, there's about 18 million and competitive funding. And again, this revenue is generated based on impermeable surface area. So depending on the size of your city or the size of your watershed, that has an impact on the type of money that you're looking at competing for it. And then with the district program, the district will be using, though, 10% to actually administer the program, provide stop support for regional programs, fund cross watershed scientific studies. So, for example, the Upper L.A. River Watershed and Lower L.A. River watershed scientific studies that benefit both could be funded through this 10% and not taken out of the 50% that we just spoke about. And then over a five year period, the county is committing to a $25 million minimum investment in stormwater education similar to the water conservation presentations that we may have seen in years past. Stormwater education is relatively new. And so we do believe that this is an important part of the program and something that the city is required to do as well. And so to the extent that we can leverage this, it helps us to say, to summarize through the municipal program, the city of one, which gets $5 million in direct funding, a year work eligible to compete for competitive funds. The regional program in two different watersheds, the average parcel taxes, 85 or $83 excuse me, per year. And the funding does support water quality improvements. So with that, I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you. First, I want to just say, Diana, thanks and congratulations on a really good job negotiating a very strong position for the city of Long Beach. We've seen we've had this conversation about our position at the mouth of two rivers, many of our council districts and communities adjacent to those those rivers. And so we understand that, you know, simple enter rainfall impacts on our communities are significant at significantly higher level than it does adjacent communities. And we also know that there are unfunded mandates that we need to try to comply with. Without the resources to do so. And so as a coastal city and a city that we're we are proud to call a beach city. And Washington Post talks about how many great days we have with great weather. We want to protect that and we have to invest in that. And so I congratulate the Board of Supervisors for acknowledging this need and for putting this forth to the voters. So I support this, and I think it's smart and we need to be an example as a as a coastal city at the mouth of two rivers. We need to set an example for other cities upstream across the gateway and across the county. And so that said, I move that we that the city council take a position of support for this upcoming measure the clean was it Los Angeles region's safe clean water program special parcel tax. Thanks. Thank you. Nexus Council embraced it. Thank you. And I support as well. This is a this is very important to the city of Long Beach. For many reasons that have already been stated by by Diana Tang and Councilmember Richardson. And I think in terms of hopefully the voters will will recognize and hopefully have confidence in our ability to to move large public works projects to to improve our stormwater system here in Long Beach. I can't say that I have the same amount of confidence for for some of the upstream cities. And I'm curious to know how some of those cities are going to be be able to plan because they don't have the resources that Long Beach does. And so I'd like to to look more into or hopefully limit our assistance to some of those cities to try to get their their their programs off the ground, because they what happens in many of those upstream cities certainly impacts our city as well. And so hopefully we can work with the the organizations like the Gateway Cities Council governments and through the County of Los Angeles to come up with a plan to to assist those cities to be super aggressive about getting their stormwater programs together to clean up the waterways coming to Long Beach. So with that said, I am I'm happy to support this and send it to the voters. Public comment on the site and please. Can we say it again? This is one of the issues that the landscape Pampers has come on board to support. It's time we did something about our water system in cleaning up our local water. We were the only community organization that went to the Board of Supervisors meeting from Mom Beach that ended up testifying beside the staff . So we're committed to supporting this project and doing whatever we have to do so that people understand how critical this issue is to us as the city. And thank you for those of you on the Council that have had the foresight to see how important it is to clean up our water and started the discussion on these issues a while ago. We look forward to participating in projects and working to help develop green jobs as a part of this in encouraging more water permeable surfaces in our parks and infrastructure. Thanks. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. I'm her Linda Chico. I'm the field deputy for L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn. And I have a statement on her behalf. On July 17, 2018, Supervisor Hahn and the majority of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to put the Safe, Clean Water Program funding measure on the November ballot. Each year, over 100 billion gallons of water flow down our drains and our loss to the ocean rather than captured for re-use. As it travels, the water picks up tons of trash and toxic pollutants. That end up on our beaches. This toxic runoff is why the Department of Public. Health is forced to close our beaches after big storms. And the city of Long Beach understands. This issue well. Since it. Spends approximately $1 million per. Year. On cleaning up its. Beaches, the county also contributes half a million dollars per year to. Try and. Stop trash from reaching. The city of Long. Beach by capturing trash while it still. Is in the L.A. River. Supervisor Hahn believes. The residents of Long Beach do not deserve polluted water and dry aquifers. This is why she voted to put the safe clean water program funding measure on the ballot. The measure could potentially provide funding for stormwater. Projects that will create local jobs. Replenish our underground aquifers. Keep our. Beaches clean, and ensure. That clean, safe water flows throughout our taps. For generations to come. Supervisor Hahn wants to leave Los Angeles County a healthier and more sustainable place than she found it. And she urges the city of Long Beach to support this measure and allow the voters to. Decide if cleaning and capturing. Stormwater is important to them as well. Thank you. Thank you, Nick. Speaker, please. Good evening, counsel. My name is the only Kim I work with the L.A. Alliance for New Economy, and we're part of a coalition, our Water L.A. coalition, that's been working to inform and support this measure. And so thank you for your consideration. And for all the work that staff has done to make this a strong measure. We're excited that it's on the November ballot and and excited that you're discussing it tonight. I just want to underscore what you've already heard, that this measure is a real opportunity to address a triple crisis that our region is facing as far as water quality, water supply and extreme weather, that this measure has the capacity to address both drought and flooding risk. And that's a real amazing win to be able to address all of those things in one measure, in a way that is also bringing investments to communities, beautifying them, creating more open space and more shade for communities, and especially with commitments to invest in low income communities. This is a measure that will also help create jobs. We've been working with the building trades and with SEIU to inform the quality of those jobs and to also figure out how to increase access to those jobs for the communities that need them. We, our staff has underscored and as you've commented, see the great benefits to Long Beach. And just a comment to the Councilmember Austin's question around upstream smaller cities that there's a technical assistance program that the county is working on that can really help to bolster some of those smaller cities efforts to better address the water that's coming down to Long Beach after them. So I think that technical assistance program will help with some of those smaller cities upstream of you look forward to working together with the city for an implementation to make sure that the jobs created are good and that the projects are invested equitably throughout Long Beach and would love to continue working with you also to get the word out to voters. As it's been mentioned, it's a tax measure, not the most. I think as Councilwoman Mongeau said earlier, a lot of this infrastructure, these pieces, they're not the sexiest thing that people thing people most like to focus on, but they're the thing that at the end of the day , people have to navigate to get through their day. And this is a you can only live for three days without water. So we look forward to working with you to get the word out to voters to really have their consideration for this measure in the fall. Thank you. Thank you. See no other public comment. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you very much. Let me try to get back to the to the regular. I don't think there's any any more requests for items on here. So let me go back to the regular agenda. Is Estella Magallanes here? We did concern calendar, didn't we? No. No, we did consent, though. Did we did consent. Right. Okay. Estella Margolin is here. Is David Dykstra here? Yes, sir, I am, sir. Please come forward. Is Kristi Melly here? Mama Lee? Yes. Please come forward. Thank you.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Director of Economic and Property Development to create a policy to allocate all proceeds from the sale of city owned properties to fund blight removal, ongoing economic development efforts, revolving loan funds for small business establishment and growth, local incentives for business to locate or expand in the City, and key infrastructure investments. These proceeds should be tracked and directed to the project areas where the former Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (RDA) properties are located.

LongBeachCC_11112014_14-0963

Item 32 Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilman Andrews and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Director of Economic and Economic and Property Development to create a policy and to allocate all proceeds from the sale of city owned properties to fund and track properties. Property project areas where the where the former Long Beach Redevelopment Agency properties are located. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember Rex Richardson. Thank you. So, first of all, thanks to everybody who hung out. I know it's been a long, long meeting. We're not quite finished yet. We still have a little bit more work to do. Secondly, before I get going, I hear that this is really noisy and just cut on so we can turn it off. Let's turn it off. It is kind of noisy, so it's hard to hear. Great. Thanks. We'll just. We'll just keep the doors open. Thanks. So this item was crafted in the spirit of the former redevelopment agency. And I'm going to give us a little bit of background here on where this has come from. So in 45, the California legislature enacted the California Redevelopment Act to assist local governments in eliminating blight through development, reconstruction, rehabilitation and a number of other activities . This gave cities and counties the authority to establish redevelopment agencies. The Long Beach Redevelopment Agency carried out its mission of enhancing the quality of life by improving blighted and blighted areas of Long Beach, revitalizing neighborhoods, promoting economic development, creating jobs, so on and so forth. In order to meet that mission, project areas were established to capture tax increment from property taxes within those project areas, to be reinvested within those same neighborhoods and focusing on blight removal within those established boundaries. In 2011, the state of California eliminated all California redevelopment agencies, effectively eradicating a vital tool to revitalize communities. And in 2012, the Legislature passed AB 1484, I believe, which outlined a process for local communities to dispose of former RDA properties. The city of Long Beach currently has roughly 50 properties that will be sold spanning north Long Beach, central west in downtown Long Beach. The successor agency is currently awaiting approval of its long range property management plan, which outlines the disposal of these properties. If authorized, the City of Long Beach may have an opportunity to direct one time proceeds derived from the sale of these properties to be spent in alignment with the original mission of former Long Beach RDA. For example, blight removal, economic development programs and so on. So the purpose of this item is to, you know, I think there is a thought here that we've got one last opportunity here with this redevelopment. These redevelopment properties. They were purchased with tax increment generated in the project areas. When we sell the sell these properties, it won't be a lot of money here, but we should carry out the original spirit in which it was intended. Now I want to. My motion is going to give some flexibility to the city manager. City manager will be able to come back with a recommendation on how he would purchase those. But what's the crux of my motion is that they should generally be invested within the project areas. The general area is now. When redevelopment was established, the boundaries were not. Perfect. People complain that the Port of Long Beach was in the North Project area. People complain that certain areas might have been cut out that might not maybe shouldn't have been cut out. So so I want to give some flexibility to city manager, just to say the North Project area, the West, you know, Central, all the project areas and the the sort of community and communities of interest around that, those areas, we should be able to think big about how we really want to invest along the spirit. So it may not be whatever comes back doesn't necessarily have to be tied down to the specific rules of redevelopment because we're not bound by those anymore. But the general spirit within those communities of interest. Now, here's an example. Let's say that a project area ends on the West Side, and and but there's a specific interest on a corridor on the West Side. And the you know, there might be an interest of a facade program, a business loan program that might extend just down that corridor right outside the project area. I don't think that that should be. That should limit the city manager on what he comes up with on his program. I want to give the flexibility, give the city manager some flexibility to come back and let us have a have a discussion about tangible things. That's it. That is my motion. So I'll move the item. Okay. There's been a motion and a second to the item. Councilmember Austin, I'm going to have then I have Councilmember Price and then you're Ranga. Then I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for bringing this item forward. This is, as he mentioned earlier, this this item wasn't a brainchild of the city council. This is one that is borne of our community, our residents here, former North Pack members, Central West Pack members, project area committee folks who worked in the redevelopment process for many , many years to eliminate blight, to promote economic development, to to do some great work in North Long Beach and central area and including the West Side. This was something that they said we need to have happen. The city council is now listening. And I would encourage my my, my the rest of my colleagues to to hear those those cries as well. I like the fact that Councilmember Richardson is looking at communities of interest because our park areas are defined by specific redevelopment, areas were defined by specific boundaries. This extends that to to to to other areas that may not have been drawn in that park, but it gives the city manager the discretion to, for example, improve the Santa Fe corridor or to to add other areas of the West Side that may not have been cut into the park areas. And so with that consideration, I mean, this is an item that that really spans not only District eight and District nine and District seven, but the sixth District, the first District and the second district as well. And Fourth District. This is this is a this is an item that that can now benefit many communities throughout our city. And so I would ask for support. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you. Has there been a motion yet? Yes. Okay. I would like to make a substitute motion to adopt this recommendation, deleting the second paragraph of the recommendation that targets the proceeds to be directed to the project areas where former Long Beach Redevelopment Agency properties are located. Second. The reason there is someone has the floor. So continue. Councilwoman Price. Sure. The reason that I'm making this motion is that I believe that, first of all, I think while I appreciate the spirit of bringing it forward, I do believe it's it's slightly premature because we have not received approval yet in terms of where the money can be spent or if it's coming back. So I think it's a little bit premature. Having said that, I think that the money should be used to support our citywide economic development discussions and efforts. We have talked this council since we took office. We have talked about the need to increase our revenue and promote businesses within the city. And I believe that any money from redevelopment should be used to support the efforts of the city to promote economic development in all areas of the city and to incentivize businesses wanting to establish throughout the city wherever they may want to establish. That money could be utilized to help small businesses establish through perhaps loan programs as the item calls for or a waiver of license fees. As we've discussed, this is money that can allow us as a city to help all businesses establish in the city of Long Beach, regardless of where they want to establish. I note that in 2012. There were a. Project, there was a Pacific Electric Right of way project in District six that was developed with RDA funds that was $9.5 million. Right now in the third district, we have a long stretch of the Pacific Electric right of way that is in desperate need for funding and to be redeveloped and we don't have the funding for it . This is an example of a citywide project where these monies can be used and there are no other moneys available for. Improvements in the area other than our general fund, which we don't have. So having said that, I believe that we should take a city wide as opposed to a district specific approach to this particular item. If and when the successor agency reports back in a manner that's consistent with the reallocation of these funds. Thank you. I have next I have in order to have council members you Ranka than mongo than Austin. Thank you, Mayor. I too have issue with the second paragraph and how it reads, because the seventh district was basically a redevelopment a long time ago and was never really included. Council member Austin did mention the fact that we touch upon the seventh District is touched upon by the Central Park, the West Bank and the North Park . But very little redevelopment was present in the seventh District. Very small, very little. Those those agencies did not touch the seventh District at all. So that's before my time. I had no impact on it. But I think here's an opportunity for me to correct that. And so this is why I have two issues with both of these proposals. One was the the the thought about having a close proximity to communities of interest. Redevelopment. I have an issue with that because I'm not sure that that's going to work. On the other hand, having a citywide project, I have an issue with that as well because how do we work out the priorities? She has a right away that she wants fixed. I have a park that I need fixed. How are we going to prioritize that? So my and if I can, who is going to repeat who read back the the the the motion. The city clerk is not here but. Well, the what the what the two motions are. Now what what's what's what's the one motion that that's what we're at right now on the floor. The motion that's on the floor right now is a substitute motion by Councilwoman Pryce. That is essentially the recommendation is presented minus the second paragraph. So it's requesting the city manager to work with the director of economic development to create a policy that allocates the proceeds from the sale of city owned properties. No, I can't support that either. What I'm a friendly amendment or amendment is, is to take it back to the city manager, for them to come up and develop a plan that is much more inclusive of how and much more clear in terms of how these redevelopment funds will be used citywide, if that's if that's the plan . However, it has to be very clear that it's going to be inclusive, that the areas that are that are identified as being blight and now may be the areas that were there already. But there but there are there's there are areas in the seventh District that were not. Included. In those areas. And I want to I want to make sure that I have an opportunity to bid for or include a project in the seventh District that will that will be inclusive of all areas, not only in terms of of communities of interest. Communities of interest is a little vague for me at this point. So, I mean, that's my most. Point of order. So I. Hold on. Only one person has the floor right now. Let me. Councilmember, you're Ranga is wrapping up his motion. I want to get that clarification that I have a speaker's list. And I know that the authors of the motion are trying to make a clarification. So we'll get to everybody first. Councilmember Urunga, I believe you have made a substitute substitute motion or was it a friendly amendment? I'm asking Councilmember Frank. Nobody else, an amendment to take it back. Okay. So I'm asking customary ranking. You ask for friendly amendment. So you're asking for a friendly amendment. I'm I'm I'm I'm assuming of Councilwoman Price's motion or of the original motion. It would be to councilmember prices. The motion that's on the floor. So you're. Asking. Okay, in that case, I'm would substitute motion. Okay. So you're making a substitute substitute motion. And from what I understand, the substitute substitute motion is to ask the city manager to come back with options to the city council, for the council to look at as to how we could create some type of policy for how for the any sort of revenue or income we may get from the dissolution of properties. Is that right. And with with it with a plan of how those will be mitigated. So with with with plan and background as far as what those would look like. Yeah. Okay. So Mr. City Attorney. So just just to be clear, the substitute substitute is a motion to ask city manager to come back to council with a plan and or options as to how he would present the how would what his plan would be on the dissolution of the properties and the revenue created with some plans as to how that would work. That was about right. That's my understanding, because substitute substitute eliminates. Was there a second to that substitute substitute? Was there a second to that? There was not a second to that. Who stuck with the game to. Be vice mayor? Was that a second term? No, it's not. I have a clarifying. Okay. So I have a I have a couple of people with clarifying questions. So let me get to those. Let's go to speakers. Oh, that actually, I'm doing the clarifying questions first. Clarifying questions first was Councilmember Ashton. You had a clarifying question to clarify something, not something I because you're on the speakers another point. So I just wanted to clarify something because we we talked about communities of interest. And I think in the spirit of what Councilmember Richardson was, and I think he mentioned that in his remarks, in the spirit of what he was trying to achieve is is not excluding the west west side. And so would it be out of order for me to to to attempt to make a friendly amendment to Councilmember Richardson? Well, you're you're you know, you're you are coming up right after council after Councilman Mango. Why don't you make your friendly when you're up on the on the board? You can make the friendly really easy when you when you're up. Duly noted. Okay. So I have one more clarifying question and we're going to go back to the speaker's list. Vice Mayor Long thought that you have a clarifying comment. I did. In what I heard from what Councilmember Urunga had described, it actually sounds the same to me as the motion that Councilmember Mongeau and praised the motion the Councilmember Mongo made. Hi. Sorry, I'm looking at Councilmember Price, but I'm saying mongo. Yeah, it does sound the same to me. So if I could ask. Isn't that the same? No, no. How is it different? Because Councilmember Price asked for the item to be just the first part of the recommendation, which is asking the city manager to create a policy to out would you would the city manager not be coming back with this policy? He would be. And so the policy could be a set of options. I interpret that as actually the same. It's a nuance, but it's the same. And so instead of complicating it, I think we can take what Councilmember Yang is looking for, which inherently is in that motion, it's in that language. Well, if it if it's the same. Does anyone want a second? Roberto's substitute. Substitute? Only if we acknowledge that it's the same. Because I firmly believe it's the same. Listen, it. It sounds. It sounds the same to me, but I. But I want to make sure that contrary. So I think we can revert back to the original maker of that motion because the language is right here and I'm hearing would count. Well, my colleague, Councilmember Turanga, is asking for and I wanted to have the assurance that it's actually the same. And if I can hear from the city manager or the city attorney, what is your interpretation of the first part of that recommendation? Mr. City Attorney. The way I understood Mr. Councilmember during his motion, and he can certainly correct me if I was wrong, is that he wanted the city manager to come back with a policy for the allocation of the sale of the city, proceeds with no limitation on it as to the blight removal, economic development, etc., which was the motion by Councilmember Price. So that's the difference that I saw between the two motions. I'm not sure if Mr. Rangel agrees with the way I understood his. That that is not my understanding of the motion, that that was not my intent of my motion. The language that's in the first paragraph is good. I mean, I have no issues with that at all. In fact, that's what it should be. That that's what it is. The issue that I had is with that second paragraph, obviously, and I to strike that. And that was a motion that that Councilmember Price is making. The issue that I have with that is the nuances of striking that and still goes into a general fund, yet not being able to identify priorities in regards to what we define as either communities of interest or which are the ones that are, say, in a 1 to 10 scale of blight and what what conservation, what comes next, and those priorities. That's what I have an issue with. If I could. Yes. Mr. CITY. And then I think council member or Vice Mayor Lowenthal is is correct in that the motion is the motion by the councilmember from the third District, and that the city manager would be coming back with a policy for consideration by the entire council on those items. So his motion is essentially the same. Councilmember Arango So at least the city the city attorney is interpreting your motion to be the same as that as Councilman Price's motion. So I just want to make sure that with that, before we move forward, whether you agree with that assessment or not. So. Mr. City Attorney, because I know that he was having a side conversation real quick here, can you just real reiterate one more time your thought of both motions, and let's let Councilman Ringa clarify. Thank you. The motion by Councilmember Price, second by Councilmember Mongo deletes the second paragraph and leaves the first paragraph in its entirety. The way I understood your motion is that you would like to see options brought back by the city manager, and obviously this requires the manager to bring back a draft policy for your consideration. So there. So you're really not committing yourself this evening until you see the policy that would be created by the city manager. Right. Well. In essence, what I'm wanting to say, what I meant by my substitute motion is that I want to take this document that we have before us right here. And take and give it to the city manager to come up with a plan. Okay. Okay. So I think that I. Think that if. It's if it's if it means striking the paragraph two and that's it. That's what that's the interpretation. I mean, the way I read it in court from Richard Attorney, but that is essentially striking the second paragraph. So I think the first paragraph asked the city manager to come back with a plan for the council to review. It could include various options. Is that right? That that is my understanding, yes. So the substitute substitute comes from a hearing, according to the city attorney, in the way it's interpreted, your motion is identical to Councilman Price's motion. And it would be. It's on the floor. It's on the floor already. A point of order, Mr. Mayor. The motion died without a second. If we are reading this to death. Well, that's all we're clarifying. So. So that's the motion. Thank you. That's. We're clarifying. I want to make sure that everyone understands who we're talking about. So that was the motion that was made. There was no second correct account. Sum rearranges motion. Okay, now I have one. Mr. Mayor? Yes? If I might still have the floor. Absolutely. I did. Have. But she did have the thing. Miss Mungo, I had the plaque for clarifying it. Just to be abundantly clear, it's not beating a dead horse, because it's very important for me to make sure that one of my colleagues understands that what he wants to see for his communities, for his district, is actually very much it's right in the motion that was already made . And that's very important to me. And I wanted to understand that from Councilmember Urunga. And I'm thankful for the time that we spent, and I'm glad that we arrived at that. It's not a waste of time. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go back to the speaker's list. So I have Councilmember Mongo, then Austin and Richardson. Thank you. Thank you. I think that we are. Significantly. Ahead of the curve on where we have options. First and foremost, I want to thank the Economic Development Committee, specifically the staff members that brought forth a staff report that had this particular recommendation in it several weeks ago. And with the tweaks that have happened now, it kind of reverts back to Councilmember Price's motion. Really goes to the vision and mission of what Economic Development Oversight Committee is responsible for, which is helping set the policy for the city that has the greatest advantage for the whole city. The city that sometimes you could live on the border of a city and a job in the night or excuse me, at the border of a district and get a job out of the other side of the district. And so what I would like to say is thank you, Councilman Price, for caring through the vision that the three of us had at a previous council budget oversight I'm sorry, the budget oversight, Economic Development and Oversight Committee meeting, which is that we should be looking citywide to make the greatest impact for all residents when it comes to economic development, workforce, business growth, business support. So with that, I'm going to be supporting your motion. Okay. Next I have is Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And let me just say that my mom lives in Detroit and she's the only person that I will allow lecture me. I don't need to be lectured by anybody on this diet. I think everybody here is an adult. Secondly, I'd like to just speak to the the equity issues in terms of distribution of public funds. The RDA areas were set up for the RDA areas and to improve blight and economic development conditions in the RDA areas. Let's be very clear about that. North Long Beach. West Side. Central areas do not benefit from tidelands funds. You know. No, we don't. We don't. I'm just going to say we don't benefit from them. And so the RDA was set up specifically and in these areas we're set up specifically to address conditions in those areas. We've we've utilized the tools and resources I think extremely well to the credit of great city staff or city management. I see Amy Bodak, our Development Services Department and a lot of hard work and dedication from residents who have spent a lot, countless, countless amount of sweat equity and brainpower working on behalf of this community. So with that, I'd like to offer a substitute substitute motion to. Include the recommendations, as has as originally brought forth with the second sentence, and include including the communities of interest, the West Side and Seventh District. Was that a second? Thank you. There's there's been a substitute substitute, which is the motion on the floor. And I believe the second was from Councilwoman Gonzalez. Okay. Next, I have Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I wanted to just have maybe a reasonable discussion. I feel like, you know, the first concern here with the substitute motion was that it wasn't the appropriate time. So I want to ask city staff, have any cities that received approval of their long term property management plan yet? Mike Canwe. Mayor, members of the city council. There have been a number of cities that have received approval of their long range property management plan. So far, so good. Most of those cities, though, have had very small number of parcels. We have 259 were a bit overwhelming, I think, for the state. There hasn't been an approval of a plan of our size. So some cities have received approval. They haven't gotten to the size of cities our size, but it would be appropriate, more so prudent to prepare for it as we were anticipating it. Correct? Preparation is always good. Are you preparing yourself for the approval. From the council? Richardson We have been drafting RFP in anticipation of approval so that we could issue them as quickly and prudently as possible. We also have a slate of of real estate brokers to whom we would issue the for sale properties and have them listed as well as soon as we have approval. So we are indeed our city preparing for the approval of the long term property management plan. That's correct. Okay. Secondly, before we get into heated discussion about like where this money is, I would like for the public just to know exactly how much money we're talking about so that we can really have an understanding on what what this discussions about. So could you please shed some light on what is the anticipated value of the properties that are listed for future future sale? I am sorry I don't have that number at this time. I'll have to report back to you on that. Well, let me let me let me ask this. Where do we have a. List of those properties? Yes, indeed. I think they were distributed today. Hmm. So yesterday. Would you mind just stating for the public where those properties are? Well, there are they are in former redevelopment areas. Is that so? In this item, there is a breakdown. There are two categories. This is for the future development, correct? Correct. And this is for sale? That's correct. Okay. And Central there are 946 FS, so there are 15 parcels in central Long Beach for sale. In downtown, there are ten for future development and one for fuel for sales. So that's 11. In North, there are eight for future development and seven for sale. That's 15 in West. There are six for future development and one six for future development and one for sale. So it's 15, 11, 15 and seven in central, downtown, north and west. So my question is, how were those properties specifically acquired by our city? First, I think I'd like to clarify. I don't believe those were parcels. I think those were sites like. Site, an accumulation of parcels. Accumulation of. Persons, though, likely be sold by site. And so future development properties were traditionally assembled and acquired by the Redevelopment Agency for Future Development for uses consistent with the strategic guide in that redevelopment area. So they were acquired by the art redevelopment agencies within by the budget within the project area? That's correct. How were the budgets within the project areas? How were those funds derived? Where did they come from? I'm assuming they would come from tax increment from the increased property values since the time the redevelopment project area was established. So the property properties can. So the tax increment came from those local communities central, downtown, north and west. Correct. I believe that's correct. Okay. So based on that. The city. It is very comfortable administering funds through, you know, by boundary. We administer our Titans funds that way. We have CDBG funds that we craft and have to spend in certain ways. We've established that this is not a new process. We're already making preparations to do this. I think the public just needs to know this is the fact is this is talking about taking about 50 the proceeds from 50 properties specifically located in low income, downtrodden, blighted communities and investing those in programs that aren't specifically targeted those communities. And secondly, the funds generated are not it's not going to be a lot of money. Whatever comes back, whatever we derive is going to be over a period of time. And the state hasn't even determined whether we can only keep 21% of that the taxable what the taxable proceeds are for the city. So we might be talking about, you know, not that much money over a period of years, so to say purpose that city wide, you really diminish the impact that you can make. Whereas there are still sitting there existing programs today that if we would invest money in facade programs, revolving loan programs and really target those a certain areas, it becomes a rising tide, lifts all ships and it also helps us to raise our property values. So I just wanted to, you know, I mean, my my motion is that what we're going to be voting on? I just wanted to make sure we go through that process and have that discussion, because I believe the the residents deserve to hear those those responses. Thank you. Next, we have Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you. So I just want to reiterate as well, of course, this is not a new idea. We've been discussing this prior to many of us even being on the council. I've only been here for six years, but I know it's been an ongoing discussion and having these and retaining the redevelopment funds. And I believe firmly that this is a citywide policy. This is a citywide attribute that will benefit all of us. I'm going to give I'm going to run over a list of a few of the items that just have happened in my district alone to give the council an idea of how this really relates to citywide project . This isn't just us working in silos. We really have made great progress. Just in the First District alone. We've, I think, made progress of over 20, almost $25 million in seven years, just invested in the first District alone. So you can imagine with the other districts what that means. But we've done things like Armory Park, which will be taking care of the the most dangerous intersection in the whole city. We've done the courthouse. That's the city wide asset, I would believe. Pump Station on the west side, surveillance cameras. Harvey Milk Park, which is the first park named after an LGBTQ leader. Seaside Park, which is a park that is in one of the second highest in violent crime areas in my in my neighborhood. These are all collectively, I believe, citywide assets. And so we don't have access to other things like Tidelands. We don't. And we just approved a pool that was a city wide asset. I think that we need to make sure that this goes back to their original intent. And so, as I mentioned, we had about $25 million invested just in new parks, corridor improvement, small business improvements in some of the highest violent crime rates, some of the most impoverished neighborhoods and severely deficient buildings and blight issues in the whole city. So I would just ask for our support for your support of the council to make sure that we continue to move this forward. Okay. Thank you. Now I have Councilmember Durango. Okay. Since the my original motion. My motion, anyway, died of. Or, let's just say, was not approved. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think perhaps it was because I misunderstood. So I I'm going to make I'm going to probably ask a few questions for clarification from Councilmember Price in regards to her motion and what it means. Does that first paragraph still stand as is with with removing that second paragraph? Because if I heard you correctly, you're talking about the possibility of developing some areas that are not blighted and have no need for redevelopment or in those kinds of situations. When you're talking about that, that. Right away. I don't see any right away in the third district that really is blighted. I mean, it might be underdeveloped or not developed, but in regards to being blighted, I you know, I don't see that where there was blight in the sixth District when they corrected that, that right away, it was blighted. It was horrible. There were there were, you know, drug addicts there. Prostitution was taking place. All those types of things that that that we want to get rid of was I was corrected or addressed by redevelopment money. So that's where I guess I'm a little confused as to what your emotion is because when it comes right down to it, I don't see a whole lot of blighted areas in the third. In the fifth, there might be some in the fourth and there and there's a few in the second. But I don't you know, I don't see that type of blight in those areas that I see in my area in the seventh District. Then that's that's the clarification that I want to get. Councilman. Absolutely. The first paragraph should stand as is. It's supposed to address blighted areas as well as economic development. And I don't want to get into a subject subjective determination in terms of whose area is more blighted. I'd be more than happy to give you a tour of this particular right of way that I'm talking about, because I think you would agree very objectively it needs some help. But this isn't an issue of trying to grab what you can for your district. It's we as a council made a commitment to economic development. And economic development means increasing our sales tax revenue, among other things. And where in I would be more I love your suggestion that the city manager come back with ideas of how best we could use this money to support our collective mission of economic development. So it's not just about removing blight, it's about opportunities for businesses to bring in sales tax revenue for the entire city, whether that be in whatever district it may be. So that's you know, there are multiple things listed in paragraph one. I agree with every single one of them. And I do want to make well, it's probably not the appropriate time, but a couple of comments about the pool. I'm not sure how that relates to anything and Tidelands funding. I would love for staff to give counsel and education on how long the second and third districts and some of the will have received Tidelands in comparison to RDA funds and what the limitations of Thailand's are. So, you know, to have that discussion I think is unnecessarily divisive. The point of this was how can we allocate money so that it supports our collective economic development purpose? Okay. And that and that's part of the problem that I see there is that. And there's a mixing of words here that that are confusing me further. You know, I'm an old man, so, you know, sometimes I. I get lost in my own mind. Is that when you talk about the first paragraph in this in this motion here, and then you talk about the general issues of economic development, that's confusing to me, because when we're talking specifically about areas of blight and and the need for economic development, I think it's in those areas that are blighted, that need that economic development not as a whole lot in general. That that that's what I'm trying to address here. And that's why I'm concerned about just putting it back into a general plan for economic development. It doesn't ring with me because I still have issues in the seventh District that are specific to the seventh District, specific to the blight and and the and the economic development that I need in order to make my seventh District thrive. So that's that's where I'm coming from. Now, if I can ask now the attorney and the city clerk again, can I have a re affirmation of what the motion is that we're working on right now. Which is the substitute substitute. If you can read it back to me, you know, I may be a little selfish here, but let me get a reiteration of what it is. The substitute substitute motion is a motion by Councilmember Austin, second by Councilmember Gonzalez, to include the recommended staff action and the second paragraph, adding that it will also include communities of interest, the West Side and the seventh District. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify. Yes, I have. Have you next? Have you next? Let me let me real quick. So city attorney. So. Cosby Renko, you got that. Okay. I have Councilman Richardson for clarification and then went back to the speakers list. So since all of the motions have included the first part of the original motion, I thought I would just re highlight the fact that the original motion was for the city manager to come back with recommendations. The discussion here is only about how wide we go when we target these resources. Therefore, I'd like to just say that communities of interest is not buy by my motion or by Councilman Austin's motion does not necessarily limit to districts. If there is an adjacent community, leave it up. Leave some flexibility of the city manager to say, hey, this is, you know, a priority for Cambodia town. It may not entirely be in RDA, but this might be a recommendation. This might be a recommendation. There might be a project on Santa Fe or in the downtown that might not be included. So it leaves that flexibility. At no point that we say this is specifically what you need to do and said, come back with a recommendation on the policy. Thank you. I'm going to go back to a few people that want to speak. I want to just make a couple of comments. And actually, Councilman Richardson and I think had a pretty good conversation yesterday about kind of my point of view on the item. And I just want to I think it's it's somewhere close to what some of the folks are talking about. I don't know that anyone here up here disagrees that there are certainly areas of Long Beach, particularly those that were formerly had RDA, areas that have more blight than others. That's a fact. There are parts of the city that have more blight than others. I think what the where the discussion where I'd like the discussion to go is what I think management's initial intention was, was to bring back a plan to the city that one would address the areas that are most affected by blight and that need economic development, which are the areas that we've been discussing, the north north area, the west area, central Long Beach. And there's certainly other pockets throughout the city that is I think everyone agrees that that need to be addressed. I think what some of the other members are trying to get across, and I would agree is there what what I mentioned the customer Richardson is I think that the initial motion, I think limits a bit the ability for for management to bring back some city wide ideas that could be part of this that could lift all boats. And so I think that there is that we can still address. There is no question that if we're going to do blight removal and address that issue, that's going to be focus in certain areas of the city. And that's going to be a big chunk of what is what of where this money is going to go. But I also believe that there are citywide programs and there are other parts of the city that are not. And I think, Councilman, your income makes a great point. There are huge portions of the seventh District that were left out of the RDA process, not just in West Long Beach. That unfortunately would not be covered by the initial motion. And so I think that there has to be room to have some citywide opportunities. And so I say that because I think there's I think there's a happy medium there. I think that we should recognize the fact that it's likely that a majority of these funds should go to the blighted areas. But we should all we shouldn't close off having some citywide economic development initiatives for the whole city. And so that's my $0.02. That's where I think the motion should go. I think that you should allow staff to come back with options for the council, but we should be able to come back and say, here are the options we can do. We can focus on blight removal in these parts of town which need it the most, which is going to be north, central, west parts of downtown. And certainly and there are parts on the east side as well that have blight issues. And here are some citywide initiatives that will help the entire city, which is also inclusive of the Northwest, but everyone, including East Long Beach and other parts that also need economic development. I want to remind the council that this council, through the budget, approved a new department. The department also needs some type of funding support. This this money, by the way, is going to be housed in this new department in economic development, economic development and property management. And so I think it would be nice for this department to be able to think creatively about what we can do citywide to help everybody. So I hope that's where we go and that's not where we at right now. But that's my $0.02. Yes. So at no point I'm not sure that this motion or councilmember price motion or councilman or my original motion. I'm not sure that any of them really preclude like let's say that there was a tool that's managed by our new department. And it does you know, it does support economic development activities. How would you approach it if you said, hey, look, open, open encounter, for example? This is a program that the city's interested in working on. It's going to cover all project areas in addition citywide. Would that be something like an option under either of the iterations of the motion that you could bring back as a recommendation? It's a question. Mr. City Attorney. I mean, I can't if I'm wrong, but I think the original motion, though, precludes that. That's correct. The while it's not a defined term, communities of interest, the discussion has been it has to relate or be adjacent to the redevelopment areas to follow with the spirit and the intent of the redevelopment law. So by definition, you would probably be eliminating some areas of the city. So if there were a tool that could work in these areas, like if for some reason the original the original motion passed, would you just like craft that tool to only work in certain areas? Or would you be able to come back and say, look, here's where the motion might need to be tweaked. This is what this is what we came up with as a recommendation. What could be adopted? Like, are you limited right now? Like and how you what your approach your what your approach would be? Absolutely. We're being told to come we're being directed to come back with a policy with options. Options, excuse me on how this money could be spent in agency, geographic areas. And communities of interest. That certainly would. Preclude. Us from going. Too far away from what we would consider a. Community of interest. Community of interest is. Really definitely defined in. Redevelopment law. It certainly wasn't a. Health and safety code and I don't think a community of interest would be if you jump three or four miles away. So if. Councilman so where I want to get to is what would be something that like what what do you need to hear in order to focus your, your resources into a certain area but still have the availability of think about certain tools that do impact the whole city? Like where's the balance? If we're just given the opportunity to come back with options, that would look at the entire city, maybe focus on the agency areas, but not but also look at other areas of the city. We could certainly do that. But right now, the way it's crafted, we again, we would be doing this, but he'd be precluded from looking at areas that are. Not a community of interest adjacent to a geographic boundary of the agency area. Okay. I want to hear public comment and maybe revisit that. Okay. So I do have two other speakers I want to make sure I want to share. They don't want to speak now first or wait. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, did you want to make any additional comments? Okay. And Councilmember Mongo. Okay. We're going to go to public comment, so please go ahead and line up over here. Thank you all. Just over here on the on everyone's right. Please, and make sure that everyone can just introduce themselves for the record. And please begin. Thank you. Hi. My name is Sean Darren. I'm a system manager of the Uptown Business District working in ninth and eighth District. And I just wanted to lend support to Councilman Richardson's recommendation, speaking from someone who from the perspective of someone who works with businesses and property owners every day in the business district, this would directly impact the economic development within the business district. For instance, many businesses don't have enough money to improve their facades to get new signage. And so this some of these funds could be directly allocated towards the signage and improvement of the facade so that it attracts new businesses. So that attracts customers more importantly. And so and also it improves the look of the the area. Also, it would also help fund some startups. I get I get calls all the time from businesses who want to come into the district, but they don't have the funds to start up in there. They're always asking for city programs or any kind of funding that would be available to help them start their business. And also this would also help impact existing businesses who want to relocate to the area. And it will also impact things like security. We need to make the business district safe for residents to shop there and also for businesses to relocate there, which some of these funds could be allocated toward that as well. And and also things like security. We have a we implemented a private security firm which helps decrease some of the Long Beach Police Department calls that would redirect some of their resources. And also it would help fund some of the businesses to get security cameras and to have a more robust security system, which would also help impact businesses as well, and help customers come into the community and help it impact the safety of the community to have a safe business district for businesses to and customers to shop in. So I just wanted to lend my support in the business district, support for the initiative and to help some of these blighted properties, which there are plenty in the business district. There are vacancies which have, for what I understand, have been vacant for a very long time. And so we need to do something and we need to redirect some of these funds so that the original intent of the redevelopment agency to help some of these by two areas is is finally realized. Thanks. Hello. My name is Larry Cherish. I might ramble a little bit now because I'm tired and I think that's kind of thanks to you guys. I work for the city of Long Beach. For many, many years, I did. I worked in redevelopment. I did economic development. I was the senior economic development officer for quite a while. And then for a short while after Jerry Miller left redevelopment to go to the city manager's office. I was the acting bureau manager for economic development, and so I know a little bit about economic development. I created several of the loan programs I think that the city still has, and I think I was the one who did the first facade program studying down on Pacific Avenue in the seventh District, maybe six. At any rate, let me tell you this. The money that's coming out of North Miami Beach really ought to stay in North Long Beach to take money out of north Long Beach, which is really got terrible problems and spend them citywide and in districts that don't have terrible problems would really be wrong. You might be able to do it, but it would simply be immoral. It's like stealing. These are these are really low income neighborhoods to compare, say, A right away and the sixth district to A right away in a third district. You do like Roberta was saying, you just can't do that. The money has to stay where the money was generated. You're taking the money from the communities that absolutely need it the most. I'll tell you this. If you create if you take that money and you put it into a loan program, for example, you're going to get businesses lined up from shore, from the fifth District, lining up to get that loan money. And you're going to struggle to make those loans in North Line Beach because it's hard to make loans in North Line Beach. What you need to do with North Palm Beach money is spend money on businesses in North Long Beach and find a way to do it. You. You just can't be taking it away like that. I think it's just wrong. I came to this meeting to talk about the airport, but I just couldn't help myself when I heard all this. Why not? I worked there and put my heart and soul into economic development for such a long time. Thank you. Laurie Angel, Northland Beach's Project Area Committee Chair for North. And this is near and dear to my heart. I've worked on this for 15 years, and unless you've been here and you've worked on it, you really don't get how important it is. It isn't just a pot. It's not just found money. It's money with a purpose. It's it's money that was intended to fix problems. And if all things were equal in the city, I could say, sure. Just divide it up and give it to everybody. But they're not. We have a lot of catching up to do. And most of the serious problems occurred during the L.A. riots. And it has been a difficult struggle. We've lost all kinds of businesses. And I don't know if you have. Streets filled with empty, vacant buildings and lots. But I'm going to tell you, as Larry said, is that the folks that live in the wealthiest areas with the best businesses are going to be able to find money. People up here are not going to be able to find money to support their businesses. And I tell you, if you make this area productive, it will contribute ten fold to the city in terms of property taxes, sales taxes and business taxes. So to deny the ability to skid the grease, to give, you know, grease the skids in order to be able to help this area take off and contribute to the rest of the city, you are denying the city the additional revenue that you would have otherwise to help you in other areas. Thank you. You know, my name is Mike Maltz. I live in a nice district, but I'm a Long Beach boy. I've been here since the day I was born. My family's been here since 1918. I have most of my family buried in the Sunnyside Cemetery on Willow. I've been raised on the West Side. I spent 20 years in the seventh and eighth districts, and now I'm raising my grandchildren in the ninth District. I wake up every morning and I look at two vacant lots, one of which we're going to have taking care, of which is the library. The other. I look at the South and Atlantic corridor, which was going to be the village. Who knows what we're going to end up with now? We want to see the money kept where the money needs to go in the areas it was intended for. This is what everyone I have talked to in my area has said we need. I wouldn't start a business in this area. Because of the fact that the way it looks. You got to be able to do something to promote businesses in the area. And right now, I can't see it happening. We are getting some stuff done, Rex. Steven Neil Vallance worked on to get our streets looking better, to get the lighting up and the things that have accomplished on Long Beach and the Atlantic corridor. But the major issue I'm afraid of and what I saw back in the seventies was now you're talking about a civic center. And my biggest fear is the moneys we do get back from the sale of these properties will go back downtown and everything will go back to the way it was because we had to straighten this infrastructure out with redevelopment. That's my fear. I want to see. The money's come back up here so that my grandchildren and my great grandchildren can be happy to say they came from North Long Beach. Thank you. Well. My name is Annie Greenfeld. I am the current. President of LBC PAC, which, by the way, included the First District. The Fourth District. The Sixth District. The seventh District. Okay. We did have certain certain. Areas in the seventh. District. We now cover everything from Redondo to the L.A. River. Okay. Pass the L.A. River over to two where the west side is. From Ward, from ward low to Ocean Boulevard, we are now discussing changing our boundaries to come up north because North doesn't have a park where a501c3 nonprofit. And we welcome working with the Economic Development Task Force or whatever committee there is. Now, let me just. Point out a few things that Rex pointed out. The tax increment came from the. RDA project areas. LBC back in 2010 celebrated 20 years. Of volunteerism and working for free to help our communities. North PAC did the same thing. They were around much longer. We have always been an advocate for the West Side. We didn't need to do Westpac businesses because they just represented the businesses. We represented the communities, the residents. So as far as I'm concerned, I've got. Cpec has most of the blighted areas in this city. You go up and down Pacific Avenue right now. And you will see more vacant storefronts. I just can't even believe I'm up here. Saying this to everybody when most people should know how bad it is in the sixth, the seventh areas of the fourth, if not for C PAC or Isabel Park, wouldn't be what it is today . If not for North Pack. Admiral Kidd Park wouldn't be what it is today. So this money grab is just beyond me. I can't even understand. Why you would even consider it. So I just want to remind you that I am in total support of the last. Motion that. Was on the floor. Keep the money in the project areas, please. Even though redevelopment is not here. Okay, we are still here. Thank you. Good evening again. Recap Village eighth district. You know, I have to say, first of all, I believe that the duty of city government is to build public safety facilities. But the city of Long Beach didn't have the money to build those facilities. So redevelopment money jumped ahead. Instead of focusing on the projects that were developed over many, many years. And they built the West Side Police Department. They built the North Police Department. They built Station 12. They're building the North Library. So all of those moneys that were put to those projects could have could have brought our community so much further ahead. But it didn't because it stepped back for the better of the entire city. I have to say, Suzy, you said that we have a need to increase revenue. And Stacy, you said that that it should be about the greatest advantage for the whole city. Then I want you to consider something. If property tax revenue is the number one source to the general fund, which it is, then further development to improve these neglected areas. And they have been neglected for a long, long, long time. Then when you improve those neighborhoods, you're going to improve the property tax values, which is going to generate more money to the general fund so that it can so that it can be provided for everybody. But if you don't take the time and you don't look long term for visioning and planning about how you're going to bring these neighborhoods that have been allowed to go down the path that they're down with no source of money coming in. And by the way, I think you ought to also be talking about a new source of revenue, or, as you stated, we're going to be in trouble. We're going to be in big trouble. The Tidelands, I know you don't like to hear that, but one, two and three benefit greatly. And thank God we have that. Or we'd be in No. One, not one. Okay. I'll take that back. But we got the Naples canals, we've got the pool, we've got the aquarium, we've got the beach improvements. We look really good to people that come to visit us in the downtown area. I encourage you to do something that Bonnie Lowenthal did with me when I first came on the council. She said, Let's take a drive through each other's district. I want you to see what my challenges are, and I want to see what yours are. And I'm going to tell you that for a number of you, for two, four, three, four, five, you don't come close to what some of these other neighborhoods are looking at. So I ask you, please keep the tax increment money in the neighborhoods that it came from. And let's find another source of revenue for the general fund. Thank you. John Doe Lottery, eighth district. I think when you look at the spirit intent of the RDA, when it first came out, it was basically meeting, I think what Councilman Mango and Price, I think it is what you're saying, bringing up the collective of Long Beach. Right. Is basically let's make these blighted areas, places where businesses want to go. And we can then. Start collecting that tax revenue. By keeping those funds there, we can accomplish exactly what you want to see happen for the good of Long Beach. More money coming in. Spend that money where it needs to be, where it was originally, excuse me, designed to be in these blighted RDA development areas. Thank you. Hello. My name's Phil, so I'm here. I was part of North PAC. I was the chair of the Economic Development Subcommittee for that PAC. And. I think a lot of things that were said have been said that I was going to say. But I would want to say that we attempted in North Park to try and get develop the businesses in the area there. And we did go in to ask the economic development. Officer for the city to help us, which was we got very little help. So we had to we were having to do it on our own. So that's where we were using some money. The one thing I want to bring up is. Something that no one else has. I think you covered everything else. I was on the planning commission up until about a month ago. And we'd have issues come up on the Planning Commission for different projects, low income housing. And also we had the. As the fifth District would know, the area, the mental health facility. And a lot of those things come up and people, they raise those issues. And between that and homeless shelters, what ends up happening is those projects, after all these discussions from other areas, they get dumped into the west and north side of the city. It's taking all the things for the entire city. The city has obligations, arena requirements for housing. It's for the whole city. But where does it go? It goes on the west and the north side of the city. We're taking a lot of the. The brunt for the whole city. And I think we'll also get because we just went through the. Marijuana ordinance. And part of that is on that is going to have farm sites for if we're growing marijuana. And it appears I would probably that most of those sites are going to also be on the west and north side . So I think. This Council should have an obligation to realize what the burden that these in this area has taken and try and do. Give them the money. It's a blighted area and give them money to support some of these things because they're carrying the load for the rest of the city on a lot of these things . Thank you. Good evening, Council Mayor. Staff. My name is Dan Press Burg. I live in the ninth district and I reiterate all the things that have already been said, but there are some things that some people seem to have forgotten. The North Park started originally when we started forming just a team was in 1996. It went until 1998 when we had our first meeting and Laurie Angell was there. Although she was not a pack member as part of the pack, I served as secretary for about two and a half years. I was the vice chair for seven years, part time chair off and on till Martha took over. And then I was her vice chair for a couple more years. I was entirely involved. Some of the projects we did did not start in our areas. There was a there is a necessary brownfield removal in the third district that is now a nice set of condos. We've done wayfinding signs in the second next to the Queen Mary, although it was considered part of the North Park. For two and a half, three years. We paid the rent in exchange with the port. For the aquarium bonds. And we also managed to scrape together $14 million. For the Middle Harbor project, which we'll never see, as well as moneys for the police stations that will never get back. And I'm sure Council Member Ranga remembers what the Green Monster look like, what it was like when we had to pave the streets going into Cabrillo. Rio, what it was like when that park opened and how much fun it was and some of the other things that have led to what we look like throughout the whole city . The only thing I can say is, is the money needs to stay where it originated. It needs to stay here. We need to roll up our sleeves and start working with it. I've seen many of these counties that many of the council members over here, they come up here, they visit. They all say the same thing. Just do what's right. It's ethical and it's honest. Good evening, Mayor and city council people. My name is Darlene Broom. I live here in the ninth district and it's been a challenge to live here in north of Long Beach. I set. And I've heard all your. What would I put this way? I've heard you say everything that affects you. But what affects me? You. You're talking about it right away. You're talking about fixing parks. Well, what about a grocery store? We don't have a grocery store. What about a restaurant? Where's the cleaners? Why do we. As Ninth District? Residents have to give our tax dollars from our property to the entire city. It doesn't make any sense. It's a known fact. If you want a community to grow, its dollar needs to balance in its community at least ten times. I've been to all of the districts here that have those businesses. Your dollars are bouncing at least 15 to 20 times. It shows it. What do we not? Earn that with our dollars. Do we not get to keep our money and fix our neighborhoods so our children can go to the store and not to the liquor store ? I'm so happy that you all had to drive up here tonight. When you got here, it was light. You saw where we live. Why does your neighborhood look that way? He's getting better. Darlene's getting better. Good evening. Jeff Roe from Grant Neighborhood Association, one of 11 neighborhood associations in North Long Beach here. I can't say I followed all of the substitutions and the friendlies, but and some of my colleagues from other neighborhoods of flood, I think it became past their bedtime. But I am sure that I am speaking for them when I say that, when you're considering how you're going to spend this money. If you would keep in mind that the legacy of the blight in the redevelopment areas is here and it's with us and we have to deal with it. So thank you for considering that. Good evening again, Craig Cogen with the downtown Long Beach Associates. And I really appreciate the spirit of dialog and the conversation. I think we all lost when redevelopment was dissolved. I think we all agree to that. Now it's a matter of how we manage life without redevelopment, and we're trying to do that in our downtown as well as other business corridors. And I think everyone agrees to the fact that we need to put our energies together to be able to address those issues that we are now really navigating uncharted waters. And for those of you that feel as though that downtown has benefited, you're absolutely right from redevelopment and from the private investment that's been made in our downtown, it is and does still continue to serve as an economic engine for the entire city. But if you feel as though downtown is complete by any stretch of the imagination, I will invite you to join Councilmember Gonzales and Vice Mayor Lowenthal and I to take a tour of some of the neighborhoods in their downtown. And I assure you that it's not complete. So, yes, the Tidelands have helped the waterfront, the convention center, the pike. It's polished, it looks nice. But I will take you to neighborhoods that don't benefit from it. Seventh and Daisy, North Pine Ninth and Elm, seventh and Alameda, serving as gateways to our center city. Those areas need help too. So whatever you decide. That's fine. We're going to work with whatever the decisions are. But the work is not complete. And I think all of our business corridors and all of our neighborhoods feel the same way. Thanks. Good evening. I am Jack Smith. I live at 50 Alma Avenue in the second district. That's an East Village. There are lots of places in town that need help. But there are only a few places that generated. This redevelopment money that we hope is coming back to the city. I can't imagine there's any question at all. As to where that money should be spent. I live in a family of four boys. Or a Brit was raised and lived there anymore. When I worked hard selling my lemonade or my cotton candy or running my festivals. And earned by money. I spent my money. Occasionally. I helped my family with the rent. But it was my money. And I decided what was done with that money. And that's how the PACs worked. This money was generated and earned by these areas that were part of the redevelopment areas. We hope it's coming back. And it needs to come back to the areas where it was earned. Not spent. Other places just because there are other needs in the city. We agree with that. But it was earned in these areas. That's where it needs to be spent. Thanks. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you all for those for those comments. We're going to go ahead and go back. Let me just reiterate kind of where we're at right now. So we have three motions. We have a substitute. Substitute, which is the motion that's actually on the floor. I'm city attorney. The substitute substitute, I believe, was the motion by Councilmember Austin. Can you repeat the motion for the attorney? Yes. The substitute substantive motion by Councilman Ross and second by Councilmember Gonzalez to approve the recommended action, including the second paragraph and adding to the language of the second paragraph, so that it would also include communities of interest, the West Side and the entire seventh District. Okay. And all of these I know that we're short of councilmember, but all of these motions require five votes to pass. Is that correct? It's a simple majority. Support for this. Yes. So it. There. There are there are eight people here. So in case of a tie. Five votes or four for the motion would fail. That's what I'm saying. So you need five votes, correct? Okay. Same thing. So we have a motion. We have a substance. Substance on the floor. All those in favor of the substitute. Substitute. Please raise your hand. One, two, three, four. Motion fails. Okay. The next the next motion is a substitute motion by Councilwoman Susie Price, I believe it was, if. Can you repeat the motion? Yes. The second substantive motion was motion by price, second by Councilmember Mongo to accept the step, the recommendation with the deletion of the second paragraph. Okay. All those in favor of the substitute motion. And again, same rules applies. It's five votes. Please raise your hand. Okay. One, two, three, four. Motion fails. Now we have the original motion, which is a motion by Councilmember Richardson, which is essentially the the main motion that's been presented. What was whether you want to read that it. Was the main motion with an amendment to include communities of interest. Yes. I'd like to just point of order and I will now that is back in my wheelhouse. There was a lot of healthy discussion today. I think what I'd like to do so that all the failed motions don't fail. I'd like to throw some red meat out there and see if folks actually want to play ball. So the name of the game is City Manager is going to come back with some recommendations. I want to ensure that the main investments are made in these project areas along with the same spirit. Now, there were some legitimate concerns about that. I've heard about, you know, some of the lines being incomplete. So I'm okay, including some of the language that Councilman Austin said to change it as well as I've heard that there is an interest in the city manager said he is not limited. He is limited by my motion, the original language to invest in any city wide programs. So I would like to open up my motion a bit by saying 25% of resources can be invested on citywide programs in your whatever you come back with. But at least 75% of what happens needs to go back to the within the original spirit. Everybody's not going to be happy with this, but this is what policy and government is. So we did a little bit based on this discussion. That would be the change to my motion if the second year of my motion would accept it. Can I make one suggestion? And you may not like it, but I first of all, I want you to I mentioned I agree with the spirit of what you're trying to do. And I think that you're correct that if you think about where blight is, a vast majority of it are in the project areas. That is a fact. And so I think a majority of those resources should be addressing those areas. I wouldn't put a percentage on it. I don't know if you're open to the city manager just coming back with options. I think. I just think a percentage is very is. I think this is prescriptive. I don't think everybody's going to leave here feeling comfortable. But if everybody gets a little bit of what they're looking for and we're speaking to the general spirit, we've we've already established this is not too premature. This thing could happen tomorrow. It could happen next year. We've already established that there is some interest in speaking to citywide priorities, given that every single dollar of these every single dollar of this was generated from the TAC, from the tax increment in those areas, it's only right that a majority of those funds be reinvested in that spirit. But we are part of the whole city, and the whole city should benefit whether whether these dollars came from District five, District three, District 98. So I do want to put a threshold if folks would be amenable and I'm open to some discussion. So we didn't waste all our time here on three felt motion. So I want I want to hear from some of my colleagues. I'm back in control of the motion and I want to pass something tonight. And I would encourage us. I mean, if all this fails, we're going to be back at this again. So if there's questions or if we can noodle something out, I would recommend we do that. So are there any speakers that I have, Councilwoman Pryce. I want to support Councilman Richardson on this. I think the spirit of it is to give our city manager some options. Obviously, the most blighted areas are the impacted areas. That's obvious. But as a city, you know, we don't keep our sale, our property tax revenues in the districts they come from. We share them throughout the city. And we look at city wide alternatives for four things. So there may be opportunities that they identify, whether it's to address blight or an economic development opportunity that's really good for all of us that would bring in a major company or allow us to have headquarters here for something that may fall outside of the specific boundaries of this area. So I think that I appreciate Councilwoman Richardson, you know, kind of moving a little bit on his item, because I think that's not just being collegial, but it's taking everybody's interests in mind so that we all feel like the spirit of your motion is honored, but that we also have that the city manager has some options and that might come. We have some options in terms of recommendations that they might make to us. So I support. It. Thank you. Councilmember Mongo. I would also like to lean in the direction of support. I think that because of Brown Act requirements have been not able to talk to Councilmember Richardson about these issues since he brought forth an item that we had previously discussed in a different form. And one of the things that I thought was really important. Let me say my parents lived in the eighth. I lived in the seventh, my grandparents lived in the seventh. I worked in the ninth. There was a shooting across the street from my office when I worked. In the ninth. And so I've been all over this city. My grandparents lived here, my great grandparents. It's. There are all sorts of areas and our economic development and oversight, economic development Finance Committee has been talking specifically about incentives that I think would be most helpful to areas in the project areas. However, in in the idea of simplicity and helping small businesses, we've talked about things like waiving business license fees or reducing the cost of coops or whatever they are, and specifically in areas that have been vacant for 18 months or more, in areas that have been vacant for two years or more. And so what we want to be careful about is that percentage, because in all of those vacancies that have been vacant for over 24 months, etc., those areas need help. And the market has told us that they need help because no one will lease them for the prices that they're being set up. And so with that, I'd like the the city manager to come back with flexibility, especially in those areas of citywide programs that help specifically on rentable areas. And I think our original discussion, which I think was. Ms. understood in a future dialog was when I own a property and I want to sell it, what do I do ? I fix it up. And so I was hoping that we would invest in a cascading program where we would be fixing the blight around a property before we sell it. So if we have $1,000,000, let's invest that million dollars adjacent to the property we're about to sell so that it will sell for more. So we will have more money to invest in the next property in the RDA area, which would keep it in those areas. But I hope that the city manager and the Economic Development Chair will take that into consideration because my biggest concern is getting the highest dollar for the properties we sell. Both for property tax reasons, but also for direct revenues of the 21% we may or may not get from the state. Thank you. Council member Austin. So can I have the motion repeated to me? On the floor. Mr. City. Attorney, there's only one motion on the floor. Can you repeat the motion for concern, Brosnan? Yes. The second was by Councilmember Austin of Councilmember Richardson's original motion, with the amendment that the city manager can come back with options, including up to 25% of the proceeds to be used citywide. I call for the question. Of questions being called because any other speakers, I think we can go to the vote. Is there one more? So do you have an objection if Councilwoman Gonzales makes final comments? I just say I don't think I could support this just because I feel like we have compromised so very much in our respective districts. And I think it's, you know, something that we're talking a minimal amount of money anyway, you know, and for us to divide that in a percentage into percentages, I don't believe would would do us any any good. But I'd like to see some dialog. What do you think would be more fair? Councilmember Well. Well, well. Before we, before we go there, the questions being called. So, Councilmember Austin, are you willing. Are you calling the question, are you willing to continue the dialog. You know, in the spirit of collegiality, let's continue to talk. Okay. Okay. Councilman, Councilmember Richardson. So just because I want to be in a place where we can we can make a decision on this tonight, I want to be considerate of some of the interests. They are good ideas, city wide, the majority of these dollars. And my hope was that in my original motion was that a recommendation might come out that could help some citywide efforts. But this is focused on our area. Right. So if there was a platform or some initiative that does help and benefit the whole city, that these dollars could be used to support that as well. But City Manager highlighted to me that he was limited by my motion. So the reason I said I wanted to make sure that the bulk are it goes to what the original spirit is. That's why I thought that we can, you know, say a bulk is 75%. Now, if you think that they we should adjust that number, I think we should just be realistic tonight about what we can politically pass. But at the same time, I'm open to having that discussion. I just think that we have you know, there's capital improvement projects that we've had, you know, that have been citywide that we can look at. I believe that that we can find funding for if there is something that is of priority to the other districts. I think we need to look at it that way and find additional revenue for that and work on it that way. I don't see using this fund the you know, this these outdated funds for well, citywide. The citywide stuff wouldn't necessarily be investments, as I understand. It wouldn't be like investments in a project, so to speak. The 25% has to touch every part of the city. It has to be truly citywide, not district specific. So we need to be a citywide economic development investment. Then an example could be and maybe maybe the city manager could chime in on what he might. I mean, he's spoke the least in this whole line. And what I'm thinking is, like they've talked about like open counter is something all the districts can use that's not resourced . We've got a economic development department right now that will do work citywide and they're not resourced. There's a an economic development commission online is not coming online. It's not resourced. So the all of these things would indeed benefit every specific district, every city. So it's not that we're investing specifically our dollars into a specific project limited to one area. I think that's just the nuance. I want to say that we're not we're not going to get it's not that we're not going to get to benefit from those dollars. It's just everyone will be able to benefit from those dollars. Well, I can see more of that side of thinking, more of the the city infrastructure. I can support that. But I just don't want us to get into something that I. Get it free for all for everybody. I get it. Well, thank thank you. And just for clarity. I think so. Councilman Richardson, your motion then limits. So unless the project is completely citywide, your motion would then limit any projects to be funded that could be outside the areas it has to be citywide. 75% is targeted to the project. The geographic basis of the we said 25% is citywide. So citywide investments. All right. If I can ask Mr. West, so you have that. That's the motion on the floor. It's my understanding that you guys were working on bringing something back. Some proposals are some options to the council. So is there anything else you want to add to this discussion at this point? I mean, are you hearing that what you're hearing were the motions at. I think we're hearing enough direction right now to come back with enough options for the city council to look at what we can present as options and take further direction. And any anybody I have council Marie Rangel. Okay. I think we watched this tonight, but I think there's a lot more scrubbing we need to do. I, I recommend that we table this item for the next meeting only because I mean, there's no clarity here. There is nothing that we are going to agree on here apparently tonight. We need to we need to move on. And I and there's a council member here who is affected by that, who's not here and hasn't had a he said on this on this issue. So I recommend that we table this issue to the next meeting. Okay. So you still have a motion on the floor. So we we have the main motion still we have to vote on. It is. I. Don't know, unless I substitute. Unless there's a second to. The substance. So the substitute motion is to table this to a an upcoming council meeting. That's the subsidy motion, correct? Okay. Is there a second to that? There's a second by Councilmember Austin. That is a motion on the floor. It's a main motion. If there if there are no by summary law. So that you have a comment. I did. So was that allowed because the last one failed in terms of procedurally the substitute. Substitute? Yes. There's there's now room for the substitute motion. Okay, Councilman. I didn't know that. Actually, Vice Mayor makes a good point. I thought that we could make an additional substitute today. No, that that. That is correct. That is, once the substitute substitutes, you can you can continue until there's a call for the question. And then you have a vote on a call for the question to cut off debate. So you can continue offering to do motions until there's a call for the question. That's not accurate. Okay. Okay. Well, that's the ruling. So I thought it was different, but I think I must've mistaken your creativity. Okay, so we have a we, according to the city attorney, Mr. Reynolds, able to make the motion. I understood Robert's rules to be a little different, but there's a motion, the motion on the floor, which is just to table the meeting the second. And you also want to comment for that before the vote is take a vote. Vice Mayor. So I, I can appreciate the desire to put this item over and probably come back to it when we're all a little bit more alert and fresh. But I do think we've had a really good discussion on it. Our disagreements don't suggest that we're necessarily exhausted by the item. I, i, i feel that our disagreements are very healthy and I truly appreciate where Council Member Richardson has arrived with his motion. It is a reasonable compromise. While I might not have preferred the percentage I can for the good of the order, support that and bringing this back another day. I don't believe we get to a better place. I personally, I know we're all exhausted, but I don't think we're exhausted for the conversation and the disagreements don't lend to that. And so I would respectfully request that our colleagues consider supporting Councilmember Richardson's item. We do have we do have a motion on the floor, which is the table. Any other comments before we move forward and vote on the tabling item? And then if not, we're going to go back to the main motion, which is Councilmember Richardson, the motion as amended. Okay. Okay. It's been withdrawn. Excellent. So now we're back to the main motion. Here we go. The call for the question. Right now, we're we're voting. The main motion is Councilmember Richardson's motion, which is includes a 25% citywide. Okay. That is the that's the motion on the floor. We finish from a comment. If you if you're in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Okay. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Excellent. Is that democracy in action? All right. And negotiation? Yes. Okay. I'm glad we resolved that tonight, Mr. City. We're now going to see that there was a request to do the school district Lombard Unified item, which I believe you had mentioned, was. Something. Was it with a 22? Let me have a kick out of this. Sweeter than that. Oh. Is that item 22? I think it was 22, 24, 24. Okay. Mr. Clerk, item 24. Item 24. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine Recommendation to Authorize City Manager to.

Recommendation to adopt resolution of the City Council of the City of Long Beach calling and providing for and giving notice of a Special Municipal Election to be held April 8, 2014 for the purpose of submitting two (2) ballot propositions to the qualified electors of the City of Long Beach.

LongBeachCC_01072014_14-0023

Recommendation to adopt resolution of the city council calling for and providing for giving notice of a special municipal election to be held on April 8th for the purpose of submitting one ballot proposition to qualified electors of the city of Long Beach. And that one ballot proposition will be this tax measure. The emotion. There's emotion and a second. Steel. Conservatorship scheme. But any public comment on the item saying none, please, God, cast your vote. I'm yes. Thank you. Motion carries eight votes. Yes. One vote no. Thank you. Now, the announcement. Okay, the announcement essentially is an announcement. I don't know what the verbiage is, but essentially it is anyone is interested in being a ballot signatory to the item that was just passed. You can see Mr. Clark and Mr. Clark, you want to read your information that for anyone interested in watching at home. For any person interested in being an argument rider on this proposition, they can visit our website. Pull down the application and submit it to us. We will provide that to the mayor by 12 noon on Friday and that will be up for. Consideration on January 14th. Council meeting for appointment of those argument writers. Okay. Thank you. Next item, please. Item 17 is a recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute documents between the city of Long Beach and American Golf Corp.

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation by members of the University of Southern California Lusk Center for the winning entry in the 2013 National Association for Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) Southern California Real Estate Challenge for the Seaport Marina Hotel site at 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_03042014_14-0179

Yeah. Thank thank you all for coming out, by the way. I appreciate it. Thank you. Just as a courtesy, we'll move to item 17 before 14 because some young people waiting here. So item 17, GREGORY. Item 17 is a report from Development Services with the recommendation of receiving filed a presentation by members of the Unit University of Southern California Law Center for their winning entry in the 2013 National Association for Industrial and Office Parks. As for the council membership scheme. Yes, I would like to introduce or have these gentlemen introduce themselves and I believe one of you is actually a resident of Long Beach. Which one? Yes. Yes. And let the audience know that these were the winners of the University of Southern California Law Center. It's the 2013 National Association for Industrial and Office Parks and AOP, Southern California Real Estate Challenge. And they were given the challenge of looking at the property as second and PCH, and they came back with an exciting design that they are now going to be given the opportunity to present to the council. If you could, introduce yourselves, gentlemen. Thank you. My name is Steven Anderson, and I'm with the U.S. team. My name is Christian Santos. My name is Daniel Bertel. Nick Terje NGO. Good evening, Matt Kiper. And I think one of your staff is getting us to the keyboard for the clicker. But I just while she's getting it, I'll give a quick overview. So every year there's a competition between USC and UCLA on a real estate site somewhere in Southern California. That's a challenge and has had a challenging history. And this year the site is second and PCH was chosen as the site. And it's had many attempts to be developed. And with our challenge to kind of create a project that would work for all the stakeholders, including the city, as a partner of ours. And one of the unique attributes of our program is, rather than just real estate development, we're in the School of Policy Planning and development. So we have a lot of focus on urban planning and policy and the impacts of development and how it relates to the context more than just does it actually make money? So I introduced our team. My name is Steven Anderson. I'll just give you a quick overview and Kristian will take us through entitlements. Daniel the design, Nick the market analysis and finally, Matt, the numbers about the project. So as I mentioned, the sites at Second and PCH, kind of at the confluence of Belmont Shore, Naples SEAL Beach in the border of L.A. and Orange County, 11 acres. And we consider this the most exciting coastal real estate opportunity in Southern California. You just don't find many sites of this size near the water surrounded by so many good amenities. So one of our challenges was why hasn't anything been developed here? And we were tasked with being the developer, putting on our developer hat and how to minimize risk and get something done here. So this is kind of an overview of the plan we came up. We'll go through detail further in the presentation, but we really wanted to connect the site to the water and connect the wetlands to the water. And rather than these islands of shopping centers, try to connect everything as a regional district. So in the upper left, you'll see a retail project, a boutique hotel on the right, an apartment community, and then a groundlings community amenity on the water that would be a permanent home to the farmers market. Here are some views of some of the renderings. We were just really trying to bring the water into the project as much as possible and make it coastal. So and then just a. Kind of a summary that we're. Proposing, this project had 164,000 feet of retail, 80 hotel rooms and 300 apartment units. And then we would do a proposed in two phases, which will outline further and the presentation as the step revision is going through right now. And then we really knew to get a project done here, especially with its history, we needed to create community and political will. So our goals were to stitch the area together, make a new gateway, create a new gateway for the city to the water. And really, this could serve as a catalyst for redeveloping the entire district into a more walkable, connected place. And then we approached this with three objectives. We wanted to identify the highest and best use for the community, the investors and the city, create a new waterfront experience and then maximize those benefits for everyone involved. And now Christian will present the entitlements. Thank you, Stephen, and thank you again to the city council for having us. So I'm going to go a little more into the site now. The site is located at Second and PCH. And as Steven said, we believe it is a rare and significant site and that it deserves a special project. 80,000 cars per day pass the site along PCH and Second Street. It is 500 feet from the water and has a quarter mile of PCH frontage. Naples is just sort of up to the top there. And then further along as Belmont Shore down PCH, we see SEAL Beach, all great communities. Three significant retail sites flank the area we're looking at, including high performing Whole Foods, Trader Joe's and Gelson's. And what you see immediately here is an opportunity to connect all three of these centers. And like Steven said, try and create a walkable destination, a place, something that Long Beach can be proud of. This is a view a little closer of the site. Currently, the Seaport Marina Hotel is located on the site, and one of the things you'll notice from just sort of a design architectural standpoint is that it kind of blocks off the water. So one of the things we were looking at was how to bring PCH towards the marina. This is a view of our project here. And you could see we tried to make a very direct link. We're going to go into little more detail about this later, but this is where we're going. So one of the main questions is why is nothing built here? This is a significant site and it's just something that you think everybody who passes by wonders why nothing has really been developed here. So in 1980, Long Beach adopted its zoning code for the area, the local coastal plan. And what it led to were projects such as this across the street on PCH and here across Second Street and here adjacent to our site. Now, I guess what I'm trying to get at here is the zoning code suggests a certain type of development and a kind of car oriented single story retail center. Now, all of these are very successful and great projects themselves, but one of the things that was indicated to us from the city, from people in the neighborhood, from past people who look at the site, is that everybody thinks our project, our site is capable of a little bit more of kind of this pedestrian friendly civic space , something that that people will come to. And that is very representative at the gateway of Long Beach. Of Long Beach. So taking all this into account. One thing I should also mention, too, is that the city is currently in a revision process of the zoning code for this area. I think that over the years people have noticed that or everyone's kind of noticed that what we want to do here is something a little more so that the zoning codes in a three year revision process right now, which kind of adds a complication to the design, to the development in general, our strategy for this, and we believe it's fairly innovative is to phase the project. Phase one is a retail area. It's on the left side there. It is consistent with the current zoning code. So we believe something like this could get started immediately. We could at least start the talks of it, start getting the process through phase two of our project as a projected development. And by that I mean we're going to wait. We're going to we're going to wait till see that the local zoning code is amended. We're going to adjust our project to that. In our project, just kind of as an experiment, as a speculation, we put a hotel and multifamily on this site anticipating that maybe multifamily would be allowed at this point. Thank you. And Daniel Patel, we'll go a little more to the design. Thank you, Christian, and thank you council members. I want to reiterate what Christian and Stephen said. This is a very once in a lifetime site and it deserves a worthy vision to be a true destination and landmark for Long Beach. When we set out to design and program the site, we had the benefits of learning from the failures of the past. Our goal was to create a place, a destination experience that would connect to the water and be the next step towards creating a marina district. Picture a community where neighbors walk to the bakery, where friends hang out at the local cafe where families can bike to the farmers market. Pair these cores with an architecture that is rooted in the creation of great public spaces. We study the architecture of Long Beach, including the existing Googie architecture of the Seaport Marina Hotel, as well as the mid-century modern Portofino nearby. Additionally, we study the scale and massing of other great public spaces in other cities, and we also research strong urban design moves that could inform us on how we could connect the corner of Second and PCH to the water. Learning from the failures of the past. We push forward with a multi-use site of decreased density and height of previous proposals that included a destination retail center on the north side of the site at the corner of PCH and second. Phase two would include a boutique hotel and multifamily component anchored to the water with views of the Pacific on the marina. We created a community civic space filled with restaurants, eclectic vendors and a permanent farmer's market. Being mindful of the many issues raised by the community, establishing connectivity and being thoughtful about traffic was extremely important in our vision. In addition to safely connecting bike paths with dedicated off street bike lanes and restoring pedestrian access around the site with much needed sidewalk improvements. We create a strong statement of connecting PCH and the wetlands, both physically and visually, to the marina with a pedestrian retail street focused solely around creating intimate and unique public spaces. Our retail street creates a vibrant shopping and culinary driven experience filled with excitement. Picture Tartlets for parents and children. A new local cycling shop for the community program Open Space Safe for Family Movie Night at the end of a retail street as box park, a community civic space and a permanent home for the neighborhood farmer's market. It pays homage to Long Beach's strong shipping import history, as it's creatively composed of recycled shipping containers and complements the local restaurants and regional microbreweries that will surround it. Lastly, Belmont Yards will be a sustainable leader in the community, designed and constructed to the lead for neighborhood development standards. Belmont Yards is the next step towards creating a new place for Long Beach. A new marina district and ultimately Southern California's next great coastal community. Now to talk about the local market, I'm going to hand it off to Nick. Thank you, Daniel, and good evening and thank you for your time. Council Members. Belmont Yard sits within a population base that is underserved by and has a strong demand for retail and multifamily uses. In general, because of a limited supply of retail space and strong sale levels. There is a men's competition among among new retailers to be here pushing rents to levels that are approximately double the greater market average and vacancy to approximately zero. It's worth noting that retail space in this immediate area is approximately 60% per capita of the greater Los Angeles region. Because of a large regional void and shopping center and regional shopping centers. Many of the local residents are leaving that area to shop. They're looking for soft goods, apparel and other goods and other items. Many of these local residents shop are shopping and traveling to South Coast Plaza, 30 to 45 minutes south of here. There's also clearly a strong and growing demand for restaurant space with a fixed and tapped out supply. Restaurant rents have grown by approximately 15% this year alone in the Second Street area. There's a waiting list for space and tenants are buying out existing tenants to be in this area. As a result of assessing retailer voids and demand and speaking with tenants and brokers directly, we've confirmed that many great retailers want to be here. These include. Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, Apple. Crate and Barrel. Porto's Bakery and Stone Brewery's Beer Garden, Equinox Fitness and many of the Long Beach's local best restaurants. After doing our initial study, we recently walked into Michael's Pizzeria and talked to him about the site and he quoted, I've wanted to be at that site for 30 years. Additionally, because of a lack of available land, housing supply has before been far outpaced by population growth in the immediate area within the last ten years. East East Long Beach has accommodated approximately 700 new households, while there has been only 55 new rental units added to the market. As a result, the market consists of predominantly dated rental units and apartment buildings. 95% of the existing stock built over 30 years ago. People continue to move into this area based on the desirable location and irreplaceable nature of the area being located directly in between Los Angeles and Orange County's. And now for an overview. Matt Kuyper. Thank you, Nick. Good evening. Thank you for your time. Taking into account the entitlement landscape. Site forces are design intention as well as the pent up demand for retail, hotel and multifamily users. We've designed a project that is both feasible for the developer and beneficial for the city of Long Beach. Our proposal anticipates a total project cost of approximately $200 million, which will include 164,000 square feet of retail, 80 acres of hotel rooms and 300 unit apartment development broken up into phase one and phase two. Importantly, we view the city as a partner in this project. The key financial takeaway is the significant positive fiscal impact our project will create for the city of Long Beach. The current project, the Seaport Marina Hotel, is estimated to produce annual revenues for the city of Long Beach of approximately $154,000. Our proposal anticipates a 16 fold increase in that figure. Two and a half million dollars per year to the city of Long Beach, made up primarily of sales tax and hotel tot revenue. To recap, our objectives for this project were threefold. Identify the highest and best use. Shape a waterfront experience and maximize benefits to all the stakeholders involved. We've accomplished this by filling the market void for retail, hotel and multifamily. We've created an outdoor pedestrian and marina focused design. And finally, we've created a feasible project that is both financially beneficial for the developer and for the city of Long Beach. While slightly outside the scope of our project, we spoke to many of the adjacent landowners and we envisioned a larger marina district where Belmont Yards could be the catalyst for a greater district of connected properties, which will promote walkability and a pedestrian oriented environment. Beyer, Vice Mayor, City Council, we thank you again for your time, and we're happy to address any questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Very creative. This should go on. Thank you. First of all, congratulations. You guys did a great job putting that together. Very interesting. There have a couple of questions. What's the height in phase two of those of those structures? The heightened phase two would be six storeys, so roughly 60 feet. It's a residential building. The entire project would be below that. One of our objectives, if we really wanted to create a project that was less dense and from the water, you had many more views through PCH. Great. And do you have any do you recall about what was the percentage open space in the project? You know. I believe our percentage open space was close to 30%. Great. Thank you. And of course, former city staff Amy. I see over there. You know, I think it's a very intriguing idea that they went across into the parking lot. What's your perspective on that? Certainly, there are some complications with that from a zoning perspective in the Coastal Commission's perspective, but it does provide for additional activation of the waterfront. So in many regards it's a very positive feature. So as the City of update process gets underway, do you think that that's something that the committee and the consultant should look at is whether or not there's some viability to link those areas together. That part of the waterfront is not in the ceded boundaries. So the committee would really need to determine whether or not they wanted to expand the boundaries of seating to include the actual waterfront. Okay. Well, I could tell you I find it very intriguing. I know that we've had developers in the past, Mr. Mayor, you might recall they've looked at trying to combine those. And I guess I would encourage the the group to at least take a look at what the potential feasibility and benefits to the city would be. Very creative idea. Thank you. Councilmember Cioffi. First of all, I want to thank city staff for arranging the presentation and also again to congratulate you. This is an extremely creative, bold, exciting plan. And I do think everyone here agrees that that particular parcel of land is probably is probably the most exciting waterfront waterfront adjacent parcel probably in Southern California that has has not been looked at in the way that you have done it. I guess I would ask, have you talked to the owner of the property about his interest in your plan? Has he seen your your award winning? Planning design. Yes. The owner was at the presentation when when we won that night and was part of the submittal to Knapp for the site to be considered. So he he has seen the plan. Okay. Well and I thought was very thoughtful on your part was to recognize the current planning situation with the need to update CDEP and what the city is going through so that there's a possibility to do things incrementally. If if a developer wanted to do that. So I'm going to thank you and hopefully everybody will keep this in mind as as the city moves forward. And it's probably one of the most exciting plans that I've seen since I've been on the city council about the use of that property. I don't know. The question would be, did you address anything about traffic mitigation? Because as we know, that has been the biggest concern right now. Traffic in that particular corner of Long Beach is already troublesome. So that was the concern about adding additional retail and other amenities in that area. We looked at mitigating traffic in two different ways. First of all, expanding capacity, doing that through dedicated right lanes, looking at potentially working with adjacent land over to create a future street shopkeeper road that would alleviate the traffic burden in terms of what we did on our site to alleviate traffic. We created more of a destination retail center where people would come in. You would actually enter the site off of a new street that we've created so that you wouldn't have cars coming off of Second or PCH or Marina. And then in addition to that, we took a second approach because every time you increase capacity, traffic is going to grow to meet that capacity. And so one of the things that we did was really educate the people and try and get the people out of their vehicles, do whatever we can to encourage people to bike to the site, encourage ride sharing programs, increase pedestrian activity. And so really, I think the two different ways that you can tackle traffic, there are two different ways that you can tackle traffic expanding capacity, but that's only going to take you so far. And so it's really finding ways to creatively bring people to the site and get them out of their vehicles. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Mr. Neil. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Gentlemen, I think your. Design is very creative, very visionary. Mr. Bodak, in regards to the height restrictions now, how does their projection fit in, in what is currently existing? Well, a project of this magnitude with the design that they've approached suggested does require some amendments to current CDP regulations, not only to allow the residential use, but to deal with the height restrictions. The height currently right now is limited to 30 feet. And so their proposal is 60 feet. That is much more in keeping their 60 foot height that they're proposing, as much more in keeping with what staff was expecting that that site should be able to accommodate. The previous proposal by the developer had much higher heights than that which were not well received by the community. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate that. I agree with Mr. DeLong. We've both long thought that this project needs to go to the water to increase its viability and its usefulness. Did a great job, and we appreciate it. You want to make a motion, please? You haven't seconded any member. The public would address the council on this item. Move aside. Gentlemen. Mr. Good. You, sir. Very good. You clearly as the address as a Buckeye. I want to commend the guys. This is, I think, the best rendering and most creative that I've seen since I've been here that's been presented to this council, notwithstanding the fact that I think this the obviously the six feet, the six storeys isn't going to fly, but everything from like this portion here is outstanding. And bringing the water in, connecting it to the water is just right in concert with what everybody is trying to do. One of the things I've looked at to try to look at is actually where Marina Drive is now is we had that like a graded and what we want is water, the actual water coming down underneath there, connecting there and connect back to Marina Pacifica. That provides another way of getting out into the water. The six stories, in fact, I was just looking at this morning. This concept here that you have. In fact, the entire concept with this certainly would be great at PCH. And second, where now the old power plants are on the other side of Studebaker. This thing would fit like a champ in there. There's some environmental issues that obviously we have to take care of, but I think this is a step in the right direction , although in terms of I question the the marketing, the attractiveness. The fact is. We're at a handicap here. Fish tastes very good, but they're for customers they don't buy. So the reason we don't have these retailers here is the just simple lack of numbers. Yes, we do have to go out to Fashion Island or to other places to get that. But we don't have the volume to justify the investment that the major retailers want to invest in here. And that will never happen. Also, we have if we have a permanent place, in my view, for a flea market right now, we're this is sort of the epicenter of flea markets in Long Beach and in California and major retailers. I don't want their name associated with the flea market. Thanks. That's good. I don't mean to put a damper on creativity, but I have five points to make and maybe it was above my head, but I didn't see them totally addressed. The first one being What is the concern for esthetics? I mean, there's no waterfalls, no baroque sculpture, no meditation, lots raging, just buildings. The second point being that allowances are not made for parking as much as they should be. And another point being that hotel rooms, hotels are going to be should be built when the hotels we have now are are underused and are really enough. There are quite a few hotels we have presently. And another point being this, that the creativity you're creating, buildings on spots that don't presently have one, have them. And it doesn't strike me as all that creative, really. Last point I would like to make is the worst traffic problem is going to be exasperated. The intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Second Street that that traffic is horrendous and you would be augmenting that. So maybe you can address those points. If not. Let us stand. Actually. Good evening. I am Patricia ETIM and I live in District three. We have for over two decades and I would really like to voice my appreciation for your brilliant idea. It was just amazing. So I am sure that many in our district and many around Long Beach would be delighted at this presentation and your absolute thoroughness. So thank you all very much. Thank you. Mr.. I am Francis Henley Dyson Harris and I reside in District one. And I just want to say I'm incomplete on what a gift you have, and it's just absolutely phenomenal and it's exciting. And I and I encourage of course, I build it now the city's going to receive and for this to look at this in the future and it just looks so positive. And I believe it's going to draw people down into that area and people that are leaving, going to other places will come back into that area. But I couldn't sit back there and not tell you that we have to give you half. And thank you so much. Next was. Hi. My name is Donna Coates, Mayor City Council. I admire your intent to get bike riders there, but unless you can lower the hill from Naples over to PCH or make huge wide bike riding lanes down Pacific Coast Highway, I doubt anyone's going to ride bikes there. I ride my bike there. Don't worry about it. He's to me. Hi. I'm Kurt Schneider. You did a great presentation. I like the project a lot. The future st. That's definitely something that you should consider. But instead of just going to Shopkeeper Road, keep going through the wetlands. And by doing so, you'll get rid of some of the congestion and also take care of a big problem our city has. We don't use our wetlands like other communities do as an asset, not a liability. If you go to Huntington Beach, their wetlands are beautiful. You want to go out there with the children and walk through them. And bike ride. Run here. You smell oil. It's nasty. If you bring a street through there and also have a, you know, walking paths along the side, you'll find that money will follow. You'll clean it up. It'll look great. Great way to take care of congestion. I love the idea of activating that area. I can't see the coastal not being in favor of it. And when Mr. Goodhue says that the retailers won't have enough bodies coming in, he doesn't know the math. We are severely under retailed. The only problem we have in Beaumont, Shaw right now is with we have more restaurants and retail because we don't have daytime traffic. We don't have office buildings. We don't have those generators to bring in all the, you know, the normal working hours for people coming in and shopping. But if you did something of this magnitude, you would be able to attract the quality, the Urban Outfitters, the know gap like we have on Second Street and the new concepts. Keep thinking. Keep imagining. Look forward to this project. I hope that everybody's listening in. The city will work well with them. Thank you. Any other comments? Thank you. Councilmember Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to add my congratulations to the team as well. It's the Ralph and Goldie Lewis Hall is where I spent many years. So I want to congratulate you for being a part of their planning school. And this is a great product. As you can see just from this council meeting, you've inspired a lot of imagination and a lot of discussion. And I hope that down the road that something like this is our potential at Second and PCH. So thank you for reviving that for us and reminding us that we don't have to tolerate the mediocre. I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Neal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just one more question, gentlemen. In regards to your concept, did you consider mobility in. In in the event of public transportation, did you reach out to any public transportation agencies? I love the walkability idea, but as far as getting more public transit there. Was that ever considered? As a resident of Belmont Shore, we did some research and talked to several people who are familiar with several agencies, such as the Water Taxi and adding additional bus stops to near the site. Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mayor. And I enjoyed the presentation. I just want to note that, well, it's good to have a robust conversation in the public. You know, I know anyone here watching to think this is only a public project and it is private land. And ultimately private property owners do have rights. And so I think our role will be to see whatever is proposed and to weigh in with the public. But I just want to note that for the record. Okay, gentlemen, I really appreciate it. Very creative idea. I'm glad you're talking to the owner. And I know that sometimes you may hear comments in here that sound like you're in a parallel universe, but don't let that discourage you. There's a lot of potential of what you have here, and it's something Mr. and Mr. Long and I have talked about. It's it's the right idea. Hopefully you can make it commercially viable. And the owner who's talking to you. That's great. Thanks again. Congratulations on your win. We have a motion and a second one was already done. It's its best motion. And second, cast your votes members. Motion carries eight votes. Yes. All right. Thank you. Will return to item 14 Global Read. Item 14 is communication with the Office Council very soon, along with the recommendation to request city attorney to draft amendment language to the Downtown Dining Entertainment District Ordinance enabling entertainment and activity on rooftop patios. Councilmember Lowenthal Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilmember, as you may recall, my commitment a few months ago to return to you with a change to our downtown dining and entertainment district ordinance once we had the opportunity to discuss rooftop entertainment with stakeholders. This request reflects conversations between my office and police, city staff, residents and owners at 144 Pine Avenue, the Corner Restaurant Group, which happens to own the only rooftop patio in the dining and entertainment district. In addition, staff's requested more explicitness with respect to the sunset clause of these conditions once the Dining and Entertainment District Task Force returns with their own set of recommendations. So I'd like to amend the motion, if I might, to include the following language. This amendment to the ordinance shall sunset upon action by the City Council, either on its own or in response to recommendations made by the Downtown Dining and Entertainment District Task Force.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Second Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado to add exhibits and to increase compensation to provide school resource officers through the Denver Police Department at various Denver Public School locations citywide. Amends an intergovernmental agreement with School District Number One by adding $721,403.84 for a new total of $2,013,785.97 for provision of School Resource Officers by the Denver Police Department at various Denver Public School locations throughout the 2019-2020 school year. No change to contract duration (POLIC-201736749-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-30-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-10-19.

DenverCityCouncil_09092019_19-0678

Alumni as Tues Council Resolution 848 has been adopted. I'm secretary. We pleased for the next item on our screens. This is 678. Councilman, I could go ahead with your comment. Thank you, Mr. President. Is anybody here who can speak about this settlement? This was the school district contract. I think this was for introduction and we skipped the. This is the one that's on the floor right now, 678 for the school district one contract. DSD not the sheriff's then can is anybody here from who can speak on this contract. This is introduction first reading. Just wanted to get a little bit more details for the public regarding what this expansion of the school resource officer budget is for. It says that it will not add an additional school resource officer to the 18 who are currently in the schools and just wanted to find out what it's about. So that's correct. So I'm a division chief. Ron Thomas, Denver Police Department brought with me Robert Gossett, Deputy Chief from DPS. So that is correct. It is 18 SRO is a 17 schools. There's two SRO that East High School. And we're not adding to that complement at all. The reason for the increase in the in the cost of the contract is the 3.25 adjustment for for the collective bargaining agreement a pay increase. And what was that exact? 2% increase? 3.25. 3.25. Correct. So has anybody is there a plan? I know this is barely going to committee. And we've had a lot of talks about disrupting the school to prison pipeline and what role policing schools plays in that. Is there any opportunity to reduce that 18 of the 18 amount of school resource officers, or is that not part of the conversation as we go into committee for this budget? Excuse me? And that has not been part of the conversation. You know, obviously, we review the contract and the terms of those contract and the numbers are they just are those that we have in. The schools every year and identify. Whether or not. They need to be moved or. Reduced or increased. So that is a continuing conversation. Thank you. And can when when you guys get to committee, can you be sure to bring us information about where these 18 officers are placed and how we determined where to place them? And if if there is any possibility to reduce the amount of school resource officers that we're using and shift our focus to the mental health workers, the social workers that we've been hearing about talking about. That would be helpful. Sure. I can tell you I can tell you who's where right now. But whenever whenever you're ready for those answers. We can get we can get that to the public in committee. Just wanted to make sure that our Monday night viewers are in the loop, that it's come in and they can participate and listen as well. Certainly. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman Herndon, would you please put Bill 818 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 2019 081 to be ordered published. In Singapore. Our system to catch up. Looks like we still need a second round secretary on a real set here. Here we go. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council councilmen.

AN ORDINANCE relating to termination of residential rental tenancies; prohibiting evictions in winter months; and amending Section 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_02032020_CB 119726

And Madam Clerk, from up here I see six votes for I. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Thank you, Councilmember. Let's go back to item number two. Report of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee. You please read the report into the record. The report of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee Agenda Item to cancel 119 726 relating to termination of residential rental tenancies, prohibiting evictions in winter months and amending Section 22.20 6.1 60 and CNN Pacifica. The committee recommends that the bill passed as amended. Wonderful Councilmember Strauss. Councilmember Pro tem. I move to hold council bill 119726 until February 20/10, 2020. It has been moved. I will second that to may i second that. Okay, great. It's been moved and seconded that we hold the bill until February ten, 2020. Are there any additional comments? No. Looks like. Can I? Yes, please. Councilman Morales ask why I'd be interested in voting. I think I feel like we've discussed this bill. And are there additional amendments that are forthcoming that we need to anticipate? Thank you, Councilmember Morales. I see heads nodding this way. I'm happy. Councilmember I, I myself have a number of amendments to bring forward and we'll be sharing those with your office, Councilmember Swan, shortly. And I believe that this bill has a little bit more work to to have accomplished before it's ready for full council. Councilmember one I'll just quickly add that we, in response to Councilmember Morales's very question that we do, we did have a very energetic discussion and thorough discussion in the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee on January 23rd. And in fact, the legislation that was discussed was itself an amended version based on the feedback we had already received from tenants, rights advocates and also small landlords. I am happy to look at amendment that are forthcoming, but I would really urge the council offices to send us the amendments as soon as possible so that we have time to review them. Wonderful and appreciate the dialog this morning as well at council briefing. It sounds like this is a friendly request to hold and appreciate the council colleagues working together on this. And I appreciate the question from Councilman Morales, as we're all eager to see the language. Being worked up and I know the community is as well without any additional hands that I see requesting to comment. It's been moved and seconded to hold the bill until February ten, 2020, seeing no additional comments. All those in favor of holding the bill. Please vote I and raise your hand I. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Madam Clerk, it appears that there are six votes in favor of holding the bill until February ten, 2020. The motion carries and the Council bill 119726 will be held until that time. Council colleagues, thank you so much for your indulgence. This is my first day back from family leave and acting as president pro tem. I appreciate your working with needs to get through this full agenda. But before we wrap up before we wrap up counsel. Counsel, colleagues, are there any more is there any more business to come before the court.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Nossaman LLP concerning special counsel services for implementation of the development agreement for the Great Hall project at Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with Nossaman LLP for $538,000 and through 06-30-22 to assist in the implementation of the development agreement for the Great Hall during the design and construction phase including providing legal analyses during implementation and to assist with the review and preparation of related correspondence and documents at Denver International Airport (2018-42194). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-23-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-20-18.

DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0625

All right. And under pending, we have no items called out that I miss anything. Members of council. All right, Councilman. Madam Secretary, put the first item on our screen. Councilman Lopez, please. Council resolution 625 on the floor for adoption. Thank you. Mr. President, I move that Council resolutions series of 2018 625 be adopted. All right. It has been moved. And second, it comes from the council. Councilman Gilmore. Thank you, President Brooks. I will be abstaining from this vote due to my brother in law's construction business having an interest in the Great Hall Project ranked. Any other question? Speakers. Madam Secretary, roll call. Gilmore abstain. Herndon. High. Cashman. All right. Can eat right. Lopez High New Ortega High. Sussman Black. Clark Espinosa. Flynn I. Mr. President. I play I very nice results. 12 zero nays one abstention. Were missing one no are not is right on. Okay, Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Resolution five, 95, 99 on the floor for adoption?

A bill for an ordinance adopting a new Article VIII in Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, to be known as the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. Amends Chapter 28 of the Revised Municipal Code to add a new Article VIII related to public safety enforcement that will provide the following: memorializes existing City policy by prohibiting the detention of individuals beyond their sentence; memorializes predominant City practices by prohibiting City employees from collecting information on immigration or citizenship status; prohibits the sharing of any other information about individuals for purposes of immigration enforcement; and, memorializes predominant practices by prohibiting use of city resources or City cooperation with civil immigration enforcement, including prohibiting providing access to secure areas or facilities. This bill was approved for filing by Councilmembers Kniech and Lopez.

DenverCityCouncil_08282017_17-0940

I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce results tonight. Tonight's count, about 755 has passed. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 940 on the floor? Yes, I move that council bill 940 will be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The one hour courtesy public hearing for council bill 940 is open. May we have the overview? Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Kinney and Mr. Broadwell. I'll let you take it from here. Thank you, Mr. President. I've been waiting once to get to this point. Counsel Bill 940 series of 2017 is known as the public. The Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. And it will basically provide the following regarding public safety enforcement. First, it will memorialize city policy by prohibiting the detention of individuals beyond their sentence. Second, it'll memorialize predominant city practices by prohibiting city employees from collecting information on immigration or citizenship status. Third, it will prohibit the sharing of other information and other information about individuals for the purposes of immigration enforcement. It'll memorialize predominant practices by prohibiting the use of city resources or city cooperation with city with civil immigration enforcement, including prohibiting providing access to secure areas or facilities. So we will get a little bit more into this. But I wanted to pass this over to my co-sponsor, my wonderful colleague, Councilman Ken, each to to further explain some more details of the bill. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Mr. Chair. A few things to add in terms of the bill. It also prohibits the city from entering into any agreements with the federal government that would have us working on behalf of immigration enforcement, cooperation agreements, contracts, anything like that. And the city will always honor judicial warrants. This is the key, fundamental due process item in our U.S. Constitution to ensure that there's probable cause and to ensure that the correct person is being apprehended. And so if and when a judicial warrant is presented, then the city will be fully in compliance with that. Secondly, there is only one federal law that governs immigration enforcement in cities, and that is eight U.S.C. 1373. It requires that the city share immigration status information about an individual if we know it and if we're asked. The bill explicitly references that the city does and will continue to comply with that federal law. And also it has a clause requiring us to continue to comply with any other state or federal laws, which may involve checking on immigration status for immigration. I'm sorry for to see if someone's qualified for certain benefits. So where the law requires us to screen individuals, we will do that. However, unless the law requires us to collect that information or share it, we will not be doing that. We will be in full compliance with the law, but it will limit our actions beyond what the law requires. Lastly, while the jail may provide a notification of anticipated release times, this can only occur if individuals are advised of their legal rights. This allows individuals an opportunity to seek an attorney, right. If they if they choose to do so before their release. So it ensures that individuals are better advised of their rights. And lastly, the jail will report data to this council and to the administration on a regular basis so that we can closely monitor the types of requests that are happening at the jail, and so that we can continue the conversation about how these practices are impacting our city. So this is a tough area, and the bill intends to continue our conversation about it. With that, I will see if there's anything that our city attorney, David Bravo, would like to add. David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney That was an excellent overview of the bill. I'll be available for questions after they arise after the hearing. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. We do have 32 individuals signed up to speak this evening. Per our rules, the courtesy hearing is only one hour long. And so while you are granted 3 minutes, we will have to cut off speakers at the hour, Mark. And so I'll just ask you to be as concise in your words as possible. If someone before you has covered the same point that you were, you can reference that and seed time so that we can get as many people through as possible. And I do apologize to those of you in the front row, but in order to keep things going so we don't waste half of that hour just getting people to the front, I am going to ask if you're sitting in the front row, if you could please stand up. Everybody get nice and cozy. Scoot over. Let's make room for these folks so that we can. I'm going to call five speakers up at a time to have in this front row so that we can just get through as many people and get as many voices heard as possible. So I'm going to call the first five speakers and then we'll start our hour when the first speaker starts. I do apologize if I mispronounce your name, if you could make your way up to this front bench and we're saving the front bench just for the five who are called. And once you're done, you can go back and then I'll call up five again. So the first five that we have today are Victor Galvan, Kristin Wade, Ray Macias, Rigoberto Perez and Chairman Sekou, if you could all please come to the front pew. And a first is Victor Galvin. Thank you, Chair, and thank. You, counsel, for letting me speak. Today. My name is Victor Galvan. I am the director of membership and engagement at the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. I am also undocumented and a resident of Denver. I grew up here in Denver. I call it home and out of personal experience. I know what it's like to live in Denver and feel like you don't have equal protection of your constitutional rights, your right to feel safe and call on the police when you need to. And I've also seen this second hand at the hands of of our and by some of our members. The coalition is made up of 68 organizations across the state, many of them here in Denver. And through that, we've been able to do work to improve Colorado laws that improve the rights of immigrants here in the state of Colorado. And as a part of that, it's collecting stories of people who have been impacted by immigration law, both by federal, state and local ordinances. Some of those stories include people who refuse to call the police when they saw a crime because they felt that they couldn't call on them because of their collaboration with immigration. Some of them. Called on police and were later. Were later arrested based on their immigration status. And that is also due to some nasty laws that were passed in the state of Colorado in 2006, but also some of that. And because of the the conjunction of of work between immigration and our local law enforcement, I am I am here asking you to pass this ordinance so that people can call the police, they can call on them and help the police solve crimes and and get to the bottom of issues and protect people and serve them the way that they were meant to. This is not about immigration. Although immigrants will be greatly impacted by this ordinance, we want to make sure that the community is safe for everyone. That means that if I see a crime and I am an immigrant, that I have the confidence to pick up the phone. And that the police will come and protect me and serve you. So I ask that you vote in support of this ordinance. I hope that you see that a community that protects immigrants is also protecting everyone. So I ask you to vote in favor of this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Kristen Wade. And I will. I will ask you to hold your applause until the end so that we can keep getting making sure as many voices get hurt. Thank you. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Kristen Wade. I am a resident of Aurora and member of Colorado People's Alliance. I'm here to urge the council to vote in support of this community led immigrant protection policy that takes crucial steps to protect Denver's immigrant community, as well as our city as a whole. Due to the increased focus of the new administration on enforcing harsher, harsher immigration policies. Xenophobic initiatives are already being implemented at the national level, and it has begun to affect us here in the Denver metro area. Parents are already being ripped from their families, incarcerated and deported, forced to leave children behind. Those children are the future of our city, our state and our country. I urge you to consider what impact the unnecessary loss of a supportive nuclear family structure will have on the development of this next generation of Denver's workers, leaders and neighbors. Though I live in Aurora, the enactment of this policy in Denver will not only have a ripple effect to the neighboring communities such as Aurora, who has yet to take proactive steps to protect their own immigrant communities but also set an example for the rest of the state. I want to see Denver become a city that protects all of our families, not one where ICE is allowed to run rampant. Though this policy is only the first step and much work still remains to protect our immigrant communities, it is an essential first step. Please vote in favor of this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Ray Macias. Ray. All right. Next up, Rigoberto Perez. Thank you. Members of the city council for allowing me to speak today. My name is Rigoberto Perez. I am 74 years old. I was born in Mexico and I become a citizen of the United States two years ago to vote in the elections. I am here to ask that city council support this law. I have many close friends who are afraid to call the police because of their immigration status, and that is simple for her. They should be able to be feel. Safe to call the police when you need and not worry about getting deported and. Separated from their families. Please. But yes. On these low. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Chairman Siku and I'm going to call it the next five. If you could make your way to the front, Howard Dotson, Sofia Chavez, Rick Bailey, Maria Diego and Vic Ahmed Sherman, thank you. All right. Thank you again. Chairman Sekou Black Star Action Movement, founder, organizer representing poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens. You know, it's. Very rare that. I take pride in this city council. Because I know you're going to ask this. I mean, you got to be kidding me. And when we're talking about a very serious time now where the pendulum has swung. And folks want to take us back to the day two when there was nothing but a white supremacy. Male Privilege Society. That was pretty much stuck in their own paradigm because they wasn't thinking about nobody else but them. And so when you have a president that talks about taking it back to the day and going, no problem with that, let's take it back to before 1492. Let's take it back because if we take it back to that, there ain't but one immigrant in this country. And that's the European. That's the only one. And so as we break through this neocolonial domestic colonialism that seeks to make the people who are the original owners of the land. Strangers in their own house. We got to fix this. We got to fix it. And so I want to thank Robin. And Paul for having. And then, you know, the background player here, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, of creating legislation that will protect those that are unprotected. And build upon a legacy of human rights. Because now is the time. We don't seize the time now to speak out and stand up as a local, organize people that are here for the advancement of all civilization. That can set the record straight that we. Our nation. Under God. Indivisible when it comes to the liberty and sanctity of human life. And so we stand for this and we stand for this in the name of Frank Zapata, who was the first president of an independent Mexico. Where if chairman think your time is up. You can come to Mexico and be free. Thank you very much. Next up, Howard Dodson. I'm sure it's even chairman. Council members really want to affirm. What you're discerning tonight. I'm from Loveland, but I preach at People's Presbyterian Church in Denver. I've worked with six police departments in the last 11 years. I've walked with 104 families after a homicide. The journey began in L.A. with a three week old baby that was hit by a stray bullet. Chief Bratton asked me to help because we could not get the suspects because the people were afraid to work with the police. And Parker Center. I sat there and watched those mother's tears. And the anxiety that she was not going to get justice for her baby. We need those bridges. We need to know that our officers are there to protect and serve and that they're not there to work for ice. Ice is a federal responsibility, and that's where it belongs. Our founding fathers were wise. Those tears and baby Garcia and all those families. Who hope for justice. Community policing is critical. And I'll share with you the letter that I had Chief Bratton write. When we were facing SB 1070 and it was spreading to Nebraska and the implications when you could not fulfill, protect and serve. I've been a witness to an ICE raid. I've seen ICE agents arrest somebody across the hall from me. And I saw what it did to my entire apartment complex because in the barrio, my name is Tio Gringo. Those are my kids. I want them to go to school. I don't want them wearing colors. I don't want to see any more broken hearts. But we don't have those bridges in our community. Too often those kids get recruited. And I see more mother's tears. In 2008, we had the Republican National Convention in Saint Paul. I'm a kid from Lake Wobegon. And Steve Earle turn the speakers over to the RNC. And he sang a song that I encourage you to YouTube tonight. City of Immigrants. If I could just close with the course. All of us are immigrants. Every doctor, every some. Every one is every one. All of us are immigrants. Every one. You too. Thank you very much. Sofia Chavez. My name is Sophia Chavez and I live in Lakewood and I work on South Federal and Louisiana. I also have a small practice of a doctorate in natural medicine, and I offer Native American and Mexican holistic and integrative treatments. The people that have been coming to see me lately have conditions which. Are beyond my scope of practice. And so when I refer them. To their. Physician and I tell them, you probably need to see a specialist, but you need to go see your. Doctor. People are afraid to go to the larger health care agencies. I work for a. Larger health care. Agency, and we did the research. They're not safe. In our parking lot. They're not safe in our bathrooms. They're not safe in our lobby. The only place that they are completely safe from ICE is in our treatment rooms. So people are afraid to seek out. The health care that they need and the services that they need. So we need to do everything that we can to change that. The people that come to see. Me are really good, hardworking. Honest individuals that have lived here for many, many years and have contributed to. Denver's economy. And I feel that we need to be able to stand up and take care of them. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Rick Bailey. Good evening. My name is Rick Bailey. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the American Friends Service Committee. I am a resident of District ten and Councilman New, thank you for your support in the committee. We look forward to your future support. Of this bill. The American Friends Service Committee. Strongly supports the bill as a great step in the. Direction of justice. But it is a first step, and that is shown by the recent pardon by President Trump of Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona. I'm also a trial lawyer, and so I'm going to explain that briefly. There is more that needs to be done beyond this bill. So it's a great first step, but we need to take more steps and we're looking forward to working with you on those. One of those steps is to keep ice out of the court, the courtroom, as a trial lawyer, my client, whether it's a civil case or a criminal case, needs to be focused only on their case , not on worrying about whether ICE is going to detain them in the courthouse. That is justice. I would say that in this bill, the requirements for judicial warrants are also a strong step towards justice. So we strongly support the bill. We urge you to vote in favor it. And we look forward to working. With you in the future. On keeping ice out of the courthouses and also in protecting against notifications. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Maria Diego. Hi everyone. Thank you for having me here on council members. My name is Maria Diego. I am a resident of Mom Bello and a volunteer with Mi Familia Vota. I am here to strongly support the Denver Public Safety Priorities Enforcement Ordinance. As a member of the immigrant community, I see the effects that threats to the government, the federal government to deport immigrants have in our community. People are skeptical to have any interactions with government entities, particularly with local law enforcement. Massive deportations cost our city. It also traumatizes our children's like minors. And it makes it even more difficult for victims and witness of crime to come forward. If if law enforcement is involved. Interpretation. I urge members of City Council to support this ordinance because as a community, we will ensure that our city officials and our city resident are living and working together in a safe and welcoming environment. Because Denver does not leave people behind regardless of their immigration status. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Next up, we have Vic Mente and well. And I'll call up the next group of speakers, Joy Thunders, Sisu, Andrea Savage, Philippe Gerard, Dino Julie Gonzalez, Karen Oppenheim, Tony Fagan and Tim Lopez. If you could all make your way up to this front pew. Go ahead. Mr. mayor, pro tem members of the city council. Good evening I'm vic comment. I live at 30th and raise. I want to thank counsel, woman at large Kennish and Councilman Lopez for sponsoring this ordinance. As a member of People Power. I met with them in. January as they were drafting this ordinance. You will vote on this evening. I am one of the 60 citizens that met with the police chief and the ACLU is nine points. I have been present at the committee meetings that were public. About this ordinance. And I was present at your last meeting to ensure that it made it to the today. I'm not a current immigrant. My ancestral family went through Ellis Island in the 1880s. I was born of American citizens. And I've had the benefit of all of the amazing things this country has to offer. The actions of the current administration in DC are not of the America that I grew up in and love. ICE is acting more like stormtroopers than law enforcement agents. I urge you to proudly. And quickly. Enact this ordinance to protect our neighbors. And our friends. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Joy, I thought to say you. Good evening. My name is Joy Attanasio, and I would like to thank all of the council members for supporting this ordinance this evening. And I would like to urge everyone to support this ordinance and to support future ordinances like this. Your job as city council members is to enact laws to protect Denver residents and to enact laws that are in the best interests of Denver. Your job is also to comply with the U.S. Constitution and to comply with federal and state law. This ordinance does all of that. In fact. It is ice. Practices that are violating the U.S. Constitution. And it is the actions of our current administration that are violating the U.S. Constitution, and we have a duty to stand up to it, regardless of who is violating, regardless of whether it's the federal government or the president or a random individual. We have a duty to stand up. To anyone violated the U.S. Constitution. There have been several courts who have already issued decisions that detaining individuals after the time of their release violates the Constitution. There have also been more recent decisions, and it is the opinion of many constitutional scholars around the U.S. that notification practices and information sharing. Also raise. Those same constitutional concerns. The issue that we're talking. About is the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which precludes the federal government from coercing state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program like immigration. The federal laws themselves. Congress has recognized that local police officers are not required to enforce immigration laws. Our U.S. Supreme. Court has recognized. Including a recent decision in 1997 with a. Decision by Justice Scalia. Said the federal government may. Neither command the states. Officers or those of the political subdivisions to administer or enforce a federal regulatory. Program. This ordinance simply codifies our existing practices to comply with the Constitution and to comply with federal law. And that's important that Denver have a bright line ordinance that tells the world and all of the employees of the city of Denver what and. How to follow those. Rules. This ordinance also simply tells ICE to do their job. If they want someone from our jail, if they want information on someone in our city, they need to get a warrant like any other law enforcement agency is expected to do. They need to follow the rules. We should not be compelled to spend our money. Our budget, our local taxes to do. I'm sorry. Your time is up. Period. Thank you. Next up, Andrea Savage. Everyone, I want to thank you all for a yes vote on this policy tonight. Thank you to Commissioner Lopez for your leadership on this policy. It means a lot to the community. I want to express. But could you just state your name for the record? Oh, Andrea Savage. Thanks. I won't express gratitude and urgency to keep ice out of courts. So thank you for doing what we've done so far and urgency to move forward in keeping ice out of safe spaces. Myself, Patrick Hovnanian knew those COPPA and all the other organizations worked on this policy. We'll keep fighting and we are very happy that Kevin Flynn has expressed interest in leading the charge on keeping ice out of the courts. And we're looking forward to your leadership. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Philippe Gerard, you know. Good afternoon. My name is Filippo Giardino. Rossi. I'm a business owner, entrepreneur and Latino leader. And on behalf of my community, I want to say thank you, Mr. President, for the city council, City Councilman Lopez and the mayor. Um. I'm just very excited and happy about what I'm seeing today. But we need more. We need more than. This is a big accomplishment for our community to be here today addressing this matter. Like I say, in behalf of the community, I wanted to say thank you for presenting this act. But I believe if you say yes, if you guys vote yes, you guys are going to going to create a synergy between our loan officers. I mean, our law enforcement officers and our communities. There is going to be great something that we need that we've been fighting for for a long time, not only for the city, but for the state, for our country. So please vote yes. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Julie Gonzalez. Thank you, members of council. My name is Julie Gonzalez, and I'm here to testify in support of this measure. I'm representing here today the Meier law office, who formed part of a coalition of over 50 organizations, who has worked incredibly diligently over the past eight months to make this policy get to this point here before you all tonight. And it's just an honor and a privilege to be standing alongside so many people here in this room. I'm actually kind of nervous here being in front of you all. But I do want to say that immediately following the election of Donald Trump, our community was beset by fear and anxiety and anger and worry. And so at the Meyer Law Office, we began know your rights presentations in church basements, in libraries, in school cafeterias and in people's homes. And we brought this issue to the to the city. And quite frankly, it's been an eight month journey to one let our city elected officials know that this is a problem of ice infiltrating our local government. Some of them, some members of council didn't believe us when we said that ICE was conducting arrests in our courthouses until we actually filmed ICE going and without warrants trying to arrest people within our courthouses. And so it's been a process of learning and it's been a process of beginning to work together that, like I said, it's an eight month process and it took a long time. But here we are today. And, you know, I think that we are better when we and we are strongest when we work together. So thank you for that. Members of Council. This policy is going to draw a line, a clear line in the sand between the Denver employees and ICE, and particularly in a moment in which we find Daka hanging by a thread. This policy is more important than ever, and so this is a policy that will proactively protect our community. And so in the last minute that I have left, I know that there are many people here who are who would like to speak, who will not be able to. And so I'd just like to turn around and and invite folks, if you are in support of this community. And I'd like you to stand up. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Kieran Oppenheim. Thank you. Council members. My name is Karen OP and I am a member of Colorado People's Alliance and a Denver resident. On November 9th, 1938, my grandmother's father rescued the Tora and their small town of Verner, Germany. This was Kristallnacht, the night of the broken glass where German SS officers vandalize Jewish owned businesses, breaking the glass of storefronts, harassing and harming Jews. My great grandfather was badly beaten. I grew up hearing stories from survivors of ostracization, of discrimination, of targeting and profiling and of assimilation. And sadly, I see parallels under this new administration's ICE agency. Several generations later, I have many privileges that other immigrant stories here today lack. I think about the fear that my friends who are immigrants live in. I think about the emotional labor and pure exhaustion that my friends who are community organizers experience when they are protecting their own communities and living in fear simultaneously. And I think about where this could head if we fail to take a stand. And that should not be on them. It should be on all of us. It is our moral imperative to protect all of our community members by ensuring our city is not doing ICE's job for them. I urge City Council to take this important step in protecting our community and to pass the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Tony Fagan. Good evening. My name is Tom Fagan, not Tony. Tom. I live in LoDo and I am, by the way, a proud immigrant. I'm here tonight to voice my strong support for this bill and to urge you all to pass it and pass it quickly and unanimously. There are two basic reasons for this. One is on principle. We're currently in a national political environment that is dangerous, divisive and toxic. And people are looking to the states and the great cities across the country to be the standard bearers for the values that used to be espoused by the country as a whole. This is Denver's opportunity to fulfill its duty as one of those great cities and to distance itself from the toxicity. The second reason is much more immediate and practical, and it's that if you do not do this, you're going to discourage and deter both witnesses and victims of violence from working with the police to find the perpetrators . And that's bad news for the safety of everybody in the city. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Tim Lopez and I'm going to call the next group of speakers severe your name. Come up to the front pew, Alexa Bylon, Corinne Riviera Fowler, Dana miller, Salvador Hernandez. Laura PANITCH, Maria Cruz Herrera and Denise Meyers. Go ahead. Good afternoon. Good evening, Mr. Chair. And Council Members. My name is Tim Lopez, and I represent criminal justice for the Democratic Party of Denver. I'm also a member of public policy and my committee chair, Lou Irwin, is there and provided you with a resolution that was passed through the Democratic Party of Denver. I'm hoping that one of you will do the honor of reading it into the record for us, because 3 minutes does not allow us to do that. But let me tell you, I encourage you by writing a letter at first committee hearing, telling you to pass this unanimously. And I'm here today to tell you, please do that again. It passed through criminal justice unanimously. We put the resolution together at public policy, hammered it out, and it passed again unanimously. And it was my honor to make the motion to move the resolution forward to the executive committee for the Democratic Party. I was able to stand side by side with Lou Irwin and present that at the executive committee, where once again, after much discussion, it was passed unanimously. So at this point, I would ask that you guys follow up and do this as well. I have to tell you, it's an honor to be standing here with my brothers and sisters who've been working on immigration for many years, and to also see members of council who have been working on it for many years as well. I know that over the last ten years there have been many that we have worked with and the organizations that really Gonzales spoke with, we have worked with as well. So it's most important that the city of Denver sends out this message that we will stand together and be the voice for those who do not have a voice at a current time. We must support our communities and we must follow up and usher in and continue the support of immigration and taking care of our communities and those that are not represented, those that feel threatened to go to schools, those that feel threatened to go to the courthouse and those that feel threatened to go into. Public buildings is most important. That we all take our time and reflect for the things that we take for granted as Americans. And in the United States, in the state of Colorado and the city of Denver, that we follow up and we do our jobs and hold ourselves accountable for those that are voiceless at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Alexa Bylon. Hello. My name is Alexa by Lone, and I'm a fourth year biochemistry student at Metropolitan State University. And I and I am an immigrant. Writing this testimony, I was trying to get into a nonimmigrant mind to explain why it's important to keep our immigrant community safe from the federal government in a way that appealed to, not to the non-infected. All I could think about is how Denver could not possibly be the diverse and wonderful place it is today without the support the immigrant community brings. Growing up aware of my status always kept me in fear of law enforcement. I would be more scared of cops and scary movies. My greatest fear was to be separated from the ones I love most. As a as a child, I would ride my scooter with my little sister, my little neighbors up and down the block. And if we saw a cop drive by. My first instinct was to hurry home and hide. I would think about how much I needed my mom. And I didn't want to be separated from her. I mean, I didn't know how to wash my clothes. And the only thing I knew how to cook was cereal. So I didn't want to live off of cereal. And as I grew into a teenager and developed into a young woman, I have always kept fear and just develop into different forms. The fear of being pushed, the fear of being pushed into communities by the federal government is more forceful than when I was growing up. I cannot imagine the fear that is being implemented into families today. I have been in Denver since I was two months old. I love this city and I'm studying to give back to the community I love so much. We must protect our immigrants because we are members of the community that love the city just as much as anybody else who are students and parents improving themselves to give back to the community and help our city grow and develop into the beautiful place that it is. Denver shouldn't be a place where you hide from cops but feel protected by them instead. We are so much better than allowing the federal government create a community of fear. So I ask that you support this bill because Denver needs it. I also know that there is more that we must do during the process to pass the bill. Councilman Flynn and others question the effects that this bill would truly have on safety. We are glad that our council members understand that we need to do more and we look forward to working with all of you for more solutions . Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, Corinne Rivera Fowler. Thank you. Council members. My name is Karen Rivera Fowler. I'm the policy and civic engagement director at Padres Seahawk in Encinitas. We are a member led organization. We have been fighting for racial right, fighting against racial discrimination in our schools, struggling for justice and working to expand and protect the rights of immigrants for over 25 years. On November 9th, our nation woke up to the reality that we had elected an openly racist man who had called Mexican immigrants criminals, drug dealers and rapists. A man who promised to build a wall across our southern border to keep the brown people out. It was shocking and unbelievable. On November 16th, immigrant rights groups and allies came together and the Resistance Network was born. Tonight, this council will pass an ordinance that is the product of input from affected community. The organizing of the resistance and the leadership of Councilman Lopez and councilwoman can each. Throughout this process, we have heard some opposition. We have heard that we don't need this ordinance because so many things addressed here are already in practice. I say that this policy cannot pass soon enough. Since January 20th, our communities have been under constant and daily attack. It is really as if we wake up each morning and ask ourselves what new policy threat or just plain insulting action this executive branch will act on. And as time goes on, his example is permeating throughout our society. And as we witnessed in Charlottesville, racist white supremacists have been given license to hate openly in our public spaces. Just a few days ago with the pardon of Sheriff Arpaio, our community was struck not in the back, but right in the face when our highest office is propping up racial violence and for giving public safety officers who have been convicted of racial discrimination and abused. We must take action. We must resist the passage of this ordinance. The changes to our statute will be in law and on the books. There will be there to hold every public official accountable. These laws will be there to draw a clear line. This ordinance is meaningful to our community. This ornaments means that we have each other's backs in Denver. The last time I checked, this was still a democracy and the rights of all people in this nation were protected under the Constitution. This ordinance solidifies those rights and holds true to the values of our city. Tonight, we celebrate the passage of this ordinance. Tomorrow, we look forward to continuing to work with our council and our mayor. We will continue to resist against a federal government that is going too far. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Dana miller. Dana miller. Hi everyone. I just want to say that my name is Dana miller. I am so proud to be a resident of Denver, Colorado tonight and to be able to stand behind this coalition and the city council who took on a really, really difficult issue. And you've worked really hard to get where you are. And all I want to say is thank you to the community and to the city council on behalf of Indivisible, Denver, Indivisible, front range resistance and other indivisible groups across the metro area. Thank you. Thank you. Salvador Hernandez. Hello. Members of City Council. My name is Lauren Anders. This. I am the civic engagement coordinator with the Mi Familia Vota. Um, I'm here to speak on behalf of the immigrant community that I am a part of and, and, and, and in support of this ordinance. More specifically, I want to touch on a key issue that is, I think is critical for the public safety of all the people of Denver, and that is being able to trust your local police department. When I was 19, I was gunned down after getting off from work. I was walking home after my shift had ended around midnight and two men approached me. They robbed me and shot me five times. Two of my torso went through my lung when my back and went through my right bicep. After that. I spend about ten days in the hospital recuperating and about a month and a half at home. I found myself a victim of gun violence, and I almost didn't make it. At that time I was undocumented, and although I am a recipient of a U visa permit, I'm still. Consider myself one of the persons who's at risk from. Deportation. At that time, I had no doubts that the police would not question. Where I'm from or where I am a citizen of. Or my immigration status. The sole purpose of our local law enforcement should be to keep everyone safe. I cannot imagine not being able to trust the police in a situation like this. This is why I strongly encourage the members of this council to vote yes on this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Laura PANITCH. Good evening. My name is Laura Fincher. I'm a mother, recipient of Dacca, a community leader with together Colorado and a disciple of Christ. As a person who has lived undocumented in Colorado for over 20 years, I am here to testify in favor of all policy that protects human rights. As a person of Christ and child of God, I am here to testify that God is real. He speaks to us constantly, loud and clear, and I am listening and I have faith in him and believe his word, which tells us that the day is here now when the criminalization of discrimination and exploitation of immigrants will be over with. Undocumented or not, all immigrants will have the same rights and protections as any other Americans. We will be able to stay here and build homes work. Pursue a higher education. Pay and claim taxes. We will have the right to vote to drive a vehicle access to health care and a retirement plan. The right to live without fear of being snatched away from our homes, families and communities. Because I have faith in God and I know him. I believe in him. And I'm certain that very soon immigrants and refugees will no longer be rejected, discriminated, criminalized or oppressed, but only be accepted regardless of their backgrounds. We will have the same human right to thrive and survive in this land as righteous children of God. I'm in favor of God's plan, and all of you here present tonight are a testimony that his plan is real and that all of the things I have testified are true and must take place. I testify these things in the name of Jesus Christ be my. Thank you. Next up, my Cruz Herrera. When I started this. I mean, Sara e we were not in the moment. Good evening. My name is Marie Cruiser. Sara and I live in the Montebello neighborhood. Oh, Ebola blood in your mother. Me, corazon. Impressive story. Orlando in Espanol. I'm going to speak in my heart language this evening. That's why I'm speaking in Spanish. Estoy aqui representan me comunidad hint the trouble. Laura honest that it could get us. It could get us that a shelter. I am here representing my community. This is working, working class community honest and they want to be heard or represent. I'm Familias San Familias Justin Aqui no stamp present this aqui better standing corazon. I am here representing 100 families. They are not here presence but they are here in their with their hearts and they are in support of this of this bill. So look at our Atlas and look at Yosemite here on LA. Only because Palavras kills me here on Casillas. Then you get out of Puerto Clara. So stay this. I'm going to share with you the words that they asked me to give you. And they asked me to give these words loud and clear. See if the animals. You do have a voice, Akeelah CNN, and you have it here. That's yes. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Denise, Maze and Denise. Well, Denise is working your way up. I'm going to call the next speakers, Father Joseph, Dang, Lou Erwin, Pedro Canelo, Margaret Bruguera and Sarah Morris. If you could work your way up to the front, go ahead. Mr. President, members of council. My name is Denise Myers, and I am the public policy director of the ACLU of Colorado. And we are here in strong support of the ordinance before you. We want to thank council members Robin Kinney and Paul Lopez for bringing this ordinance forward. We think clearly that this ordinance represents sound public policy, and it also is in complete compliance with state and federal law and any and all constitutional mandate. It is sound public policy entanglement between city officials and ICE officials clearly undermines public safety and it undermines community trust in local law enforcement. What this ordinance does is pretty straightforward. It says ICE. You will do your job and city and county workers will do theirs. This dissent, this delineation. Really sends an important message to the immigrant community, their friends and their families. And that message and that message resonate clearly. We have your back. We care for the safety of you and your family. You and your community. And the community at large. This ordinance is completely consistent with federal and state law and constitutional mandates. The Denver Post today ran an interesting article and it had a quote from a think tank that is conservative on immigration related issues. And those those particular observers said that really what this Denver ordinance is doing will be overshadowed by some of the more bold actions that are being taken in other cities. In other cities. In other words, councilmembers. You have nothing to worry about with regard to compliance with federal and state law. Now, though, this ordinance could be bolder. Regardless, it is a significant and important first step. At the end of the day, one, this is important public policy. Two. It is in complete compliance with all relevant law. And third, the bottom line. It is the right thing for this great city to do at the right time. I urge a unanimous yes vote. Thank you. Thank you. Father Joseph Deng. Right, Lou Irwin. My name is Lou Irwin. I'm chair of the Public Policy Committee at the Democratic Party of Denver. And I appear tonight on behalf of the executive committee of the county party, which, as Tim Lopez indicated, unanimously endorsed this ordinance on August 15th. We recognize that. Enforcement of immigration policy is a responsibility. The federal government. We also. However strongly. Agree with the mission of the city to place priority on protection of the security and safety of its residents. We believe this. Ordinance does that clearly. Effectively and legally. The ordinance provides clear guidance and promotes systematic enforcement. Of policies, whether those are ongoing current practices or new policies. The ordinance recognizes the dedication and goodwill of employees of. The city and our public safety officers. The ordinance. Also, we believe, we hope, brings a measure of relief. To residents unsure of the. City's. Position on immigration enforcement. Finally, we endorse the compromise between proponents of this ordinance and the mayor and others who are concerned with the prospect of releasing dangerous felons into the community without warning. We believe that the adjustments to the ordinance strike. The appropriate balance. Between that concern and the principle purposes of the ordinance. So for these reasons and the other reasons enumerated in the resolution before you, we strongly endorse passage of the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Pedro Canelo. Pedro Carrillo. When I started, guys. Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you. City council's to be here. I'm leaving them there since 1988, 1988, when my mom's bring me and my brother to this country. She is she living in Denver since 1990, 1989. She and my brothers living here in this beautiful country, this beautiful state since 1988. She is a legal resident and she applied for me and my brother in 2001. Since 2001. At this time, I'm waiting to relooked, regularize my papers, my situation here in this country. But for these laws, I not be able to be realized still. And I looking for that. That's what I'm asking you here today to approve this ordinance. I'm work in Denver. I'm go to the school in Denver. I'm also I'm a part of this. You look local one of five since 2007. I work as a janitor in one of those beautiful buildings here in Colorado. Please see, the council's be up, and your heart helped me, my brother, my family, and many of families in this beautiful estate to be walk free in the streets, to be work free in the streets. We need this ordinance. We need help from you and for all these people whose being here. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Margaret Burger. Hi, everyone. Thank you for your time tonight. My name is Margaret Brugger. I am a resident and I am a licensed clinical social worker. I work at the Mental Health Center of Denver as a bilingual child and family therapist. I also teach in the Graduate School of Social Work at Denver University. There is where I teach about social work and social justice and child and adolescent trauma. I want to be clear. We have entered into a situation that is creating terror and diagnosable trauma in our communities with what is going on with immigration and immigration officers . I have diagnosed many kids, some as young as five, with post-traumatic stress disorder in relation to what is going on. For those of you that don't know PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder includes cheerfulness, crying uncontrollably, extreme fear, isolation, exaggerated startle response, anxiety, depression, trouble focusing in school, intrusive memories and at times can lead to suicidal ideation. Let me break this down in nonclinical language. This is translating to increased fear of the police. Parents have become afraid to let their kids play outside and in extreme cases, go to school. Kids that I work with that used to be amazing. Students that are brilliant people are having trouble concentrating. Increased depression and lowered interest in pleasurable activities. These same brilliant kids with amazing goals are sometimes not even ending up going to school. Kids are coming in with extreme fear and anxiety, resulting in trouble sleeping. This is resulting in more trauma. There's also extreme depression, which is what can lead to the suicidal ideation I was talking with you about. This is not a joke. It's time to act now. Nightmares. So many kids, so many kids, so little are coming in with increased nightmares. Nightmares that their families are going to be torn apart and nightmares about what they've been seeing. People are afraid to go to stores, to the doctors and even to come to courts. I will tell you one case that I have permission to share small details of this family that I work with. One daughter, five years old and one son seven years old. The father in this case is a U.S. citizen, and the mother is living in the U.S. without documentation. After a domestic violence situation, the mother was afraid to show up at court. In the case was dropped. This is real people had real family is people are afraid to go to parenting classes, courts. And this is where we have a breakdown in the system. Teachers and therapists are experiencing vicarious trauma at higher rates. I also want to be clear, many of the children I work with that I am speaking of a U.S. born citizens that are living in fear simply because of the psychological warfare immigration officers are using. We must understand the trauma being created in our communities, and we must work together to change it. That's why tonight is so important. And thank you, Lopez and commish and everyone else who worked on this. I really appreciate your support. We must keep working. There is a lot of work for all of us to do. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Sarah Morris and well, Sarah is coming up. If I could get Connie Romero, Angela Colby on and John Zito, Maia to the front bench. Gary. Go ahead. My name is Sarah Morris. I'm a Denver resident and community member and I'm a member of Padres. Vanessa. I support this ordinance and I strongly support continuing to work together to take the strongest possible measures to disentangle ICE from our community. I'm here today because I'm a civil rights lawyer and there is plenty of work for me to do before the election. And now there's more than ever. I'm privileged that I'm not directly targeted by the attacks on civil rights, by ICE and our federal government. But I'm outraged that so far the best response that I have been able to take as a lawyer and as a community member is to do things like know your rights trainings, talking to teachers about their students and families who are scared to come to school, talking to librarians who are scared and don't know how to respond if ice shows up at the library and by advising parents to gather their kids documents in case of an ice arrest. I've literally had all of these conversations with people in our community. This is no way for anyone in our community to live and no way for our community to respond to the historic threat to civil rights that our federal government poses. Denver can do better. I want our city to send a loud and clear message that Denver will not abide the racist criminalizing anti-immigrant rhetoric and actions of the federal government and instead stands by all of our residents and our values. I support this ordinance as a first step towards that. You all on this council have the power to do this and more, and I ask that you do so. Specifically, I agree with Councilman Flynn that this ordinance does not go far enough. I'm glad that he and you all will be considering solutions to address ice in sensitive areas of our city and more. I look forward to passing this ordinance and to continuing to work on more solutions together. Thank you. Thank you. Connie Romero. Yes. Good evening. My name is Connie Romero, and I'm a member of the Colorado People's Alliance. I would like to urge our city council leaders to vote in favor of this policy. So many of our community members have been working so hard and towards this goal. I've joined phone banks and meetings in support of this policy because I'm a first generation immigrant. I've lived in Denver most of my life. I now live in Lakewood, but most of my family still lives in Denver. Unfortunately, I hear the stories and so much fear in the community of Denver and it's disheartening. I can't imagine living in a continued sense of fear, especially for those who are undocumented and also for those who are documented, as has been stated before, that we fear for those we love and those in our community and fear that there will be unexpected consequences for those that we love. And also, I think it's really important to support this this policy in attempt to lessen those fears that sometimes are realistic and sometimes are not realistic. But for the majority of the time they are in they are way beyond our belief. And some of us have been just totally disheartened and surprised at some of the events that we continue to see in this community. People are completely fearful. As a retired probation officer. I worked with with the community. I worked with offenders. I also worked with victims of crime. And it's really difficult to work with with individuals in a community who is fearful, especially for those who are reporting offenses. Those who have loved ones who have been affected somehow by a criminal offense, whether we're talking domestic violence or whether we're talking sexual abuse, it's got to be very difficult for a parent to try to protect a loved one when there's that overwhelming fear that they're not going to be listened to and they're not going to be protected. I feel strongly that that our community feels safe and protected, supported and respected and also treated with dignity regardless of the country of origin or their legal status. This policy is a big step in protecting our community, our immigrant community, and in keeping all of Denver safe, and that it also upholds the law. Please support the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. I thank you very much. Thank you. Angela. Coby on. Good evening. My name is Angela Coburn. I live in your district, actually, Mr. Clarke in seven. And I'm from southwest Denver. I've lived there the majority of my life. I consider myself from this city, by the way, of Mexico as my mother crossed the border and is now a naturalized U.S. citizen. Thanks to Ronald Reagan's amnesty, a political situation of which my former students were systematically they and their families not able to access. I'm here today to speak as a leader at Together Colorado and a parishioner of San Cayetano, which is a big church in southwest Denver. It's on federal and Alameda just a little bit up near Raleigh. And in 2015, I took a whole delegation from our parish carrying with us 200 letters that were written. And this was pre trump times by our parishioners that we delivered directly to Pope Francis in Philadelphia at the world convening of Catholic families. This resolution, while it's a good first step, also aligns with my values as a Catholic. As a Catholic, we believe in the Beatitudes, which read Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake. For theirs is the kingdom of heaven, which is one of the reasons why, as again, as a Catholic and as a member of this community, I absolutely consented and wearing white because I'm trying to walk into that faith, into that beatitude for way too long, our citizens in our city, our community members, my former students and their families have walked in persecution. And this specific policy, which I urge you all to vote in favor of today, is once again a very first step to making sure that we create the kind of beloved community that Christians and other people of faith are trying to build in our community here in Denver. And also, I would say, continues and extends the organizing work that our parish has been working on again before pre-Trump times. We worked really closely with our precinct, which with Commander Felice, and we were actually the first precinct to actually have the commander's cabinet in the basement of our church. And the reason why we did that and the reason why we awarded Commander Phillips with the Community Award at our annual church bazaar this year was precisely because they listened to our concerns and the primary concern being that people did not feel like they could call the police when they were victims of the crime. So I urge you to stand in solidarity with the people from my faith community, as well as everybody else who's here in this room who's taking time out of their evening to speak. And we look forward to continuing our relationship with you to make sure that we tighten things up even more. Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker of the night on Zito September. Got to explain that. Evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Hans Meyer, and I have the privilege of working with Julio Gonzalez at the my our law office, doing lawyer stuff and working with this community of people behind me. And only two quick things to say as the folks behind me and to the side of me. Thank you guys so much. What an amazing group of people. Give yourselves round of applause. You guys are amazing. This is the town I want to live in. This is the town I want to live in. It's the faces of the people in the town I want to live in and the type of diversity I want to be in, involved with, and that I want to have in my community. The second thing I wanted to mention is that this is a starting block. This is not the finish line. We've got a long fight ahead. And this is the first opening salvo and it's the first principled response. And thank you for passing it. And I look forward to working on all of the other issues we all know about that are going to come up over the next couple of years. And I appreciate this first step forward. The third thing is there's nothing else I have to say that hasn't been said better. Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to thank everyone for doing a great job speaking and so that we could get to everybody. That does conclude our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? All right. Quiet group. Tonight, the public hearing for counsel bill 940 is closed. Comments from members of council councilwoman can each. Thank you, Mr. President. I, my co-sponsor and I, I'm going to kick us off, and he's going to be the final speaker before we vote tonight. GRASSLEY As at those present, they are key. Thank you to everyone who is here, both to the community that is here in white and in solidarity, and also to the community members who are wearing blue from our law enforcement agencies. I think the significance of your presence here is as important as the communities. And I want you to know that we see you because we are a community united tonight, for the most part will count the votes at the end. But we know that our safety agencies and our mayor are standing in support of this bill as well. And so that is is the starting comment I wanted to begin with. The second thing I want to talk about is bravery. Victor. Alexa. Salvador. Laura. Pedro. It is a brave thing to talk about your immigration status at a time when you are probably more vulnerable than you've ever been before. I know that you had to probably do some soul searching about whether to talk about that publicly and how to talk about it. And so I want to honor that, and I think we all will honor that. There's also some soul searching I know that has happened through this process by the mayor and by the agencies and by some of my colleagues. And I know that part of that soul searching has included the very sincere question about whether or not that passing this ordinance sets up false expectations. I know folks have raised questions about the fact that we can't actually stop ice from some of the immoral tactics and detentions that are taking place in our community. I know that that concern is real, but I think it's important to address it in this way, which is to say that a failure to act on anything because we cannot solve everything. Is an enemy to justice. That justice only proceeds when we take actions step by step within the powers that we have. And so it is appropriate that this conversation has been led by communities who are impacted. But there are also soul searching and bravery required by those who have privilege, who use that privilege to stand in solidarity. And so I am honored to have had that opportunity in the course of this bill. Denver was already extremely limited in the ways that we engaged in immigration enforcement. But it mattered to you. It mattered to the community that you couldn't see the policies. It mattered that I couldn't point them out to you. It mattered that there were gaps and it mattered that there was no accountability. Trust is earned through transparency in government. It's earned through trust. And this bill is intended to give you that transparency, to give you the trust that when you tell someone it's okay to go to the city, to use the city, that we mean it . And so thank you. Thank you for the lesson that you brought to us about this importance, albeit not a complete protection from all the threats that you face. Tonight we vote on an ordinance, but it's not colonies ordinance. It's not even this council's ordinance. It belongs to the people of Denver. And it was a journey that I believe you all here tonight are demonstrating is about building your power and your voices for these next conversations. And so the mayor has acknowledged that you will have a space in those to the extent we continue the conversation as the council. When those conversations happen, a legal defense fund, you know, I will stand with you in fighting for that legal defense fund and for public funding for that. I know that you all wish. I know that you all wish for a policy to protect public but sensitive areas, and we share that goal. Paul and I. But we did not have a strategy legally to do that in a way that we felt like we could deliver to yet. And so we do need to continue to examine what kinds of innovations we can have and to continue to monitor that conversation. I have learned so much from immigration law experts, from folks who have had experiences, have made mistakes, have gone through our jail, have experienced probation or community corrections, and have tried to do right by our community and have experienced places where our our city did not live up to expectations and sticking to our local role. I've learned a lot from our city employees who really, really want to focus on their local jobs. That's what they want to do. They want to they want to keep you safe. They want to run the jail. They want to give you library books. They want you enrolled in recreation programs. They want you getting the benefits you need for your children. They don't want to be doing immigration enforcement. This bill gives you transparency. This bill gives our employees clarity. It does both of those things. I learned a lot from our city attorney, David Broadwell. I want to thank you and. My partner, my dear friend Paul Lopez, who allowed me to come along on this journey which he had begun and, you know, seemed like there was enough work to share. So thank you for allowing me to share. And to each of my colleagues, I have watched people struggle and move. I've watched them change their minds about tough issues. I've watched our agencies and our mayor move and change their mind and have issues in our climate. That doesn't happen all that often, that people sit down and really listen and really grapple and really evolve and really move. And so you all did that. You all by sharing your stories. By sharing your truth. By sharing the real impacts. This matters to you and therefore it matters to us. And so I hope it matters to all of our colleagues today by sharing a yes vote. Thank you. Thank you for covering. Councilman Espinosa. First, I want to thank this council, the leaders of the sponsors of the bill and the administration, the mayor's office and his team. It's no stranger. You know, I wish we as a legislative body would exercise more of our actual charter power in sort of trying to meter out ordinances and laws that govern this city. And to. This is this has been one of the processes that I wish we did more often. But I understand it's a lot of work. But the courage that Councilman Lopez had in coming forward and coming out strong with this bill and the passion and the support he had from the community basically caused the administration to act in a direction that I don't think they were going to just willfully go. Maybe, maybe eventually, but not sort of out from the gate and and, you know, through through the series of deliberations and meetings that the the sponsors had and that other members of council had with both sides, I think resulted in a in the announcement you saw last week, I think it was last week and tonight's vote. And to me, this is this is how we should work on behalf of everybody, you know, on a more consistent basis, ideally. But I do want to I do genuinely appreciate the courage. Like I said, that Councilman Lopez expressed I mean I mean that in taking this on and and more so and not more so, but in the same amounts to Councilwoman Cannick because we Robin sorry but a couple a year and a half ago we had a conversation. That maybe isn't supposed to be public and I won't go into detail. But you have tremendous strengths and capacities and skills that I think would, you know, expressed, you know, if you could sort of share those from a time on issues like this to sort of help, you know, other members of council like myself get things across the finish line that would benefit from those skills. And I think you just spoke to them. Your involvement in in supporting Councilman Lopez and making this a joint bill between yourself and him, you know, is what what made this to be so successful into a place where I could wholeheartedly support it and feel comfortable that we were working well within the lines that we that we that we have to that we have to to to work in. And I and I and I'm looking forward to the fact that you're you're you're both are going to be continuing to work and sort of continue to to investigate what can and should be done going forward anyway . I do want to think and I wrote these comments down before Councilwoman Connie spoke, but I mean, same again. So this sounds a little bit repetitive, but I want to thank the vulnerable but brave members of the public that spoke today. And I also want to thank the privileged privileged, but just members of the public that spoke together in a unified voice, because that is that is what makes this country what it is. And as as as a shining example for how freedom and liberty should be, should be, should be carried out on this planet until we you know, that's how you make a more perfect union. We know we don't have it right even today. But we're, you know, we we by trying to explore and push and trying to create a more perfect union rather than take steps backwards, is is is essential to this endeavor. And and I'm going to say it because it's going to happen before the secret and open races that are going to express their ignorance via email or social media in the coming hours, minutes and days. The reason there won't be an injunction is that this council is acting consistent with our Constitution. The same cannot be said of the Oval Office occupant. So to to close too close, I'm actually going to quote no less than the great orator. W Yes, that w George Bush number 43. President George Bush. Yeah. And it goes this is the quote, Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love Americans at our best value. The life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth our country must abandon all the habits of racism because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time. Thank you. With that, I'll be voting for Mr.. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm deeply moved and very proud. Of what's going on in this room tonight, the power of the words of the community, the presence of a few members of our city attorney's office, other members of the administration. As has been mentioned, a great presence of our law, law enforcement community. I the last thing that I am worried about tonight is any form of supposed retribution. That may or may not. Come from the misguided, deluded. Occupant of the Oval Office I get in discussions with. Friends. I don't have a president. And they say, well, yes, you do. He was elected, but I don't and I don't want to quibble with words, but I can't. Claim someone who finds. Very fine people in a group of torch carrying racists that spew hatred about Jews and people of color and representatives of our immigrant and refugee. Community. So that's what we're doing. Here. Tonight, is standing up as a community and saying if it if there are people in Washington that refuse to uphold our Constitution that this council is sworn to uphold, and as long as our children are afraid to to ride public transportation, because the the tone that has been set in Washington makes the spewing of hatred justified, expected part of some sort of ill thought policy. We will continue to close the gaps that need to be closed. So I. Want to truly. Thank Councilwoman Lopez and Councilwoman Canete for for the courage that they've shown. And it takes courage to stand up to authority. It takes courage to compromise when the justice you seek requires compromise. So I'm very happy to be supporting this bill tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a country of immigrants. You know, it's just so ironic that we're having to have this conversation in the year, you know, 2017, when this country was built on the backs of immigrants who came here from, you know, every country around the globe. And I just want to say, I stand in solidarity with the community and with my colleagues who have worked very hard with members of our community to bring this legislation forward. The fact that we see the the unity among so many different sectors of our community and organizations like ACLU and American Friends Service Committee and others who've been is we need unidos in so many who have said. We're not going to take this. You know, it is important for all of us to stand up and to speak on behalf of people who feel like they don't have a voice. Who feel like they have to hide in the shadows, who are afraid to go to work. Who are afraid to go to school. I mean, we heard many, many different stories, not only in in committee, but at some of the public meetings that were held around the city about people who were living in fear. Not that that hasn't happened for people who are, you know, undocumented across this country. But with the kind of climate we have with this president and I won't go into all those details, but we should not have to have people living in fear in the year 2017. When you see all the progress that was made through the civil rights movement in this country to be taking so many steps backwards. I am honored to support this tonight along with my colleagues and anxious to roll up my sleeves and work side by side with, you know, the efforts that still need to happen to continue to address any of the injustices in our community. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. I would like to sincerely thank all of you who have shared your stories, your experiences and your hopes with us tonight. And I'm very proud of this. Ordinance and proud to support. It. I ask my. Colleagues to stand together on this side of history. All of you, the mayor, city employees, including law enforcement, are leaders who are working together for all people in Denver. We will not allow fear and hate to reside in our great city from the date that we discussed this in the Safe House Committee to this evening. So much more on the political landscape has erupted. Open racism, white supremacy, anti-Semitism. As I shared in committee, I have been elected by the people of District 11, and I'm honored to represent their voice and talking with my children. They helped me actually write my comments that I spoke of in Safe House, and I must really represent who my family is and who I am as well. My children are Spanish, Greek, Mexican, Black and Japanese. Their ancestors are the. Very immigrants and refugees. Refugees who I represent in my council district, which is 50% Latino and in Montebello is 62% Latino. We must have a society, a city and a community that is safe from fear. That is a basic human right. We live in a time that fear and hate are driving public policy at the federal level, and we must strive and work together. Tyler Tirelessly for immigration policy reform. We cannot wait. In our democracy, we have the right as a local municipality to define how we choose to operate and govern. And we are doing that here tonight. Dear friends who are part of my family, who I have known them since they were young babies are living in fear. Living in fear that their family members will be deported. Innocent children. Mothers, fathers, grandparents. Innocent people who only came to our country to live the American dream. To have a better life, to have an opportunity. And now we know that DOCA is hanging by a thread. We never know what the next thing is going to happen coming down from the federal level. It is our time to band together and do things right for our community. We need to make sure that our residents know their rights and know and understand what we. Can as a local municipality can. Do and what we frankly cannot do. I again want to thank Councilwoman Canete and Councilman Lopez for your strong leadership in a very uncertain time in our community and in our country. And I want to thank the mayor's office and law enforcement, because we are all working together to move a better Denver forward. And I'm proud to stand together and do this tonight together as the city of Denver. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro-Tem. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody who came down here tonight and stayed to tell their stories. I want to tell a story also in July as we were preparing in Harvey Park for the annual celebration festival there. Some constituents brought to my attention a yard sale that was happening across the street from the park. And when we went over and we saw the banner, it was not just a yard sale. It said deportation sale. And my my constituents said, you have to pass this bill. So that we can address what's happening here. And so, as most of you probably know, I'm an old newspaper reporter. And so I followed my instincts. And two days later I went over and visited the house and spoke with the family. And here was their story. The father who is no longer there. Was brought to this country by his parents when he was 13, and he is in his late thirties now. More than two decades ago. His wife is a citizen. His two teenage sons are citizens. His wife is battling cancer. Her skin was a bright red from the chemotherapy, and it was a very difficult and a horrible, horrible experience to be talking to this woman as she tried to sell her last belongings and move to San Diego because her husband had been arrested. On a misdemeanor warrant during a traffic stop in Santa Barbara, California, while they were out visiting. And ice just happened to be stopping by the jail to pick up someone else. And they saw he was in there and they saw that he was not documented and they picked him up, too. And today he's sitting in a prison in Mexico. And his family sold all their belongings to move to San Diego to be closer to him. However, his arrest did not happen since Donald Trump was elected president. He was arrested last summer when Barack Obama was our president. And nothing in this bill. Would have kept this family together here in Denver and prevented this from happening. In our hearings on this bill in committee, we heard testimony from an advocate who accompanied a woman to traffic court to provide interpretation services. And while there, her client was arrested by ICE when she showed up. We've seen the YouTube videos that were referenced by the woman from the Myer law firm. Of ice, making arrests at our courthouse, tackling people in the doorways and folks screaming and crying as their family member is hauled away. And there's nothing in this bill that's going to prevent that from happening and continuing to happen. Nor is that, as I'm reminded by the sponsors, nor is that even the intent of this bill. The intent of this bill is to help people, as I understand it, to help people in the community feel safer and more secure by codifying many of the disentanglement policies and practices we now use, which are now only in handbooks or custom and putting them into a body of laws. Because we know, statistically speaking, that's stepped up and more indiscriminate enforcement of immigration is harmful to our public safety. We know this. We know that while crime is up slightly in Denver as a whole, the reporting of crime in Latino neighborhoods recent statistical look has shown that it's declined 12% since the first of the year since the inauguration of the new administration. So we know that there is there is this effect. We know that people will fail to report crime, fail to give eyewitness statements to police, fail to show up in court and support their neighbors, whoever they may be, who have been victims of crime. If they fear that by doing so, they may be grabbed by ICE and deported. We know this. This is bad for the cause of justice. It's bad for public safety. It's bad for Denver. And it's bad for Colorado. If we want to have an impact on reducing ICE apprehensions at our courthouse and other public places which are disrupting our justice system, causing cases to be dropped, and denying justice to Denver families, we need to find ways to reduce the need for people to appear in person at our courthouse or other locations. As Andrea Savage, one of my constituents, brought up. I already have met with our county court presiding judge, the city attorney and others to discuss areas where we might be able to expand such things as pleading by mail, expand the payment of fines online, and other measures like that under which people do not need to come to the courthouse and risk exposure. And I will continue to work with the administration on this. Let me say that by representing a city that's trying to deal in a fair and a just manner with the presence of refugees, immigrants, whether documented or not, and all of our residents and visitors, I place the blame for our dysfunctional system squarely on Congress, which has kicked this can down the road on immigration reform for more than a quarter century. And they've left America's cities with a dilemma that while trying to recruit cities and counties into doing their work for them while we are trying to maintain public safety, it's absurd. To deport people, for instance, who were brought to this country as children and, quote, send them back to a place where they may have no operational memory at all of ever having been. It's terrible to rip families apart, and it's a travesty that good and decent people who are trying to make a better life for themselves and their children have to live in fear. The Denver community is enriched and it's better off for the many contributions of our immigrant community. But some people were not better off. Because of our practices and policies. Timothy Cruz was not better off. And was not safer when we released a man from our jail in December whom I said asked to be notified about. We gave ice less than a half hour around midnight that this inmate was posting bail. And two months later, that man was arrested in the murder of Tim Crews at the 10th and Sheridan Light Rail Station . So in committee a few weeks back, I voted no on sending this bill to the floor because as Lou Irwin noted in his testimony here tonight, one new provision in the initial draft prohibited us from honoring ICE requests for released notifications of certain inmates. Unless the person in question had served time for a felony crime of violence within the previous seven years or under several other limited circumstances. I supported all the other provisions of the bill, primarily because, as Joy Athanasiou testified here tonight, my policy practice or custom, they were things we already were doing completely in accordance and in compliance with federal law and not in violation of any of our federal obligations. And despite. What Representative Dave Williams of Colorado Springs may believe and despite thank you and despite that, his own county, his own county follows many of the same policies that we do. In the previous version of the bill, we wouldn't have given us any notification when we were releasing the man later charged in the murder of Tim Kruse. We would no longer note if we would no longer have notified ICE if we were releasing a heroin dealer, for example, who might have come to this country not as an immigrant or a refugee, but to sell drugs and recruit our children and destroy our families. Denver is a welcoming and an inclusive community, but being a welcoming and inclusive community does not require us to abandon common sense by welcoming and making room for heroin dealers or violent criminals who in many cases, are victimizing the very same communities that are living in fear. So it's one thing to help make people feel safe in our community. But I want you I want you to be safe. So I am very appreciative that the sponsors, Councilwoman Kennish, Councilman Lopez, worked with Mayor Hancock and worked with the immigrant community, many of whom I see in this room tonight. To agree on a better balancing point between making our immigrant community feel safer and having them be safer. Removing that one provision and allowing us to honor ICE release notification requests for certain inmates, which I understand average about 15 a month. Maintains a balance between establishing trust between police and the community. And protecting them from criminals who prey on them. I also appreciate the new versions inclusion of mandatory data collection on released notifications and their follow ups with quarterly reporting. Because one of the most frustrating things about this issue has been the lack of hard numbers on which we could predict the impacts of what we were proposing here. So for these reasons, Mr. President, I am very happy tonight to be able to support fully this new version of the bill. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Quinn. Councilman Lopez, I see you last up in the queue. And I know that you and Councilwoman Kennedy wanted the book, and so are you. Okay if I say a few things, and then I'll punch it to you to have the last word. Age before beauty. Part of what I meant. I meant the other way around. Just because you have that luscious hair. I first of all, I really wanted to thank the sponsors of this bill. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Kennedy, for all your hard work. David Broadwell and the administration, the mayor for all of their work on getting us to where we are. And to the community that has really done a lot of hard work getting us to where we are. As some of the speakers said. And my colleague, Councilwoman Ortega said, there are very few of us who are not immigrants in this country, whether we are immigrants ourselves or the sons and daughters of immigrants or the grandchildren or the great great grandchildren or the great great great grandchildren. We are a country. We are a state. We are a city of immigrants. I know I certainly am. And that is what makes this place the amazing and diverse place that it is. So this bill is about all of us. This we are one community in this room. I look around and I see that we have neighbors and we have friends. We have teachers, we have students. We are one community. There were 32 speakers tonight. Every single one spoke in favor. Of this. Bill. We are one community. There was a meeting that some of the advocacy groups held about this issue, a meeting that Councilwoman Lopez and Councilwoman Kennedy each and I think the three who were there were at where the community said, we want you to do this and put us on the spot. It was a meeting that was at times uncomfortable. And immediately after that meeting, you know, we kind of had a huddle and Councilman Lopez and Councilwoman Kennedy said, we're going to take this on and we're going to come up with a bill. And what I said to them then and every time they came back to me is, I've got your back. At the end of the day, this bill is not perfect. We still have a lot of work to do together in order to make sure that every single person in our community feels safe, that every single person in our community feels respected, and that every single person in our community feels valued. Because anyone who doesn't see or feel safe or respected or valued, that affects every single one of us because we are one community. So with my vote tonight and with our collective vote as the city council tonight, I just want to say. What I'm saying. What we're saying is we've got your back as a great honor to vote in favor of this. And thank you to everyone who got us to this moment and with that, to close us out. Councilman Lopez. You know. When it when it's the start of college football season, you're going to see this quite a bit. Is this back and forth? So we like to throw those little barbs at each other. Thank you for your words and counsel, counsel President Clark. You have had our backs. You are part of us. You were there. And in that meeting, I've never seen somebody so sure of that. That's like saying, hey, we're going to get into the brawl. We may not make it out. And he says, Absolutely. I have your back. And Councilman Ortega. Had our backs. Early on as well, too. And they so much as said, well, you need us to co-sponsor. We'll co-sponsor with you. Our colleagues have been. Very thoughtful. This council has been very thoughtful. These are a lot of new issues. These issues have been kind of forced on us, as you see most of our public hearings and zoning and, you know, tax increment financing districts and, you know, just a lot of boring city council stuff. But a lot of our work has changed since November. We have changed in Denver and our priorities have changed in Denver. And I want to really acknowledge our colleagues. For. Writing that change with us? Right. And so thank you all. Thank you for your solidarity or support. The time to sit down, the time to ask the questions and and really go through this step by step. It's been a long ten months. I really. Really want to thank my colleague. My sister Councilwoman can each. Our our bill. Part of our bill on council. Your bill. When you hand it to us. Right. But on the council front, I couldn't ask for a better co-sponsor. For a better. Person in the struggle. And my sister here. It's important to have these allies in our community. And I am myself an ally. My family came here at the border, crossed us. My family. One day we went to sleep. Mexican and woke up. American woke up. You know, United States citizen. We're all Americans. So thank you. To a wonderful co-sponsor and amazing councilwoman. I want to. Yeah. Please. Please. Led the way. And in times where I was frustrated and wanted to burn the whole place down. Should I have? We're not going to win like that. All right, all right. All right, Robin. All right. So I you know, I want to say that I also want to say thank you to our staff. All right. Rodolfo. Paulina, Arianna has Sousse. Our team. It's very, very hard. So thank you. They're just as dedicated. They this is their lives as well to the mayor staff, the mayor, crystal, dad around in the back and the man who. I believe. I saw all I know is the best. Attorney when it comes to public policy I've ever met in the state. And that's Mr. David Bravo, Mr. Broadwell. You, my friend, have written our history in Denver. This man with his pen, with his and those long nights, we said, Hey, David, what about this? And and Robin. And here in these two go at it, right? Not. Not in a combative way, but just kind of lowering around eye to see this and to see the work that's come out. On behalf of a very grateful city and community. Thank you, David. And losing the great man. In this city. The mayor, I want to thank in one man who doesn't think I'm going to call on him, but that man in the uniform way back there. That's Chief Quinonez. Had our back. The few who go back to our marches and go back to our work in oh six and oh five. And even before that, that man made sure that when we went to point A to point B, we got there in one piece, we got there safe, we got there peacefully. And in all of those marches and this is what our rallies are compared to these other rallies you see on TV, not one act of violence, not one sign of somebody being vile. Just us wanting to be seen. And it takes good people to do that in this city. And there are great people in uniform that cannot be here because they are out there. But he represents some of them in our sheriff's department as well, too. Look, there there is there is nothing. There's never anything. False about hope. Right. Our our movement needs these allies. They need allies to stand in this gap. And. We usually refer to civil rights and human rights as something in history books, but it's not in history books. Ladies and gentlemen, is today in these chambers and this city at this moment that we were born to be here for. And we all have this responsibility. We have this responsibility to stand up to injustice. And if we all stand together. Not notes by them overrun? No, not my man. We cannot be moved. No, no. Small Iran. And we've said that for so, so long. That if we stand together, we cannot be moved. We will not be moved. And a lot of movements we've been a part of on this council, folks in different capacities because we've seen the struggle of our African-American brothers and sisters, our Jewish brothers and sisters, Italian and Catholic brothers and sisters. We've. We've we've seen a Chicano movement born in Denver. We've. Stood with women to be recognized as equals and to yet be paid the same. As has their male counterparts. We stand with our gay, lesbian and bisexual transgender communities. All right. So you're seeking to be recognized in their humanity. And now. This movement, the civil rights movement. Is now shining on our new Americans. Because that's what our neighbors and brothers and sisters are. New Americans. And these are folks who have fled poverty. Have escaped famine. Who? Fled violence. Cross blistering deserts. Just to be free. Just to sit in the seats, the same kids sit in the same seats that our kids sit in, whether it be in school. Where the brain is. Chambers just to be able to sit here today. Right. These are folks who. Humbly. Work. They build the city. They maintain your gardens. It may clean your offices and they serve your plates. But they also teach your children. They also build your skyscrapers. We make it possible for this country to celebrate Thanksgiving? We? Will represent you as lawyers one day. And hold that clipboard when you're in the office. Looking for health care. Right. So. In essence. We are this country. We lead this country. And last year and we've all known this, I'm preaching to the converted both on council and here in this room. But last year we watched. As our new president. Called us. Rapists. Drug dealers and criminals. Our children cried. And fear. As a new president. President threatened to separate their families. And build a wall. Of deportation. And worst of all, in our community as a councilman, our children and our our community have stopped calling the police. Nine cases of domestic violence. Nine cases so far. We know that people have have not showed up, not want to testify, not only to be seen because of this threat, because of this fear of deportation. And that ain't right. After after ten years. I know ten years as a councilman that our police department has been working there. They're there badges off trying trying to establish this trust, trying to make it clear that when you call the police, you're not calling ice. And then it's erased with the election of one occupant of the White House. And so we. As representatives were there this day, we were asked and looked in the eye by the community and said, Can you please? Help. Can you help restore? Trust. And they handed us a bill. I said we will help to the best of our ability. So. And now. Shruti. And now the trumpet sounds. So tonight we are going to pass. What is going to be known as the Denver Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. And let it let folks understand and know whether it's here or in Washington, D.C. or anywhere else. We're no longer afraid. Never afraid. And we're not going to allow anybody. Not even a sitting U.S. president. Not even a rogue agency. To coerce us. Or to force our city or its employees to violate the Constitution to do their dirty work. And if you have any business with us whatsoever. We ask for one thing. Show us a warning. Show us a warrant like everybody else, like other any other law enforcement agency in this country. Show us that warrant. Because that is what we protect is our Constitution. So. In that. I just I just I just wanted to to end with with the thing that I thought about. And Robin would always remind me about this. But there's something that I thought that was always been said in our community, and that's what we do. Because it's not about them. It's about us tonight. It's about us. It's about our community. It's about our willingness to affect change in our ability to do it. And this council doing it. And that is that we do what we do. Not out of the hatred of our enemies. But rather for the love of our people. So with that, I want to thank all of you for being here. Let's pass this bill. Kim, council president. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Lopez. I knew Ortega. All right. All right. Espinosa. Flynn. I Gilmore. I cashman. I can h i. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce the results. 1010 ies Council Bill 940 was passed unanimously. All right. After all that staying quiet, you guys really did know how to make some noise there due to the Labor Day holiday.

A bill for an ordinance approving an Agreement with Interlock Construction Corporation for renovation of the former animal shelter for use as a Parks Department storage and maintenance facility. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a $749,565.42 contract with Interlock Construction Corp for renovation of the former animal shelter as a Parks Department storage and maintenance facility located at 678 South Jason Street in Council District 7 (201416785). The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-27-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 8-28-14.

DenverCityCouncil_10062014_14-0692

I just have a question. Go it. And I'm not sure who is here from, um, parks and Rec. It's, it's actually more of a budget question than it is an operational question. So we're spending three quarters of $1,000,000 on renovation of the old animal shelter, but yet we still have not been briefed on what the plan is for the 24 seven Reston Resource Center for the Homeless Community. And, uh, I see Sky over here from the administration wanting to answer the question when are we going to get briefed on what's happening with that in terms of timing and all of that? Because I understand it may involve acquisition of a different building. And I had raised questions about if we were going to be spending money to do major renovation, why wouldn't we be looking at this facility? Councilman Ortega Sky Stuart, Mayor's Office. We did actually look at all the existing real estate holdings in the city and they didn't work. Operationally for what. We're looking for. And that's why we're now looking for property that the city does not own. Evan Dreier and I are happy to come brief you at any time to talk about the 24 hour rest and resources. We are in negotiations to. Acquire a site. And when we have that site under contract will obviously be coming through to brief you on that site acquisition, but happy to come chat with you in the meantime. I appreciate it because I did send a note to Betty Milner some time ago when our last scheduled homeless commission meeting was canceled, expressing concern that we weren't going to be given the opportunity to, you know, allow the commissioners to talk about this and hear what was going on. So I appreciate that. Thank you. We'll catch up some time with you. Thank you. Councilmember two Councilwoman Robb, did you have a question? I just wanted to confirm with Mark Tabor or Skye, perhaps these are bond dollars. If people wonder, you know, that we're pulling $792,000 out of the sky, there's $4, I believe that was surplus from the animal shelter bond issue. That that's right, Councilwoman. There was a portion of the funding to do the initial demolition and abatement of hazardous materials that were part of the site. The the CIP. Program is the is the major component. Of this restoration final phase of actually re. Rehabilitating the building for use for our maintenance and our operational uses. So this particular contract. Is is all the AP dollars but but formally. The some of the demolition work and some of the previous. Work that went into. To prepping the building to be re restored and and. Abating some of the hazardous materials were bond funded. Thank you. Could you introduce yourself for the record? I'm sorry. Mark Taber, Parks and Rec. Thank you. Sorry. With that, I'll have to run. Yes, thank you. So you know the questions on that one. I do have one other quick question. I'm sorry. Go right ahead, Councilman. So where are the maintenance operations now that are going to be moving to this site? Where are they coming from? They're coming from actually across the street. There's a there's a facility that has a forest, primarily a forestry facility park on South Jason. There's also Jason Street North, which is up closer to Pecos that houses are the mower shop, the athletic. Fields and. Consolidating everything into. One. And we're consolidating and and bringing them closer in a more central location. In in the south JSON property. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, are there any other questions on 692 scene? And remember that activity up to next one 712 but called out by councilmembers Ortega and shepherd and I just I'll start with Ortega did you want to call this out or do Councilwoman Shepherd did you want to call it out or did

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4710 North Pennsylvania Street in Globeville. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4710 North Pennsylvania Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-21.

DenverCityCouncil_07192021_21-0577

All right. We are going to go ahead and move along here. The next item up is Council Bill 21, dash 0577. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put Council Bill 577 on the floor to take out of order, please. I move the council bill 20 1-0577 be taken out of order. I can. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Council Member Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. We need to move this item out of order so we can postpone the public hearing date. All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. Hi, Clark. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Herndon. I. Hi. Hi. Cashman. I can h i Sandoval. I. Sawyer, i. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0577 may be taken out of order. Council Member Sawyer Will you please vote? Council Bill 577 on the floor for final passage. I move the Council Bill 20 10577 be placed upon final consideration and to pass. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone, please. Yes, Madam President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 120577 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, August 2nd, 2021. Thank. Thank you. We've got the motion and I think we got the second there from Councilmember Sawyer. I think I got that right. Comments from members of Council. Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. We need to move the public hearing date in order to meet the posting requirements that was not posted appropriately in a timely fashion. So moving into August 2nd will fulfill that requirement. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call. I. Hi. Hi. Cashman. I can each I Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black eye, Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 11 days. 11. His final consideration of Council Bill 21, Dash 0577 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, August 2nd. That concludes the items to be called out this evening or onto the Bloc vote. Any bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Sawyer, would you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Absolutely. I move that proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a bloc for the following items. This is all 21 series 08210817074807550753. 0756. 0625. 0626. 0627. 0749. 0752. 0730. 06900691. 06930703070507060572. 06980728. 0731073506580697 and 0712. Dagen thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam secretary, roll call. Black eye, Clark. All right. So when. I. Turned in. And. I. Cashman. I. Can each I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, i. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11, eight. 11 eyes. The proclamations and resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0405 changing the zoning classification for 3133 North Raleigh Street in West Highland and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0635 relating to

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Health and Hospital Authority d/b/a Denver Health Medical Center to provide for the availability of reimbursement of agency funds in accordance with the FEMA COVID-19 Grant. Approves an intergovernmental agreement with Denver Health and Hospital Authority to provide for reimbursement of funds in accordance with the FEMA COVID-19 Grant. 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 6-2-20.

DenverCityCouncil_06222020_20-0495

All right, Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 3999993 is council bill. A resolution for Haiti has been adopted. Council Member Can you please put Council Bill 495 on the floor for introduction? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 495. Be. Introduced. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council members member are welcome. Thank you. Mr. President. Called this one out because of the recent ordeal in the media with Denver Health. We know that they gave incredible bonuses to their upper level management while cutting, furloughing their employees and not treating them well throughout COVID. We know that they are attempting to unionize and from their leadership there has been union busting efforts misinformation, harassment and intimidation. And since we are the entity right now that will allow them to collect their dollars from federal money, I think we should put out some kind of requirement that they stop the harassment and intimidation before we allow them to take taxpayer money, federal dollars, to reward their bad behavior. So this is first introduction. This is first reading. And what that means with us is we get to read these twice. This is on introduction tonight. I always give a heads up on introduction of the thing that I'm going to vote no on or yes on later on down the road on the second reading. And so this is a heads up that this is coming to us next time for final consideration. And we need people to put pressure on the individuals up here to vote a particular way or get the behavior that we're asking for from Denver Health. So heads up and no today and and no next time as well. Thank you, Councilmember Customer. Thank you very much. I share Councilwoman CdeBaca. Concerns with the free speech, freedom of association and right to organize of the workers of Denver Health. And I think it is critical that Denver health support those workers and give them their right to organize, create a framework, labor, harmony as a way to create a framework for those workers to be able to organize without intimidation. And that is the type of agreement that the management can and should enter into. They are also our safety net health provider. This particular grant is to reimburse them for PPE. Both those health providers. As well as their patients, need that PPE. So for me, this is not the vote to to do, you know, a bigger conversation. I absolutely respect and honor my colleagues decision, but I stand in perfect solidarity with those workers. And I believe that if they need our support, we will continue to be there for them. And I do want to deliver the PPE that they and their patients need while those workers exercise their right to organize. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Sayed, if I can you back up. And just a challenge to my colleagues who have not spoken to the workers on the front line PPE. They were not getting it and they have not all gotten it. Some of them have been wearing the same mask for weeks. They had a gallon pitcher to wash their hands at their stations with. And so talk to the workers before you make your decision on this, because the workers are telling us what is really going on and not what we want to hear. Thank you, Councilmember. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call on 495. See tobacco? No. Flynn All right. Gilmore I. Herndon I. Know. Cashman I. Can. Sandoval, I. Sawyer. No. Torres, I. Black Council President. All right, Madam Secretary, please close voting up the results. Three days. Nine eyes. Nine eyes, three nays. Accountable for 95 has been introduced. Ladies and gentlemen, if you could, please, so that we can get through the rest of these. Thank you. Councilmember Canete, will you please vote count about 504 on the floor.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1634, 1640, 1642, 1650 and 1680 Sheridan Boulevard in West Colfax. Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from U-RH-3A and U-SU-C2 to U-MS-2 and U-MS-3 (urban row-home and single-unit to urban main-street districts), located at 1634, 1640, 1642, 1650 and 1680 Sheridan Boulevard in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-18-19. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures by the owners of 20 percent or more either of the area of the lots included in the proposed change or of the total land area within 200 feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 21%, respectively).

DenverCityCouncil_08192019_19-0577

12 hours counts. Bill 576 has passed. Councilwoman, can we please be accountable? 577 on the floor. Yes, Mr. President. I put Council Bill 577 on the floor for final passage. Thank you. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Sandoval, your motion to postpone. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that final and that final consideration of Bill 0577 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, September 16th. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sandoval Yes. This was a rezoning that came through under Councilman Espinosa and it was sent to mediation. And during that time I was in a council aide in his office, and then I left his office to work for the fire department in November. And when I came back to office, I learned that the mediation had stalled and I was able to bring parties back together on Wednesday, this past Wednesday, and with I just want to give the applicant and the community more time and that's it. Thank you very much. See no other comments or questions, Madam Secretary Roque on the motion to postpone. Sandoval I Black Eye. CdeBaca Eye for an eye. Gillmor Eye. Haines Eye. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Right. Sawyer Eye. Torres Eye. Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 12 hours. 12 hours. Final consideration of Council Bill 577 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, September 16th. On Monday, August 26th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council 744, approving the East Kovacs Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the East COVAX Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Area and the East Colfax Corridor.

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

KingCountyCC_10062021_2021-0318

Thank you. And we will send it to full council on regular schedule. That takes us to our next item on the agenda, a motion sponsored by Councilmember Caldwell's address in City Hall Park. And given that I don't have my electronic notes before me, I will ask the central staffer who was going to present on it to begin the most. Councilmember Caldwell's would like to make a few introductory remarks. Thank you. Thank you, madam. Mr. Chair. Yes? I would like to make the couple of remarks, and this is pertaining to the motion 2020 1031. The process has to do with potential acquiring of the park by the county. But in the city of Seattle and there is you will find in your park a striking amendment and a line amendment. But we also have a second scoping amendment, which I would appreciate that we addressed directly and which Brandon then on our staff will go back. But just very quickly and I would like to retain the right to speak for once we have the staff report completed, but very quickly the motion and particularly to the striking amendment. I will go over the request to the Executive to provide options to the Council on acquiring City Hall Park. And secondly, my recommendations in the way of options to the Council addressing safety concerns in City Hall Park currently and for quite a long time. What might be some suggestions to the council and what could be done to address those safety concerns? With that, I would like to turn it over, Mr. Chair, to Brandi Milner. And I do know that Karen Gill from the executive's office is here with us as well. Messina. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Brandy Vino with council central staff. The materials for this item begin on page 160 of your packet. The proposed motion would request that the executive transmit a report to the Council, which would include an exploration of options related to acquisition of City Hall Park by King County for Future County uses and a plan for relocating any occupants of the park. Any current or future occupants of the park. Just as quick background throughout 2020 and 2021 City Hall Park, which is owned and operated by the City of Seattle and is adjacent to the King County Courthouse, was the site of an encampment. An encampment of people experiencing homelessness in county appropriated approximately $50 million in federal American Rescue Plan Act funding to support emergency homelessness response and related behavioral health services. And the county also allocated funding to the local Just Care Alliance to resolving campus encampments in public space by providing non congregate, dignified emergency housing options like tiny homes and hotels. As of August 12th, 2021, Just Care placed a total of 65 people who had been living in City Hall, Park, in shelter and emergency housing that they voluntarily accepted. The City of Seattle has since temporarily closed City Hall Park. So I'm now going to brief you on the underlying motion. And then afterwards, if you'd like, I can brief you on the striking the two striking amendments. So the underlying motion proposes a request that the executive explore options for acquiring City Hall Park from the City of Seattle for purposes of using it for county purposes, and to also transmit a report that includes all financial, operational, legal and use considerations for the park. The report must also include a plan for relocating any occupants of the park, and it must be transmitted to council by November 15th, 2021. As previously mentioned, there are two striking amendments are striking amendment S1 with a line amendment amendment one. And then there is striking amendment as to and I can brief those all of those for you if you'd like. Okay. He was striking amendment S1 one here. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm wondering, for time purposes, it might be better to just go right to striking amendment number two. There's no need to read this one. Okay. Thank you. So striking amendment as to add requirements to the contents of the report requested of the executive that relate to crime statistics, mapping of nearby homeless shelters, and a plan to address safety concerns. It also included a request the executive add to the plan safety concerns around the courthouse and in City Hall Park and include locating permanent supportive housing for any current or potential future occupants of the park as needed. Additionally, striking amendment to makes an assessment of the options for acquiring the park from the city of Seattle contingent upon whether the county and the city come to an agreement on the acquisition of the park by December 31st, 2021. Therefore, if an agreement is reached by that time, the assessment of the acquisition options is no longer needed. That concludes my remarks on Striking Amendment S2. There is also a title Amendment T one that would reflect the changes and striking amendments to and be happy to answer any questions unanswered questions. My book, Oil Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know we're all very aware of many of the concerns that have been expressed quite a while now, for many years, and further regarding the safety and security issues in City Hall Park owned by this by the city, but adjoining our courthouse. But not everyone who may be watching this will be fully aware of everything. So I'd like to go over a few. Before the pandemic struck over a year and a half ago. There have been efforts to clean up the park. And I want to especially command Councilmember Wright and Baskin's former city council members Sally Bagshaw and Caroline Williamson with FMG for all that they did. And it was wonderful too to view the food trucks music playing. We saw there were bathroom facilities and the courts in the court, city car park generally that's really looking pretty good. There is still issues pertaining to the Third Avenue entrance, still hearing many jurors being afraid to come to the courthouse. Many employees being actually attacked upon leaving the courthouse. But when the pandemic struck, we saw some big changes, as particularly as the street traffic diminished because so many businesses and including our own council and other courthouse offices had their employees go home and work remotely. There was there was less visibility of people just around. And as a result, we started seeing people camping out in the park and it resulted in a very large encampment. And much of that to do because of the extreme lack of affordable housing in the area and throughout the town . But it became really very, very severe. And in terms of violence, a two year old little girl being and we don't know if she was abandoned or what, but inside that encampment, there was also an employee of the courthouse attacked, sexually attacked, and one of the bathrooms inside the courthouse. We've heard from the judges and I appreciate Judge Darnell speaking the day Judge Rogers is the presiding superior court judge emailed me and said, I'm sorry, I can't be there, I'm sick and I'm in Montana, but I know all the judges support this motion. They've had to put up barriers and windows, bulletproof glass because of shots coming from the park area. And I could go on and on with this, but it's been very obvious that something that's needed to be done and that has been juxtaposed, the severe lack of police officers and the Seattle Police Department, as I understand, they're down about 300 officers. So they've had to triage and make decisions on priorities. And too frequently we have found that they don't come to the park. This is before it was all closed off recently. They don't come around Third Avenue. So we've had to put in our budget funding for our sheriff's deputies and most of them have had to do this over time to just kind of keep track of what's going on. Also with the FMG officers, we shouldn't have to be it and we don't they don't have authority to take action when needed within the park . So the situation has done worse and worse and we didn't prove quite a lot of funds for the Public Defenders Association and other partners in the community to help out people in the encampment with the Just Care program and get them on the way for permanent supportive housing or whatever it would be that they would need. But as Baby said, what happens when the park fences come down? It's my view that the county is the one that should own this park. And the plan had been for so long for that to happen and it's time that it happened. Now we need to have a situation where we are in control of the park and we can determine what goes on there to protect the public. To protect employees of the courthouse so they feel comfortable coming to work to protect them as leaving the courthouse to after work, to protect the public from accessing this center of government for all King County and the center of access to justice for all of King County and beyond. Contrary to what an individual said in public comment that this should not be done because there are other areas of the county that need public public health, public security, public safety. This is the center where people come to access justice, and that should be open and it should be safe. So I have been working with the consecutive and with the mayor of the city of Seattle. It is my understanding that the signal to Seattle is agreeable to transfer ownership to the county. In fact, the mayor of Seattle said, You have a dollar. The Park Insurance. Executive has been working with the mayor to actualize that. And I believe we need to take hold of this opportunity that we have and grab it and have control of our own destiny and protecting the public and protecting everybody from being able to access county government and access to justice. The judges are all for this, and I know that many of you are as well. And I appreciate Councilmember Peter Van right there for holding a briefing on this and heads up the Government of Government Accountability and Oversight Committee. And Councilmember Lambert doing the same in her community Health and Housing Services Committee. Another factor here is that of the entrance to the courthouse since we own the park. One thing we could be able to do would be to change the entrance and egress to the courthouse, to its original entrance, that being on Jefferson Avenue. And John and my staff is just a couple of slides to show, and we'll make it quick after that. But is John able to share screen? When the courthouse was built back in the 1800s, the front courtyard of the building fired into the park. They complemented each other. This is obviously not a photo from back then, but the point being is that the the courthouse. And City Hall Park were meant to be together. But in 1982 and you can see this old photo from 1917. In 1967, this entrance was converted into a loading dock, which is currently full of supplies and dumpsters. The original extravagant Alaskan marble inside the building is preserved. Well, the marble on the original entrance has been damaged or covered in a layer of concrete. Very unfortunate and likely would be costly to restore. But that could be done and can be determined in terms of overall priorities for our expenditures. This historic entry way would lead to more foot traffic in the park and less off of Third Avenue, where there's also been so many high profile instances of violence. So you can see these things then and now. Images, a lot of reports have been done on this, including from the University of Washington and architects that we could take advantage of and be able to really scrutinize whether public safety and access to the courthouse could be and could be improved by opening this entrance and closing the one on Third Avenue. John, are there any other photos to show? Apparently not. Okay. So before you this this morning is a striking memo that I developed in collaboration with Councilmember Belge and again, with input from our judges and other staff in the courthouse, it would remove a specific reference to the possibility of developing affordable housing in this space from the original motion. However, it remains an option that the executive could pursue. But my objective is to make this report as flexible as possible to ensure that most creative ideas are considered. And we must not forget that the problems plaguing our parts are the result of a severe lack of housing inventory. The striking amendment also requires to plan to address safety and security concerns around the courthouse, including the park. The plan aims to take a holistic look at the problem and provide a recommended course of action, which could include an assessment and analysis of approaches to not only address safety and other concerns, but also recognize that productive discussions are ongoing between the executive and the mayor to chance through the park. If that were to happen, the park were transferred, were to be transferred by the end of the year, which could just be a land swap. And from what I've learned, there is a lot of surplus land that we own that could be provided to the city and c r the city of Seattle easily. But if that were to occur with a well received ownership of the park by the end of this year, then of course, that language and the striking amendment would no longer be. Would no longer be an effect. I think it's the time to take control of this part and transform it into something that we can all be proud of. And I think we can all envision a day when we hear fewer sirens, sirens, screams, cries, and less about inadequate safety, and instead go back to hearing the sounds of birds and music and people laughing and having a good time, even buskers in the park. The main point is we need to do something. I think this makes sense and I believe that will help all of us, the public, the residents around City Hall, Park and the courthouse, the businesses, employees who can go back to work. Our employees and above all, for me. Access to justice and all of our common services. And of course, it could be used as part of what we look at long term in the configuration of our common civic campus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry went on for so long that this means a lot to me. Once a member of Parliament. I think you find it means a lot to many of us. Would you believe I would entertain a motion? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move because motion 2020 10318. Thank you. Motion 2021 318 is before US Council member Cole Wells. I've spoken to this and I support and I would like to amend striking amendment number two. As to as before this discussion on striking an amendment as to Councilmember Bell duty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say a few words about my contribution to this. Maybe they've turned itself off. I want to thank Councilmember Cole Wells for being willing to work with me to include some broader thinking about safety in the area generally beyond just City Hall Park, although the focus of this action is on City Hall Park. And I just want to call attention to some other things that this motion does that I that I advocated for and that I appreciate being included. It asks for us to take a deep look and a quick look at the key factors that have driven the violence and disorder that we've seen around the courthouse , including prior efforts to address the problem, because there have been some and I believe you always need to start with a good problem definition and some sense of what can be done to address the specific problem before you. The it requires that we come back with a plan to address safety concerns in and around the courthouse, including city hall park, taking a holistic look at this problem and recommending a course of action that could include something like crime prevention through environmental design approaches, which is part of what was going on with the previous activity to activate the park. That that's that's part of that kind of thinking that you create safety as opposed to just responding to a lack of safety that we talked about a description of ways in which the county will engage with the city of Seattle to address crime around the area, a plan for relocating any current or potential future occupants of an encampment if they if they come back. And as you can see, if you go down to the courthouse, this is the problem with relocation as a as a sole strategy. If all you do is relocate people who are living in tents on the ground, the tents come right back somewhere else because people need to live somewhere, that they have nowhere to live. They're going to go someplace else. And many of the tents are now just around the corner under yes or the yes or overpass. So it is a it is only a temporary and it is not a complete solution and in many ways not always a humane solution, but we need a more holistic total solution that includes public safety, human resources, smart street activation. An end to COVID would be nice. That would help a lot. And then it goes on to talk about a cost benefit analysis of restoring the original courthouse entrance. I got to tell you, I've been around long enough to have been through a couple of spins through that particular wheel about restoring the main courthouse. It's never made any sense from a financial perspective to me. I'll just say for myself, very expensive. What has what was done to the front of the courthouse was a crime against architecture and humanity and the history. But it was it was a pretty thorough damn job. And and to undo it would be extraordinarily difficult and expensive. I really think we should be we're already bringing up the discussion that we had been having prior to COVID about the future of the campus. So much has changed in our campus started. Let's just start with the fact that it looks like the administration building will not be reoccupied again. If that's the case, then really sort of puts, I think, a fire under the discussions around what is the future of the county seat for our campus. And then finally, if there's an agreement with regard to City Hall Park, an assessment of options for the acquisition, which is what Councilmember Caldwell spoke to in detail. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I really think it's important that we think broadly and that there's a number of different things required in order to create safety for our employees, for people coming to the courthouse, to access justice for jurors, for people who live in the area. And so I think this is a good step, and I'm glad that we are willing to think a little bit bigger and broader and come back with a holistic approach to the area. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Chair as well. Thank you. I'm very sorry that I did not mention earlier the second sponsor, legislation council member Ragan Dunn. I was going to thank Martha and I thought she would be talking many cheers. But he's been very involved with discussions about public safety in the park ideas and what to do with it. And I really appreciate that he's been so supportive. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Further discussion on striking amendments to Councilmember Dunn. But thanks and thanks for your kind word. He make me want to vote for Ingenico. Well, because everything you said in your introductory remarks was exactly what I would have said. And it's powerful and it's bipartisan. And yeah, I was proud to propose that first piece of legislation. I think the confirmation legislation, which I knew probably wouldn't pass but would get the conversation started at a regional level. What were you're going to do with this courthouse to take, to take, to take the people's courthouse back from the lawlessness that had ensnared it and find a compassionate way to get folks into the wraparound services that they need out there and to be a better solution for everyone. And and then Jeanie took the ball and morphed it from sort of a almost a. Inflammatory attempt to get the dialog started to, I think a more thoughtful piece of legislation that is going to result have a better result which, which I appreciate very much and , and think there, there really is a way to solve these these problems. I mean, we were talk about $1,000,000,000 into our homeless problem globally since the crisis was declared by the executive in the mayor. And it is now not unreasonable, I think, for folks to start to at least appreciate the need to move the encampments that are around our public spaces into the wraparound services the taxpayers are paying for. And City Hall Park is. Is maybe the first leading example of how that process might look into the future. So I wanted to thank you, Nicole Wells and Claudia Valdez, you for their continued leadership on this. And I would just mention that about ten years ago. And Jeannie, this is free information. We have had a lot of one on one meetings in person because we're we're separated. Bob Ferguson and I talked about about ten years ago, he sponsored legislation to reopen the original entrance of the courthouse. And, Kathy, you'll remember that you were involved with that, too. And and so I think there may be value in see, it's weird architecture is symbolism in government and you see it in Washington, DC more than anywhere. But you see it our state capitol, capitol buildings across the country and the county seat as well. Sometimes it's indicative of the long term sustainability of a democracy. I think there's value in architecture and I think there's something to be said about if we are successful in moving individuals from city hall parking to wraparound services and get them the addiction treatment they need, the mental health counseling need, the job training they need, and the housing they need. And at the same time, we beautifying City Hall Park and perhaps spend a little money to open up that courthouse entrance. It says something about our ability to solve our community's problems, especially in an area that has been dogging local governments, not just here in King County, but across the west coast of the United States, which has about two thirds of America's homeless population. So all that is to say that I want to thank Councilmember Cole Wells and Balducci for their bipartisan leadership in this issue. And I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Further discussion on it as to. Lambert Council member. Lambert. Thank you. Well, first I want to say this is really good legislation and thank you to everybody who contributed to it. It is a topic that has come up many, many times over the years and has been followed by promises from the current owner, but unfortunately have not been kept. And so it is a really good idea for us to be able to take this back. One of the problems that we've had is that our queue lines getting into the courthouse have been so wrong. And so if we were able to sneak it into the park so that it wasn't interfering with the main pass through and we could potentially put an awning so people wouldn't get wet. And there's more space on the Jefferson side to maybe have some more magnetometers to get people into the courthouse more quickly. I really appreciate all the things that were said by the previous speakers, especially on the idea of it's not humane what's happening in that park. And being able to get services is a much better way. Councilmember Banducci was very correct that they did an excellent job of destroying a lot of architecture, which is very unfortunate, but it does tell a story of what was valued at that time and what wasn't. I had the opportunity to go down and travel in that area of the courthouse, which is pretty much been locked out for years. I was surprised by how much space there is down there that I had no idea was that big and what the potential of that is. So I know that we have done several reports and yes, they were astronomically expensive, but hopefully there could be some grants. Another state has a courthouse restoration grant program. So I am excited about this. I think cleaning it up has been everybody's goal for a long time and I especially like the extra, whereas it's being put and I don't know how I got my name added to that, whereas but the one that says that we are very concerned about the safety of our employees since I had an employee injured also so and was at the march and heard and saw many things that were happening. So thank you for this good piece of legislation and I'm looking forward to voting for. Further discussion on striking amendment as to. I reserve my comments for final passage, seeing no further comments, notes to all those in favor of striking amendment as to please signify by saying on. I. Those opposed nay nay. The ayes have it as to is adopted. Is there a title amendment? There is not. No, there is the title amendment. Title Amendment one. Councilmember Nicole Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Title amendment t one. Two, one. As before I see no discussion paper. Please signify B.S. on those opposed. No, the ayes have it. The title amendment is adopted motion 2021 318 as amended and final passage. Question. Mr. Chair. Council members on the line. I heard a few times references to permanent supportive housing, but when I look at the legislation, I see that it references moving people in encampments to temporary housing and shelters. Is there somewhere else in the legislation that I missed that discusses permanent housing? It can answer that. Mr. Chair council members I. In striking amendment as to. Along with temporary shelters, there should be a line that says. Or permanent supportive housing as needed. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's a little bit. That language doesn't sit well with me because it still sounds like we could be moving people to temporary housing and shelters, which are not the most effective way of dealing with this situation. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that we need to have free, clear and clean, accessible parks, that our employees deserve to be safe. The question is whether we address the symptoms of homelessness, the symptoms of homelessness, especially at the expense of the people who are suffering the most from it, which are the people who are living in the camps? Or do we address the root causes of it? And to me. Moving people from one bad situation to another. Bad situation is not addressing root causes. And so that that's just one red flag that I wanted to point out that doesn't sit well with me. Mr. Chair. As a member. As a member. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, to address that. Thank you. Const members. Hello. On page 15, my mind 56 and 57 that says in cost benefit analysis of concern across line of 54 and 55. Temporary housing and shelters or permanent supportive housing and small. But again, these are requests to the executive to come back with options for us as part of particularly what Councilmember Bell she added with me and to the striking amendment to look at the root causes, to look at this whole thing holistically, not just in a simple fashion. It's broadly approached and broadly rec, broadly examining what can be done with all that's going on in the park currently, what has been? So I share that concern of yours. I hope that you will look at this holistically and know that affordable housing is needed. Period. But if we have people who start camping out in the park individually or forming encampments, we have to get them the services and the help they need so that they can get permanent supportive housing as needed. Thank you. Speaking for myself, I'm concerned that legislation like this contributes to a narrative about homelessness so far and dehumanizing to people experiencing homelessness. For instance, I have am concern about the reference to cleaning up in this situation because it doesn't address people in the people with needs and people who are experiencing crisis. I'd much prefer we use language like addressing issues of. They dehumanizing the legislation like this can lead to does it doesn't acknowledge the need for housing, for treatment for support to make sure that people are successful. The conversation is too centered around public safety and concern around one blot. It doesn't even acknowledge the robust efforts led by the Alliance for Puget Sound. The Alliance for Playing Square, which offers a vision for this, the northeast corner of Pioneer Square. They are bringing the city of Seattle County officials, residents, business leaders, other community leaders into a workgroup and visioning what they see for the northeast corner of things where it doesn't seem to be acknowledging that as well as significant body work by a leading community partner. I'm here in my district. I think the overall work of this legislation contributes to a false sense of security. When we talk about public safety around within City Hall Park exclusively, particularly as we talk about people coming and going from the courthouse, our employees, people coming in to do business with the court jurors. They are not originating their trip from city hall part of the block to the path and the courthouse sit on the trip originates from somewhere else in the county. They have they travel through pioneers where they travel through downtown Seattle to get to that block. Going to the courthouse with the public safety concerns that exist and are real exist beyond see how park itself and the block the courthouse sits on to engage in a city significant effort around one part at the exclusion of the neighborhood around it. I do believe it contributes to a false sense of security. And brings me to my next point. This is inside an incorporated city. Our responsibility is to provide public safety needs in unincorporated Kane County cities, provide public safety within our unincorporated areas. If the county has the resources to address public safety needs, I can make it work. Any of those that are needed in unincorporated areas in my district include other, in fact, other neighborhoods within my district. This neighborhood being within my district, for instance, White Center has had at least six firings over the last year and is in crisis. Constituents are continuously concerned about road safety and wanting safety improvements for roads in white summer. We don't have the financial resources to address. We don't have the financial resources to address the fire in the way the community would like to. There aren't the resources to address other issues, Anderson, in my district either. And those are just two tiny pockets of unincorporated King County across the entire county where I can delineate and identify places. I would make different expenditures. But we are responsible, unlike, you know, in incompetency. So whether we can acquire relief for a dollar that also doesn't account for the capital and operating costs that would be invested and spent over time again in a city. And yes, the courthouse is the county seat is where the courts and the council and the county does its business. I understand what happens if you don't access to justice. So people in the unincorporated Kim County need that same access to justice and justice living in safe, supported, empowered communities. And this is an exchange that I think shortchanges that access to justice in other places in our county. And so I would I will be voting no today. Mr. Chair. Council Members ALL Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I'd second everything that you just said, especially the point about unincorporated King County and our responsibilities there with respect to public safety. Second, I just want to go back to my point about affordable, permanent, supportive housing all around King County, especially in Seattle, whatever, quote, unquote, sweeps are done. People's issue is not the opponents of that. Their issue is not that people are being connected to services and that our our parks are becoming more accessible to other people. The main issue is that we don't have the permanent supportive housing options to connect people to. So I don't understand what is being done here that's different. The issue is that we are in a housing crisis broadly. So if those resources to send people to have existed at the. Abundance and rate that have been needed to solve this crisis. Why is focusing on one specific block? Going to change that issue. We are in an overall housing crisis. That is the problem. So to me, this feels like. Codifying a sweep legislation next to where we are, where our building tends to be, whereas people all around King County have been have been crying about this issue for a long time. So there's no new revenue attached to this. King County has no progressive revenue options. What are we actually doing here? Further discussion. But Mr. Chair, I'll just say one one. Thing about energy. And in acknowledgment of the points that that the former speakers are making. When I first came on the council, we were doing our first biannual budget since I was a council member. We identified homelessness around the county complex as a really key issue that we wanted to do something about. We found some very creative ways to increase a significant amount of funding to support shelter and services around the courthouse, specifically because it is our it is our county seat. We are the county government. This is our neighborhood where we work. And we felt a special responsibility to the challenge as it was presenting right here in our front yard. And so everything that both you and council members have said is true and fair. But we have taken a special interest in this area because of it being our county seat and because of feeling a responsibility to the people that we invite here to do business with us and to work for us and to the people who have to come to receive certain very important county services. So just an explanation as to why I believe that although this is not my district and it's not incorporated King County, this is a location that is worthy of some special action and and care from the council. Thank you, Mr. Chair. See no further discussions until you suppose. Mr. Chair? Yes? A number of to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been listening very intently, and I find myself thinking about some comparisons here. Number one, just as we are the county seat located at the White House. The City of Olympia. Is the seat of government for our state yet? It's not the Olympia police. That have responsibility and authority for maintaining public order and public safety on the Capitol campus. And I want to it's the Washington State Patrol. Just as in Washington, D.C. And we, of course, know about the January 6th riots that took place there, the rebellion the Capitol Police were trying very hard to control . Order, order. It was a mess. But that impacted. The access to our national and federal government that people cannot go into the building. And it became terribly unsafe not only for our members of Congress, but for all the employees. I see this as a very urgent issue, but I do not see it. As blocking many of our work on affordable housing. I'm working with the Alliance and Pioneer Square. In fact, I've had conversations too, and I've found them very supportive of what we're doing here. I do not see that in a motion, a motion, not an ordinance that we are removing our work or ignoring our work in terms of affordable housing in the Pioneer Square area, but around the whole county, including, of course, the unincorporated part of our county. People from all over the county come to Pioneer Square for services or from King County to the courthouse up till recently to the administrative building to the section of the building and elsewhere. And they should feel safe. Jurors are saying they're not going to serve because they're afraid to come to the courthouse. This is a motion asking the executive. To provide an analysis. In fact, many. And now she's addressing these very, very important concerns. Certainly part of that is public safety. For constituents from White Center, for constituents from Skyway, for constituents from Maple Valley and from all the rural areas, and then corporate income, they come here for a reason and they should not be afraid to come to the courthouse. This motion also asks. The executives to determine options for acquiring the park, which makes all the sense in the world to if we own the park and we have individuals who are houseless currently and want to sleep in the park, then we can take part. And the decisions and what to do with that. We are already working a lot on this and we need to do a huge amount more. But this motion does not assuage any of this from going forward with our doing more. We're putting money into white sand or putting money in the sky with just to name a couple. I know I'm the budget chair. We've done a lot. We need to do a lot more. This is not an either or situation. And it's not meant to be dismissive or to lack care in providing. Needed assistance to those individuals who are houseless. We're having an increase in the number of people who are experiencing homelessness, and we're working. You all know that we need to do a hell of a lot more. But this motion will help us get to that point. There's nothing about it that is meant to be in long. The opposite is the case. I'd like to remind everybody to this is the committee of the whole. There is opportunity for amendments to be introduced, to be offered. By the time it comes up to the full council. But to not go forward with this motion, I think, is to turn our back on opportunities for the county. To have direct responsibility and authority for what can be done with the park. Rather than leave it in the hands of the city of Seattle, which has not done much at all for way too long. So that's my pledge to you to pass this vote, to approve the striking amendment, as we did, and now the legislation, so we can get on with what we need to do for the park, for public safety, to figure out from the executive what use is would be viable for the park. It could be affordable housing that we could get. It could be retaining at a spur. That would be up for the executive to provide us with options that we can address. And I think that's moving forward. That's progress that is not turning our back on the needs of so many people and our 2.3 million person. Come to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Adam Kirk, please call the room. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell duty. Hi. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. I. Councilmember done. I. Councilmember calls. I. Council member Lambert High Council member of the ground. I. Councilmember Vaughn right there. Hi. Council members online? No. Mr. Chair. No. Mr. Chair, the vote is seven eyes to the nose. The council member softly and McDermott. Thank you. By your vote, you've given a deep House recommendation to version 2021 318. The next item on today's agenda is proposed Motion 2021 to 82, which would acknowledge receipt of the Disability Equity Action Plan. It was required by a proviso on the 2021 2022 biennial budget.

Rezones 3268 West 32nd Avenue from U-SU-A to U-MS-2x in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 3268 West 32nd Avenue from U-SU-A (Urban, Single Unit, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to U-MS-2x (Urban, Main Street, 2 stories less intense use) in Council District 1. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-16-15.

DenverCityCouncil_11022015_15-0625

Thank you. It has. Madam Secretary, please announce the results. 1212 by 625 has been taken out of order. All right, so 625 is up. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 625 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 625 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. We're going to wait for the technology to. It has been moved and seconded. I have an amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to acknowledge that the applicant requested the City Council to modify the original zoning request to reduce the size of the proposed you must to X rezoning area. The request was made after the mediation process did not reach a resolution. A modification request after hearing has been scheduled is allowed under section 12 .3.3. ten of the Denver zoning code and requires a vote by council to take effect. So I move that Councilor Bill 625 be amended in the following particulars on page one, strike lines 25 through 27 and insert quotations on page one. Strike the language stated in lines 25, 26 and 27, and replace with the following language. Lot seven and eight. Lot six, except the E 16 feet thereof, said exceptions conveyed to the city and county of Denver for alley purposes. BLOCK 30. Highland Park. City and County of Denver. State of Colorado. It has been moved in second hand, starting with comments. I will just say I'm first Councilwoman Sussman, the committee chair of the Neighborhood and Planning Committee was unable to be here and asked that I make this motion for her just so that we can get the conversation first about the modification. If there was someone from community planning, Bauman can just give a brief overview of what this modification does so that for those that didn't understand all the language that I just said, could a just briefly overview and then we'll go into other comments. Thank you. Certainly. Good evening, Tim Watkins, community planning Development Case Manager for this rezoning application 2014 833 This is if we could get this visual up on the monitors for council members as well as the public, please. Okay. So this. Is a visual. Of the current application and you can see light six, seven. Eight and nine. And the proposal. The requested modification is to reduce that area, which shows that 31,000 164 square feet. Two lots, six, seven and eight. To the adjusted area of 2026. 70 square feet. Perfect. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Comments. Questions. Members of Council Councilman Espinosa Earp. I don't know if this is a question for Tim or we should get the actual applicant, but I would like to know, does this actually change? So there's been a lot of discussion about an actual proposed building for an urgent care facility. Does this actually change anything at all about the struct, the size of the structure that that they're proposing to put there? I would defer to the applicant if you'd like to call me. Yeah, sure. Thank you. Council President Herndon and members of council. My name is Cindy Kraft. I do the communications and community engagement for the mayor's team. I'm joined tonight by Dave Hagan, our developer partner, and Keith Bushtucker, who is a longtime time church member, as well as the volunteer property board manager for the church and the All New North who was acting as the volunteer church president at the time. We submitted our application. Ask the question, does it change the size of the structure proposed? Well, what I'm going to say to that, Councilman Espinosa, is that we, based on feedback that we heard, including from you. Yes. Or decided decided to shrink the lot size. We invested initially in this in this process. We really went above and beyond in trying to provide a lot of information about what we were hoping to build . Things that aren't part of the rezoning process, like the size of the building is actually not part of the criteria for rezoning. But we an effort to try to provide as much information as possible put a lot of thought into what we hoped to do and provided a lot of information about things like the size of the building. We were thinking of building, the hours of operation, what the building would look like, etc., etc. And all of that information was helpful to many members of the community who supported the project and who have sent you letters. But of course, for a core group of opponents, providing that information was not helpful. So now that we've made the decision to shrink the lot significantly, we've decided that we're just going to kind of keep things simple, which is to keep things focused on the criteria for rezoning, which is the size of the lot, and the UMC two X designation that we're going for, which is the most restrictive commercial designation in the code. The building size is something that's determined in a process following rezoning, and we're committed to working with a site engineer as well as development services to design a building that is appropriate for this new, smaller lot and want to go through it with all of the same approvals and permitting and all those things that have to do. But since the size of the building is not a criteria for rezoning, we're just going to keep it simple and talk about the lot. Tim So the proposal at some point, it's been varied from 23 to 28000 square feet. Could you build a 23,000 square foot structure on the on the remaining parcel on the remaining zone lot in the you too you 2xumx2x that would be subject to site plan review. And administrative. Review and whatever the proposed uses are in the building, the parking requirements and whether or not the on site parking parking required. So is there a configuration that you can build actually in excess of 23,000 square feet? I don't know. Wow. Okay. All right. Site plan to be determined what the size of the building would be based on the proposed uses. So we just are developing for three and a half block parcels with no proposed use. One zone lot comprised of three surveyor. Lots six, seven and eight. And there could be an variety of uses as allowed under UMC to X part of nine or not. It looks like 16 feet of there was a part of lot six would be reduced by 16 feet to dedicate to the alley. All right. Thank you. All right. Colleagues, my screen went out, so I had to log in. Was there anyone else that had chimed in for a question or comment? I apologize for that. No. No. Right. Any other comments or questions on Councilwoman Ortega? So I guess I'm trying to understand the reason for. The. The proposed amendment. And the reasoning for proposing to shrink the size of the application. I mean, typically this stuff is not done on the floor. Typically it's done where, you know, it gets worked out before it comes to city council or it's sent back to be worked out. Correct. So I don't I don't understand the the rationale for why this has been brought forward as an amendment. So, Councilman Herndon, you're doing this on behalf of Councilwoman Sussman. I know this is not her district, but I just didn't understand that. Well, who the applicant is the one that requested. So we can certainly allow them the opportunity. Thank you so much for your question, Councilman Ortega. So as Councilman Herndon had mentioned, we were in mediation and of course, we can't discuss anything that happened in mediation. However, the mediation officially terminated Friday at noon on October 23rd. And at that point, the mayor's team kind of regrouped. And we we did feel that we had a good application. I mean, it was supported by CPD. It was passed through planning board. But following the close of mediation, we got together and said, you know, is there anything more we can do?

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

LongBeachCC_02022021_21-0085

Thank you. And now we'll move on to hearing what. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation under the record. Conclude the public hearing, find the project exempt from secure and declare the ordinance. Repealing Ordinance related to a special setback on the 5800 block of Linden Avenue. Read the first time lead over to the next regular meeting of City Council for Final Reading District nine. And we have a planning bureau manager, Patricia Defender for. Good evening again, Mayor and council members. So the item before you here is the repeal of an ordinance for that city to 15 foot special setback on this block of Linden Avenue, 5800 Linden Avenue. This is the location of on the map here. And the block is between South Street and 59th Street. Roughly the zoning in the vicinity is multi-family and neighborhood commercial. The development in the area is single family owned, multi-family uses and there's a vacant lot to the east. The special setback. This ordinance dates back to 1954. It was created. It was one of the tools the city used these setbacks to create the opportunity to widen streets. And it was intended to potentially widen the street by 15 feet on each side of Linden Avenue. It precedes some of the contemporary tools that we have to regulate building setbacks and to require public right of way dedications. So there are more effective mechanisms that exist today to implement street dedications and improvements. Some of those include the mobility element. Street designations. The current zoning code, which has set back requirements that are tied to the zoning and the subdivision MAP Act, are some examples of those tools that we now have in our toolkit. So the removal of this special setback would further implement the new zoning that this City Council approved back in November for North Long Beach . The new zones do already have a way to regulate setbacks and do have a ten foot public realm requirement that would be applicable in this area. This particular the extent the geographic extent of this ordinance is very limited. And so it has, you know, limited utility to accomplish what it's trying to accomplish. And this ordinance also potentially conflicts with a development project that is in you know, that is in the works. So with that, the recommendation is to find that the proposed action be exempt, that the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and to repeal the special setback on the 5800 block of Linden Avenue. Happy to answer any questions that you might have in relation to this item. Thank you very much. I don't think any public comment. So is there a public comment? No public comment on this item there. Okay. Can I get a motion, please? But for me, I queued up to make a motion. I don't have it on here. Sorry. So I'll do a motion by Katherine Richardson. And a second by your Rango. Let's do a roll call vote, please. District one. I. District to. My. District three. District by district four, by district five by district six. District six. District seven. District eight. I. District nine. District nine. High motion carries. Thank you very much. That concludes this item. So we're moving on from the two hearings. Let's do I think we have a short, open public comment period. So why don't we go ahead and do that, Madam Court. There's no one on the line for public comment. Okay. Then we will move on to the regular agenda. We do have a lot of items on the agenda, so I want to go and go through those. Let's begin with item 13.

A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 30 (Landmark Preservation) of the Revised Municipal Code. Amends Chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC), Landmark Ordinance to simplify designation criteria, add criteria associated with cultural significance, to extend time frames for demolition/designation review process, to add required mediation and to clarify language and ensure consistency throughout the ordinance. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-10-19.

DenverCityCouncil_09302019_19-0914

Council is now reconvened. 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, please 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 and on the presentation monitor on the wall you will see your time coming down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman said Abarca, will you please put Council Bill 914 on the floor? I move that council bill 914 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy hearing for Council Will 914 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. My name is Karen. I'm with Landmark Preservation in Community Planning and Development and we are here to talk about the proposed updates to the Landmark Ordinance or chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Landmark Preservation was established in 1967 by Denver City Council with the purpose of designating, preserving and protecting historic resources. I Council noted at the time that it was the sense of the Council that the economic, cultural and esthetic standing of the city cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historic architectural and geographical history of the city. The Denver landmarks vary from what you see in the upper left hand corner, which is a staged stop at Four Mile Park to something as modern as a hangar in Stapleton. They vary over what is significant for in the types of buildings that that we have. There are currently 344 individual landmarks and 55 historic districts, which equals about 6800 primary buildings in the city in county of Denver, or approximately out of the approximately 160,000 buildings. 55 historic districts make it seem like a lot, but it's really about 4% of the city. And through this process, as we were looking at other peer cities, we found that that's an approximate number of percentage of buildings that are designated for cities of our size. So for the proposed landmark ordinance, we convened a task force of 16 members. It was intentionally put together to include those who were supportive of preservation, those who are not supportive of preservation, and those who were neutral. It included residents from a variety of different neighborhoods around the city and professions that intersected with landmark preservation, including to members of council developers, architects, realtors and contractors. We also looked at putting, when we convene the task force to have people who are newer residents to Denver, as well as people who had lived here for a long time and those who are multi-generation families from Denver. So we got to do a diverse group of people who had lived in the city and county of Denver. They they met for a yearlong process and convened 11 different facilitated stakeholder meetings. During their initial two meetings, the task force did a problem identification and they looked at what were the area, what were the areas that they wanted to focus on. They talked about a lack of diversity in the designated prop properties. The complexity of the ordinance requirements. Conflict associated with designations submitted as part of the demolition process. And the lack of incentives for designation. So the goals and the recommendations that are being put forth addressed is each of these items that were identified in the task force. The task force looked at those problem statements as well as criteria that they established sorry, as well as criteria that they established to determine if they were successful, that the processes that were being updated were clear and predictable, that they were consistent with long held citywide practices and that they were based on best preservation practices. We as staff conducted a nationwide comparative analysis of 12 peer cities, and when we talked to them, we looked at standard preservation practices, best practices, innovative programs, and then we called and talked to them to find out what were things that didn't work. We didn't want to put forward ideas that they found didn't work. And after the 11 meetings and the other 12 month process, the task force reached a consensus on all of the recommendations that are put forward. And so one of our one of our last meetings, one of our task force members said that he was a little bit uncomfortable with this. And then he looked and said, but he thinks any Levinsky, who is the director of historic Denver, was also a little bit uncomfortable, which probably meant that we hit the right balance between making things. That was a good compromise. So the recommendations are to add a culture criteria to our designation criteria. So the task force is recommending to add three criteria to our culture, one on how the site was used by past generations. Could a site or property be a source of pride or cultural understanding to a community? And three, is it associated with social movements, institutions, or patterns of growth or change in the community? We looked at what would be the right number of criteria, and we expanded our 12 peer cities to 32 cities. We looked at other Colorado cities. We especially looked at two cities in Colorado that had paid professional staff of at least two members. There aren't any other comparable cities in Colorado to Denver, but we wanted to choose cities that were actually putting some resources towards preservation. As an understanding that that's an ethos of that city. So we looked at Boulder and Fort Collins. Then we also looked at other peer cities like Austin, Portland and Seattle. And we found a variety of ways of how people were how many criteria were needed in order to be a landmark in those cities. And we looked at it, and most of those cities had a list of criteria rather than the categories that we currently have. Only ourselves, Boise, Boise and Greeley, out of the 32 cities, had categories. So the task force is recommending to remove the categories and have criteria. So here are existing designation criteria of history, architecture and geography. And so the task force is recommending to remove the categories and then create a list of criteria that include culture. And as you can see here, there's a list of ten criteria. They are still associated with the categories, with the addition of culture, and that it would meet a designation would meet three out of the ten in order to be designated. That is still one of the highest thresholds in the nation. As we looked at some of those same 32 cities, 24 of them, or 75% require fewer than 30% criteria met to be a landmark or a designation in their city. So we're still maintaining a high requirement for designation, which was an important part of what the task force talked about. We also went and looked and tried different properties against the proposed criteria. This is the Macedonia Baptist Church. It's listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but it is not a Denver landmark. So there was research that was already associated with this property. And when we looked at it, we found that it would have been significant under the proposed criteria under architecture, as well as under two, under culture as a source of pride, as well as associated with social movements or institutions of pattern and growth. And so we found that this criteria worked for the culture criteria to allow for designated properties that represent the African-American community. We also looked at iconic buildings, things that are already designated and whether they still be designated today. So we took one of the most iconic buildings in Denver, which is Union Station, and found that it would meet six out of the ten criteria and would still be eligible under the proposed criteria. We also wanted to look at residential in addition to in addition to commercial properties. And so we looked at the Molly Brown house, which is one of the more iconic residential buildings in Denver, and found that it still met the criteria three out of ten and felt like that would be a good threshold number. And then we also looked at a property that we had reviewed for a demolition permit a couple of years ago. And at that time, we found that it didn't meet the existing criteria and categories that we have. And we found under the proposed new criteria, it would still would not meet the it would still not meet the criteria to would only be significant under architecture. And so we wanted to try out the proposed criteria under different for different properties and under different methods to ensure that we were reaching the right balance in the task force found that the three out of ten would be the appropriate criteria for designation. The other reason that the task force was primarily convened was to look at the conflicts that comes from properties that are come under demolition review and then a designation process is started through that. And so we talked extensively about ways to reduce the conflict in that we wanted to provide some numbers of the of what we have reviewed citywide. So if you can see the blue graph bar on the the largest numbers are the properties that landmark staff reviewed and approved for demolition. Then the much smaller purple shows the number of properties that we found had the potential to be a Denver landmark, and those were posted. And then the very small that you almost can't see the line, but you can see the number are the number of designations that were received from 2014 through midyear of 2019. And so we're talking about a really small percentage of properties that come forward, but understanding that when they do come forward, there is a lot of conflict that is associated with that. So of those designations that came forward, only one has been designated as a landmark. It's the Beth Eden Baptist Church, which was designated in 2014 or 2015. We have had three that were withdrawn by the applicant, three that were denied by city council. And then we have two that were denied by the Landmark Preservation Commission because they found that the applications were not sufficient to come forward. These owner opposed designations are very rare. And one of the things that we found in Denver and in our research with our peer cities is that we sometimes find a really good way of saving buildings that aren't necessarily through designation. And so while only one property has been designated through this process, we've also we've saved a variety of buildings through a compromise that didn't come through designation. And the task force talked about wanting to take this process out of the binary demo or designation process and turn it into some sort of collaboration between the community and the property owner. And so the task force is proposing to add a pause in the process. So the top line shows the current process that that a designation would go forward and a demolition review. And on the top one in green, it shows that there's a short seven day pause. What the task force is talking about doing is extending that pause from seven days to 39 days, which adds up to a grand total of a 60 day pause. Within that pause, there would be a required third party facilitated meeting, and it would be facilitated by a city paid facilitator. Landmark staff would who would attend these meetings to help provide information that would be needed. But the intent is to bring the property owner or any of the property owners, representatives together with community members, with members of the R.A., and bring in any outside expertize that could be needed on the cases that have come forward to city council. We have. On that. Sometimes you have asked questions about the stability of the property or was there a compromise that could be reached in this process? It would allow for bringing in outside experts who are structural engineers, who are used to working on historic properties, and that they could also provide input in this process if needed. One of the questions that we got in our public comment period is what happens if someone decides to skip the third party facilitated meeting? And so we address this by if the person who asked for the pause or submitted the notice of intent. If they don't attend the facilitated meeting, that demolition would automatically be approved the next business day. If the property owner or the property owners representatives do not attend the meeting, then the demolition is automatically denied. The next day the property owner would have the ability to start the process over again, but they would have to restart from the beginning. And so there's a reaction on either side if they don't attend the facilitated meeting. So those are the two major changes that are proposed in the landmark ordinance. There are a variety of smaller updates. The landmark ordinance has been updated about 20 some times in the last 52 years, and no one has gone through and looked for consistency within the ordinance. So we are clarifying, removing and streamlining some processes. The Internet was not in existence at the time we wrote this in 1967. So we've updated the email on the Internet existing. There are other ways to communicate versus just mail. We clarified how a few things were done. We have added or amended definitions, including temporary structures for which landmark preservation would not review temporary signage or structures. We have also added something to help provide consistency with other CPD boards and to to manage the agendas of boards. If someone submits a does or submits a design review application, they are taken in a first come, first serve basis. Based on if your application is complete, there are also recommendations to update the Lower Downtown Design Review Board. Changing the name from a board to a commission and adding two At-Large members. One of the other things we did for consistency is that both the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Lower Downtown Design Review Board perform design review in a very similar manner. But the ordinance does not talk about it in the same way. So we're just clarifying and making sure that the ordinance discusses their review process in the same manner. We are also proposing a few items that are not in the ordinance but were things that the Land Preservation Office is working on. The first is to provide clarity for proposed historic districts. So we're formalizing a process for city led community meetings on proposed historic districts. We have staff attend the community meetings that are put forward by the applicants at this time. We attend multiple meetings frequently, but there was a talk, especially from some of the neighborhood residents on the task force, about wanting additional time for communities that are going through a proposed designation. And so we would, once they complete application, would be submitted into landmark staff, we would send a letter along with an FAA cue to everyone who lives within the historic district or owns property in the district, and tell them that there is going to be a meeting in 30 days to allow the community time to talk about the process. Landmark staff would provide information, and then it's mainly intended to be a Q&A for members of the community to ask Landmarks staff what meet what it means to be a historic district. Once that meeting has taken place, we would start an online system to help map and track comments. We currently have a system of dueling petitions where people who are supportive sign a petition and people who are not as supportive or opposed sign a petition. And at the last large historic district that came forward, there were people who signed both petitions which made it difficult for us to provide information to you guys as to what was the community support for this. So this would be an online mapping system. It's the same system that we used to get comments for Blueprint. Denver So it would move away from neighbors going binary yes or no for neighbors, but that they could come and provide their comments online, that they would drop a pen as to where they are, that they would provide their contact information and address so that we could verify that they are actually the people who are filling out the survey and that they would have an area for free comment for anything that they wanted to provide written comment to us. This can also have the advantage of being able to be put in multiple languages to provide better access to it. We also wanted to continue to take comment from people who don't own computers or don't have access to the Internet. They can still call us. They can come in person, they can write a letter, they can email us. So we aren't precluding any other form of comment. But we wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to help streamline the process a little bit. One of the things the task force also talked about is to explore ways to incentivize designation. We did not find a silver bullet or a magic pot of money somewhere, but we did find through our research that other cities have additional zoning incentives that we don't have or that we aren't using to the best that could be enhanced. And so we're looking to do zoning tools to encourage designation things like administrative adjustments or variances for recommendations. If the property and the changes that they're meeting making would be compatible with the character so as to reduce the barriers for people who are designated. And this is just a summary of some of the proposed updates that are outside of the ordinance, but that are things that we at Landmark Preservation are working on after the discussion with the task force. We had an extensive community outreach. We had a variety of meetings before the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Lower Downtown Design Review Board, Planning Board. We went and met with ANC a couple of times. We had community meetings that were out in the community as well as office hours, and then we had meetings that were one on one meetings with people, as well as meetings with organizations for the Denver Metro Association of Realtors Air. We met with Arnaud's when they requested it. We had a public comment period on the draft that was about a two month period, and we incorporated those comments into the final version. Into the final version before you. Oh, sorry. Public comments. We received 11 public comments from people during the draft period. And then on the final red line, we received comments, we received 16 emails. That was a form email that was in support of the proposed amendment that was not brought forward. And then we received two letters from one from History, Colorado and one from the Colorado preservation ink in support of this, as well as 13 letters submitted by individuals who were in support of this. And so the recommendations are to add culture and simplify the criteria that remove the categories and add three criteria for the demolition review process to extend the demolition review process and to add a required third party facilitation meeting to encourage collaboration and then a variety of changes for clarity and consistency. If this is approved, it would have an effective date of November 1st. However, any designation applications that are submitted by October 31st would be processed under the existing criteria. So there are a few designations that are in process right now that you guys would see under the old criteria. And anything that's submitted up through October 31st would be under the old criteria. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. We have nine, I think. That's nine people and everybody, if I'm reading this right, I think all nine in support tonight who are speaking, signed up to speak tonight. So I'm going to call the first five up. If you can come up to this first bench and then just step up. When I call your name, you'll have your 3 minutes start on the clock. Sheron not only Carla McConnell, Annie Levinsky, Rosemary Stoffel and Barbara Paul if you could come up and Sharon Nunnally, you are up first. Good evening, council members. My name is Sharon Nunnally. I live in Denver, Colorado, in the Humboldt Park Historic District. I am a past chair of the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission. When we had no design guidelines and our process pretty much was we would try to meet people as much as possible halfway. I am also the author of the Five Points Historic District, Cultural, Historic District. And that particular district speaks to what did not exist at the time that I wrote that application. It was written in 2000, 2001, and final designation was in 2002. And at that time, Jennifer Moulton was the director of planning and Wellington Webb was the mayor. And I think the only person on council at that time was Debbie Ortega, and that is still, still with us. So at the time that we proposed that application, the ordinance is was in its current state. There was no such thing quite as cultural. The word was used, but there had never, ever been an application brought forth on the basis of culture or quite frankly, on the basis of history of a people and a geographic location. So it took a lot of rereading on my part. Even though I had read that ordinance 100 times, I read it another 50 just to see how I could cause this application to take form in the current ordinance language. And it was very tricky, but we managed to get it done. After much explaining and many community meetings and people, everybody on both sides of the discussion were very confused. What do you mean? And why is it this place? And what about these buildings? There are only seven contributing buildings in that district, and so that was intentional and it was a way to recognize the most important buildings, because we also had a landscape that had a lot of add ons. However, the main piece of the application was about the district itself, the people, the business corridor at a time that we don't hope to ever repeat in history. And it was during the period of segregation total in this country from the twenties to the fifties. And we worked on helping people understand the process from beginning to the time of them. I'm sorry, but your 3 minutes are up. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, thank you very much. Anyway, that's where we started. Thank you, Carla McConnell. Good evening. My name is Carla McConnell. I live at 662 Ulster Way, which is in Lowry. I've been involved in historic preservation, both as a volunteer serving on the Denver Landmarks Commission, as a trustee for historic Denver and on the Colorado Preservation Board and professionally as an architect with the National Park Service. Tonight, I ask that you adopt the proposed revisions to our landmark ordinance. Denver's ordinance has resulted in the preservation of over 300 individual landmarks and predictable changes in our 55 historic districts. Our community has benefited from creative developers who have adaptively reused non-designated properties. But the strength of our landmark ordinance is in saving many qualifying properties, which may have been viewed as disposable. Earlier this evening, Lowry's 25th anniversary was celebrated. Thank you. Lowry is a great reminder of the value of proactive preservation planning at Lowry. Buildings that were first seen as white elephants, such as hangars one and two were protected before development began in a landmark district and are now centerpieces of the community. Affordable housing went into the Grand Lowry Lofts and many other examples of adaptive reuse on the one time base gives our neighborhood its unique character. LOWRY Success required collaboration between the city, the master developer and neighboring residents. In the 1990s, the certainty that grounded these decisions could not have been achieved without the tools provided by the landmark ordinance. These proposed updates ensure that we can continue to preserve places that tell Denver's story while attracting investment and meeting community needs. I thank Councilmembers Flynn and Ken each for their active involvement in the updating process for the time commitment of committee volunteers and especially wish to acknowledge the leadership of Denver's landmark staff. The staff both assembled a committee reflecting various points of view, extensively researched best practices from cities with equivalent preservation programs, and managed to end the process with a consensus vote of approval from the committee. No small achievement. Again, the proposed revisions to the landmark ordinance are worthy of your adoption this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, any levinsky. Thank you. I'm Annie Levinsky, executive director of Historic Denver, Inc, a local nonprofit membership supported organization. I served as a member of the task force over the past 18 months, and we, as historic Denver, came to the table because we agreed that there was room to improve some of the landmark processes and specifically those processes related to how new historic designations come forward. I'll admit we were also a little trepidatious about what this might look like and what the outcomes would be. That said, everyone on the task force approached the issues thoughtfully and openly, and the city staff provided helpful research on how other cities were either successfully or not successfully handling similar challenges. In the end, the task force everyone on the task force did make compromises. I don't think everyone left the room getting everything they wanted, but we did leave the room in agreement that we had come to a place where the recommendations were solid, where they would serve our community well, and where they would resolve the core issues that we were commissioned to address. So I want to thank the other task force members, a number of whom are here tonight, because it was a really major time commitment. The two major recommendations of the task force relate to the designation criteria, which you've heard and the designations that result from the demolition review process, which are very rare when the property owners do not support them. We're very excited about the inclusion of the cultural criteria in the designation. We think they can help reduce bias inherent in the system and help invite recognition of resources that reflect the full range of Denver's history. And we look forward to building relationships in the communities all across the city to understand what places are meaningful to them as we get used to these new criteria. Often there have been a number of sites that have been underrepresented in formal preservation programs, and Sharon highlighted one of the challenges she faced 20 years ago trying to protect the Five Points District. But we also know that we needed to maintain a high bar for designation. And so I'll move to the three criteria on the designations that are more contentious, that do not have the support of property owners, which I think Carol highlighted. But it's less than 0.01% of all of the demolitions that come through. But still, we know that they raise contention. And we also know from our own experience that taking a little time to explore alternatives when those issues arrive can often lead to the win win outcome. And really, the value is not so much in the designation itself, but in the dialog that is generated by having the opportunity to engage. So we believe that the new structure for demolition postings, which really refocuses the time on dialog and mediation, will provide a better path toward resolution with either even fewer of those coming forward to this body. We do look forward to working on some of the incentives that the task force was not able to address because they're not in the ordinance and upholding the preservation legacy in Denver, which has saved places from the mine to LoDo, the Paramount to First Unitarian Church. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next up, Rosemary Stoffel. My name is Rosemary Stoffel and I live at 2275 South Monroe Street. My role on the Landmark Ordinance Task Force was as a community representative. I've been an advocate for preservation in my own neighborhood as well as in the city as a former historic Denver board member. Other task force members represented different points of view, and not everyone was always on the same page. But each of us did have the opportunity to speak up. We all had to compromise on some things, but in the end agree that we were all on board with the final recommendations. The process involved many hours of meetings and also reading a lot of information sent out by landmark staff before each meeting. Please respect the. Work of the task. Force and adopt these recommendations tonight without any changes or delays. I want to emphasize the importance. Of the pause period. For owner opposed designations in older, older neighborhoods like mine. We have lost many older homes in recent years, including two which were important enough. To be posted by the. City as potentially eligible for designation. One of these was an architectural treasure known to most of us in the neighborhood, an intact Queen Anne House, which had one of favorite Old House award in 2009. The new owner had applied for a demolition permit and was planning to scrape the house in order to build a brand new home . I talked to this owner over the phone several times about considering ways that. He could both. Save the house and get the kind of home he wanted. But the tight. Deadline in the demo review process made that difficult. We never. Met face to. Face or had the. Time or. Expertize available to look at possibilities other. Than designation, other than demolition or designation. Sitting down together with a neutral facilitator, with city staff available to provide facts and other experts. We would have been would have been much more neighborly and given us a better chance to hear each other's perspectives. I don't know if the outcome would have been any different in this particular case, but a longer timeline would also have provided due respect to one of our neighborhoods important assets. Please adopt this proposed. Ordinance tonight so these updates can happen sooner rather than later. Thank you. Thank you, Barbara Paul and then Mark Bowman, Amy Cole, Dennis Humphries and Gregorio Al Caro. If you want to come up to the front bench, go ahead. Thank you. My name is Barbara Paul, and I'm the senior vice president. For Preservation Field. Services for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I work for the National Trust for 35 years, all the while residing here in Denver. I have been proud to have worked with the city, historic Denver and local property owners on the designation of the Lower Downtown Historic District in the 1980s and the downtown Historic District in 2001. Big, bold projects like these have demonstrated Denver's leadership in the field of historic preservation, leadership in particular that has benefited from the city's elected officials. As a result, as you've already heard, 300 individual landmarks and 50 stark neighborhoods, but that still only represents 4% of the city's built environment. But yet we. Are here to applaud your outcomes that. Will make it easier for Denver's diverse and culturally rich historic sites and neighborhoods to be considered for local landmark designation that will allow more time for property owners and community members to meet and consider alternatives to potential demolition. That is the forever loss of an historic property. And that will ease regulatory. Barriers and create greater flexibility for owners who want to protect their historically designated property. These changes represent best practices the National Trust has been promoting in other cities across the country, including in Miami, where we've been working with the city to protect the culture rich Little Havana neighborhood that was threatened by up zoning. And in Philadelphia, the cradle of America, where now the mayor's. Task force has included the creation of a new fund. To create incentives to encourage underserved communities to engage in the preservation of their neighborhoods. My colleague Jim Lindberg, who also is here in Denver in our office, recently sent you a letter in support of this bill, and he wrote the Landmark Protection Ordinance that has helped Denver achieve its reputation as one of America's most vibrant, livable and attractive cities, to which I would also add, culturally diverse. So as a preservation professional and a citizen of this city, I urge you to vote in favor of this bill. Thank you. Next up, Mark Bowman. Good evening, President Clark, members of council, thank you for your time and consideration. My name is Mark Bowman. I'm here on behalf of DeMar Denver, Metro Boss Board of Realtors, the largest realtor association in Colorado, representing 7200 plus members. In addition to a member of DeMar, I'm a contractor and a realtor that have worked on historic homes for over 45 years. I'm also an Air Force veteran and a Lowry graduate. I'm here to express our support for the amendment package that is before you this evening. I had the opportunity to serve on the Landmark Preservation Task Force and attended each and every meeting and had that we had over 18 months before devolving. Delving into my comments, I'd like to thank staff and fellow task force members for all their hard work and time they possessed. Dee Myers, in a support of the package, was filed for the following reasons. First, we are hopeful that the pause period will provide non owner applicants and property owners the additional time and dialog prior to application going to LPC or City Council. Second, we support simplifying the designation criteria and adding culture, which is an important criteria to consider and designation process. Finally, we appreciate small language modifications that make it clear to council in giving consideration to property owners position when facing owner post designation. One of my favorite expressions is all the best agreements are reached when everybody is a little bit uncomfortable and I think everyone will agree that we were all a little uncomfortable but came to a consensus on this proposal. With that said, in light of three recent and one still unresolved owner opposed designations, it's no secret that we would like additional provisions for property owners facing unwanted landmark designations. And to be clear, to correct the record for something that was said in committee. It is not DeMarco's position to oppose landmark designation. On the contrary, we believe landmark designation has an important part of shaping our city, is a tool, has been used appropriately to save some of the city's most venerated buildings and coveted neighborhoods such as the Mayan Theater and Curtis Park. Three years ago, some of you called for Chapter 30 update for two main reasons. One, you wanted to end the ugly owner oppose landmark in front of city council. And two, you wanted to see additional provisions for property owners that had their backs against the wall that were that had to be very lopsided process. Unfortunately, this process missed the mark and accomplishing the second goal. We'd like to thank Councilmembers Black and Gilmore for bringing forward their amendments, especially the amendment proposed raising the bar for owner post designation. And even though that is not a part of this consideration, we would like serious consideration for this moving forward. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Amy, call. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Amy Cole and I'm a 20 year resident of West Highlands. I live on 29th Avenue. In March of 2018, I was asked to serve on the Landmark Ordinance Task Force as a neighborhood resident. And over the course of 18 months, I attended all but one of the meetings and was an active participant, including providing regular reports to my R.A., the West Highlands Neighborhood Association. Our work focused on ways to encourage dialog between the city community members and property owners during the landmark designation process, the clarification of ordinance, language and reviewing the kinds of historic significance a property should have in order to be considered for designation. Following outreach to the community about these proposed changes, the task force work concluded in June 2019 and represents the collective effort of 14 Volunteer Task Force Members, Council Persons Flynn and Ken each and was supported by Mike Hughes and the landmark and CPD staff. Our task force reached consensus about the proposal before you tonight and agree, and the agreement of the group was that it be submitted to council without amendment. Therefore, I ask you to please vote in favor of the ordinance package as it's been submitted. Thanks for your consideration. Thank you. Dennis Humphries. Good evening. I'm Dennis Humphries live at 10th and Cherokee in Denver. I'm an architect. I was a member of the task force. And I'm also here to support the revisions to the ordinance as as proposed by the task force. As everybody has stated, it was a lively group and of bringing different opinions to the table, and it was one that was resoundingly of great success. It was the chair of the Landmark Preservation Committee Commission. When a young student from the University of Colorado at Boulder came and tried to designate the Gates property. At that point, we felt as though the commission did their work in skillfully navigating and overwriting that designation. Since that time, the ordinance has been revised, and as with any ordinance, it's always up for need for further revisions. So again, I support the revisions for all the reasons that all the other members of the task force have stated. However, I would like to point out that it has been addressed, that there are several incentives that need to be addressed that are not part of this ordinance and would not be part of the Landmark Preservation Ordinance . And those are incentives to encourage people to want to preserve their properties, whether it be through tax benefits or other financial benefits. We need to work beyond this moment to make sure that those happen. We also need to further fund the Discover Denver program that has been ongoing for five years. This program has been predominantly financed by the state. It's the city's responsibility to push this forward. The purpose of this program is to inform and allow property owners to really know the value in the potential historic value of their property. So I would encourage you as a as a board, a council, to make sure that these initiatives, these incentives are pursued aggressively after this ordinance is passed. So as an architect, I believe one of my favorite sayings is that in the end, our society will not be defined by what we create. But but why we but what we refuse to destroy. So I encourage you this evening to support this ordinance. Thank you very much. Thank you. Gregorio Al Caro. Thank you. Members of City Council. I'm a Denver native. I represent a house called Casa Mayan at 10/29 Street and Tampa on the Aurora campus. I'm also an urban designer. I ask for your support in particularly the use of the word culture to be added to the updates. I particularly want to focus on social movements and culture as an example to better understand spaces through its social evolution. The Denver Landmark Commission in 1967 did not have the word culture they were use. They did hint, though, that buildings should not be frozen in time, that they needed to remain active. They needed to have a link to a memorable events. Using the word culture will prove successful, as I will give a successful case study with customer, an historic house in Denver, ninth Street Historic Park. We had a migration of many Mexican-Americans during the Mexican Revolution until the 1970s, a house that turned into a mutual aid society. It was a non religious non-governmental house that became a mutual ista mutual aid society. This house proved to be very important in understanding the Mexican-Americans and Irish-Americans importance of having spaces to preserve their culture. Music. Dance, food. Political gatherings. People like Betty and Vernita slaughtered. They had ETA. Richard de Castro found a place in a home to preserve their culture and engage in political discussions that would lead to the preservation of the alma Lincoln Park in the Chicano movement. In 40 years since the displacement, that house has been used for storage, for offices. But by using the word culture and bringing back a cultural narrative, that house has been brought back to life. Political discussions, cultural movements, historic design conferences. Culture is very critical. The students and the community bring life and spirit back to this house. This is not only an important tool for planners. Architects. Urban designers. Landscape architects. Public artist. It welcomes those to our country that have a particular heritage. They feel grounded when they know that cultural heritage, they feel welcome. And more importantly, they have a freedom to express their culture. This is a great design tool. It will lead to better urban design. Less divisiveness. And I strongly urge you to support. This amendment or this addition update. Good questions. Could you state your name for the record? Gregorio Alcala. Thank you very much. All right. That does conclude our speakers this evening. Are there any questions from members of council clementines? Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. It's better when the microphones on. We have a ask a question about the Molly Brown house. From I. It doesn't matter that. Yeah. The question that I have is it looks like based on the presentation, three out of the current ten criteria are tied to the Molly Brown House meets three of the ten criteria, and we're moving from a 67% threshold to a 30% threshold. The Molly Brown House is a historic lead designated building now, correct? Yes. Correct. Historic. Never owns the Molly Brown house so I can speak definitively. Answer yep. So. But it also somehow met the 67% criteria threshold and now it meets only 30%. I guess that's that's that's my confusion. Yeah. We, I think spent maybe two whole task force meetings sort of trying to figure out this math piece around how do you maintain a high bar? Because it's not exactly apples to apples, because right now we require properties to meet at least two criteria out of three categories. And so that's where you get the 67 strip the categories. Then you could say it's 20% and we're going up to 30. So it's just essentially a different system. But as you saw, still maintains a pretty high bar. Okay. I was thinking I was pretty good with math, but that just wasn't enough for me. So thank you. That's that's all ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President. Clerk Cara, can I ask you a couple questions, please? Um, let me see. On the task force. Slide slide seven. Um, could you give us a breakdown of the task force makeup specifically around race and then the area of the city that folks lived in? Yes. So it was a primarily white task force. There were two Latina women, one of whom did not attend as regularly as as the other task force members. We it was a very technical task force. And so in preservation as a field, as well as the architects, realtors and developers is a primarily white field. We did attempt to diversify the task force on Councilwoman Can. Each provided us with some good contacts. We reached out and asked members to join the task force. They initially said yes and then after a couple of meetings of not attending, when we got back in touch with them and they said that no, they didn't feel like the task force intersected enough with their work or areas that they were working on in order to be able to attend. So it is admittedly a pretty white task force in terms of where people lived. We didn't check the addresses of everyone, but we did try to make sure that the neighborhoods, the representatives of the neighborhood were spread out. So we had someone on the West, someone from the south, and then we had two neighborhood representatives from the Park Hill area. Okay. Thank you. So you weren't able to get any residents, I guess, further east of Park Hill? No, there were no none of the neighborhood residents were. No. We did ask people to of the people that we asked, we asked someone who represented the little area in Swansea, a neighborhoods. And then someone from more the Montebello area. And those were the people who said initially said yes and then said no, that this really didn't meet the the needs of what they were working on. And so I guess the technical nature of the task force and what you were reviewing, I guess, for the four neighborhood residents that served on the task force. How did you get them versus other neighborhood individuals? We looked for people who had so so two of the neighbors from Park Hill where people who had lived in the proposed historic district that had been proposed for Park Hill, and they were two neighbors who were not supportive of preservation. And we really wanted to make sure that we got people who were familiar somewhat with the historic districts or the landmark processes. So it was one of the things we looked at. We were looking at people who were either supportive or not supportive. We wanted someone who was familiar with preservation to a little bit of a degree. And so we chose the two or we asked the two people from the Park Hill neighborhood two to come as residents who had gone through the process or started to go through the district process. So we chose or asked those two members to join, and then we asked for two other neighborhood residents who were more supportive of preservation and trying to make sure that they were from other, other neighborhoods. And we wanted to make sure that they were from different parts of the city. So would it be a true statement then that out of the 16 members on the task force, you didn't have at least neighborhood representation that was maybe against. LAMB We had to, yeah, that the two neighbors from Park Hill were not supportive of protesters in. Support of gender neutral. Okay. Not supportive or neutral? Sorry. Not. That's okay. All right. And then I guess it sounds like early on in the process then, since you were trying to backfill with additional task force members, did you ever reach out to the council officers? We asked them to recommend people or through our registered neighborhood organizations, faith based organizations, nonprofit organizations, to ask us for recommendations. We did not. We spoke with Councilwoman Kennedy, but we did not reach out to the other council district offices. Okay. And then on further in your slide deck, the community meetings that you held, as close as I can see, it looks like that would be open to the public. There were four of them that weren't, you know, kind of hosted by a different group. Were any of your community meetings held in the Montebello or Green Valley Ranch neighborhoods? No, they were not. We had one on the West Side. We had one in Virginia Village, we had one in. We did office hours in the Blair Caldwell Library. And there's a fourth one. And I'm sorry, I'm forgetting where that one was, but none and. MONDELLO No. Okay. Or North Green Valley Ranch? No. Okay. And then with the task force, I guess, where did the conversation go? Or around the process, especially in the importance of perhaps reaching out to vulnerable neighborhoods that are at risk of gentrification or involuntary displacement? I guess where did the task force go with that conversation? And yeah, where did they go with that conversation? We had some conversations about displacement, but we also talked about it was one of the things that was brought up in problem identification and then it was scaled back because we only represent landmark is 4% of the city and that wasn't we did not feel it was something that the landmark ordinance could take on. That displacement is a huge issue within the city and was not necessarily something that landmark preservation could solve. It was something that was brought up and discussed, but it was determined that the landmark ordinance maybe wasn't the place to have that full discussion. So there was. So it sounded like there was maybe never a conversation around looking at large parcels of land in neighborhoods that are mainly African-American and Latino and possibly vulnerable. But there was never an overlay or further in-depth conversation around if there was a landmarking of, say, for example, a church property that now you're the different criteria , opens it up to more availability for it to be landmarked. But there was never really a back and forth conversation of how might that affect equity in the neighborhood? How might that encourage, you know, just I guess, distrust, unrest when there might be especially around an owner opposed designation and especially let me add on to that. If that owner opposed designation was possibly a group of Caucasian residents that were trying to landmark perhaps an African-American or Latino property. Was that specific scenario played out, talked about how can we get to a win win solution? A That particular scenario was not talked about in the incentives discussion. We talked about adding are there ways to add density to traditionally one unit or to unit to unit zone districts and ways to if something is designated, could you add density to that neighborhood then or to that to that with that building that if someone designates the building, then you could increase the number of units that could be in the property. So an ability to add density to neighborhoods. But we didn't talk specifically about places of worship or churches in the task force or discussed the exact scenario that you had asked about. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, President Park. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me see who I need to ask this question. I wanted to inquire about the increase in the zoning incentives here, and maybe you can help me out here in terms of what what those might entail. So we looked at what other cities were doing and we looked at like. What Portland was doing and talking a little bit about adding density to a one or two unit zone districts, so increasing density that way. We talked about blueprint Denver has talked about you know is encouraging to use throughout the city are beginning to have that conversation. So we talked about would 80 use be allowed in any historic districts or individual landmarks? Could that sort of be the first place to add on to to add density and allow an incentive for designation? So that was one of the other areas we talked about. We also looked at there are other cities for lower parking requirements to allow administrative adjustments or administrative ah, variances for things like set back, open space, things like that. Those were sort of the zoning areas that we saw that other cities were doing. Some other cities did things like, if you're a landmark and you're going through the permitting process, some of your fees are waived through the building and zoning process. There are a few areas like that that we looked at as well. Okay. That's that's all very helpful. So when you talked about the parcel, it is really just if if your property is large enough to attach an additional unit on the property, maybe not necessarily attached to the structure. None of those include tweaks to the actual building, correct. Yeah. I mean, you could you currently can have what are either administrative adjustments for things like height or a bulk plane, or you can have variances that go to Board of Adjustment. And we currently recommend administrative adjustments or variances if the changes to the property would be something that would be compatible with the character of the building . So additions, something like if you have a gable house like a queen in and you wanted to use the attic space, and the way to do that would be to add some sort of gable or dormers on the side. You would pierce the bulk plane, but that you could get an adjustment for that. And so it would maintain the character of the building, but allow additional use within the building as well. Okay. So any I want to have you come up and just ask you kind of a follow up question. I know having worked on the old courthouse building at Colfax and Kellman, when the development team was looking at making a change to the staircase on the inside. So it wasn't even tinkering with the outside of the building because they were trying to secure some state historic funds. They couldn't do that otherwise. They had to forgo utilizing those resources. So how much do some of these tweaks impact a property owners ability to then access some of the state funding that might be available? Right. So the expectations and the regulations of the state historical fund or the National Park Service for folks using tax credits are are different than the local standards because in Denver we don't Landmark's does not review interior changes. You can get some relief and we've had this happen with local landmarks. If your historic railing isn't quite the right height, you can get some adjustments. And and we're talking about the task force to talk about other ways to remove barriers to adaptive reuse, things like that that can become investment hurdles that folks can't get over as they're trying to change the use of a building. So we think there is more that can be done to add flexibility. And then owners will have to make the decision about whether that added flexibility outweighs the the federal or the state incentive that they might get in a different manner. But yeah, so that both are sort of separate things. And in terms of the idea around sort of adding density to historic landmarks, we have some examples of that. There's a church on Sixth Avenue where the church was converted into residential and then a row of condos was built behind it on their adjacent land. And so we talked about ways that you could facilitate those kinds of solutions. Holy Ghost. Church. Right. Really creative. While you're there, let me ask one last question. Dennis brought up an issue, Dennis Humphries, about Discover Denver. Do you have any idea how what percentage of of completeness we're at on that project? I don't know, Carol. Maybe that's something for you to answer. But if you have the information, that would be helpful since you're up there. I think Kara and I were just comparing our notes here. I believe it is somewhere between 15 and 18% of the city that has been completed in the first five years. So there's a long way to go still. And that's among those that are still left. Among the what? Among those properties that are still left, because some of those that may have been surveyed might not exist anymore. That's true. Since we started discovered Denver, there have been 3000 demolitions in the city. So. Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to. I buzzed in when Councilman Hines was talking about math, and I think Kara might know what I'm going to bring out here in my in my questioning of her. But on the chart where we we are one of the toughest to meet, two out of three criteria. I think Kara will will recall that at each task force meeting, I pointed out that that was not exactly true. It was two out of ten criteria. It's just that we group the ten criteria into three categories. And of the two criteria, you must meet. At a minimum, they must be in two of the three categories. So what the task force did and Kara, could you stand at the mic so that this appears to be a question rather than a comment? Thank you. What what we ended up doing on the task force was we just eliminated categories. But because of that, because it might be very simple to meet to if I can pull up the code, it would be very simple for a property to meet two criteria in any one category direct association with historic event and direct association to the person who had influence on a society. So in order to not lower the bar by eliminating the categories, that my recollection is what led us to say you need to be three criteria. But they could all still be in what used to be the same category. Correct? That is correct. And then adding, we added culture. And in doing that, in order to maintain the ten categories and not expand it to 12 or 14, we edited it. We did a lot of wordsmithing and we edited some of the create the existing criteria that appear to maybe have a lot of similarities and we would combine them into just one. So overall, by doing away with criteria, we're going from 20% to 30%, not from 67% to 30%. If you could, you could do the math that way. Yes. Thank you. And that was for Councilman Hines at the end. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. I see a representative from the Colorado Latino Forum here wondering. I didn't see you on the list, but would you be willing to come up and speak? Thank you. Yes. So I am curious about the Latino Forum's involvement or your understanding of how this change impacts the ability of diverse communities to either stay in place, stay in communities, or impact preservation themselves. Sure, I think. Of the people on TV. My name is Ian Thomas Tafoya, and this topic actually intersects along three groups that I'm involved with I.N.S. Zoning and Planning, the Colorado Latino Forum. And I'm also a trustee of historic Denver. So I think if I say this earlier, I'm in favor of this. I do think that adding culture allows more communities to have a voice in the process. With historic Denver and with Landmark. We've been working towards a cultural district just in West Denver, in the Lama neighborhood, and we've been able to put forward the idea that it's not always just about one built form, that there are several built forms that fit into a cultural context and trying to find that. In fact, I had a meeting last week. So as you go down along with me in hopes of gaining our support, which they did, to create a to seek a grant for a cultural context which will help align this all the way around. I will add that, you know, along this process, I was frustrated when the first when I first saw the landmark map, because there were parts of your district and all of West Denver where the key was on top of it. And as you know, in the Chicano movement, if you're not part of the maps, are not part of the conversation. And so we were able to actually work with them and the Justice Department to change that. I think part of the reason you don't hear about a lot of people on the task force who have the skill set is because there aren't any districts in our communities because we've been missing this component. There are very few landmarks in West Denver. It's something that I have put on the strategic plan for historic Denver, and I think things that were working forward. One idea that I've had is I think that during the MPI process we have a great opportunity to educate people about this and other conservation tools. This was in the Blueprint Plan and also to avoid landmarking disputes. We have a really unique opportunity as communities at that time to decide what landmarks are important in their community early on in the whole planning process rather than later. Thank you. And quick question for Councilwoman Ortega. I live in Swansea and I know that prior to the I-70 expansion, there were community conversations about making Elyria Historic District. Do you recall what the pushback was on that? Because I know we couldn't meet the criteria, but do you remember what exactly the pushback was about? I believe that was done under Councilwoman Monteiro at the time. It was not something I was directly involved in. And Councilwoman said, what were you working. For at the time of. My that. When that conversation came up? Because I'm not familiar with why that didn't happen. And I do know that in the application of the environmental assessment, it speaks to the neighborhoods, both the Lurie and Swansea, as historic communities because of the longstanding history and specifically the impact the I-70 project has had on those neighborhoods. And I ask this question really to emphasize how difficult it has been for different groups to preserve our communities. I believe that what I recall from that process was that we were told that none of the houses in our district, even though it was a historic neighborhood, were in in good enough condition to consider in a historic district. And I think that this is an excellent move in the right direction to make sure that we have some of those barriers eliminated. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines, you back up? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to have the city come up again for a second. Thank you. So I live in Denver is perfect. Ten and I happen to represent it too. In Denver is perfect ten. I bet you can already anticipate the questions, but for the folks on the outside, there was a conversation around Tom's Diner not too long ago, and I am curious to hear the city's thoughts on how this might the new process might have have affected that that process. Yes. So I know that there were community members who were and still are having conversations with the Thomas of the property owner about is there a way to provide him with the with the appropriate recompense or the money for his property while also being able to preserve the building? And so I know it's a conversation that is still ongoing. I think that had the pause been there, there would have been a little it would have allowed a little more breathing room for the conversation to occur. Instead of feeling like it was being really compressed in to allow that conversation, which is still going on now, to have been able to do it without the the tight pressure and deadline. And I think it may have helped the process go a little bit smoother. Okay. I mean, I guess so. It's the city's opinion or you're through the stakeholder engagement process is the stakeholder engagement for this. The I'm assuming you guys talked about Tom Steiner or or had you already wrapped up by the time it started. The task force had already completed the work and it was sort of in midsummer. And so it had already gone out to the public for comment. The task force had already completed all of their work on when the Tom Steiner came in for the demo review and then the posting and then the subsequent designation application. Okay. And so the one last thing I would ask about Tom Steiner, I think Councilwoman CdeBaca mentioned in her neighborhood, none of the houses are in good enough quality to be preserved. I, I don't represent beautiful district nine and I'm not as familiar with it. Perhaps the city is more familiar with it. I think that one of the reasons why Tom Steiner was a better opportunity for historic preservation was, frankly, because it wasn't well, it wasn't as well maintained and preserved as as some other locations. So I'm going to guess. Sorry. Yes. So when you're looking to designate something, we look at integrity versus condition. So integrity is does the building convey the reasons for which it would be designated? Would someone who was at that building when it was constructed or when it was historically significant, does it look like that now? But we don't actually look at the condition of the building. Is it a little bit deteriorated? That's not something that comes into the conversation as to whether or not it's eligible to be a landmark. It's the integrity of the building, not the condition of the building. Okay. And so are the buildings in Swansea. Are they is their integrity just degraded or are. There there is integrity in those. I know that the Discover Denver has gone through and has recommended that there are areas or concentrations of buildings in Globeville, Illyria and Swansea that would be eligible to be Denver landmarks. And so we have surveyed all three of the neighborhoods and have found that there are properties that are worthy of designation that retain integrity, and that would be significant. And those were looked at under our previous criteria because we were there a couple of years ago during the survey. If we were looking at it now with the culture it may have, the areas may be slightly expanded. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. All right. See no other questions. The public hearing for comfortable 914 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilwoman can each. Thank you, Mr. President. I first just wanted to thank all of the members of the task force who participated along the way, as well as those who are here tonight and those who cannot be. Whenever we bring together the community and ask them to spend, you know, a significant amount of time grappling with an issue. It's a service you do to us because you breed debate some of the things that we're going to debate here. And so I. Q is disappointed by our inability to get more representative sampling of folks. We worked hard, we failed, and we are responsible for that and need to continue to reflect on the diversity of the fields and the the experience from which we drew. It is my hope, and we did have the most conversation about race and equity with regard to the cultural criteria and how getting beyond just the idea of a famous person where we all remember the name. I mean, history books are written by folks who don't always remember the name of famous people of color. And so the idea that you can know a place is famous to a community without knowing the names of all the participants who might have gone to that home or gone to that business, I think is an equalizer in a way to bring up more opportunities. And so it's my hope that in a generation when we have this conversation, you know, there are a broader array of properties that have come forward. So I think that the culture criteria piece was really important. I want to comment for just a second on the request or the statement that, you know, we came together with the directive from council to, you know, make it harder to designate. That was the directive of several members of council. That was their desire. That was not a vote of the majority of council to see to landmark task force to make it more difficult to designate. There were a diversity of opinions. And Councilman Flynn and I, for example, were appointed with different perspectives on that representative of a council that had a diversity of opinion. So I just want to clarify that while some members wanted that. Others like myself were more concerned about reaching a balance to achieve the goals. One of the debates we had is whether landmark is a neutral process or not, and I think the way to be honest about it is, is not it is about preserving a piece of the history. It's not neutrally evaluating and then mediating between two parties. It is saying it's important to us as a city that we have pieces of our past that are preserved for future generations. And that future generation piece is an interesting piece of this debate. Right. So are you preserving for the neighbor who lives next door so that nothing ever changes? Are you preserving for, you know, the property owner in terms of their value, which often frankly increases with designation? If you think about LoDo, I don't think anyone would consider that to be an area that has been financially disadvantaged perhaps by by preservation limited in what they can build in how tall. So perhaps on day one there's an economic tradeoff, but the future generation and the long term value. Right, I think in this. So that's what I think this ordinance does. This ordinance says we're in it for the long game and we're protecting some values, not for, you know, me or you, but for those who come way after us. Right. So that they can remember and learn, just as we do when we talk about properties that come through. So. So for me, that's the the vision or the, the values I brought into the process is how to balance that value with these competing interests. But to achieve a vision and a goal, which is what the ordinance preamble really sets out. And in a city that's changing as quickly is done as Denver is, I think that's an important piece. It's not just balancing each property owners interests with each, you know, neighboring interest. It's about balancing the overall rate of change in the city with the overall preservation. So so it's a big task and it's a hard one because then we do come down to individual property decisions. So I really I feel very proud. You know, we we could have chosen to do a majority vote approach, perhaps as a task force. I've certainly been a part of task forces where the goal is to get people's opinions and then the staff goes ahead and makes a recommendation leader. We call it stakeholder input. This process set out for consensus, and I will admit that it disappoints me a little that groups that advocated for tradeoffs during the process and got those tradeoffs now are asking for additional changes that they were not able to get to consensus at the table. That's hard for me because it feels like a little bit like you got half of what you wanted along the way and then now you're asking for the other half from a different process. But I get that this is democracy and that that's the right of groups to do. I am glad that we're here now with the ordinance we have. I hope folks will consider carefully decisions that try to go to extreme measures. I don't want to see our city mired in retaliatory ballot measure fights like we've seen in our neighboring communities who feel like if we're not able to preserve our history, then we should limit all growth, because that's the kind of conversation this could very quickly spiral into. I don't think that's helpful for us. I think each step forward, we work to get to this place of achieving the goals of the ordinance in a way that is most respectful and most considerate of the owners involved, but can't quite go to the level of saying we'll never do it without permission. Right? We would not have LoDo if we if we needed permission. And so I think that's a decision I can stand by. I can say my predecessors had wisdom and I'm sure my colleague can tell me how many kicks they took about private property rights. But history, I think, will smile on that decision. It's hard to sit in these seats and make the decision at the moment, but I do feel like this ordinance is the right direction, both for meeting the goals of this ordinance as well as for what the city needs today. It was an honor to be a part of it as a total inexperienced individual with no technical knowledge of building types and architecture. But and I appreciate my colleague, Councilman Flynn, who we had we were a microcosm of the debate and yet respectfully worked to find common ground, just like everybody who participated. So I hope this council will find that common ground tonight while we continue to strive for closer to perfection in terms of our inclusiveness of this preservation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Cameron CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank the task force and Annie and Ms.. Hahn for making sure that even without the representation that was necessary, equity was at the forefront of what you guys were doing here. I speak from personal experience when I say this really opens a door for a lot of opportunities in our community. Having known what happened when our community tried to preserve, to protect against the eminent domain abuse and the highway expansion, and then also watching my brother lose his house, a Victorian house to the national western and protests all along when the city was trying to take it that it was a historic property, it was a historic property. And to be told no. And then to see a sign posted up the week they were going to demolish it, saying that it was being studied for landmark and historic preservation really shows me how much you all have been doing to investigate what truly is worth preserving in this city. And so I appreciate it. And I hope to see many more spaces that reflect our contributions to this city preserved and landmarked. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to start by saying thank you to the task force members. Your work on this issue is really important. So over the last four years, we think Council District one, we had three nonlinear historic designations and one historic district. So this update is really important to Northwest Denver and important to the district that I represent. I'm excited about the addition of culture. A couple of years ago, we wanted to look at preserving Navajo Street as an Italian district and Italian area as the Italians had moved out. And there was no way to do that and there is no tool in the toolbox. And so now that is gone. And that said and done, and unfortunately it's a little bit too late for that. So thank you for adding the cultural piece. And I just want to talk about the pause. Currently right now in Council District one on 46th and Tennyson. There is a non owner historic designation application in the Q and what we did was we looked at this ordinance and I took advantage of this pause and I asked both parties to come together and have a third party facilitator. And a pause was agreed to. So we are taking a 60 day pause on that application right now. Last week was the hearing, and it's postponed to November 12th to try to find different different outcomes for that property. So I really do think that this pause can work. And then another issue has come up is last month I attended a city led community presentation about a possible historic district in northwest Denver. And it was the first time in all the years. Of working in city council since 2012, where the city led the process and the city sent out the invitation. And it was very informative. It was very neutral. Both everyone was able to come out. It wasn't the applicants, it was the city. So I want and then they're going to also take advantage of this survey without this ordinance being implemented. So Council District One is already taking advantage of many of these ideas that have come forward through this task force and these recommendations. And I'm excited for them because I remember sitting over the past four years, sitting in the council office, hearing hours of testimony and knowing the houses intimately that were up and watching, feeling very conflicted about what type of preservation was needed, and the fact that 13 council members get to decide the future of neighborhood character in northwest Denver. And it just did not seem fair. So I just have to say thank you all for working on this, because this is, as you all can see, northwest Denver has been the battleground because the one historic property that they mentioned in their presentation, Beth Eaton Church, that's once again in Council District one on law. So Northwest Denver really has been the battleground for the past five years with historic designation, the certificate of non historic status. And I've sat at the table during that 21 day time clock where a certificate of non historic status came in. As a council aide, I had to reach out. I had to get there are no I had to get everyone at the table. I had to negotiate some of them and some of the applications got pulled. And with the help of historic Denver, the applicant was actually refunded the $200 when they had when they pulled their certificate of non historic status. And I will tell you it is stressful, it is not proactive work and so thank you for being proactive and just I really cannot thank you enough for working on this and I hope that the pause works regardless. It's a form of communication and sometimes on the other side of conflict and uneasy conversations, good things can come out. So thank you for your work. Thank you, President. Thank you, Councilwoman Kelton Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. You know, I want to thank Kara and Annie and the task force and of course, the important work and time of my colleagues, Councilwoman each and Councilman Flynn. And I am pleased with a majority of the additions and changes, including adding culture. That being said, I am always troubled when there might be a process, especially through the owner opposed landmark designation that private property rights would be violated or affected. And it's disappointing that the task force didn't look at at least raising the bar by either a vote of nine or ten members of city council to really encourage folks to come to the table and get to what was said here tonight, a win win outcome. And when Councilwoman Black and I had both proposed in committee to require only on the honor imposed designations a supermajority, we were unsuccessful in getting that support. And I honor the opinions and background of my colleagues. But I also want us to be looking closely at how this unrolls, how it plays out. I agree with Ian's comment about, you know, when we don't get to participate in this process in our neighborhoods, it makes it very hard. Were put at a disadvantage to be part of the process to understand items that are very technical that you said here tonight. If we don't get the opportunity to play in that arena, then we are at a disadvantage. And so I appreciate, you know, Kara reaching out, us having a good conversation and I will be supportive of this tonight. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I had my thanks to the staff and to the task force for the good work that they did. And I want to thank. My colleagues for. Continuing. To bring. Up the importance of equity. In everything that we're doing in the city. Just finished our budget. Presentations and for the first time, I think in the city's history, equity is. Is held up as a top. Value. We have an enormous. Amount of work to do to figure out how to actually address that. But but it's on the. Table and as it should have been for a long time. I appreciated what Councilman Kennedy said. As far as what we're doing here is an acknowledgment. That. Preservation of the. Important parts of our past is a community that, as well as equity preservation, have important elements of our past is an important value. I also very much appreciated Councilwoman Gilmore and Councilwoman Black's putting forth a couple of amendments. I have struggled over the issue of should there be a higher bar on owner opposed. And I was. Very convinced that there should be looking at the reality of how things have played out that we've had one owner opposed pass in six years. I'm wondering if, along with the pause that this new package brings forward, if we might have hit on what we need as far as that tool to. To better solve those contentious. Situations. There are enormously. Painful district one had a couple when when I first came on council and they are enormously painful trying to weigh the community's well-being with. Private property owners. Well-Being. I will be anxious to see how this latest tool. Helps resolve those. Tensions. I have a hunch that that it will do a great deal in that regard. The last thing I wanted to mention is, is the need, as it was talked about, for increased funding for Discovery Denver. You know, we have what was it, 18% of the city is covered and that's wonderful. But that even I can. Do that math. Councilman Hines, that's. 82% of the city that's that's not covered. And that's a potential tragedy. And we those of us who have been around Denver a long time, have seen a whole lot of important structures go away that I. Think would have made a wonderful education of of where. Denver has been and how we got to where we are today. So I would hope that as we go through the budget process, we can find some money to accelerate that the Discover Denver effort. So with that, again. Congratulations on. A lot of good hard. Work and I look forward to supporting this this evening. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to share my appreciation to all of you who were involved in this process, in bringing to us what is very clear was a compromise document with lots of give and take on both sides. And so to Kara and Annie, appreciate your your help along with my colleagues as well for your input in bringing something forward. When we did the lower downtown historic district, not everybody was happy with that either. But time showed that after the second two year review, everybody came forward and said, Just get rid of it. Just get rid of it, because we're happy with the way it's working. And so I think and if it's not, guess what? We can bring it back. It doesn't mean we're locked in stone if it's not working. But I think we've got to give it a try. And I just have to say, I live in one of these old houses and they're not cheap to maintain, right, if you want to maintain the character of it. So being able to have access to the various incentives becomes really important, whether it's being able to add on a unit, if you've got a lot size big enough to do that or you know, if it's just accessing some of the historic funds from the state or the National Trust for Historic Preservation, that also makes resources available. So for people in our community who are wanting to do the right thing, I think it is important that we have those tools readily available to them where they don't have to like hunt all over town to find them, but to be able to go to one place where it's easy to access the information and then know what's available to them. To be successful in trying to preserve their property. The data alone shows that with all the applications that have been brought forward, they don't all make it to the floor of council. So the the work that is done by our city staff in historic Denver and in trying to lay out the information because oftentimes you guys are the go to place for for people to try to, you know, pull the information. Our library is great, but oftentimes you already have much of that history on Denver neighborhoods and properties. And so that that makes it a little bit, you know, easier for people to just pull their their applications together. So so I think the the process has worked. And again, you know, some of those that have come before this body, they have an all they haven't all been approved either. Some of them have. Some of them have not. But I wanted to speak very briefly to the Swans here neighborhood and the fact that during the time that the environmental assessment was was being put together, the state, when they looked at the mitigation issues, they did not want to tinker with the exterior windows because of the historic character of the neighborhood. And it's probably a lot to do with cost as well, but that's why they ended up only doing interior windows for the residents that were within 500 feet of each side of the highway. I appreciate the fact that culture is being added because I think that there are lots of things like if you look at Santa Fe and some of the buildings along Santa Fe, that played a big role, the Walton Street corridor that was spoken to earlier. You know, across our city, we have some areas of town that played a major role in the history of our city that oftentimes are never included in the history books that our kids learn about our city . Right. Or their community. They're getting Western history information and European history, but not typically their own local history. And the contributions that, you know, people from their own community made in in shaping the city of what it is today. So I think we've got a great roadmap in front of us and a tremendous opportunity to utilize the criteria in a in a different way that I think will create more flexibility for the applicants. And at the same time, I think having those incentives will encourage more people to look at trying to take advantage of saving. Part of the history of our city, because I live in a neighborhood that doesn't look anything like what it used to. And every day very nice brick structures are being just torn down. And if you live on one side, a zoo, nice street, you're in a protected part. If you're on the other side, you're in the neighborhood where it's drastically changing. So this is a good thing. Thank you. I'll be voting for it. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the committee for all the hard work that you've done. You know, I'm new on council, not as new as I was a couple of months ago, but still new. And as I sit here on Monday nights and in committee, you get to learn a little bit more about my values . I also get to learn a bit more about my own values. I get a little bit of self reflection as well, and I think that's healthy for all of us to have this growing process together. But speaking of values, I talked earlier about stakeholder process and transparency, and I. I learned briefly, or rather I learned quickly about the importance of the stakeholder process. A lot of people talked about the climate change bill and how they were frustrated, frustrated with the lack of stakeholder process. Frankly, from my perspective, President Clark reached out to me the day after I won the runoff election. So he was all over it. As far as you know, as far as I knew that his stakeholder process was robust. But anyway, I really enjoy that this process had a robust stakeholder process and that it considered, you know, private property rights, it considered a supermajority. It decided to go with the the compromise that we see in front of us. You know, I, too, am interested in private property rights. When I heard about Tom Steiner, or rather when Tom Steiner came before us, you know, it also was in divorce. Perfect ten. We heard a lot about private property rights from people all over the U.S. and maybe some beyond. But certainly we had people from all over the United States writing in to the District ten office and and talking about private property rights. So I recognize that that's an important consideration for a lot of people all over America and including people in District ten. I also think that it is important for us to not. To be very measured when we arbitrarily limit City Council's power and a supermajority of nine or ten votes makes it more difficult for us to effectively represent the city because we are representing our districts. And. And if we go from a majority to a supermajority, I think that that makes it more difficult for for me to represent my district, even if the particular vote is in a different district. So I'm glad that we are at least taking this incremental approach and we're considering a straight majority. And the funky math is we are going from two thirds threshold to 30% or from 20% to 30%. And apparently both of those calculations work. But either way, I think it's great that we've had a stakeholder process that has come up with what we what we have in front of us today. So I will be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to point out that I reached out to my constituents when I was asked to consider the idea of a supermajority and with just a very nonscientific survey among people. And 57% of them came back and said that they supported a nine vote supermajority. So I think, you know, I think that I'm very supportive of the the ordinance as it's coming through tonight. I think it's a great ordinance. I'm really you know, I really congratulate all of you guys who worked so hard on this. But I do think that there is an element of awareness in our community that did not exist before this summer, when Tom's Diner happened, when when that situation came through, that has sort of woke in the community up to the issue of personal property rights in a way that maybe didn't exist before. And so maybe next time around, it's something that should come back up and be considered again. I definitely am supportive of tonight, but I just wanted to put it out there that when I asked and reached out to my constituents, 57% did support a nine person supermajority. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. So, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I, I, too, want to thank the staff and the members of the task force with whom I served and Councilwoman Keech for a very robust discussion and process that truly did land in the center where people on one side or another are always giving up something and never getting everything they want. I really do want to thank them for that. I did learn one thing in this process on the task force that surprised me, and that is that when we had those contentious, excuse me, landmark things up in District one, that all three of which were defeated. I realized through this task force process that it wasn't that necessarily that we were being harder and more strict on owner opposed applications. I realized that we were being much less strict, much more lenient, if you will, on owner supported. And one that came to mind in particular was in Councilman Cashman's district on South Adam Street. I think it was the I Love House or what was it, their very large property on South Adams Street where the owner came in and sought designation. And I, I realized that far from being harder on the ones that were owner opposed, we were sort of just being of the owner wants it. Sure, I can see how it fits all the criteria. And that was a real eye opener for me. The other thing that I really like about this version is the addition of the cultural criteria, because I believe, as I believe, Councilwoman Torres, I was the one who mentioned the lack of designations on the West Sides, particularly Southwest side. There's only one designated landmark in Denver, south of Sixth Avenue and west of the Platte River, and that's the field officers quarters in on Fort Logan on the parade ground. Well, thanks to the Loreto Heights plan that we adopted a couple of weeks ago, there will soon be more. The Loreto Heights Academy in the chapel, possibly Pancreases Hall and looking down the road to a district designation on the campus as well. But with the cultural criteria being added, I think we can look beyond these large, obvious landmarking options that we have and look to more that more designations that speak to the to the people who built this city and the people who made this city. And I'm looking forward to scouring perhaps with Councilwoman Torres scouring the West Side and looking for opportunities and to solicit more more applications from owners who are willing to do this. So I will be supporting this. Mr. President, thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Ortega, did you have some quick things? I don't know why they're still up there. All right. All right. Well, I will just close this before we vote by saying one more time thank you to all the task force members for all the time they put in. Thank you to Councilman Flynn and Councilman Ken each for representing some different sides of the coin for us in this process and all the extra hours that took into our staff for going through all of this. I will be supporting this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. See the burqa. I flip. All right. Gilmore, I. Hi. Yes. Cashman. Can I? Ortega. Sandoval. Sawyer. I. Torres. I heard they. Argument. Mr. President. All right. I'm secretary. Please. Cause voting in those results. 12 hours. 12 hours. Council Bill 914 has passed. Councilwoman CdeBaca, will you please put Council Bill 776 on the floor?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4735 North Quitman Street in Berkeley. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4735 Quitman Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-16-21.

DenverCityCouncil_04262021_21-0257

We have two public hearings tonight. 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 when called upon. Please wait until our meeting. Host promotes you to speaker. When you're promoted, your screen will flash and say, Reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one and your microphone. If you've signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. You will see your time flash on the screen when you have 30 seconds left. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Member State Abarca Will you please put Council Bill 257 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 21 dash to 57 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It's like a. Thank you. It's been moved in our second by councilmember flynn. The required public hearing for council bill 257 is open. May we have the staff report? And I see we've got Fran here with us. Can you see my screen there? Yeah. You're good, friend. Perfect. Sorry. I'm dealing with many a monitor, so it's all good. It afternoon. Members of City Council. Madam President, my name is Fred Benefit and I'm the associate planner with Planning Services and I'm here today to present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 4735 Quitman Street. Subject property is located in Council District one with Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval. In the Berkeley neighborhood. Just have a look. So for my 70. The property owner is proposing to rezone to a district that allows for accessory dwelling units. If approved or other forms and use standards would remain the same. The property. The property is currently in the urban single unit season district, which allows for a minimum of 5500 square feet. And if it's owned, it is completely surrounded by other properties that are also shown us, you see. The site is currently occupied by a single unit home and it's mostly surrounded by other single unit and two unit uses as well. Some multi-unit uses just northwest from the property and some public quasi public open spaces do exist. You can see there that's the school to the west. This slide shows the existing area with the site of the proposed rezoning on the bottom right and on the bottom left, the top right. There's some images that show you the residential character of the neighborhood. Now speaking to process information on notice of the application was sent on January 5th, 2021. Planning Board recommended approval on March 3rd and a present one letter of support of three letters of opposition had been received from the public. One of the leaders of opposition expresses concerns with spot zoning, but notes that they would support a rezoning for the whole neighborhood if there was an option. The second letter opposition refers to their concerns with the applicant's intentions of renting the main property while living in the. Just as a reminder, the Denver zoning code requires the property owner to reside in either the primary dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit while residing in one unit. The owner might rent the other unit. Third letter only notes concerns, but does not specify what the concerns are. And finally, the letter of support explains that the way to use I already allowed nearby Sony would allow the owners to invest in the property with an appropriate use. As you know, the Denver zoning code has five review criteria that we're going to look at. The first one is consistency. We looked at months. There are two plans applicable with this rezoning. The first one is a comprehensive plan 2040. The second one is Blueprint Denver. The rezoning is consistent with several of the tragedies in comprehensive plan 2041 example. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in the Berkeley neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development with the structure and services already in place. No nothing at Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as no residential place type. This place types have predominantly single and two unit uses and states that accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Now looking at the street designation with my street is a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Blueprint. Denver is all areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see a 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. You also include specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Stock also finds that the requested Sony meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. The justified circumstance where this rezoning is a city adopted club. Since the approval of the existing you. As you see on the street, the city has adopted a comprehensive plan 2040 and blueprint deliver a stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this plus. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential district and the U.S. U.S. one stone district. So that's a recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, Fran. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 257. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. And we have Jesse Paris. So we'll go ahead and get. Jesse. And to the cue. All right. Go ahead, Jesse. Jesse? Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is just bizarre. Person represents the black self-defense class, the best of social change as well as the United Party of Colorado and my front line black nose. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am in favor of this rezoning tonight. I just had a quick question for Amanda Sandoval. How many of these additional requests have you received within the past year and have been approved? Because those brother that called in on general public comment earlier that had some issues with the process of which is racially biased. So I would hope that the person that is nurturing or proposing this Ed is a person of color or black. Especially after. Hearing how Brian Johnson was treated in regards to these rezonings and his obsession with women, that he won it for his brother, who was just able and he wanted her to be close to home. So if Amanda Sandoval could please answer that question, I really appreciate it. Also, we're in favor of this rezoning. I supported a use when I ran for office in 2019 and I'll continue to support them in 2023. Just for the poor people all across it. Reporter Urban camping. MAN Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 257. Seeing no questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 257 Council Member Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So just wanted to clarify something for our public comment on this rezoning. The public comment that we had prior to this rezoning, not for the public hearing, was regarding a board of adjustment case, not a rezoning case. So the Board of Adjustment case is totally separate. Then a possible rezoning, which is a change of entitlement. We don't have the right to build it. And then if you get through this rezoning, you would have the ability to rezone it. So I just want to clarify that and as we got the wonderful presentation from Fran, thank you CPD and it meets all of the criteria. So I asked that my colleagues support this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President. I wanted to thank CBD for all your hard work. I'll just say this for this and the next presentation as well. And. And thank you for ensuring and promoting access, including access to housing. And so thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. All right. See no other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 257, please. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I'm Torres. I work. I need tobacco. I Clark. I. Flynn I. Herndon. I ain't I. Cashman. I can h i. Ortega. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 813 Ies Council Bill 21 Dash 0 to 5 seven has passed. Council members say to Barker, Will you please put Council Bill 258 on the floor for final passage. And move that Council Bill 21 dash to 58 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Second. Thank you. We have the second by councilmember hines, the required public hearing for counsel. Bill 258 is open. May we have the staff report? Okay. Okay. So. This one is similar. I'll present you a map amendment for 4530. We know what occurred and 4345. Ryan Street. This is the first one for me where I present two cases, but they're very similar. For simplicity, throughout the presentation, we refer to the properties as we know what occurred and Ryan's three. Both properties are located in Council District one with councilmen Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval. We know what occurred is in the Berkeley neighborhood, and Brian Street is located on the Sunnyside neighborhood. Their request is to resign from the current US USOC one Sony to you as you be one a southern district with a smaller minimum standard size that would allow to the touch accessory dwelling unit in each property. All other forms and standards would remain the same. The standard know record is 4690 square feet, and the one in Bryant Street is 4710 square feet, both under the 5500 square feet required by you, as you see. Want to build that attached to you. So that's the reason why they can because they can build in the current state. They can build the bit that you. On these two zoning maps, you can see that we are on a court surrounded, but to the north, west and south, they probably also shown us, you see one end

On the order referred on February 9, 2022, Docket #0264, that the appropriate committee of the Boston City Council hold a working session to review applications for the Commission on Black Men and Boys, the committee submitted a report recommending that the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_02092022_2022-0264

Plug in numbers 026 for Council Makiya and Flynn for the following order that the appropriate committee, the Boston City Council, hold a working session to review applications for the Commission on Black Men and Boys. Counsel Arroyo, will you please take over at this time? Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The Chair recognizes the lead sponsor council here. Thank you to the chair and thank you to council President Flynn for working with our office so quickly to get this order extended to the Council today. In September of 2021, the City Council passed an ordinance establishing a commission on black men and boys. Since then, we have been working with the administration and with advocates to ensure that the Commission is set up for success in the spirit of transparency. And as the Chair of the Committee on Government Accountability and Transparency and Accessibility, we have an opportunity to play a role in who is going to serve the commission. The mayor's office reached out to us and asked the council to submit 14 names, of which seven will be chosen to serve on the commission. We then partnered with Councilor President Flynn and Councilor Rochelle to design an application process in the hopes of getting a wide variety of people interested in applying in the Commission. Starting today, people interested in applying can go to Boston dot gov slash join dash the dash. Commission dash on dash. Black dashed men. Dash and dash boys and submit an application to be on the council's 14 nominees. Our office will send out a link to the application to each of your offices following the meeting. Applications will be open from today, February 9th through February 23rd. Applicants will be asked to share their professional and personal interests in regards to uplifting black men and voices. Once we receive our applications, we will hold a working session so that we can come to a consensus on our nominations. I strongly encourage my council colleagues to share the application to as many interested individuals and groups as possible. We have an obligation to ensure that our Commission on Black Men and Boys represents the diverse lived experience and world views so that it is truly a commission for all black men and boys. I want to again thank President Flynn and his office for their quick turnaround in authorizing this process. And I also want to thank Kurzel and his team for playing a vital role in ensuring that the application process meets this moment. And of course, I want to show my appreciation and deep gratitude for Kerry Jordan for working to get our application up and running. This has been a team process from the beginning to the end, and we are setting the tone for how we hope the Commission will operate. I look forward to this process and working alongside each of you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Mejia. The chair recognizes the second original co-sponsor. Councilor Flynn, you have the floor. Thank you. Councilor Royle, I want to say thank you to Council Royal, but also called somebody here for your work on this important on this important subject. I also want to say thank you to Council Councilor Brian Worl for his important work as well, his leadership. Council and his leadership. As council members here mentioned that city council will be able to nominate candidates to be on the commission on black men and boys. So with this order, we are setting up a process to review applications to be ought to be on the commission to get feedback from our colleagues. I also want to say thank you to Mayor Wu in her administration. This will be similar to the process that Councilor Campbell had for nominations to the Civilian Review Board. I look forward to working with everyone on the nomination process. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Flynn, would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Seeing no one would end. Would anyone like to add their names to the docket? Please add counselor clarity. Please. And Councilor Bok, please add council will you please add Councilor Murphy, please add Councilor Braden please add Councilor Baker. Please add my name. Please add Councilor Fernandez Anderson please at Councilor Laura and please take Councilor Lui Jen. Did I miss anyone else? No. Okay. And with that. Docket number 0264 will be assigned to the Committee on Civil Rights, Immigrant Advancement. Back to you, Mr. President. Thank you, Council Royal. Mr. Clarke, will you please read docket 0265?

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Public Works Department to report back in 30 days with an update on the current status of the e-scooter program and other mobility share programs.

LongBeachCC_09072021_21-0916

Congratulations. Thank you. All right. Now we're going to go to item number 15. Communication from Councilwoman Allen, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Sara Recommendation to request City Manager to work with Public Works Department to report back in 30 days with an update on the current status of the E-SCOOTER program and other mobility share programs. Councilman Allen. All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I've heard from residents and a variety that have a variety of concerns about the e-scooters, and I'm sure a lot of my colleagues have signed on to this item, have as well. You know, we've people contact our office about safety and. Coming down the sidewalk. If you know any scooters, oleic acid is a concern. I'm also like how many scooters are coming into the city who operate them? Where are the drop zone? How are these drop zone drop zones decided? And and then how to report issues. So I would like for our residents to clearly see what the path forward for micro mobility looks like here in Long Beach. I'm also excited to see the go. Long Beach might be able to incorporate some of these issues into that app, so I'm happy to see that it looks like that's going to be happening. I want to thank the city staff, the mobility staff for working closely with my team on the side up and I'm excited to see what is coming up for our Micromobility and Mobility Share program. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you and thank you to Councilman Allen for bringing this item forward. It was just a couple of weeks ago, I don't know, time flying by, maybe a month ago that we voted on the item that I brought regarding a third party vendor being part of our future scooter contracts, e-scooter contracts, so that we can see an improvement in scooter pickup. I'm still hopeful that that study will come back and give us some feasible options. But I'm hoping that when this particular study comes back, it addresses a few things that we hear a lot about. The first is when this program was originally established, there was funding set aside for enforcement of safety violations and helmet laws. I'd like to see some information on the number of citations that have been given or safety related scooter violations that we've documented. I'd like to know if there's any information on injuries associated with scooters, including those left on the sidewalk that present a hazard for residents. I'd love to know if we have any information on the number of individual Long Beach residents that have accounts with various scooter vendors as opposed to tourist accounts. I'd like to know whether or not we've seen scooter companies fulfilling their contractual obligations to maintain scooters in the public right of way. Because it seems to me that they have been some have been negligent in that responsibility. Another question that we get a lot and I'm still very conflicted about what what's happening, because I don't quite understand it. And one of my staff members recently observed this. Who decides where scooter pickup locations are and where they're placed? Is that the traffic engineers or the company? One of my staff members was out doing field work last week and one of the scooter companies dropped off a whole bunch of scooters, right, in a residential neighborhood in front of someone's house and said that that was within their city contract, which was shocking to me. So I don't know if that's true or not. How often do residents contact the city, either directly or through the council office, requesting us to address scooter related issues as opposed to contacting the scooter companies directly? And so these are just some of the questions that I'd love to see included in whatever report comes back. Do we have any sort of metric for the success of this program? Initially, the intent of the program was to take cars off the street and allow for different mobility options. Are we tracking that data? Do we have any way to measure it? And and so I think for me, I'd like to get a sense of where we are with the E-SCOOTER program. Does it make sense for us to move forward with it? What enforcement options are available for contractual? Failure to follow the contractual terms and how can we basically improve the quality of life issues for our residents who who want the scooters but don't want the the scooters and the the results of the scooter companies that aren't following their contractual terms. And I know that this item also says other mobility share programs. So the other question that I had is what is the status of the item that we passed at council? Probably about a year ago, allocating funds to a ride a bus minibus program that would travel from downtown Long Beach to Second and PCH area and transport people. I haven't heard anything about that program and I'm wondering what the status of that is. Sure I can answer a couple of those questions, so I'll take the last 1/1. The mobility program, that was an item to do some research and looking to see what it would take to be able to fund some micro transport like we did a free pilot program that's going to be wrapped into the American Recovery Act money . So now we actually have money to do that. We can go back and check on the status of the report, but we're planning to be able to use some of the Funding and Recovery Act to move that item forward. And what we were planning to also report on is we we have another mobility program. It's our bike share program. It's been actually around longer than the others. So we were going to that's our other major mobility program that we would report on. When we first heard this item, we thought this was a pretty simple report on just the data that we currently collect. And so we have that available. We can get that within 30 days pretty easily. Some of the additional questions we can you know, those are good questions. We can certainly work on those. It's going to take us a little bit more time. So we took a lot of notes that those are part of the motion. We can put that together and work on a report. Thank you. And just to be clear, the item regarding the working with the bus company, my understanding is and I could be wrong, but I thought we set aside a specific amount of money and directed staff to engage with a vendor. And I believe it was eight months to a year ago, we specifically allocated specific amount of money from the 12 million extra that we had identified. So that I believe that the money that we had already received and identified and we voted on it. You know, motion was made specifically about that program. Correct? That was March 16th. There was about $2 million at the time that was allocated. And then just until you adopted your budget, that's when that budget got finalized. So that actually got reduced down to about I'm trying to remember, probably $1.6 million because every allocation had to get a reduction. Before we can start doing the RFP, we had to figure out what that actual amount is and then that will move forward. So there is funding associated with that project that we can work on. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Mongo. Thank you. I've had similar experiences. I really want to thank Public Works for their work on helping us when all of a sudden 15 scooters are dropped off next to a bus station in a place where they're blocking the walking path and or a wheelchair path of our residents, they shouldn't have to walk into the street to get to public transportation. So I appreciate public works responding, but I think that the questions that Councilman Price really bring forward really discuss the cost of this program on our taxpayers and the residents and the convenience and the inconvenience. I was in Councilman Allen's district the other day over at the park, and multiple scooters were blocking the parking opportunities. And luckily my husband got my daughter on to the grass and one at a time took every single scooter out of the paid parking spaces that were not paying for parking and would not then get a ticket taking up parking spaces that are critical and valuable in District two, especially on a weekend. And so I'm very interested. I opened my app at the time to go Long Beach app, and there's an opportunity to put a band in a shopping cart, but there's nowhere to say. Abandoned scooter, inappropriate area. We should probably allow community members to track that for us and help us with this kind of challenge. Because I would have gone out and done all 15 of those scooters that were blocking the bus stop. So I recognize we're already spending considerable resources. On the flip side, I do hear a lot of benefits. I hear community members that used to ride scooters to Long Beach City College and the such. I think during the pandemic that probably went down considerably and the utilization was very different. And I look forward to seeing this data and I support all the questions coming back to us. I think that they're really critical in our ability to evaluate if this is a good fit for us, and I would even be interested to see how it compares with our bicycle data. I really think that we need to be in a position to have one of our nonprofit partners, maybe partners of Park, look for us to get a sponsorship. When you go to Chicago, all the bicycles are all sponsored by, I want to say like Kaiser Permanente or Blue Cross or whatever it is. And that's I'd be interested in knowing how much money the city receives to contribute to health and wellness based on those sponsorship agreements. So lots of opportunities to improve the program. And that was a big risk when we took this on. And I look forward to hearing the report back. Thank you. So, Councilmember, I do want to add you had mentioned it and so did Councilmember Allen about the ability to report some of these. We have been working for the past probably two months, did add it to the Long Beach app so that we can actually have people be able to respond and get that directly to the vendors . So that should launch, I believe, this week if it hasn't launched already. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman. And they her. Thank you very much again, Councilwoman Allen, for bringing this item forward and for those who have signed on. As you know, I'm a big supporter of alternative forms of transportation that are both fun and convenient and also more environmentally friendly. But we do need to be careful with the unintended consequences that they may have. And I do agree with a lot of the statements and requests that Councilmember Price has made tonight in regards to finding an exact data, making sure that we are that we have these mobility, you know, company in our city, but that it's actually doing what it's supposed to do and in making it more more friendly to be able to be on e-scooters. And I think that having that data will show if we're actually making an impact in the city as we as we begin to approach more and more citywide events like the Grand Prix and also the other Los Muertos celebration, I think it's very important that we are there, that our residents know where, that we as a council are addressing the transportation needs and concerns, both, you know, for parking and also for companies like for mobility scooters and e-bikes. I think that we we need to really, really keep an eye out on making sure that the these these companies that we're contracting, that they have some kind of responsibility to make sure that they're running an efficient and safe business in our city. Thank you, Councilman Cubana. Thank you. This goes back quite a while, but there was a request made at one of the early meetings on E-Scooters. And I'd forgotten about this until Councilmember Mongo mentioned the the carts. There was kind of a fundamental flaw in reporting abandoned carts and abandoned scooters. And that is still, if you call the phone number for an abandoned car, you'll be asked, what is the name on the cart or whose cart is it? And sometimes there is no identifier in it. So the cart remains abandoned. If they can't be processed and we've got them with the same gear and scooters that the average resident looking at their window or something may not be able to read the name of the scooter on there. So I don't know what's feasible. I just know it's been asked before. So if we could look into actually the possibilities on both issues, that'd be great. Thank you. Interesting. I'll just add a couple comments of support. Thank you so much to my council colleagues bringing this forward. I think, you know, we have to continue to refine this system and keep a close eye on it. And I also want to want to say just, you know, broadly, this is one system managed by the city. Long Beach Transit has its own governing authority. Metro has its own governing authority for our transportation system in the city isn't really. I think we can do a lot in terms of coordinating the way that we think about transportation and transit in our city. And we have to think I think we need to think a little bit bigger as it relates to how we manage and coordinate with other agencies to have one seamless experience for micro changing and public transit in our city metros looking at fairly systems. You know, there's there are things we can do to think about the overall system. That's not what this item is tonight. But I just want to keep in mind that as we focus on refining this program, we can't lose sight of there's no other agency responsible for convening all of these groups around the big picture of transit in our city, aside from the city of Long Beach. And so thanks a lot very public comment on this item. Okay. Seeing numbers members, please cast your vote.

A resolution approving the City Council appointment of Roger Sherman to the Citizen Oversight Board Nomination Committee. A resolution approving the City Council appointment of Roger Sherman to the Citizen Oversight Board Nomination Committee. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-17-19.

DenverCityCouncil_07292019_19-0730

We got everything all right. And then under pending. We have no items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item up on our screen. All right, Councilwoman CdeBaca, what would you like us to do with this resolution? Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to postpone consideration of Resolution 732 Monday, August 5th, 2019. And I'd also like to request a courtesy public hearing to be held on this item on August 5th. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman Sandoval, will you please put Resolution 730 on the floor for adoption? I move that resolution 19 dash zero 730 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman CdeBaca, your motion to postpone. I move that consideration of Resolution 730 be postponed to Monday, August 5th. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Questions and or comments by members of Council on this postponement. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Do I? Is this where I get to comment on why? So I'm actually pushing this out because I think that we need time to let the community weigh in on what this appointment means on a nomination committee that really is responsible for overseeing a very important entity in our government. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem, I wanted to kind of give a background on how this particular ordinance came about since I was intimately involved in this appointment. So for those who aren't quite as familiar with the Citizen Oversight Board, I'm going to read from our website on on exactly what it does. And the Citizen Oversight Board consists of nine citizens appointed by the mayor and City Council to assess the effectiveness of the Office of the Independent Monitor, to make policy level recommendations regarding discipline, use of force and other policies, rules, hiring, training, community relations, and the complaint process to address any other issues of concern to the community. The S.O.B., the Monitor, the executive director of Safety, the chief of Police, the sheriff or the fire chief. And to review and make recommendations as to closed internal affairs cases where the findings were not sustained as appropriate. So I know my colleagues and maybe some of you in the audience will remember and maybe Councilwoman, can you can remind me the date as the months fly by. But early this year or late last year, Councilwoman Kennedy each and then Councilman Lopez and myself put forward an ordinance that was then passed by city council to strengthen the role of the independent monitor, as well as strengthened the purview of the Citizen Oversight Board. The main thing we did for the oversight board was to increase the board from seven members to nine. Now, previously, those seven members were all appointed by the mayor. The change to the ordinance make it so now. Four Appointed by council, four appointed by mayor. One is a joint appointment in order to set up a process by which those appointments would be made. We also created the a nomination committee for the Citizen Oversight Board that would have be a three member board, one council appointee, one mayoral appointee, one joint appointment. Should a vacancy in the CLB or on the CLB occur? The first appointee would be a council appointee. The next appointee would be a mayoral appointee. Until we go through eight appointments, the ninth would be a joint appointment should a vacancy occur. The ordinance specifically requires the nominating committee to seek from the Citizen's Oversight Board itself what they need. Do they need a lawyer to fill a particular role, or an accountant or someone with specific safety experience? Then the nominating committee must, by ordinance, put out a public call and compile a list of three candidates to be given to the appointing authority. Should that authority, either the mayor or city council or as a joint appointment, not find any of those three applicants sufficient? They can reject that list and request a new list from the appointing authority. So how how specifically did we get here today? Well, not long after the ordinance was passed, we had a situation where I believe there were three openings. There would be well, I think one actual vacancy on the board, and then the two new members that raised the total board number from 7 to 9. We got word from the CLB that they were very anxious to get their nominating committee formed and operational so they could get up to their desired new strength. Councilwoman Kennedy and Councilman Lopez were other occupied at the time and asked me to lead that search, which I agreed to do. Both the interviews that were held were conducted by me, along with our legislative staff member and a representative from Councilwoman Kennedy, his office, the S.O.B. itself. Through the board President Katrina Banks provided us a list of and I don't have it in front of me. I'm remembering six or eight members, six or eight previous board members that they suggested would be good candidates for the. A position, one of which was Mr. Sherman, who we're considering this evening. We reached out to the individuals on the list. We had two responses one from Mr. Sherman, one from another designee. At the same time, council also put out a call through some council newsletters. We received two responses from the newsletters I interviewed, along with the others that I mentioned before. I interviewed the two previous CLB members and decided against nominating the others who had applied because they had no no experience with the CLB, no additional board experience. And I think while they may make good candidates for the board itself, I felt for the nominating committee that it made sense to have people who were intimately knowledgeable about the functions of the board and would be able to know and know what to be looking for. If I had been dissatisfied with the two candidates who responded from the board, I would have gone back to the CEO by asking for additional suggestions from from the board itself. Let's see here. Yeah. So as I said, I interviewed both board members, recommended Mr. Sherman as the council appointee, recommended the other candidate as to be considered for the joint appointment. So that's how we got here. So with that in mind, Madam Secretary, Madam President, pro tem, I'm finished with my comments. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Kenney. Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. I just wanted to underline perhaps a few of the points made by my colleague, Councilman Cashman. First of all, it's improper to call this body an oversight body. The nominating committee has no oversight functions whatsoever. It is simply a screening committee that is its role. Its role is to recruit and screen. It advises neither the mayor's office, the safety agencies, the S.O.B.. It has no advising functions whatsoever. And the ordinance is quite clear on that. So it is not an oversight body as a recruiting body. The key question that members of the S.O.B. had is how is a group of people who have never served on this board or isn't aware of it? How will they know what to tell people? So if someone says, How much time does the board require? Or What are the typical things we might be doing? When might we hear from the community? Is this a controversial position? How will it feel to be in this role? It was really important to this job that someone who had served on it and had experience would be a part of this. And that was a commitment we made to look for folks with that experience. I will just say to a little bit, so so not an oversight body, it's a screening. It also does not select members. Be very clear, as Councilman Cashman described, it provides a slate. We will be the decision maker of the council appointment. The mayor's office will be the decision maker of that appointment, and we will decide correctly. So this body has, frankly, a lot of work and very little power. Might be why we didn't have a lot of applicants for it. But we also, again, we're emphasizing this need for experience. We do have a number of new members elected to council. And so just to talk for a minute about process, the way that we try to find folks for boards and we try to get input is we let folks know when there's vacancies we ask folks to take a look at. And then we also ask folks to take a look at names when they're on consent. That might have been hard for members of this body who are just taking office. So I want to acknowledge, but it is really our ideal process that we have these conversations in a way that's respectful because they're in some ways like a personnel decision. Right. I do respect that individuals may have, you know, their own conscience, that they need to vote about how they feel about individuals. But because we are now being faced with the potential for a postponement and a request for a public hearing, I will just share that. I do not believe that is necessary in this case. I believe that the qualifications were very clear. The two the three concerns I've heard from from those who've emailed me or communicated with me. One, most folks believe this is an appointment to the Citizen Oversight Board. It is not. So I've clarified that. Secondly, folks have asked about conflict of interest. The nominee for this position has no contracts related to safety or safety oversight that pose any conflict with their ability to screen applicants and recommend them. And third, the applicant or the nominee has significant experience not just serving on the COB, but actually coming to the city council and advocating for stronger oversight in a specific area like, for example, body cameras. So for those who've said to me, I'm afraid that appointing this person might not be in our interests because they might be too favorable to the mayor's office. There's simply no evidence of that, because in their role on this job, this nominee actually advocated publicly in our body for stronger oversight that happened in a prior council. So I recognize that folks who may be newly elected might not know some of that history. So I'm sharing it now for the record that there are both qualifications, experience and a proven record of being a strong voice for police accountability. That is what I am looking for as the co-sponsor of the ordinance that created this. I am looking for someone who has experience with police oversight and strong standards and a willingness to look for those who have those same strong standards. I have received no facts that that is in any way that there's any anything to undermine that that sense of independent oversight. For me, that is the key value that we as a council need to represent with this appointment. Is this person going to find people who believe in strong oversight? And if I have evidence of that, it's an appropriate appointment. So I will not be voting in favor of the delay tonight. I hope some of the history might clarify questions that folks have had. And in the future. I also hope that folks will pay close attention both to announcements of openings for boards as well as to the consent agenda so that they can raise these questions, you know, in a way that doesn't put individuals through, you know, a floor discussion, again, realizing that that would have been hard to do it in this particular time period. With that, I thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. Thank you, Councilwoman Quinn. Each Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. I don't think that this is an issue or a question of qualifications. I think this is a question of access and consolidated power. We know that recently an article came out about the three lobby firms that essentially run this city and CRL happened to be one of them. Roger Sherman is a well known member of S.R.L. and and has recently led the opposition to 300 where we know that there are incredible police violations and we're actually selecting someone to nominate people to oversee that entity. I think that's very problematic and I don't think it's about him making a decision of letting the people that are nominated onto the board. I think that we know people know very limited groups of people. And with the context that Mr. Sherman has. I still. Am doubtful that he is someone who would be nominating or recruiting and screening the appropriate set of people for this role. I think that what you mentioned earlier about him having prior experience on the Citizen Oversight Board is valuable and that could that information could be transferred to a nominee or a person for this position through an orientation interview. It doesn't have to be him nominating people and recruiting them. And I also think that recycling people who have been in these spaces is another form of consolidating power. We should have somebody who has safety experience or direct connections to community that demanded this role and this board. And I think that to many people up on this stage have received campaign contributions from him to vote tonight in favor for him and not under the illusion that this is an unbiased vote. And so if people are going to vote yes for this appointment tonight, I think that you should make it clear whether or not you've received campaign contributions from Mr. Sherman or S.r.l.. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Pro Tem. I want to go a little bit farther further than councilwoman coinage and suggest that those who oppose this appointment should simply vote no on the on the resolution and rather than postponing it for a week. The sole reason to postpone for a week would be to hold an unprecedented. Courtesy hearing on an individual in all my years. And Councilman Ortega may be able to speak to this. In this room, I have never seen a courtesy hearing called for the sole purpose of bringing people in who would raise issues that have nothing to do with the appointment at hand. It would raise issues, in fact, that are tangential and would would speak to the criticisms of CRL and Roger Sherman's activities. As Councilwoman PANITCH pointed out, his service on the S.O.B. prior to this and his advocacy for strong civilian oversight powers, and the preference that Councilman Cashman spoke of, that the members of the selection committee, the nominating committee, rather, not selection. The nominating committee should be people who have had experience with the system in order to give us the best qualified candidates should should determine how we vote. Tonight, I would oppose the motion to postpone it for the sole purpose of holding a one hour hearing where we have a parade of folks coming up to talk about issues they have with Cyril's other activities. I think that's an abuse and a misuse of the council's time and. And I strongly recommend against it. Thank you, Ms.. Madame President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines. Thank you, madam. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. Two questions of parliamentary procedure. So if we postponed, will this go back to committee? And I apologize. I'm new here. Just one question. Number one, I don't know to whom I should ask that. We'll go ahead and have Kirsten Crawford, our city or our council secretary makhija. To postpone the consideration of a resolution would just postpone it to council. You would actually need to re refer it to committee in order for it to be sent back to committee. Great. So that second question of parliamentary procedure, if we vote against the postponement, will there be opportunity to comment before voting on 0730? We were mostly mostly doing comments right now just from the fact of the conversation here. But, Madam Secretary, I'll defer to you. Yes. So you would be. Right now we're commenting on the postponement. If the postponement were to fail, then you would have another opportunity to comment on the resolution itself, because then you would vote on the. Resolution itself immediately after. Thank you. All right. Councilman Cashman, were you? Yes, I think there were a couple of things I had meant to mention before. One is kind of in line with my colleague's comments about contributions. Since I was so intimately involved with this process, I wanted to be very clear. My name was included with a number of my council colleagues as having received contribution from Mr. Sherman. That did not happen. The article has since been corrected by David Sachs there, where there was a check on my one of my financial forms that was mis entered and the the it was $100 payment was actually from a friend of mine with the same last name and a different first name. The other thing is I wanted to just say a little bit more about why I found the nominee suitable for for the post. As we've talked about, you know, he has the experience on the board, but he was vetted by the CLB chair in reference to providing his name as, as a suitable candidate. Speaking with another individual who worked intimately with the candidate in his time on the S.O.B. and presented him as a very aggressive candidate in in search of increased powers for the for the board and as well as for oversight by the Office of the Independent Monitor. So I left those out of my original comments. I apologize for that. And I as well will be voting no on the extension, because I think this chamber tonight provides an opportunity to to express whatever views our colleagues have. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Pro tem. So it's really given power to our lobbyists as term limits. And the fact that, you know, the changing the ever changing players of of people that sit in these seats means that, you know, first term lobbyists know more about how our city works than than, you know, people first coming in here , unless you've been part of the city system and understand how it works. When I ran for city auditor, the applicant ran. Some actually worked for my opponent. And over the years, we've, you know, become friends and have had to work together on many, many different issues. And I have received money from CRL, I've received money from lots of different organizations and individuals because it takes a lot of money to run citywide to get elected. But that doesn't mean that anybody owns me. And, you know, when the fire department was working to put the issue on the ballot, to have the employees from Denver fire live outside of the city, the first time around, when they endorsed me, they gave me the maximum amount they could, and I opposed that. Years later with the fact that our housing situation had started to climb drastically and it was becoming harder and harder for firefighters, police officers, teachers, other people to live in our city because of the cost of housing. I supported putting that on the ballot and the voters passed that. So I think the fact that we have lobbyists that play a very strong role in many of the issues that come before this body doesn't doesn't mean because they've given us money that any of them on us control our votes. I certainly look at issues on a case by case basis, and that's how I make my decision. It's based on the merits of every issue that comes before us, not who put it forward. You know, who wants me to vote, which way I will vote on the merits of the issue. And on tonight's issue, this is very clearly one where the individual will take names, many of which actually come from us doing outreach to our community. And that's what happened with this particular application. There was, you know, quite a bit of outreach to community and not a lot of names that had come forward in. Councilman Cashman, you could probably speak to this in terms of the length of time that that was the lag between how many notices kind of went out in that outreach to community. And typically, you know, through our newsletters, they go pretty far and wide, but not everybody wants to serve on an unpaid board because that's what this is. And this is hard work and it's very important work that needs to happen in vetting people who will serve on the Citizen Oversight Board, which, by the way, is one of our more diverse boards in the city that reflects age as well as the ethnic diversity of our city. And I, for one, will continue to make sure that that board is reflective of the population of our city. And I will be voting for this to move forward because I think it's important that we have a seated body that can help us vet those names that are then referred to us and to the mayor, where we make the final decision based on the names that are submitted to us. It doesn't mean that they're handpicking anybody to be on that on that citizen oversight board. They're simply vetting names to refer to us. And then we make that final decision. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, we have Councilwoman CdeBaca back up. Thank you, Madam President. I want to respond to my colleague, Councilman Flynn's comment about setting an unnecessary precedent. I think with our recent elections, we set a precedent that really was saying to this city that we want more checks and balances and accountability. And so I don't think it's unnecessary or inappropriate to ask that community be more extensively involved in these processes, especially because this is our opportunity to represent our constituents. We're not here to vote how we want to vote because we feel like we're here to represent our constituents. And that parade of folks that you mentioned are our constituents. And they should have the opportunity to raise any concern about any nomination to any committee or any appointment. And that's what I believe we're here to do. And any college recruiter across the country will tell you that who's. Recruiting is. Important. And we should take note of best practices when it comes to recruiting. If we really want people who represent a diversity of experience, experience in these spaces. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Seen no one else in the queue? Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement, please. CdeBaca I. Black no. Flynn. No. Herndon. No. Hinds no. Cashmere. Carnage, no. Ortega No. Sandoval No. Sawyer Yes. Torres No. Madam President? No. Oh, sorry. My mind was showing up drunk. Who's been. Get that. I'm sorry. No problem. I hit the road. But you have ten days to ice. Ten days? The postponement of Resolution 730 has failed comments by members of Council on Resolution 730. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem I. I want to, I guess, first disclose that I did accept $2,000 from Roger Sherman. It was after the runoff. So I he also donated $1,000 to the incumbent and $1,000 to another candidate who maxed out to just about everyone in my race. I want to thank you, Mr. Sherman, for all you do for Denver. As people who followed my campaign know I was a citizen lobbyist of the capital before getting elected to Denver's perfect tent. It was my role to educate legislators on the merits of my bill and explain why it makes sense to move that bill forward. I participated in the political process. Like all of you who are here tonight and all of you who write or phone our council office or attend our meetings. And now that is now that I'm an elected official, it's my role to make decisions on what I believe is best for Denver and Denver's perfect tent. It doesn't mean that I'm supposed to know everything. And instead, part of that role is to get as educated as I can on each issue that comes before a council and people like Mr. Sherman help me to in that education. I firmly believe in that principle. I also firmly believe that it's my responsibility to have a healthy understanding of the role of an influencer like a lobbyist, just as I should have a healthy respect for the lobbying. I should also have a healthy respect for second sourcing, anything that that the lobby presents, just to make sure that I have a balanced viewpoint. Some feel that some people feel that city council doesn't provide an independent review separate from the executive branch. As one District ten resident reported on April 11th and as already referred to earlier the same article, it is sometimes difficult to know where the city ends and the lobbyists began. So thank you, Colorado Public Radio, for that comment. By the way, if we move this bill forward, I believe we're hurting our perceived impartiality with Denver residents and we injure the perceived impartiality of an oversight board designated designed to be independent. Crow is the lobbyist, the largest lobbying firm in Denver, and Mr. Sherman is the managing partner of zero. We have 700,000 residents in Denver and another 300,000 people who come to Denver each business day. I think this is an opportunity to find someone who's less connected with municipal politics. I believe this is an opportunity to demonstrate that there should be a distinction between where lobbying ends and where the city begins. So in closing, I'll say this together. Denver, we can do better. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to disclose that even though I voted this down, I did not accept or receive any money from Roger Sherman or Sierra. But I also am new in this role, and I want to respect my colleagues who worked really hard to get a new oversight board. And I acknowledge your work. And a lot of times when you are new on the council and you're new into government, you have to look at those who came before you. And I know I stand on the shoulders of those who have come before me. And so in that, I was vacillating back and forth as I was sitting here. And I do respect my colleague from Councilman. Can you and Councilman Cashman and Councilman Lopez, because at that time I was working for the Denver Fire Department when this ordinance was coming through. And part of the ordinance was going to impact actually some of the fire department in the work in that arson division. So I was well versed on that because the arson division, they carry guns. And so I just want to thank my two colleagues and thank everyone on this day for having a very robust decision, a discourse like this. And I think it actually does bring awareness to what's going on in city council. And also, I also do know and acknowledge that it is very hard to get people to want to sit on boards. It's time consuming. It's a lot of responsibility. And I saw these notifications personally go out three different times. And for that to go out citywide and only have to nominate, people want to come and join that board. I think we have to respect that process. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. In the spirit of full disclosure, I did also receive campaign contributions from Mr. Sherman. I have only known him less than a year, and it was directly related to campaign discussions about the future of my district. My background is includes direct worked with boards and commissions in the city and including the predecessor of the Office of the Independent Monitor's Citizen Over Oversight Board. I was first hired on just to staff the Public Safety Review Commission 18 years ago. It is incredibly important and difficult to find volunteers who are diverse, who effectively represent communities, who are committed to the demands of the boards and commissions they sit on for anywhere from two to upwards of 5 to 7 years, depending on the Border Commission. I recognize the work that my colleagues have done to create a screening committee and to find the people to fill that committee that know and have experienced the work. Recruitment is also our responsibility as council members and direct. Responsive and direct. Connection to our residents to find people to sit on the sea lobby and every other board and commission. 130 across the city. It's important for our residents. It is important for their leadership and it's important for their voice throughout the city. So when these recruitment announcements come available, it's important for all of us to get that word out and find people who are committed to that service and for them to apply and to serve. I'm also dismayed that only two people responded to this one. This is a really challenging one to fill because you're looking for very specific information, and I honor and respect the work of my colleagues in the past few months to do that and will also be supporting this this resolution. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. So, in the interest of all honesty, I actually did not accept a contribution from Mr. Sherman, but accidentally reported that I did so by apologies, Mr. Sherman, for that. And it was nothing personal. I just made a commitment to my constituents that I wouldn't take contributions from big developers during the campaign. And so it was, you know, nothing personal at all. Just your connections to big development was sort of a gray area. And I think that you would probably do a fantastic job in this role. If it were up to me personally, I would absolutely support you in this. But I believe that my constituents put me here on the dais because they are ready for change. And so I am going to vote against you for this because I think that that is what my constituents want me to do. But I want to thank you for your engagement in our community and for all of your hard work. And I would like to ask you to continue that in some other capacities, because I think you're doing a great job. And I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their thoughtful comments today. I know that it's a difficult conversation to have. The city is in a in a tough place right now where we are having some some very big discussions about some very deep divides in our community. And it's hard to stand up here and stand up for what you believe in when it's something that maybe most of your colleagues don't agree with you on. So, you know, I just want to thank all of you for your your fortitude and your thoughtfulness and all of your your, you know, votes, however, and sticking with whatever you you believe in. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up, we have Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. I just wanted to add that within the last week of posting about this, I've had multiple people inquire about how and when this position was made public. And I'm sure that if it were at all possible, we could get other people to respond to the call to serve. I do know several people who would gladly serve as volunteers. And so if that's the issue, I think you have a new council and new opportunities to engage people who have not been engaged before, who deeply want to serve our city. So please consider that as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines, your backup. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I want to also talk about Councilwoman Sawyer's comment about constituents. We we received a lot of communication about this particular nomination, and we vetted each person to see if they were in District ten or not. 100% of the correspondents that reached out to us in District ten wanted me to say no. So, again, citizen lobbying, this is what this is where you also get to to participate in the political process. Mr. Sherman lives in ten, and I didn't I was so awkward. I didn't know if I should reach out proactively. But then we looked at the that the the people who weren't in town and who provided comments to the district in office, 100% of them also asked me to vote no. So no one has has reached out and lobbied in favor of 19 0730. So I just want to point that out as well. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Seen no other speakers, Madam Secretary, roll call on resolution 730, please. Black. I see tobacco. No. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Her name. I. Hinds name. Cashman. Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval. Sawyer. Nay. Torres. Hi. Nine eyes, three knees. Nine eyes, three knees, nine eyes. Resolution 730 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilwoman CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on this next. Next one. 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.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 6.16.085 and by adding Section 6.16.062 all relating to animal regulation, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03172015_15-0115

Councilwoman Mango. Motion carries eight zero 24. Item 24 Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine and the City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code related to animal regulation read and adopted as read citywide. Thank you. There's been a motion and the second vice mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask Mr. Stephens a question. We've had some further conversations with stakeholders, and there's a clarification I'd like to ask regarding the exemption for breeders. Under that exemption, we've we've been made aware of a particular contractual agreement between breeders and, say, someone who purchases a purebred animal. And under that contractual agreement, I believe it's referred to as a breeder line or breed line perhaps. And we can have Councilmember Richardson expand on that deal. My understanding of what's been described to me and my knowledge of the ordinance before us, our exemption would cover that. And so if I could have staff. Discuss that. And elaborate on it. I would appreciate that. And perhaps, Mr. Mayor, if Councilmember Richardson can articulate better. What I was trying to articulate. Just also, just for the public, there will be public comment. So as soon as this is completed, just after. I thank you. Thanks, Vice Mayor. I think so. I've done some diligence since last week too. This week to better understand how this impacts purebred dogs and purebred animals. That may not be a show dog, but might potentially be a show dog or be a part of a line, a specific line of purebreds that breeds show dogs or whatever the purposes. And a lot of times the breeders my understanding is the licensed breeders, a lot of them like have a contractual or contractual agreement with those folks that they sell their dog to, that those dogs should not be spayed or neutered because they are part of a certain line. Now, I would imagine this is a very narrow group of group of professional trade. So I wanted to I wanted to just sort of have a better understanding on that. And thank you, Vice Mayor, for for helping to walk me through that. And I would hope that they are included in the exemption for under the definition of the exemption for breeder. Thank you. And, Mr. Mayor, would you mind if staff addressed the issue? As I read it, it would be would be exempt. The owners would be on the breeder to provide that documentation to us. Mayor and members of city. Council, in my understanding and. Ted can can weigh in on this as well as when you purchase a purebred dog, you do get the AKC papers and with those AKC papers that you are part of the exemption. If you want to breed that dog, you you should have the AKC papers, too, to show the lineage of that dog. Right. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Did you want to add to that? Yeah. Yeah, I believe that. And my conversations. With the local Kennel Club is that there is a lot of paperwork involved and a lot of time and effort that goes into making sure dogs are purebred in the lineage. And so. It would be my understanding that. Those offspring would have the paperwork that would make them eligible. For the exemption. Okay. And if I can ask staff to make sure that we have that as a issue that may come up and consider that and and acknowledge I'm acknowledging that that is part of the exemption. And so I'd like you to be sure that you have that as part of your process going forward in setting up. The requirements are not the requirements, but the process to fulfill the requirements. Vice Mayor I guess. We could probably work with the city attorney to make sure that's in the language. Okay. Thank you. And that's it for me, Mr. Mayor. I've made the motion. And the councilman. I'll withdraw my comment. It was only if there was a just a misunderstanding with what we thought the original intent was. But I wasn't the second or so. I wasn't sure if I could. Join of the friendly council Boston. Oh. With work drama comments in a la public comment person. Okay, great. So I'm going to move on to the public comment. If you have a public comment, please come forward to the mic. Please come all the way forward to line up behind Mr. Good Hill. Very good to clear. See you. Just as I mentioned the first time this subject came up, I strongly believe that we should not restrict this to our four legged friends. If we're going to spay and neuter. Extend it to all. The two legged, which are more problematic, quite frankly, than most of the four legged. And I think it will benefit the city tremendously. Thank you. Thank you. If we're going to have if we're going to speak, please come forward, ladies. Come all the way forward and just line up. Okay. Thank you. Please. And make sure everyone just introduce yourself for the record. Okay. Good evening. My name is Geneva Coates. I'm the secretary for the California Federation of Dog Clubs. We represent thousands of dog owners throughout the state. And the dog owners of the state of California have some grave concerns regarding your proposals tonight. For many decades, the city of Long Beach had a total ban on breeding before it implemented a limited permit system to allow breeding. The process is so convoluted and expensive that obtaining a breeding permit here remains an impossible dream. If a law that prohibits breeding was effective, then after decades of such a law, the City of Long Beach should be a poster child for shelter success. Now your city is considering another failed policy. A mandatory spay and neuter law. Our group is opposed to mandatory sterilization of pets, regardless of exemptions. And I think it's worth noting that while our group does represent purebred dog breeders and dog clubs that are consisting of purebred dogs, we also recognize that not just purebred dogs have a need to maintain all their body parts. We also recognize that there are dogs that hunt, dogs that guard property, guards that serve the blind. Those are very often crossbred dogs, dogs that serve in companion events. But we are opposed to the mandated sterilization of pets, regardless of exemptions. We're opposed to high fees and excessive restrictions. And some of the reasons include the most important reason. Because spay neuter mandates. Do not solve any problems. Such laws create more problems. Every place they've been tried. The ASPCA has done extensive studies on all the areas that have implemented spay neuter laws and their position paper. They state that the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of spay neuter law . Another point that I wanted to bring up. I know you all received a letter from AKC from Sheila Garvey. Sheila Garvey informed you all that the AKC would not want to consider bringing back the Eukanuba shows to Long Beach in the event of a spay neuter law this past year. And I know that you're also aware that in the past years, when these shows have been held here, the revenues per show have been in the area of around $21 million. So that would be a big loss to your city. We also recognize that mandatory sterilization laws are very costly. For the city to enforce requires more manpower. There are many existing laws that. Do cover dogs that are roaming. And causing problems in the community. Thank you, ma'am. I miss all of. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Diane Amendola. I sent you an email about a month and a half ago regarding this. I was asked not to come and talk to you earlier because an acquaintance of mine said that her husband was going to talk to you and everything would be settled. Well, they know very well that I oppose mandatory spay neuter laws. I support education of your populace so that they understand how to keep the dogs from having litters that are unplanned. My family's always had purebred dogs and we have not spayed or neutered them, but we have not had litters. We understand what fences are about. We understand what reproduction is about. I'm astounded that you've going to hit that you're proceeding to pass this ordinance of mandatory spay neuter, which will see Eukanuba Dog Show go elsewhere, I guess. Long Beach $21 million is nothing to you to earn in a week. I thought it was a lot of money. It's just not accurate. If you're talking about economic impact versus revenue, those are just not the same. But well. I got this information from your tourism bureau, and I thought that they knew what they were talking about. You know, more than they do. Please give the second part of your ordinance that would force pets shops. To offer unregulated rescue pets for sale instead of pets from license inspected sources with health guarantees. I oppose this. This is a poor idea, which is. Encourages the importation of dogs from outside the United States for the rescue retail trade. And if you haven't noticed, rescues do sell the animals. And I've been involved in rescue. Yes. We do have to get a little bit of money for the dogs to cover the expenses that they incur. However, no one regulates them. And many of the important many rescues are importing dogs from other regions of the country, as well as from as far away as Mexican, the Caribbean, Taiwan, Europe and Asia. This is a completely unregulated cottage industry, and you're not addressing that at all. The dogs and puppies obtained from such ventures, often from unscrupulous foreign puppy mills or dogs, are kept in bad conditions. These dogs are often sick and have been known to suffer from rabies and bring rabies here. Just check with your health department if you don't. Do not believe me. These. The pet shop trade has proven by the insurance companies that take care of those dogs that those are the most regulated. Far more regulated than rescues. And they they suffer from far fewer illnesses, as the insurance companies will attest to. I'm sorry you're considering this. I don't know what more I could say to ask you not to. So thank you for listening and. I think I sent you some information about the universities are all telling us it's unhealthy to spay and neuter our dogs before maturity. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Ann Taft Miller. I live in the third district. I have lived there for almost 30 years and I am hoping that you will consider other options and other viewpoints than what has been, you know, seems to be the flow that is going on here. My training in graduate school, as well as my profession, required me to analyze data here regardless of my own opinions. It made me look at. Specific information, that is, and even soft data. And when? So as since this is ingrained in me, I did get on the Internet. I did look to see if there has been any appreciable or any statistically. Or any. Even a direction that was showing that mandatory spay neuter has been beneficial to communities. And I have not found that. And I did find what somebody else said, which was the ASPCA does not support this. Even though data from our American Veterinary Medical Association has been presented as to the positives about this. What was omitted was that the American Veterinary Medicine Association does not support mandatory spay and neuter. I don't know why we're going this direction. The the recommendation is that this will be funded on the backs of the 33% of the dogs in this community that are actually licensed. You are quite you. In order for you to have a neutral impact on our city budget. I do not understand this. I do appreciate the fact that you have looked at trying to bring two sides together and to look at it passing such an ordinance. My dogs would be covered. However. A personal note is that my dog has been diagnosed with Ms.. So cancer, which veterinary oncologist have specifically stated is related to early spay and neuter? My girlfriend's dog died of bladder cancer. Which was associated with early spay and neuter. My dog was spayed at five months. Her dog was neutered at 11 months. Why are you practicing veterinary medicine? I am very passionate and I am sorry. It's frustrating to me that you are moving in this direction when in fact we should be going. You know, every argument that has been given, you know, for this ordinance has been covered by licensing fields and breeders permits. I don't understand it. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello. Can you hear me? Ahead. We can. Okay. My name is Vicki Rhodes, and I am appalled that this. Council is even considering. This measure. It has been a failure everywhere. It has been tried. If you look at cities that have taken a much more progressive and much more. Open minded approaches such as the County of Ventura. You will see that they did and chose to go with an educational program. They approached their populace for education. They approached them with affordable means of getting their animals spayed or neutered. A lot of people simply can't afford it, but they want to have pets and they want to be good pet owners. You also have the kind. That are just completely irresponsible and let them run loose. The mandatory spay and neuter is not going to address any portion of those problem areas. You have 70% of your. Population of pet. Owners already not complying with your laws. So the 33% are going to shoulder the burden. The other thing that I would like to. Remind you of is something that Thomas. Jefferson said. And he said not to consider laws and civil mandates just for. The good that you think they will. Do. You need to consider. Them for the harm that they can do. This is something that you are. Considering that can do. Tremendous harm. You are deciding. Without any medical background or any veterinary knowledge. That this is what you are going to force. Upon the populace. Now I consider myself a good pet owner and a good citizen. And I to do what's right. For my dog. And my dog will be covered under one of those little slippery things that you. Call an exception. But the truth is, everybody deserves the right to discuss with their veterinarian. Or to be knowledge knowledgeable within that. Discussion about what is best for their pet. This is not in the best interest of your pet. This is not in the best interest of me and my family who love those little animals and they get attached to them. I invest time and money and it gets spent in this city. I am willing to. Support whatever program. Because I want to comply and I want everyone to be able. To comply. It needs to be fair. This is neither fair. It is not healthy. And I don't see why you feel that you have the right to do this. Additionally, if you want to contact some counties like Ventura that did go with the educational route, you will see that within a year their. Admissions into their. Shelters and clinics dropped by 40%. Thank you very much. Time's up. Make speaker, please. Happy Saint Patty's Day, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Connie Koehler. I am the legislative liaison to the AKC for the soft coated Wheaten Terrier Club of America, my national breed club and a great Irish breed, and also the immediate past president of the soft coated Wheaten Terrier Club of Southern California. And I would like to talk to the economic impact of the loss of AKC Eukanuba National Championship to the City of Long Beach and Councilwoman Mongo. I do understand the difference between economic impact and revenue. Professionally. Previous speakers have stated that according to Long Beach Area Visitors and Convention Bureau, that 28,000 visitors from all 50 states and multiple foreign countries with an economic impact of 21 million, was the result of. The 2010. Single year agency show season that was at the height of the Great Recession. May I remind everyone that the contract that AKC makes with the city is for five years? So that is potentially a loss of 105 million or more over that five year period. To Long Beach. Business. This includes hotels, restaurants, retail merchants, car rentals, Long Beach Airport, etc., etc. and many employ hourly, lower income workers who spend their own income in the community, affecting yet more businesses in Long Beach indirectly. Now then there is the issue of local AKC shows. And by the way, AKC has gone on record online on their website. Saying, and I quote. From today's release of cases Taking Command, their government relations newsletter quote, AKC has informed city officials that we will no longer consider Long Beach as a site for the AKC Eukanuba National Championship, which had previously been held there from 26 to 2010, unquote. According to AKC event operations, last year's entries for local AKC shows at Queen Mary Park were 6509 dogs. They are principally from two weekends in June. Great Western Terrier Association, which includes national and local breed clubs, specialty show shows, including My Own. And the following weekend, the Kennel Club of Beverly Hills and Long Beach Kennel Club. Similar events. The economic impact if those clubs decide to withdraw as a result of the passage of your ordinance exceed. Could exceed. $1,000,000 and could be upwards of 3 to $4 million annually if the clubs decide to go elsewhere. It will not be this year, but in subsequent years. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Kimberly Buchanan, and I again urge you to vote no on this proposed ordinance. As I stated last week, I'm a business owner and homeowner. I currently live in District five. I've lived in Long Beach since 1988, have volunteered much time at Long Beach Animal Control and currently assist with several rescue organizations. Last week we heard. A lot of. Really sad stories about dogs on streets, dogs being euthanized in our shelter. Our group received the Animal Control Statistics statistics through December 5th of 2014. And I agree that it is shocking, shocking that the numbers have dropped so dramatically just a few years. That's all it takes. This is in large part due to the dedication and hard work of so many supporting groups and individuals who work tirelessly for the animals. The euthanasia stats that we got were approximately 4400 dogs that were impounded. We don't know if that actually includes the four other contracted cities. It may not sure. But as I look at the statistics, I have to wonder how animal control can improve any healthy, adoptable animals should be able to find a loving and permanent home out of 968 dogs that were euthanized in that time, 477 of them had serious health or behavior issues, so they were essentially non adoptable. 307 had minor health and behavior issues. What minor is, we don't know. Not sure what that is. Don't know if these dogs were made available to the public, if they were treated, if they had any training, for some reason they were euthanized. But we don't know why. Finally, out of 968 dogs, only 126 were euthanized due to time and space. Amazing. 126. Too many, of course. But what was it about those 126 dogs that they didn't get adopted? One more statistic we see is that there are 696 dogs relinquished to the shelter by their owners. Does animal control counsel these people when they try and release their dogs and try and find ways for them to keep them rather than releasing them? Those are the questions I would be asking, not what the reproductive status is. By approving this ordinance, you are taking a broad brush approach to an issue that has many facets that deserve more careful consideration. Since a councilman supporters seem to feel that this is the next step in reducing euthanasia. I would beg you to put the information online so everybody can see what the results are, just like other major municipalities do. So we can see exactly what the effect is once this does pass. If it does pass. We have an estimated 110,000 dogs in the city. 90% are already altered. We only have a 30% licensed compliance, so difficulty in enforcing existing laws. I do not believe this broad, sweeping ordinance will achieve the desired effect. Please vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Go ahead, cut off. We have our last public speaker. I'm going to cut off the speaker's list, the lady in the back there, so she'll be the last speaker. I'm going to be very quick because I spoke to you at length last week. My name is Judith McMann. I'm a lifelong resident of Long Beach. I've lived in the fifth District on my own home for the last 40 plus years. And I have three dogs, two of whom are spayed. One of whom is intact and will remain intact. I fall under one of your exemptions. Regardless, he will remain intact. He's never been out of my yard. I have a lock on my yard. He's not going anywhere and he's not going to touch any other target unless I say he's going to. I just had a couple of questions about this ordinance itself. I happen to be an attorney as well, and I do read the law. I have a couple of questions which I'm hoping this council can answer for me. As I read this, it says Unaltered dogs and cats are prohibited. That means prohibited in the city of Long Beach, I presume does not say residents, dogs and cats who live in Long Beach are prohibited. It says dogs and cats, period, are prohibited. I know a lot of people that come here for dog shows. They're not going to take the chance of bringing an altered, unaltered animal in this city, period. End of subject. They're not going to do it. The other question I had, unless I'm totally mistaken, this city currently requires licensing of animals at the age of four months. This law says that at six months they must be spayed or neutered. I'm wondering what happens in the meantime if I license a puppy, an altered puppy at four months, and then I have to spay and neuter it by six months? Do I get a refund on what I've paid for the difference in license fees? That makes no sense to me. Absolutely no sense to me. Basically, that's all I have to say. Thank you very. Much. Thank you very much. And I had closer speakers list. We have one more. Is that okay? Okay. I'm going to close the speakers list after you came in. Thank you. Go ahead. Hi. My name is John Zapp. I'm a resident of the fifth District. I lived there for 30 years. I'm I'm also the owner of two dogs, two of whom compete in agility and are the top two of the top dogs in the country in agility and our breed. I've been the past president of my dog club. I've been past president of my agility club, and I'm the current vice president of my obedience club. So I know a few things about dogs and about caring for dogs and raising dogs. I'm opposed to the mandatory spay neuter law, not because it's going to affect me directly, because my dogs are going to be exempt under the way the ordinance is currently written. But I'm opposed to that. For all the other reasons that you have. Heard tonight that you heard at our last meeting last week. But I'm not here to express my opposition. To that so much anymore, because I suspect that, as we were told when a group of us were meeting with members of you, with the Senate and your staffs, as we were told that it was a done deal two months ago, I suspect. It's going to be a done. Deal again tonight. But I am here to express my personal disappointment in not being a participant in the discussions that led to the creation of this particular ordinance, the people who were most involved in dogs on a daily basis, who compete with dogs, who know dogs, who have bred dogs, who have held these contracts, written these contracts , who have like me, walked through shelters, pulled dogs. And in my case, I have fostered seven dogs, all of whom I can say have been placed in really wonderful homes. We didn't provide any input into this. We weren't part of the group that helped craft this ordinance. We were not in we're stakeholders, but we weren't at the table as as. As Councilman Andrew. Said earlier this evening to the young lady and the group from the Wrigley District, telling them perhaps over the next period of time, you can work together to try to come together. We didn't get that opportunity. We didn't get that chance. And now there's going to be an ordinance that's going to be in place. I'm going to comply with it. I'm exempt from it. One of my dogs is currently neutered. The next the next one, the other one will be spayed as soon as we come back from Nationals. However, for the 70,000 dogs in this community that aren't neutered, aren't spayed, I'm not sure how that group is going to come together with and and comply with this ordinance. They're not complying with the licensing ordinance now. It's it's a been a divisive experience and I'm sorry for that. I just wish that the council would, going forward, pull together the stakeholders and see if we can't create some sort of better thinking. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Orrick. I'm the national manager of Puppy Mill Initiatives for Best Friends Animal Society. And I'm just here on behalf. Of Best Friends and our 300,000 members to. Thank you for considering the retail pet sales ordinance and for really taking a. Positive, proactive approach to. Making the City of Long Beach more humane for people and animals. And I just want to briefly remark on something that a previous speaker said about how the existing pet stores. Are supplied by breeders who are. Licensed and regulated. So the USDA is the one who regulates commercial breeders. And the the minimal standards of animal. Care allow for a breeder to have. No limits to the number of dogs they have. Some of these facilities have over a thousand. Dogs with very few, very few people to care for them. There's no limits to how often the dogs can be bred or how young or old the dogs. Can be when they're bred. There's no requirements. For veterinary. Care, daily exercise, human contact. And the most shocking thing is that these dogs are allowed to be confined to cages that are have wire bottoms, which are very uncomfortable, tiny, cramped cages stacked one on top of the other. And they only have to be six inches larger than the dogs. And those dogs are allowed to be kept in those cages. 24 hours a day, seven days a. Week for their entire lives, without ever being taken out for one single moment to stand on solid ground, feel the sun on their backs, get out of dark barns, get, get out of the elements. This is the life of the breeding. Dogs who are supplying puppies for local pet stores, and that's unacceptable. So the status quo, which is what you're trying to address, needs to change. That's why. 75 other communities throughout North America. Cities, counties now the state of Maine are all passing these ordinances because they realize that this is not appropriate. So we applaud. You for taking this. Approach, for making Long Beach a more humane city. And I want to thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker. Thank you. Thank you for affording me the time. I have a little thing going on here, but I did want to address you. I would like to address some of my concerns that came out of last week's meeting. First of all, I would like to comment on Councilwoman Mongo statement during her remarks at the last council meeting where she quoted I quote her I am a proponent of strong compliance policies. Councilwoman Mongo, I would like to know how you plan to mandate such strong compliance with this ordinance. The City of Long Beach is already looking at budget difficulties. This budget recommends a minimum allocation for compliance, which includes enforcement and public education. How will that be possible? With only a projected increase in licensing fees expected to balance the cost? How will it affect the budget if the compliance and licensing is not what you expect? Statistics speak for themselves from cities all over California and across the United States, that when an ordinance such as this is implemented, compliance goes down and costs go up. It is it is realistic to base. Is it realistic to base your budget on 100% compliance with only part time inspectors? With these questions in mind, I would like to request that the Director of Animal Care Services include program transparency with up to date shelters, data statistics posted on a website just as Los Angeles City Animal Service does, posting their animal control statistics monthly. Secondly, when our group began meeting with each of your office, I found it interesting and one of our very first meetings almost four weeks ago with Mr. Brock Howard. Vice Mayor Lowenthal is chief of staff who expressed his indifference in our meeting with him regarding this ordinance and remarked, and I quote, This is set in stone. Now, that was four weeks ago before any of the testimony at these council meetings took place. But after November 18th Council meeting, I ask you, how can that be? Am I to understand that you're all going through the motions here and we have just been wasting our time offering you facts, statistics, position letters from all the major organizations that should have been included in some type of stakeholders meeting for input before this important issue was voted on. May I suggest that you delay the vote on this second reading in order to build a comprehensive study, which can include all the stakeholders from both sides giving their opinions on the pros and cons of this issue. This was an idea mentioned to us when we met with both Austin and councilmen Austin and Durango, and I suggest I support this idea. I would like to thank you, Councilman Austin. Your remarks last week showed you really you really had a grasp of the problems with this ordinance. Lastly, I would like to mention thank Dr. Larry Cosman for representing the Southern California Medical Association at last week's council meeting. Although Dr. Cosman was only here present as an observer for his organization, the Southern California Veterinary Medical Association has expressed no position on mandatory spay and neuter. But I am aware that there are many interested members of the Southern California Veterinary Medical Association who are presently involved in this discussion and who are concerned with the outcome here tonight. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I'm to go back to Councilwoman Mongo. First, I want to say that I always appreciate those who come and meet with our office. I take emails personally, I take meetings regularly. I'm out in the community at sometimes a dozen events a week where people approached me on any item before the council. Ted, do you want to give a little bit of input on the stakeholder group that weighed in on the writing of the ordinance that this council asked you to ensure that it was written and or any individuals that contacted your office where they all heard. Mr. Stevens? Yeah. I'm sorry. Still getting over a cold? Yeah. In addition to. All the groups. That were actually that were in support of the mandatory spay neuter, I did reach out to or spoke to the Long Beach Kennel Club representatives that came to the meeting in November. And I did speak with them and I did share them. What we were proposing and made. Sure I swayed it all of their. Concerns as they were the group that contacted me and reached out to me and and. Spoke to me at the last meeting. So I did speak to them. I did speak to several other agencies on their laws and what worked and what didn't work. And so that's that was the basis of it. So if any member of this group that felt that they were not included had reached out to you and and as our motion had said, that was in public and posted many times, had voiced interest in being a part of the process. They were included. Yes. I didn't have any other people reach out to me. Okay. Additionally, I want to set a few facts straight. Nothing is a done deal and nothing is set in stone until five members of this body have passed it. And I think that that's evidenced by the dialog that Councilmember Austin and I had last week, and that earlier this evening I was leaning towards voting no. And the comments of my colleagues and members of the public had changed my mind. I have a very heated item going on in my district right now that I inherited from a prior council, and I'm looking at it very diligently to ensure that we are we are getting all sides to the point that unaltered dog licenses cost more than spend neutering. Let me also say that. As a council member, we receive if you saw the stack of paper I had here earlier tonight, those were all public comments on a particular item in my district. And I read them all, all of them. And I write notes on things that we want to write back. And obviously with the hundreds that we receive, we can't write back to every single person individually. And most specifically, I try to take my time to write back to the people who are most informed, because a lot of the complaints we get. Are just based on things that are not factually correct. And so it's it's hard as a councilmember to try to correct the record all the time and remind people of what the facts are. So let's go through a couple of books. One, the cost of unaltered dog licenses cost more than spay and neuter and your pet. So if you an unaltered dog license at $95 for four years, you're in for approximately $400. The cost of spay and neuter and is less than that. Most dogs live beyond four years of age. Additionally, there are spay and neuter vouchers, etc., etc., etc.. And so in addition to that, Councilmember Austin and I have talked about the mobile spay and neuter clinic and other opportunities to ensure that certain parts of the community don't have access to the shelter where you buy licenses and you become compliant. And so we're working on making sure that the north side of town and the west side of town have events in their community where they can buy licenses and or have access to those vouchers. Second. The spay and neuter ordinance as written is budget neutral. Since we are allowing individuals who currently have an unaltered license to maintain their current unaltered status, there is no revenue decrease expected. And so from their. There have been complaints in the community that we are increasing the dog licensing fee by 40%. Let's talk about that, shall we? A dog license fee in Long Beach is a mere $20. We are increasing the fee to $24. That is less than a venti cup of coffee at McDonald's. I think they're 425. And so if the organizations and individuals who want the privilege of having a dog aren't willing to pay for the cost of that organization, we have bigger issues. Right now, Animal Control Services is a budget deficit annually. I know you sent over the numbers, Mr. Stevens, but what is the subvention rate of animal control services? So subvention rate is if it costs $100,000 to run the department and we only bring in $40,000 in revenue, it's only supplemented 40%. And departments like this should be prevented 100%. We don't want to lose the service, and we absolutely cannot increase redemption fees because the cost of redemption fees are deterrent for individuals picking up their animals. They just abandoned them when they see what they have to pay. And Mr. Stevens has done an excellent job of, in some cases, waiving those redemption fees to ensure those pets get back to their owners. But if you could tell me what the current subvention rate is or what the revenue the costs are from the email that you sent me. I can pull it up if I have to. Thank you, Councilmember Mongo Councilmember Austin. I don't I don't have the exact percentage on me, but it's. Little it's under 50%. Okay. 40, 45%. So less than 50%. That means that our contract services are license fees and our redemption fees don't even cover 50% of the cost to run our organization. And so this small amount of revenue spike in the short term will make that difference. For compliance. And I am I am one of the council members that stands most firmly against increasing taxes. I also am one who believes, and you'll see this in the coming months, as we're discussing right now, our parks. I'm also one who believes that those who use those services are the ones who should pay for the most, because our general fund dollars, the tax dollars brought in from sales tax revenue and property tax really need to go to streets, sidewalks, trees, the things in the community that are used by everyone. And so even some have brought to my attention that park usage is equal for taxpayers of Long Beach and people who come from other communities whose taxes pay for other parks. We're looking into that. We're looking at those options because in the next two years, we are facing a budget deficit. Additionally. I am open to discussing options of what we can do on rating systems or requirements for our rescues. I do know there is a huge difference in the quality of rescues in our community. Having worked for Animal Control, L.A. County. I've worked with dozens and dozens and there's a huge variance. So please reach out to my office and get on the calendar and we can discuss some options. Same with puppy mills. Ted, do you want to address for me quickly that licenses are at four months and the Spain and neutering is at six months and how we came up with a way around that so we wouldn't have to do a refund. Do you want to share that? I believe we would probably propose. We would be proposing a temporary fee similar to what Orange County uses. They allow puppy licenses at the same rate as an unaltered license. And then so we could propose that in the fee schedule when this takes effect in October. Because I'm definitely not in favor of refunds. It's it's a process that takes a lot of staff time that should be spent on animals. Additionally. We do not base the budget on 100% compliance. We base the budget on revenue trends. And so that's not a part of it. And then and finally, I want to say something about an issue that I've spent hours of my life on in the last week. There are too many individuals that speak for the AKC because there are people who come before us today that say they're not going to come back. And there are people who call me and say that they are. There are people in the organization who say that they were never going to come back anyway. They outgrew us and they moved to Miami for five years. And when they were considering coming back to the West Coast, we were not even in their consideration. There are others who said that and I quote, Because you have written in the breed ordinance and the exceptions as you have, you are still in consideration. And so it's really difficult for us as a city to have so many different people speaking for an organization. If the president of this organization would like to give me a call, my chief of staff will give them my personal cell phone number. In the same way that I've spoken with the president of the Convention and Visitors Bureau. And their staff has reached out numerous times over the last week to get the record straight and to have AKC provide in writing what they had specifically said. I see that you said that some things on the website. I'd be more than happy to have my chief of staff. She's right here in the front row. Find out more. But we've spent hours on the phone. I mean, just trying to weed through the individuals who call and say they are affiliated with your organization. So for the sanctity of your organization and ensuring that you have the right people speaking on your behalf, we need to work through that process. So thank you for everyone's comments and feedback. I really appreciate it. No, thank you. Public comment is complete for this item right now. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Mongo. Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And, yes, we we debated this this issue pretty profusely last week, and I was reminded in public comment regarding a little earlier about my vote. And this evening, I won't be voting in support of this because I did make a lot of arguments. To the contrary last week. I do think the exemptions are fair and they they they do so some show some sensitivity to many of our responsible pet owners. But I think the smartest, most fiscally responsible approach would be to focus on education and registration, since 90% of our registered dogs here in Long Beach are spayed or neutered . It shows that our system is actually working. I would much rather commit resources to create seasonal job opportunities for college students to canvass and assist our city in increasing our registration numbers. I think the mandatory spay neuter ordinances draconian is a draconian leap for the city of Long Beach, and I'm not convinced that our existing ordinance is really broken. The data, in fact, I think shows significant improvement. And I think this council and the many activists here on both sides of this issue should be complimented for your involvement over the years on this issue. Accessibility to animal care services is still a major issue for majority of the residents in the city of Long Beach . This ordinance does nothing to address that district's one district's two District six District seven District. Eight District nine residents are not don't have access to animal care services. And I think if we were to. To address that in a comprehensive way. We could do a lot to to minimize our numbers in terms of euthanasia and in having, you know, our dogs and cats actually picked up from animal care services. One of the speakers addressed the transparency issue and council members, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. I would I would really love to see in this this ordinance or something come forward from this council. If not today, I'm sure something will come forward very soon, some greater transparency. You know, how many how many dogs are in cats we rescuing, how many are surrendered, how many strays are picked up, you know, and what are we doing in terms of euthanasia? And I think that transparency is merited in this regard. I mean, and more importantly, I would love to see a monthly report from Animal Care Services to to measure the real efficacy of what I presume will be this this this new ordinance, if passed. You know, I want to be able to measure, you know, where we are today and where are we going to be six months from now, where we are a year from now, should this pass? And so I'm going to tell you right now, I'm very much interested in greater transparency in that regard. I'm great. I'm very much interested in making animal care services more accessible to the rest of the city. But what I just said, like six council districts are geographically, um, I guess handicapped from, from, from, from such services and so to, to make this leap to it, to a mandatory spay neuter in law. I mean, it makes people feel good. It makes a certain segment of activists feel good, but I don't think it is a smart policy. And so with that, I will be voting no. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. I appreciate your comments and your position on this. You've been consistent and I do appreciate that. I do want to reiterate to anyone that's interested and certainly watching at home, as colleagues like to say, this isn't a panacea. It's certainly one of the many tools that we would like to implement here in our city to support our education and outreach efforts. If this were a panacea and certainly viewed as such, I would have brought it forward five years ago when I brought my animal care reform package forward. And so this is one of the last tools that we had identified as a possibility for our city after having implemented all of the others. And to your great suggestion, Councilmember Austin, I do all of that information is available. I don't know that we as a council have ever asked our animal care team for a monthly or a annually or even every six months type of report. But as someone who's been very interested in this issue, I've received those numbers because I've asked for them so that I can track the issue we've been able to. State what our percentages are in terms of the reduction in euthanasia, in terms of the reduction of the number of animals that are collected year over year. Because it's something that I personally been interested in. And so I've received that information because I asked if this council is interested in that. Certainly, I think would not only be amenable, but be happy to provide that by way of an annual report. I do think it's part of an annual report of types that I have seen, but it may not be in the format that you're looking for. I have seen those numbers and I think they're publicly available. And so I do believe we are transparent in that because we're proud of the work this animal care department has done. We have come a long way from when we used to be called animal control, and I could not be more proud of the city for that department's work. Mr. Keisler is not here today, but he was a big part of bringing forward the reform and the change with our city manager and every member of this team. And now Mr. Stevens, along with Mr. Chapman's leadership, is part they are part of that. And so. Watching the evolution of this department. It does. It makes me very proud. We have a long way to go. And that's why we have to be relentless in looking for tools to ensure that we take the most humane approach possible. And with that, I think my second Councilmember Urunga on on this item. And I think we're ready for a vote. I spent a lot of. Motion carries seven one. We took item 25, correct? Yes. And so we are on to new business. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. May I call on Councilmember your.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $500, offset by the Second Council District One-time District Priority Funds, transferred from the Citywide Activities Department, to provide a donation to the African American Heritage Society of Long Beach; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $500, to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_03012022_22-0222

Thank you very much. We're going to go ahead and do item ten now, which is a transfer item, please. Communication from Councilwoman Allen recommendation to increase appropriations by $500 to provide a donation to the African American Heritage Society of Long Beach. Councilwoman. Thank you very much. I support this item. I need. I need a second on this item. Please keep it up right now. Okay. I have emotion and I have a second becomes memory Ranga. If there's any public comment on this item. If there are any members of the public that wish to speak on this item, please press star nine. If you're calling in by phone or used to raise a hand feature. Seen none. That concludes public comment. Okay. Let's go and do a roll call. Vote for you. District one. I district to. My. District three. My district for my district five i. District six. I District seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right. Motion is carried.

Supplemental Memorandum - Corrections and/or additions to the City Council Agenda as of 12:00 noon, Friday, May 13, 2022.

LongBeachCC_05172022_22-0577

Thank you. Now we're moving on to item 22, which is the charter committee recommendation. Report from city manager recommendation or request the mayor to convene the Charter Amendment Committee of the City Council within 30 days to discuss placing a city charter amendment before the voters to merge the existing water, sewer and gas utilities into a single publicly owned utility citywide. Mr. Modica. Yes. So this is the very start of a process that's going to have a lot of discussion. We are proposing that you begin the process of a charter amendment to explore this concept of moving together to a different utilities that are in two different departments into one consolidated. We have a short presentation for you. We will be getting much more into the detail on this when we start having the Charter Amendment Committee hearings. But I will turn it over to Chris Gardner to walk us through it. Thank you, Tom. What we're proposing tonight is a concept that the leaders of the utilities have contemplated for over 75 years the consolidation of the water, sewer and natural gas utilities within one city department. Tonight's vote would formally start the lengthy public process to consider putting this concept before the Long Beach voters in November of this year . Today, the city charter separates the operation, management and oversight of the natural gas utility from that of the water and sewer utilities. Article 14 governs the water utility and Article 15 governs the gas utility. In California, Long Beach is the only large city with multiple utilities that separately operates, manages and oversees the utilities. Some examples of cities with consolidated utilities taking full advantage of economies of scale and flexibility. Resource sharing include. Los Angeles. San Francisco. San Diego. Pasadena. Glendale, Burbank. Anaheim, Riverside and Palo Alto. Two important actions that brought us to this point tonight. The Board of Water Commissioners last week unanimously approved a request of the city, the city council, to consider seeking voter approval of a charter amendment to consolidate the city's utilities. Secondly, the staff has successfully completed the necessary meet and confer process with the impacted labor associations. If eventually approved by the voters in November, the charter would be changed to create a single article in the charter governing water, sewer and natural gas service. It would move the gas references of Article 15 into Article 14, which governs the water department, and would thirdly provide that the utilities would be all overseen by the existing five member Board of Water Commissioners, likely renamed as the Board of Utilities Commission. As mentioned earlier, tonight's vote would be only the first step of several before any final decision is made to place this concept on the November ballot. Tonight is an action to refer this to the Charter Amendment Committee for consideration. The committee would convene two public hearings, one in mid-June and one in mid-July, at which time staff will provide a much more detailed presentation and at which time the public can participate and provide input. After the second hearing, the City Council would then vote in August regarding the possible placement of the utility consolidation on the November 8th ballot for the voters to make the final determination. That concludes my report. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I need a motion in a second on this item, please. I do have Councilman Pryce. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm happy to motion it. And I do have a couple of questions for Mr. Gardner. So, you know, we've gotten a lot of public input over the last week on this item. And can you talk a little bit about the cost? Are there efficiencies to be had with this? And can you expand on those? Certainly, there's any time you could mine the utilities. What you have to do is respect the differences because there's obviously differences between water and natural gas. But you also want to take full advantage of the like services and operations that we have. So we both have many operations that are duplicative. We have pipeline replacement. We have engineering. We have accounting, admin, human resources, payroll, all duplicated between the two different departments. And so the idea, as with every other major city in California that has dual utilities, we combine the two under one roof and take advantage of those economies of scale. And with that, you would save money and do things much more efficiently. We would have similar policies to that. We have different policies between gas and water. You would have the and I'll talk a little bit more about this later on when we go through the process, but you'll have much more transparency with the board of Commissioners taking a look at a utility focused take on everything related to the utilities. Okay. So is there going to be a cost saving? We had an independent study done in 2020. It was done by a company called Beebe, and he headed by Marci Edwards, who you may be familiar with. She was the city manager of the city of Anaheim. She also led the utilities, the consolidated utilities in Anaheim and Los Angeles. Her group did a study, and they estimated the first year about two and a half million dollars in savings escalating to about six and a half million by year five. Now, obviously, that that there's a lot of work has to be done before those savings can be materialized. But it was very encouraging. We increase that? Do we expect any increase in costs in while we build up the process to have cost efficiencies realized. We shouldn't from the standpoint that the the demand for services stays the same between the gas and water and sewer utilities. But we would certainly try and resource things. So we would be taking a look at doing what water does. Will we do? I'll make sure that gas follow suit and vice versa. And so there may be areas where we could expand, if appropriate, is a way that we could improve services to the customers. We would expand, but for the most part, we'd be looking at being more efficient and trying to reduce costs. Okay. Are there any job losses associated with this consolidation? No. What we've promised to the labor unions is that no one would lose their job. Any current city employee through this consolidation, what we'd be looking at doing is reducing any positions over time through through normal attrition. So just like today, when we have a vacancy that materializes because of a retirement or a transfer or someone goes to another job, we take a look at that position. We decide whether to fill it as it was filled before, repurpose it or eliminate the position. And so we would do the same thing over time, but no one would regard. Okay. Thank you. And in regards to the timing of this, you know, some folks have reached out, whether accurate or not, but but tying this proposal and the timing of it to the measure and lawsuit, is there any correlation at all between the two? No. As as I've said, we've looked at this and talked about it for at least four years. Seriously. It was looked at probably about ten years ago. I know it was looked at 20 years ago. Has been talked about for 75 years. This is something that we've wanted to do for many, many years. It's just a quirk that the city charter has it under two different governance. And so it made it much more difficult to combine the two. But we've been working with the city manager and his team to try and make this happen. So it has absolutely nothing to do with the measure in lawsuit. Okay. And then just finally, I know it's mentioned in the agenda item itself, but what are we exactly voting on tonight so that it's clear? So this would just be an item for the city council to refer this to the Charter Amendment Committee for consideration. And then the Charter Amendment Committee would take it up and decide whether to have the two public hearings in June and July. And then from that point, the amendment committee would take it to the city council in August for a final determination whether to place it on the ballot in November. So this is tonight's really just the first step. Okay. And so ultimately the consolidation issue is not going to be decided by this council. Ultimately, if it goes through the process, it'll be decided on by the voters. Absolutely. It's a charter amendment. Great. Thank you so much, Mr. Gardner. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you for having motion by Councilwoman Pryce. And consider your anger comes from your anger. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank you, Chris, for bringing this forward. It's been a long time coming. As a former city employee who used to work in civil service, I was always wondering why did I have to conduct two different tests, which is basically the same for two different departments? And that really brings up the issue about consolidation re necessary and where they both basically do cross each other in regards to the work that they do. You left off customer services, the service reps who do the exact same work. So I see that the time is well, there's never a good time. I mean, timing is everything. But, you know, there's always an opportunity for bringing this forward. And I think it is about time that we are looking at this consolidation. I'm glad to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thanks. I just want to note and thanks for brief my office a number of times and I got the answers to a number of my questions. I'm glad to hear that the current workforce won't be laid off as a part of this process. That's important and I think efficiencies are certainly important. I will raise today what I raised with you in our discussion is that as we do see savings, it's important to understand how you plan to reinvest those savings. Are we going to put more money into ensuring that our our infrastructure is strong in the utilities? Are we going to put money back into the pockets of ratepayers? Are we going to invest in community benefits? San Francisco does the community benefits program and their utility and the number of other municipal utilities sort of reimagine what their commitment to the community is. And it's not just providing utilities. Sometimes it's job pipelines, training pipelines into STEM jobs for schools and education. So if we have savings, we should think about how we can completely re-imagine the role of this this new department. So I look forward to additional conversations at the charter committee. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So is there any public comment on this item. At this time, if you'd like. On this item, Governor Richardson. I could as well, but I didn't do that. Okay. Yeah, you just got to hand it over to me right now. Council Member. No, I actually want to add to the comments that you made about the event that I spoke with Chris Gardner last week. And one of the areas I see of opportunity is that with this consolidation, when development is happening in our city and any user added or new construction is added. I would love to see a program where now that gas and water are consolidated. We want people to conserve water and we want people in low income communities to have low gas and water bills. And one of the ways that we can support that is by metering every unit. When you meet your every unit, you're incentivizing everyone to. Be be cautious of the utilization and usage. And so with that, I just hope that when we find these things, we'll find those apexes where it makes a lot of sense to reinvest in our low income communities and in the renter population and invest in so that the landlords are really in a position to make those allowances available, to add those additional opportunities at each facility so that renters can own their own destiny and not be on the food, water and fuel meter. So I look forward to that opportunity as well and I'm very supportive of that. I'm glad we're finding a way to save money and save resources while still maintaining our workforce and reducing the burden on our employees of overtime so they can spend quality time with their families. Fantastic. Thank you. Councilmember Sugano, I think you just said one question for Mr. Garner. An article over the weekend stated that the commission would be called the Public Utilities Commission, and that's not what was indicated in your presentation. Has that decision been made or is that still up for grabs or what's the latest that's still up for grabs? I think there may be some confusion with the California Public Utilities Commission, so we want to be careful about that. So we have to consider that when we do the naming of the commission. So that's certainly up in the air and open for suggestions. Okay. Thank thank you. Thank you. That satisfies council comment. Is there any public comment. At this time? If you'd like to speak on this item, please line up and from the podium. And if you're in the Zoom meeting, please use the recent feature or they'll start now and that will begin with in person. You have 3 minutes so I can face six district residents with respect to Mr. Garner's presentation of the three cities that he mentioned. There is not a single study that statistically proves what he's talking about. Consolidation and economies of scale do not. There is no proof that a consolidated public utilities has been led to cost saving, and there's no studies in the public, to my knowledge. We don't want monopolization of our public utilities. There needs to be an independence and disconnect between them. There's a reason that that was in the charter. When this comes to the ballot, I will vote against it just like many people will. If we live literally 20 miles away from the DWP gangsters and the transparency, the countless tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars that they've cost the city of Los Angeles and countless lawsuits, I don't know why we would see the model of that Chinatown and Cadillac Desert and all the pop culture references to why this is a bad idea and then say, hey, let's do that here. Like it. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. The stats the statistics show that it doesn't work. There is no proof that it leads to cost saving. When you consolidate in this in this had this hybridization of the utilities, when you consolidate them in, it actually works against, you know, there's momentary cost increases that then become perpetual.

Recommendation to request City Manager to draft a letter of support for SB 54 (Allen)/AB 1080 (Gonzalez), regarding statewide efforts to phase out the sale and distribution of single-use plastics in California by 2030.

LongBeachCC_04092019_19-0318

Thank you. Now we're going to move to item 13 1:00, please, with item. Item 13. Communication from Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember Peers. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Suranga. Recommendation to requires city manager to draft a letter of support for SB 54 and SB 1080 regarding statewide efforts to phase out the sale and distribution of single use plastics in California by 2030. Thank you. And also, like say a few words before we, you know, do public comment. Yes. I just wanted to first provide my gratitude and thanks to a few members of the community who've been strong supporters of our sustainability practices and policies here in the city of Long Beach. First to our friends at El Goleta, as well as Surfrider and the Sierra Club, as well as Long Beach, 350 and Long Beach Environmental Alliance. Together, they have helped us not only eliminate Styrofoam containers and go through that process, but they've really built a whole framework and system around sustainability efforts as well as our sustainability commission and department. Thanks to all of them. Just to give you some some preliminary information that we have so far right now, we actually have just relative to the Styrofoam ban. We have more than 50 early adopters of the foam free HLB initiative. 50 businesses that have said yes to the foam free initiative prior to the inaction. And we're going to see more through implementation of this entire program. We also have a great program now called Bring Your Own Long Beach to encourage residents to bring you reusable to-go items to reduce our dependance on single use plastics. And the state is now mandating or looking at mandating opportunities to phase out single use plastics and go to reusable, recyclable and compostable by 2030. I know that everybody looks at this as very ambitious, and I know that we can do it. And Long Beach has absolutely been a leader. We also have about 15 businesses certified as green businesses in about 50 more in the pipeline. So I know absolutely we can do it. Our our state officials, Senator Ben Allen and Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez were the authors of this. And I ask my colleagues to support, I think my colleagues that have supported already. Council member Janine Pearce, Council Member Susie Price, council member Roberta Turanga. And I hope the others can support and I'll answer any questions if you have them. But thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Pearce. I want to thank my colleague for once again leading on making sure that we clean up our environment. And I want to thank city staff that has really made Long Beach a model. I know that we went through a lengthy process to ban polystyrene and recognize that because of those efforts, we are at a place where the state is looking at expanding, cleaning up our environment. So I want to thank you and hopefully our council can support this and I look forward to hearing from community. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you. I, too, want to thank Councilman Councilwoman Gonzales for bringing this item forward. I like this legislation because of the amount of time that the phasing and the implementation process will take. I think that will allow everyone the opportunity to plan for the changes, which I think is very important. Obviously, the premise of the legislation is solid and something that we all believe in here in the city of Long Beach. It's always the rollout that has unintended consequences. So I like the lengthy rollout on this, giving everyone the opportunity to prepare for and plan ahead. So thank you. And I support this item. Thank you, Councilman. During the debate tomorrow night to where I thank Councilwoman Gonzales for bringing this forward as a member of the Coastal Commission, I get to see a lot of what's taking place out in the oceans. And there's this big garbage patch they call the great garbage patch out in the North Pacific that is just the size of the state of New York, not even plastic and in a great majority of that plastic or straws. So hopefully we can, with this legislation, make a significant impact in that we may not be able to clean up the great garbage patch, but at least we won't add to it. And I hope that with this legislation and I support that we can make a significant impact on it. And I also I unashamedly want to invite you to coming up in the next few months or so, we're going to have a beach clean up day here in Long Beach. And I hope you all are able to join me to go down the beach and let's clean up all that plastics down there. Thank you. Very much. Thank you. Councilman Cipriano. Thank you. I just have a point of clarification I'd like to have on the item and it might be phased in in a later date. But do you know, are retail sales included that would prohibit sales of EPS like on shore store shelves like Target or Smart and Vinyl? And if it is like is it later downstream or do you know? The on our current ban. Are you referring to this is these single use plastics which is aside from expanded polystyrene will be shook up but the expanded polystyrene from what I understand. I don't know that it includes the large facilities. We just included the small businesses that would be implemented 18 months from. I think. When did we enact that? It was September of last year. I want to say I might my dates are getting. Yes, if my memory is correct. We did the large first we did the city. So city is already in effect for. Polystyrene ban we just. Implemented in March for the large restaurants. I believe that was 100 and above. And then. Later, I think. In. The fall, we're looking. At the smaller businesses. The smaller restaurants. To be come into compliance phase. Three. So so my question I will be asked this question like that's I just want to be clear, I'm staying in support. But I just I know I'll ask this if it'll apply to products sold at retail, if you know. Yeah, it should. Right now, I think that they're just looking at that. So that's something that we can include, if you'd like to. It's part of our state legislative agenda as well. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Are there any a public comment on this item? Please come forward. Very good he. Fully supportive of this concept and I today just happened to be and I wonder where why we call these strawberries and I picked these up today and just have a great bargain. $0.99 over here in superior market. Try it, try it out. But I fully support that. And if you haven't done so, Google straws and you'll see the type of straws that are available that will not hurt the environment. It really surprised me getting inside of that there. You can use them at home, restaurants can have them or whatever but Google and study it for yourself. Thank you Mr. good you next week you. Good evening. Council Members Vice Mayor South and James Stellar Sewer District two resident. And I am the outreach and partnerships manager for Grid Alternatives and I've presented before on all our efforts around solar. But this is really important. So thank you to Councilmember Lena Gonzalez and to all that have been working to ban Styrofoam and plastic, single use plastic. This is really important. I think that Long Beach leads the way in many, many ways throughout the state of California, in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce pollution, trash and especially plastic. You go to the beach to any of our beaches and I am such a nerd. I take my little bag with me and I'm constantly picking up plastic and it's a never ending job. So I appreciate all the the clean ups to that take place, but we have to stand in front of the other cities. We have to be at the forefront. And we really have to take this seriously because climate change is not going away. It's speeding up. In fact, you can turn on the TV any any day of the week. You can see a. Post. About, you know, the the the ways in which our environment is being impacted by Styrofoam by plastic. So I appreciate everyone supporting this letter of support and for your efforts to combat climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you. Thank you very much, Janie. My part of public comment not to please cast your vote. Councilmember Austin wishing Karis. Thank you. Now we'll move up to item 15 with the clerk. Please read the item.

Recommendation to refer to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Housing and Neighborhood Committee for consideration of naming the athletic complex at Chittick Field for Vice Mayor Dee Andrews.

LongBeachCC_11172020_20-1124

Thank you. We're going to go ahead and get that item. Great. So now we're going to go we're going to go back and do item 63 and then we're doing 62. Item 63 recommendation to refer to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Housing and Neighborhood Committee for consideration of naming the athletic complex at Shattuck Field for Vice Mayor de Andrews. Thank you, Councilmember, for. Oh, is it. Who's, who's the lead author on this? I'm sorry. Austin Carson Ross. And that's what I thought. I wanna make sure that you're cued up first. So, Guzman Russell. Good evening. And thank you, Mr. Mayor, for recognition. This is a, I will admit, an unusual item, but one that is, I think, fitting and and long overdue. Obviously, Vice Mayor De Andrews, our colleague, is completing his service on the city council after more than 13 years representing the sixth District. Obviously, he was first elected in 2007. We have some history with that election. But he has been involved in his community for over six, 60 years in the central Long Beach area. He's worked obviously on the city council for the last 13 years, but also decades. Working with youth and mentoring youth has impacted the lives of many in the community and throughout this city as a public servant for both the city and the school district. Dee Andrews has been described as a scholar, as a champion, as a local hero, and the council member or vice mayor. And with this item, we will solidify him as a legend of the city to the field. The sports complex was an impact project for the central area. He championed it through when it was nothing and just a vision. This happened during his tenure on the city council. And to be quite frank, I wanted to and I thought the council should have done something a long time ago. I know we have a policy that somebody should be deceased before we named items after them or parks or buildings after them. But we believe this council has departed from that policy because I think it's important for and I think our colleagues recognize that it's important for us to allow individuals to smell the roses and to be honored why they are among us. I've had the pleasure of speaking with the newly elected sixth District Council member, Sally Sara, who has pledged her support for this this item. This is a beginning of the process, and she will carry this through to the finish line. And I believe once we are done, this will be a unifying event for all the residents of the sixth District to show the appreciation for the their council member of Vice Mayor de Andres and the service that he has provided over the years and his commitment to the community. And so with that, I would like to just move the item and ask for your unanimous support. Thank you. Do the public comment and then we'll go back. So I'm. Our first speaker is Isabel Avia. Evening, everyone. My name is Obama and I am a lifetime sixth district president and vice mayor. And. I am calling in support of this item and am very grateful to the authors of such recommendations. He has earned his accolades based on his service contributions to the city and as an individual. I have seen firsthand his kind heart advocacy for the community. And I know youth athletics and progress have always been among the top priorities. I started my career in public service and debut Summer Youth Programs in partnership with Workforce Development 13 years ago when I was 15. Fast forward to now, I must tell you my journey in programing efforts in our neighborhood, Inglewood he at risk youth and he has worked tremendously hard to create programs that help with violence prevention. And most importantly, he encourages you to be the bright future of tomorrow. I hope this item can get a nine vote tonight and we press forward to the Healthy Neighborhoods Committee, along with the Parks and Recreation. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is truly thorough. Sue Lee. Thorough. Yes. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, members of the city council as the councilwoman elect of the sixth district. I would like to thank Councilmember Austin for introducing this item to initiate the process to rename, to feel to the vice mayor and to honor him for his years of services and contribution to the city of Long Beach. So I'm committed and I look forward to in following through on this item said it has Park and Recreation Commission and the Housing and Neighborhood Committee. Thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. Let me go and go back then to the council consultant Price. Fair and very, very classy public comment by our newest colleague Sally Sara. So thank you so much for that. That just was an immense showing of your character and I was really pleased to hear it. So thank you for that. Councilman Austin, thank you so much for bringing this item forward. You know, I tell people often that we get to work with one another as colleagues and over the course of time we develop admiration for one another, even though we don't always agree with one another. And through the process, we also develop, I hope, lifetime friendships with at least some of our colleagues. And I know that Vice Mayor Andrews is somebody who will be a friend and someone that my family and I respect for for decades and generations to come. He's made such an impact on the youth and our community. He has definitely shown me how much determination and standing up and doing the right thing can do in terms of shaping your future. He hasn't always had an easy route in life. He hasn't had the simplest journey. He's made it through, through life, through sheer hard work and learning from his lessons and and just being a model human being and very human in every way, which means he carries his strengths and he carries his weaknesses and he's not shy about them. And I think that's what we need in leaders. He charts his own course, and I really appreciate that about him. I've learned a lot from him, and I'm really proud to live in a city that honors him and honors his work today and for generations to come. And if there were ever a time for us to waive our policy in regards to naming city assets, this would be one of them. Thank you for your service. Vice Mayor Andrews and I so look forward to being there on the day that we celebrate the renaming of this site with you. Thank you. Council Member Superdome. Thank you. Bear with him having a little trouble with my voice tonight. I'll try to speak up. And if staff could get my media ready and appreciate that, it's an honor to sign on to this item. And thanks for Councilman Austin for bringing it forward. My admiration for Vice Mayor Andrews includes his legacy of leadership as Polish high school's first African-American student body president. Tonight's item, however, is about the naming of an athletic field. So I'll stick to the topic. The agenda is the memo refers to Andrews as a poly high school athletics legend. To put that statement into perspective, I'd like to quote these high school coach Dave Levy, who went on from poly to coach at USC and in the NFL for 16 years. Coach Levy stated I've coached Heisman Award winning backs in college, all pro and Hall of Fame backs and AFL. Andy Andrews was the best running back I ever coached. I'd also like to mention another school where DH was an athletic legend. Long Beach City College. To put that statement in perspective, we have a video of this 1960 junior Roosevelt kickoff return against Tyler, Texas. So staff, if you're able to run that video, we'd love to see it. Bobby Pryce kicks off with the cheering Apache still whooping it up. It's a long one clear to the goal line where Martin gathers it in. Willie starts to his left but is mad at the 50. Roy hands off to De Andrews. A burst of speed takes him by two Apaches a great block by flank. Roy Whiteside, another one. And Jim Smith takes the rest. Andrews oh 14 flag high hurdler and long gone 85 yards and an electrifying touchdown that's completely shatters the Texans enthusiasm. Vice Chair Andrews from a young fan who watched you in the Rose Bowl in 1962, got the privilege to call you colleague 35 years later. Thank you for your incredible contributions and service to our city. I wholeheartedly support this agenda item. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What a what a heartwarming, heartfelt tribute to Vice Mayor. Andrews. Rosemary Andrews is a living legend. I've said it. Most of us will say it. And and and I appreciate the fact that our young people that grow up in the community will learn history, will understand that, you know, he grew up. He's always broken barriers and demonstrated excellence and leadership and all the way through his from his time as an athlete, all the way through to its time as a retiring as the vice mayor of our city, which is a tremendous accomplishment. I, I stand in support of this. I want to congratulate my Vice Mayor, Andrews. I look forward to supporting it. I also want to acknowledge and thank council member, incoming council member Sauro. Those were incredibly. I'll use gasoline prices words that were incredibly classy comments. And it really shows how we can come together after difficult elections and heal and put the community first and move forward. So this is a great moment and I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Zendejas. You, Mayor? I just wanted to congratulate Vice Mayor de Andrews for all of his work that he's done on council in the last 13 years. As as we all know on council, it's not easy. It's not an easy job to do. But when you know that you're doing it for your residents, for your community, then it's all worthwhile. So I just wanted to say thank you for all your years of service and thank you for all your lessons. And we look forward to that day when they name this special place after you. So thank you. Something very wrong. Like you. I'm sure that there's going to be a lot more between now and then that we all celebrate together with the with the vice mayor Andrews. When we dedicate this part, some of it the real short. Thank you for your service. We will be speaking more about you. It's great to be here with you and we will certainly support you. Thank you. I'm going to wrap up and then I'll turn over to the vice mayor. I'm going to save most of my comments to the vice mayor for when we have our our farewell. But I just want, you know, vice mayor. Did you actually Councilman Mongo. I want to go there. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to lend my support to this item. I think it's been fantastic. I know that we've talked about putting down this policy in the past for some specific examples, but I think this is. A worthy one. And just again, vice mayor, I completely support this. Thank you to everyone that introduced this. And I know you and I have been talking about this and I've mentioned, you know, there's very few people that have the four years of service and commitment that you have to our community and absolutely well deserved. And I'm really, really heartened that your colleagues are supporting you and I'm doing this for you. I think it's a great legacy for you and it's great for the city. So very supportive. And with that, we will turn it over to Mr. Andrews and then go to a vote. Thank you, Mark. First of all, I want to thank Councilman Austin to praise Councilman Councilman now and Mrs. Cynthia to bring this item forward. You know, I was just wondering, how long is it going to take? You know how I'm 80 years old. You know, with all of that, you guys, I really want to let you know I'm truly humbled and I appreciate all of my colleagues on this council. It's been a great experience over the years, and I'm going to say much, much more because, you know, I don't see that much in the guys anyway. We've had a great work in this community and I can only say that's a. Good long piece. And thank you guys again. I will be talking to you some. More after. The big ceremony. Have a great day and evening. Thank you, guys, again. Thank you. And with that, we'll take a roll call vote. District one. I. District two. I District three. I. District four. I. District five. By District six. All right. District seven. District eight. Hi. District nine. I motion carries. Mary Garcia.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4401 Josephine Street in Elyria Swansea. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4401 Josephine Street from E-TU-B to U-RH-3A (urban edge, two-unit to urban row house, three stories) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-6-18.

DenverCityCouncil_04162018_18-0171

Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 2018 0171 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Sorry. Just looking at the. List up here. We say. Can I get a second on the screen? Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Constable 171 is open. May we have the staff report? Thank you. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 40 4001 Josephine Street from e t u v to urh3. A property is located in Council District nine in the Elyria, Swansea neighborhood. It is at the corner of 44th Avenue and Josephine Street. Property is about 11,000 square feet and is currently vacant. Request is to rezone from A2, which is urban edge neighborhood context to unit zoning with a 4500 square foot minimum lot size to you are h3a which is urban neighborhood context rowhouse zoning with a three storey maximum height and A indicates that additional building forms are allowed, including the small apartment building for on certain corner lots such as this one. The applicant is requesting this rezoning to allow for the construction of such a small apartment building. The surrounding zoning is E2 B to the north, south and east, and then high A to the west, which is late industrial zoning. The surrounding land uses are a mix of single unit two unit and multi-unit residential. Again to the north. South and east. And industrial. To the west. And you can see the subject property is the top left picture. And then some of the surrounding property, the industrial property just to the west is the bottom left and then the variety of of residential types in the other photos. This went to planning board on February 7th. I received a unanimous recommendation of approval. There was no public comment at that meeting. I went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on March 6th, and we received no other public comment on this application. As you know, in order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property, the first being comprehensive plan 2000 has described in the staff report. Staff's found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with these four strategies from campaign 2000 relating to infill development, brownfield development and providing a variety of housing options. The second plan is Blueprint Denver. From 2000 to Blueprint, Denver designates this property as single family duplex, which calls for a mixture of housing types single family duplex, townhouse and small apartment consistent with what would be allowed under the new RH three zoning. Property is also designated as an area of stability, which calls for maintaining the existing character while accommodating new development, which is consistent with the proposed rezoning. Josephine Street is an industrial arterial. The arterial classification is consistent with the somewhat higher intensity proposed for the site. The properties in this area are not actually industrial, so the industrial designation, that sense does not have that much bearing on it. And 44th Avenue is a non-designated local intended for supplying local access. The third plan is the Elyria and Swansea and Neighborhoods plan from 2015. This plan again designates the property as single family duplex, which, similar to Blueprint. Denver, calls for moderately dense housing areas and a mix of housing types, single family duplex townhouses and small apartment buildings . Again consistent with the proposed you are age three. Zoning property is also designated a traditional residential area which again calls for this mix of housing types, single family duplexes and small apartment buildings. Again, consistent with the proposed zoning, the plan recommends a maximum height of two and a half storeys, which is slightly lower than what the proposed zoning would allow at three stories. However, there's not a zoned district that really meets all of the requirements of the plan. Plan calls for urban neighborhood context, calls for this mix of housing types and a two and a half storey maximum height. There's no zoning district that meets all three of those. So this zoned district, while slightly exceeding the height, the real difference is about three feet, 35 feet for two and a half storeys versus the maximum height of 38 feet for the apartment form. In the proposed you RH three. So staff believes that the proposed request is consistent with the recommendations of the Elyria, Swansea and Swansea Neighborhoods Plan and finds the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. The proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the new RH three zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating the redevelopment of a vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the changed and changing conditions in the area. There's been a significant amount of change still going on in the Elyria, Swansea neighborhood with the redevelopment of the the stock show site, the addition of the RTD line and other significant other changes in the area that have increased the need for housing in the area and justified this rezoning to allow additional housing development. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent. The proposed rezoning would allow developments consistent with the urban neighborhood context and the purpose and intent of the new RH three AIDS on district. Therefore, staff finds that all five criteria are met and recommends approval and be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. When I call you up, please come up to the podium. First up, Casino Williams. So I'm not seeing a Williams applicant. I live in Denver and I'm available for questions. Great. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pierce. Um. Yeah. This should be under further consideration. So I'm down for. And I know I know you spoke last time, but could you just say your name for the record for this one? Jesse Pierce. Thank you very much. And our last speaker for this one, Chairman Sekou. Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. Explorer Action Movement representing poor, working, poor homeless people and voiceless youth. We are excited. About this approval of this ordinance change. I've been coming down here for almost 12 years and another 12 years. I've seen a sister, a brother from a neighborhood come up here and ask to be a part of this process. And that's a beautiful thing because that's what keeps me coming back, because I got hope for real. And I have faith in this body to make a decision that is unanimous because it fits every criteria for everyone else who have gotten this change. And to deny her that would be straight up racism and class. And that ain't your steady job. It's one of the issues we got going down here as it is. People don't get to know you on the television. I keep telling them, look, come on down here. General Clark, ain't that bad. Ben Franklin, these go with it. And then we got. To refer to the council as a whole. I'm Cooper poor. I'm taking them no more time. You already know it's already there. And we ain't got to talk about it no more because it's the right thing to do, period. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Kathleen Flynn. Thanks, President. Scott, could you the townhouse form allows apartments as well, three up to three stories. In the townhouse form. The units have to be side by side. They do and have to each have their own entrance. So it'd be the apartment for them to build an actual apartment building. And the townhouse form is limited to two and a half storeys and 35 feet in the proposal or three. But this is a corner lot, right? Correct. And in the in the code, it says a part one. You RH three apartments are allowed up to three stories on certain corner lots, correct? Yes. Yes. So an apartment could be built on this property in the apartment building form. Okay. Yes. All right. Thank you. That's all. All right. Any other questions? All right. Seeing none. The public hearing from House Bill 171 is closed. Are there any comments by members of council? It's a quiet group this evening. All right, Madam Secretary, call. Black eye. Espinosa. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega Susman. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. Ten Eyes. Let's see, 11 up on one. All right. 11 eyes counts. Bill 171 has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please vote caliber 172 on the floor.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Subsections 8.120.010.D, 8.120.020.B, and 8.120.040; and amending and restating Section 8.120.030; all relating to temporary enforcement of Long Beach Health Orders related to COVID-19; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) (Emergency Ordinance No. ORD-21-0003)

LongBeachCC_02022021_21-0055

Thank you. Item 24, please. I'm sorry. 23. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to Declare Ordinance Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to Temporary Enforcement of Long Beach health orders related to COVID 19. Declaring the urgency thereof and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately. Read and adopted as read citywide. Okay. Can I get a motion in a second, please? There is no public comment on this item. Then get a motion in a second, please. Motion by Councilmember Ringo. Second vote comes from a Sunday House roll call vote. District one. My district, too. I. District three. I. District four. All right. District five, I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. By District nine. District nine. Clinton.

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_08132018_Res 31831

The report The City Council Agenda Item two Resolution 318 31 requesting the Department of Finance, Administrative Services and the Central Budget Office negotiate contract for Basic Life Support. Emergency Services. Casper Bagshaw. Correct. I'm sorry. It's me. Oh, I'm sorry. I know this kind of pushed your customers to want. I'm sorry. No. Thank you, President Harrell. First, I need to move to amend. So I'm going to. Just. Read that out and then talk about it. Yep. A move to amend resolution 31831 by substituting version two for version one a second. Okay. You want to that's been moved in second that the resolution be amended. We'd like to talk a little about this amendment, but. Okay. I can talk about the amendment and then I'll have points about the resolution. The substantive resolution. Just we're. Just. So just to explain the amended version, this is a result of the discussions with Councilman Mosquito's office and with all the EMTs themselves and the union representatives. And there was there were many versions flying around. So I got a mosquito and I brought all of it together. And this version, version two, incorporates all of those changes and it has gone through law review as well. Okay. So we could address what it means more in depth, but right now we're just voting on the amendment. So any questions about the amendment process here? I'm going to we're going to vote on it because have mosquitoes. You want to say something? Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to the program on this. I also want to acknowledge that this includes much of the hard work that Councilmember Gonzalez and I did prior to the weekend and spent a lot of time making sure that we had a good foundation. Minor tweaks this morning and late yesterday. So I think we're in a good place for this joint piece to move forward. Okay. So we're just going to do the procedural part of the amendment and then we could explain a little bit more. I think we're all sort of following the issue. So all those in favor of the amendment, please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. And I would like to address now the amended piece of legislation. And Councilmember SWAT. Thank you. As many of the MDs who spoke today indicated, this was this had come this resolution come to a vote to the city council last week. And I like them. I'm hoping that this will get voted in by the city council today. As everybody knows, our medical emergency medical technicians do or EMTs do vital lifesaving work in our community every day. They respond to assess, treat and transport people in all manner of emergencies, from psychiatric crises to car crashes to strokes. Last year, EMT has transported 43,000 times in Seattle. The emergency medical technicians that we're talking about who work for the private profit making company EMR, that the City of Seattle contracts with these MDs are members of Teamsters Local 763. I appreciate Les Brown, the representative of the Teamsters Local speaking, and I stand in solidarity with all of you as a member of the labor movement myself, as a rank and file member of the local teachers union, it's my honor to be standing with the Teamsters. The MDs work closely with and alongside the Seattle Fire Department, firefighters and medic one paramedics were employed by the city and are paid living wages and good benefits. We want all EMT to be making decent wages and benefits and for no one to be left behind. And as I clarified last time, I would like to clarify again, this is not the union's contract with AMR. This is the city of Seattle's service contract with AMR. And the city of Seattle has. And when I say city of Seattle, it means the mayor, the city council, the elected representatives of the city have a responsibility to make sure that all the workers get decent wages and benefits. As it happens, the current contract itself says that all EMT should get wages and benefits that are substantially equivalent to other workers who do similar work. But this contract provision is not being enforced. So despite that contract requirement, Seattle's EMT is working for AMR are paid fully 28% below. The starting pay for EMT is in comparable and even lower cost of living cities in California. And we want to make sure that this does not continue anymore, that the EMT are allowed to live a life in dignity. All workers should get to be live in dignity. But especially stark is the issue of the EMT who do life saving work for the rest of us every single day and are barely able to get by. At the current Seattle EMT wage, an emergency medical technician in Seattle would have to work more than 7075 hours every week without taking any vacation in order to be able to afford a typical one bedroom apartment in the Seattle King County area. According to data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Worse yet, Seattle EMT that provided a substandard health care plan that forces many workers to forgo necessary health care. Imagine the irony of this. They are transporting and helping workers, people who are facing the most emergent health crises, and they themselves are not able to have decent healthcare. This cannot be. It's just not okay. Workers are reported, M.D.s are reported that some of their colleagues are homeless. Others rely on food banks and other community services. They are many of them are living in unstable housing conditions. We have heard from an EMT, Meghan Scherzinger, who's who tearfully testified at the press conference a couple of weeks ago that she has had to sell plasma many times just to make a rent. And we heard from other EMT today that there have been cases of suicides. So we are talking about a very about a very critical situation here. And I hope that we don't delay this any more and that we wrote this through. I wanted to make sure that everybody your tanks, the EMT themselves, it is very hard to fight for your own rights. I know through personal experience, it's easier to fight for somebody else's rights, as strange as it may sound. It needs a lot of you need a lot of courage to fight for yourself. And so I really applaud my fellow workers. The EMTs who have organized themselves in this group say save, save our EMT. And I appreciate all the workers who have worked with Jonathan and Dead and others in my office to make sure that we have a strong resolution. That by itself is not enough. But it is a huge victory to propel the movement forward. So I look forward to the vote here. And I also want to say, you know, as EMT has indicated today, AMR lobbyists have been doing the rounds and we've got letters from the AMR lobbyist Paul Berrent. I just want to make sure the public is clear about who this guy is. AMR lobbyist Paul Berrent, who has been the one writing to city council urging that we not move forward with the resolution and has been crying a river about AMR's finances. He is the former chair of the Washington State Democratic Party and has formed strategies. 360 also takes credit for killing the Amazon tax, which would have built more affordable housing. So this is this is a nefarious source. So we have to make sure that the city council stands with the workers and not with the corporation that is making profits and yet keeping its workers from being able to live a life in dignity. And if this resolution does pass today, as I said, this represents a huge victory for the MTA and the workers who have been organizing with them. I should mention that healthcare workers and unions have stood solidly with the MTA. We've had SEIU 1199 Northwest Washington, 8488 vote unions that represent nurses and other staff at the Harborview Emergency Hospital, where they interact with the MTA on a daily basis, and they know the work that the MTA do. But we've also had incredible support from Certified Medical Assistance, many of them young women at the local Planned Parenthood clinics who are members of the U.S., CWA Local 21. So kudos to all the healthcare workers standing in solidarity with the EMT. I hope the City Council also shows that it is actually going to stand with the MDs and a message of the MTA. If this is a if this resolution goes through, it will be a historic victory for you, but it will not be the end of the road. We will need to continue organizing. So let's build on the momentum that we are able to win today. Okay. So we have a resolution that's been properly amended. We will be ready to vote unless there are some other comments. A few of my colleagues would like to make and I could wait for councilmember skaters like say a few words. Norm Well, thank you, Mr. President. I think that there's one thing I want to clarify. We took this last week to actually listen to the workers to incorporate additional protections. And I think that both the folks who've sponsored the amendments today, myself, Councilmember Gonzales, council members, Solent, we have actually created strength in this legislation because of all of your work. We have made sure that we're including language around health care and mental health protections, recognizing the trauma that workers see on a daily basis and wanting to make sure you have your health and mental health care protected. We have made sure that we're sending a clear message that a final contract that our city negotiates with Amara come back to this body so that we can see those provisions are upheld. We are making sure that there's greater oversight in terms of the contract and that we're living our values. And we're also making sure that the city require future contracts to retain workers so that if there's any changes, that there can be similar wages, benefits and jobs, so that if there's any switch in the future, workers can maintain employment. We're really excited about these protections today, and these came directly from conversations with workers themselves, from the conversations that the labor movement has had about making sure that we stand up and protect those who are the most vulnerable, and that we do so, especially for those who are caring for the most vulnerable. I want to thank the union members, the rank and file folks, union leaders. Thank you to the president who came forward to Chief Scoggins and the EMT for sharing your stories today over the last week and for your tough negotiations. We understand that this, as the councilmember said, is not a contract that we are amending between AMA and the union. But yet being clear in our perspective as a city what we value and what we want to see in any contractor. We also want to make sure that we strike the right balance so that we have clear follow up steps that are necessary to make sure that we can fulfill our values here that you see laid out. And I'll be working with the chair, Chuck Gonzalez, who oversees public safety to make sure that the next steps are very clear. And we recognize that there's additional barriers to making sure that we are protecting those who are caring for our most vulnerable. We care about workplace sustainability, which is something we'll be discussing in our committee this upcoming meeting on Thursday. We want to make sure that those who are providing care for our most vulnerable, whether you're picking up folks in the street or whether you are caring for folks and helping to place them into a new home that everyone can afford to live in the city that they are working and helping those to stay in the city . We want you to be able to have a good living wage job as well. So thank you again for bringing this resolution forward. Council members want thank you to Councilmember Gonzales for your work on it with our team over the weekend. Looking forward to working with you on that next steps. And thank you all for your continued activism and making sure that we hear your voice. Thank you. Councilmember Mesquita, Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I just wanted to make two quick points. When I met with the Teamsters on Friday, they identified that a tangible. Deliverable. For their union would be an answer to what areas Seattle uses as an objective measure to determine whether Amar'e or any other vendor is meeting its obligations under Article 7.5 of the RFP. That relates. Specifically to. The requirement that wages be comparable to the prevailing wage in other cities. We know that other cities in the West Coast range from a starting wage of eight, $8.09 to as high as $22. Whereas Seattle, Amar'e, it starts at. 1554. So I just want to uplift the fact that Section five of this resolution specifically asks, in consideration of the Teamsters request, that the executive provide us with information that basically. Lets us know who. Their what cities they are considering as the other comparable living prevailing wage cities. The other point I wanted to make is that I recognize that Amar'e has not received a rate increase on Medicaid reimbursements from the state of Washington since 2000. For Medicaid transports are reimbursed at a fixed rate of approximately 135 per transport. That is very, very low and I have connected with the Director of our Office of Inter-Governmental Relations to see that we highlight this issue in our legislative agenda that we use to. Lobby. Olympia and our legislators to address legislatively in this legislative session coming up. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Herbold. Case closed remarks by Councilor Swan and I think we'll be prepared to vote. I just wanted to share with the public that, you know, when we fight we do win. Already the MDC won something that the that a union approached the mayor about. And the mayor has sent a letter to the union. And that was the issue of the Seattle Police Department's use of IMR to transport arrestees to King County jails. And the EMT have been, you know, talking about this as an unfairness. I see the MDs nodding. Well, congratulations on a victory that you've already won, because you've got the letter from the mayor that says that that practice will stop and they will figure out other alternative means of transportation. And it says, Chief Bratton, I have agreed to discontinue the use of transporting detained suspects and arrested individuals who have no medical needs for the county's correctional facility. So congratulations on that. Congratulations and advance on what I think is going to be a unanimously voted resolution. Let's keep fighting for the next steps. Let's make sure you all win of our contract and a life with dignity as all the workers deserve. Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries a resolution is adopted. Same. The next agenda item into the record.

Recommendation to receive the application of LB Beadels, LLC, dba The Breakfast Bar 4th Street, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License, at 3404 East 4th Street; submit a Public Notice of Protest to ABC; and, direct City Manager to withdraw the protest if a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is granted. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_03102020_20-0193

Vice Mayor Andrews. Motion carries. No problem, sir. All right. Motion carries item 18. Yes. Please release me. Item. Item 18. Report from police recommendation to receive the application of the breakfast bar fourth Street for an original application of an ABC license at 3404 East Fourth Street submitted public notice of protest to ABC and direct city manager to withdraw the protest if ACP is granted. District three. And Councilwoman Price. Thank you very much. I'm glad to see this business coming to the third district. The business is the breakfast bar. It's coming to fourth streets and fourth Street and they have applied for an ABC license. I'm I support them very much with all the fantastic success that they've had at their downtown location. I know they're going to be a huge district, district three location for people to enjoy. I do want to clarify a few things on this application. We are conditionally approving the ABC license tonight on the premise that the owners will complete the SIU process. I don't know if there's any staff here, but if they are approved for the SIU process and the ABC license will be approved as my understanding, and I see Miss Tatum shaking her head in the affirmative. That is correct. Councilwoman Price, I would just offer a couple of distinguishing comments. Typically, a restaurant, unless it has a full service bar, is allowable for what we call a conditional use exemption. And because they have not yet formally submitted, I'm not sure what the status of their proposal is. Right. Okay. Thank you. So for anyone who's excited to go there and and partake in beverages, that may not happen until the CFP process is complete. That is correct. Thank you. I urge my colleagues to support this item. And, Councilwoman, you like to speak on that? Yeah. Fine, fine. Could you please. There any public comment on this item? If not, will you please cast your vote?

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

DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0685

12 Eyes, one abstention. Resolution 22, Dash 668 has passed. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? Council Member Clark, would you please share your comments on Council Bill 685. Thank you. Council President I will have more comments on this bill as a whole and especially next week on final consideration. But as we saw from our our public comment today there, this is a bill that is very of high interest to a lot of people. And so I would like to officially and formally request a courtesy public hearing be held on Monday, June 27th on second reading or final consideration of Council Bill 20 20685 regarding implementation of a volume based pricing system for trash. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. If ordered published on Monday, June 27, there will be a courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 685 regarding implementing a volume based pricing system for trash. Councilmember Black, will you please put Bill 685 on the floor for publication? I move that council bill 20 2-0685 be ordered published. Thank you. It's been moved and second to third. Councilmember Ortega, your motion to amend. Thank you, Madam President. My first motion. I've got two amendments to proposed amendments. Council members. I move to amend Council Bill 20 20685 as follows On page nine, line 31, insert section nine, a new Section 48 dash 50 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code shall be created by adding the language. Underline as follows Section 48 Dash 49 Dash Sunset. Subsections A per and B per NC and per an EP of section 48, dash 42.5 and Section 48. Dash 48 shall sunset on October 3rd, 2028, and page nine, line 32, strike section eight and replace it with nine. Actually its strike eight, underline nine and replace with section ten. So it needs a second. It's actually. Permit me to explain what this amendment does. Yes, I want to make sure that we're tracking with the council secretary as to the script. And I had that you were going to offer the other 1/1. The other 1/1. But we can go ahead and move to this second motion. Is that all right, council secretary? Okay. All right. We've got it moved and seconded. Councilmember Ortega, go ahead and explain this amendment. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. What this amendment does is it provides for a sunset of the volume based pricing and the lean provisions, but it keeps the requirement that revenue collected from the fee be kept separate and only be used for certain costs. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And I'm going to wait for just a second because. Sorry, I didn't realize they had a. Council secretary. I want to make sure that I'm at the right place. In the script here. Councilman Clark, go ahead with your comment, please. Thank you. Council president. I I was not able to be in committee for the discussion that this brought, so I just wanted to speak up here. You know, I think that will sunset on certain programs and certain funding sources are, you know, not always a bad thing and often appropriate on a fee based service that the city is providing. I don't think that this is a good idea to institute a sunset were this to sunset without council action. You know, the the program would immediately terminate without necessarily a plan on how to continue to provide trash service, how that would be funded that could lead, you know, in an in a budget that we have , we have not seen and we won't see because of the summer of, you know, years in the future could lead to massive cuts in other programs. And in all, without really the robust discussion like we're having today about how what to do, how to handle this service. And so I just don't think that this is the appropriate way to to institute or the appropriate place for a sunset to be instituted, as we're talking about fees for a service that the city is providing and just the ramifications that, you know, and a sunset would have on the rest of the budget. I mean, I guess there's a possibility at that point that the general fund doesn't have the capacity to pay for this service. And then we would be talking about are we privatizing trash collection, like many cities have as a bigger discussion that needs to happen, not because all of a sudden a program sunsetted. It would need to be a discussion like this about how should we handle this city service? And and I think that a sunset is absolutely the wrong mechanism for that. So I will be voting no on this and would encourage my colleagues as well to vote no on this amendment to the bill. Thank you. Council President. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Clark and Councilmember Ortega, I see you're in the queue, but since you offered the amendment, if it's okay, I'm going to go ahead to the other members and we'll come back to you. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I'll support the amendment. I believe in sunsetting new programs that have been not yet tried or proven. If it turns out in five years that all we have done is charge people a fee and not achieve the goal, then all we've done is displaced. Or actually we've opened up new money in the general fund for other purposes. I was here. I was here. Excuse me, Robert, please. Robert. Robert, please. Thank you. Please. Where? Mr. Bailey. Thank you. All we will have done is charged people up to $252 a year and had no and did not and do not get the result that we want. But we would have freed up $33 million in the general fund to use for other for other purposes. And I recall sitting here maybe five years ago when another member who shall remain nameless said to me, Why don't you support paying for trash? Just think what you could use that other $33 million once we free it up. And so, Madam President, with that in mind, I think I would support this sunset and put it on a future council to come up with a solution if this program doesn't actually achieve the stated goals. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you. So what we're doing is creating a forever fee on trash service. This is a service that our citizens in Denver have been able to enjoy all this time. And now, because we want to require everybody to compost, we've found a creative way of charging them based on the sized trash can they're going to use for their regular trash. People who may already compost in their backyards. You will be able to continue to do that, but you will now be expected to pay for your regular trash service, which is already provided. People who have composting today can they pay for their service? The city is trying to fold this into where the city delivers all of this service, but they're going to charge everybody now, everybody meaning single family households and up to eight units. It doesn't include apartments. It doesn't include any of our business industry like McDonald's and Chick-Fil-A and many of those places that generate a lot of trash . That is not always compostable products that they're using. And so I think the timing of bringing this forward is not appropriate. Creating a forever fee. If you all remember, taxpayers had to pay for the plant to Park Hill Drainage Project. That was based on how much you pay on your property for your impervious surface. But somehow we figured out a creative way to expound on charging you all for a 300 million plus dollar drainage project through raising your impervious surface piece. So this is a fee that can be increased at any time based on a study that has to justify the increase to cover the cost. But instead of saying, let's just pay for composting, we're now somehow folding it in where everybody's going to pay for all of those services. And I'm bringing this sunset forward. We did this when we created the lower downtown historic district. We reviewed the existence of that district every two years for six years, and it was going to sunset at the end of six years. So this is not something new that the city has done. And, you know, we're spending a lot of money and a lot of time to put together a program. That currently there are challenges with the billing system. You will hear at the public hearing, because I've received many, many emails about this, the inconsistency of our delivery of services. I think we're imposing a lot on our drivers in areas where we have moved the trash service from the alley to the street. We're now seeing in those cases where we have citizens who cannot get their three bins down a stairwell, a staircase, if you will, down their steps to the front of their street. And that assumes there's room on the street and there aren't a bunch of cars parked there. We're now going to have the driver park in the middle of the street, go up and get the bins and take them down. And I'm assuming they want them to be taken back up because where we have elderly individuals who can't do that. We've been told the drivers are going to do that while the trucks sit there and idle. Right. So where we can move the needle in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is on the transportation side and do a whole lot more there. We're doing a lot with our buildings, and I commend our Climate Action Office for the work they're doing there. We're doing a little bit on the transportation side, but there's so much more and that's where you can see the needle moved significantly. More than what we will do with the way this program is being structured. I don't disagree that we should encourage people to compost. I have a compost bin in my backyard. I've been using that for years. But the reality is we're creating a forever fee that Denver citizens are going to have to pay at a time when citizens across our city are being hit with other increases, not to mention the cost of living, housing, food. And so I, I am bringing this forward as a way to lighten the blow on our citizens of Denver. And so I just wanted to explain that, and I'll have another one in just a minute. So we'll see where the votes are. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And we're going to go ahead and go Councilmember Kinney. We had seen your hand raised and so we have you in the queue. I see that you lowered it, but just want to check in if you did have a question or comment on the amendment. Thank you. Council President Very briefly, I want to remind the council that we are not voting on the bill itself, and I respect that there are people on this body who have differing views about this policy. This particular vote is on an amendment that would turn off the entire solid waste program as we know it, with a light switch, with no plan to fund and make sure trash gets picked up in five years. That is not a responsible way to manage a program. We have never used a sunset for a program like this for a fee like this, and it would put the city at whatever financial situation we're in at that time in dire straits. And so even if you're someone who has some concerns or questions about this policy, I would ask that you vote no on this amendment because it is financially irresponsible for us to leave our city with no method to pay for solid waste five years down the road, and to potentially risk having to go to the voters for a tax increase or have some other emergency measure or massive cuts to programs. So those are not palatable or financially responsible ways of managing this. So I encourage folks to set aside the difference between the policy and this particular mechanism. Should this bill pass, this particular mechanism would be financially risky for the city. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Meech. Next up, we've got Councilmember Flynn. And before we go to you, sir, I know you're standing up against the wall, but we have a requirement that everybody be in a seat for ease of egress if we needed it. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I respect what Councilmember Kenny's just said. I actually would counter that I have faith in the future council to come up with a plan. They would have a lot of time to plan because we would see the trends and whatever situation occurs in five years at a potential sunset, they could renew the program , as has been done many times, like with the downtown lower downtown historic district. Or they can come up with a financial plan to to resume covering it under the general fund. I don't think it's I don't think it's accurate to say that we would be leaving them without a plan. It's five years from now to be a completely different council and let them use their judgment. I trust them. I don't know who they are, but I trust them. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember CdeBaca, thank you. I agree with my colleague, Councilman Flynn. I think it's important, especially since. The intent of this change is to change behavior. To have that review period there. There doesn't need to be a forever fee. If we are able to see that this does change behaviors in the desired way, then it's not like we're planning. It's not like we don't have to plan to incorporate the cost of doing this into our budget. We just might be able to incorporate that cost in a different way where it's not exactly a fee on the customer, where it's just part of the way that we do business. And so I do think that it's important that not only do we have a sunset, but that every single year I think we should be evaluating if the change has. Changed behaviors in the desired way and know our progress every step of the way. I don't think that in five years it just poof, like out of thin air disappears. I think that the agency, if the agency is responsible, then they are planning, they are assessing the metrics annually. And we will know every step of the way what needs to be done if we need to course correct, if we need to renew it or if we need to modify it. So I think this is a good amendment and I will be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President I completely agree with Councilmember Flynn that I trust the council that is is going to be here in five years. That means we don't need any sort of sunset or amendment provision because our council, if they see something that's happening in four years or six years or five years or eight years, they will be like we are and they'll move with intention and and change or modify or repeal are what we're what we're passing tonight. So or actually what we're moving forward to the next week. So I trust that that we just as we are moving forward, hopefully tonight, this provision, if it happens at some point in the future, we can also take it away. We've already done it once. This class is already done at once with the Otter's provision, we passed it into law and then we took it back out and that didn't require a sunset clause. So I'll be voting now and I hope my colleagues also vote no. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Hines, and seen no other members in the queue. A reminder this amendment is to sunset the provision. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment to Council Bill 22, dash 685. HINES No. Can each. No. Sandoval. No. Ortega, I. Sawyer? No. TORRES No. Black No. CdeBaca I. Clark No. Flynn. I. Herndon? No. Cashman No. Madam President? No, Madam Secretary. Close voting and announced results. Ten NIS three eyes. Ten nis three eyes. The amendment fails. Councilmember Ortega, your second motion to amend. I move to amend Council Bill 20 2-0685 as follows On page six Line four, strike the manager of transportation and infrastructure and replace with City Council to on page six line five after the word study ad conducted by Manager of Transportation and infrastructure. Three on page six strike. Line five. Page six, line five, strike through an update to the rules. And number four on page six, strike line six, seven and eight. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council on this amendment. The member Ortega. Yes, please. Okay. So this amendment gives City Council the power to sit and update the fee structure based on a cost to service study by Doddy, which was required before this amendment was proposed, and removes the authority from the manager of transportation and infrastructure to increase fees. And if I could just add a few comments. Additionally, historically, our fees have been approved by city council over time. Some of that has changed where the managers of agencies have been given that authority to increase fees. And what this does is says that based on a study that justifies an increase that would be brought before city council and city council would approve those proposed increases. So that, in essence, is what this amendment does. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, council president. You know, again, I'm not going to get into the broader bill, which I know we got into a little bit on the amendment. I'm just going to speak to this amendment, and I believe this amendment is a bad idea for this. You know, the primary responsibility that Dottie has when managing any fee, because this is a fee, is to adhere to the table requirements and ensure that the fee does not exceed the and is lined up with the cost of service and meets those legal standards. And so I think that this is a fee as a fee. This is very appropriate for Dottie to be doing that. We have other pieces in place. The bill requires biannual reports on revenue and expenditures. The Council. There is a required cost of service study before any fee would change. There are lots of protections in place. There are places where council overlaps with that to keep track of this. But at the end of the day, the fee has to cover the service and it cannot exceed that. This is not revenue generation. This is a fee to cover service. And so inserting. So I think that I think that inserting council into that decision making process versus the appropriate places where I believe this bill puts council and allows council authority and oversight, I think that's the right way to go is as written with the reporting. And I think that it would not be appropriate here to move that authority on setting the fee that is based on those legal requirements and TABOR and the cost of service study to ensure that it lines up they're out of date. And so that reason I will be voting no and would ask my colleagues to vote no as well. Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I on this body at least, I am very reluctant to give up and surrender any city council authority over the things that affect the people of this city. We should retain the ability, the authority, to look at these fees and to measure them against the study and analysis that's done by Dottie over that period and determine whether the fees should be that much or should we look at the level of service instead of putting it on autopilot? We did that with the wastewater fees, and I think that was a big mistake. We did that with the wastewater fees back in 2016 and we put them on autopilot. I think it's a gauge to Denver Boulder's CPI. Which is not a good measure to for construction. But look at what inflation is doing this year. I know that this fee isn't based on CPI, but it's gauged on what the director of Dottie feels should be the level of service. And I think that that should be a decision that rests with this council. We're setting the initial fee. Why would we surrender the authority and the ability? To approve or disapprove, disapprove of future fee increases. We do this with the Golf Enterprise Fund. The fee increases for those and for parks comes to this council as it should. And so I would support this. And in line with my last remarks on the last amendment to Councilmember Hines. Let's trust future councils to do the right thing. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn and Councilor Pro Tem Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Is there. Anybody that can speak to where. Else council is. Able or empowered to raise or lower fees that we charge for for city. Services? Sky console or sky, whichever wants to take it. Sure. Thank you. Council President Ultraviolet. Assistant City Attorney. City Council. Has various fees. Look at it in ordinance, primarily license fees. Almost all the license fees are in ordinance. The charter requires actually that we have license fees, an ordinance. There's a couple of other places what council said to be an ordinance because they're subject to change by council. Not all have to comply with the city requirements. The central requirement for people here at the disposal is one other fee that council sets an ordinance. Are they also. Bound by the same TABOR. Requirements? So yes, thanks for the question. So anytime a city council has a fee, an ordinance, if it's a fee, and then the tax is subject to the same requirement. He did. We set. And do we change as a council? The current composting fee. Is there someone from Dotty on that? Jason. Sky. Sure. High Sky Student Mayor's Office. The current composting fee is in code, so it is set. It was set by council when it was originally set. There are a number other fees. Angel answered, some that are set by council. There are also. A number of examples that are not set by council. The authority rests with the. Individual agency, so it's really a mixed bag across the board. Can you give me an example of some that are not that. Are changed by. Departments? Sure. Meter rates are changed by the Department of Transportation through the. Manager's. Authority. Our street occupancy permit fees. There are a number and 40 that have a managers and authority with them associated with a fee study. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Sky and Angel. And thank you, counsel pro tem Torres. I'm not seeing any other members in the queue for questions on this amendment around setting the fees. And so. Madam Secretary, roll call on the Second Amendment, please. Pounds. No. Carnage? No. Sandoval. No. No. Ortega, I. Sawyer? No. Torres. I. Black. No. See, tobacco. I. Clark. No. Flynn. I. Herndon No. Cashman. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Seven days, six days. Seven days. Six eyes. The amendment to 20 2-685 has failed. Council Bill 20 2-685 is on the floor for publication of questions by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-685c None. Comments by Members of Council O Councilmember Flynn. If you have a question, go ahead, please. No amount of press actually comments. I called this out for a vote earlier today, so I wanted to discuss why I'm voting no on publication. I why this proposal has been through a lot of thought and development. I don't believe it's well-structured. It's not likely to produce the results that we want. First, the city has never done a complete and comprehensive educational campaign among our customers on how to recycle or compost and divert from their trash bins. We shouldn't even be thinking about imposing fees to supposedly incentivize people to do something that is unclear to them on how to do it. How about giving people very clear tutorials on what goes in the Green Bay, what goes in a purple bin and goes in the black bin and seeing the results. Second, even with sparse public education on this, our customers in the residential trash program already are doing much of what we ask of them. No constituent has ever asked me for weekly recycling, but my office has helped them upgrade their purple cards to the 95 gallon size and in many cases to get a second recycling cart. It is a waste of money and resources, not to mention harmful to the environment, to have to buy twice as many recycling trucks to drive this entire city every week instead of every two weeks for weekly recycling, when in most cases we'll be collecting only half every week instead of the full carts every other week. We heard in committee two weeks ago that the Solid Waste Division workforce currently has a 28% vacancy rate, and that's down from a 35% workforce shortage in January. At that rate of hiring, it would take until January 2024 to get to 100%. Even for the current program today, without accounting for having to hire 22 more workers to go to weekly recycling. And we heard in public comment earlier this evening how our crews are struggling to maintain even the current schedule. We should not be charging for a service that we can't not yet provide today. Save the money and the carbon footprint by sticking with biweekly recycling, by deploying 95 gallon purple cards or second cards to households that need them. Third, our residential solid waste collections make up only 18% of what goes to the landfill from this city. Fully half of what gets dumped comes from construction and demolition activities. The other 32% comes from these large multifamily complexes and commercial and retail disposal. I showed the committee two weeks ago the photos. I took, the dumpsters in the many apartment complexes and the office and retail plazas in my district. The photos are available in the council files on this bill at the public, which is to to go and view them easily. 50 to 75% of what was in those dumpsters was recyclable or compostable. I cannot ask the people who already are largely doing the right thing by filling one or two of the recycle bins to pay up to 252 bucks a year. While we are not mandating diversion from the 82% of the market that throws such an enormous amounts of needless waste into the landfill, instead, I advocate remove the fee we now charge for compost collection and delay consideration of charging for trash collection for at least a year to see the benefits of actually educating the public on what we want them to do. We've seen that cities with a high diversionary have charges for residential trash. A correlation is not causation. There's no evidence that the fee is what's causing it. In fact, some of those cities like Portland mandate recycling of demolition and construction debris, and that's what's moving their needle. You could charge many of our households 100 bucks a month and they wouldn't be able to divert much more. Only by mandating recycling of construction and demolition, debris and diversion from commercial buildings and large multi-family residential can meaningfully make change. Finally. Madam President, I do not have great faith in the promise of a discount program for lower income households. Many of my constituents are renters and they live in Brentwood and Harvey Park Valley, and they live in single family homes and small unit residential. And I know that we're geared up to do outreach to them. But to many of them, I believe, will fall into the cracks of the landlords who already provide the largest card and will simply add 21 bucks to the monthly rent. And this is in a city with rising rents. I worked last week with a retired city engineer to crunch some numbers based on the published figures of what goes into our landfill and Denver's greenhouse gas emissions in 2020. Solid waste produced only 2%, 2% of Denver's greenhouse gases. The city's residential customers contributed only 18% of that 2%. Fully two thirds of Denver's greenhouse gases come from comes from buildings and 30% comes from cars, busses, airplanes and, yes, trash collection trucks. My engineer friend calculated that if all those customers diverted their recyclable or compostable waste from the landfill, there would be a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions of five and a half. 10 billion with a B of 1%. If global emissions were measured in the length of a football field, the reduction would be to ten millions of one inch. That's a difference that cannot even be measured in the real world, only on paper. I cannot ask people who are struggling this year with eight and a half percent inflation, $5 a gallon gas, the prospect of higher utility bills through xcel's upcoming time of day pricing, plus more fees potentially on the November ballot to pay up to 252 bucks a year for this. In committee, I said, it feels like we're swatting a fly with a cannon. After seeing these calculations, it feels like we're swatting a fly with a cannonball the size of the earth. So my vote tonight is with the struggling households of this city trying to maintain their affordability in the face of this year's extraordinary economic distress. And I ask my colleagues to consider this and at least to think about delaying implementation this program for a year. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you for for. Many of those reasons. I do just want to give everyone a heads up that I will be proposing an amendment. I've been working with the city attorney to try and figure out how to. Equitably exclude our. Most vulnerable neighborhoods and people who've been in their homes for over 20 years, so that we make sure that we're protecting our elders, protecting people who are experiencing involuntary displacement and not making them. Jump through more hoops while. They're already jumping through hoops for our other rebate programs. On property taxes. Or any of our benefit programs that many people are using right now. So just putting that on everyone's radar, that that will be coming. If this does get. Published next week. Thank you. Council members said about the council member Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. Is it okay to ask some questions? Sure we are in the questions and comments, period. So go ahead, please. All right. Well, somebody from daddy I have some questions on the program. The first one is we heard earlier in public comment that the landfill doesn't generate greenhouse gas because it's captured and somehow used for electricity. Can can someone address that? Knowing all of my kids. Good evening. Bruce Frank, Executive Director of the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency. We have received that question before, and I was able to ask the the folks in environmental quality who actually run the contract for the landfill. And they told me that 30% of the methane that is generated at the landfill is currently captured. In. Their renewable natural gas system. Thank you very much for that. Next. You might have this as well. I've always heard that. Right now, we have about 30,000 homes in paying for composting in our program. And I saw something online from a constituent that said, that's not right. It's 18,000. Can you give me the correct figure, please? 30,000. A third. About £30,000. Thank you. Very much. So for the public, I mean, just the lowly project manager with 30. All right. Thank you. And as far as our composting program, I have heard from a number of constituents who have long backyard composting. Can you tell me the difference? My understanding is the city's compost program allows you to put far more things into compost. Is that correct or incorrect? Definitely. So the city's composting program is an industrial composting program. So we accept like meat, dairy, bones, all these things you can put into a backyard compost pile. We encourage everyone to do both. Thank you for that. Now, as regards the program that's being proposed, it was proposed for an October implementation date. My understanding is we're now looking at January one. What I would like to know is on January one, what percentage of our homes will have their compost bins? So at that time, we'll be in the midst of rolling out compost carts to the first phase of residents. That service won't start for them until about end of February for the first 100,000 homes. Okay. So that's. Some more. We're getting close to two thirds. Yeah, about thirds of the compost customers will have their carts within the first quarter of the year. Anyone who does not have our service, even if they have the carts, will receive a credit on their on their invoice for the inconvenience of the rollout. And when their service starts, their credit will be removed. And have you set the dollar figure on that inconvenience figure? We're looking at about $3 a month in order for that cost of service. When will the rest of the homes have their composting? So the full rollout will be complete. By mid 2023. Okay. Thank you. Let's see. So talk has been from the dais that we're instituting a forever fee. We already have a forever fee that people are paying out of their out of the, you know, per person, out of the general fund through a variety of taxes. What does that amount to now per single family home? What does it cost to serve? Service. What we're doing now. And I see that you would like to get back to me on that. I'll get back to you. I would. Complicated. No, it is. I understand that. But I think it's irrelevant. I'd like to know. And the last. Thing. I get what my question is. I'm guessing you need to get back to me on this. What would it cost. If we. Offered the new services for free until the point when everybody has their compost bins? So if you could get back to me with that fee, I'd appreciate very much that number. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilmember Kimmich. Thank you. Council President, I really appreciate the fact we're on first reading tonight. I had hoped to defer most of my comments until the public hearing and the debate on second reading. But a number of claims and concerns have been raised. And I think it's important for our community that's watching tonight to hear all the the both sides of the story, even as we just vote in first reading. So I'm asking for a little patience. This will be debating this again next week. But just a few things. One of the things I've heard described both tonight and in other conversations is that Denver doesn't have any fee for trash today and that our residents do not pay for trash. And that is factually inaccurate. And I need to really clarify. This city has 700,000 plus residents in it and just under half of them live in multi-family housing that is paying for their trash service today. Those are residents of our city, their constituents. They are families who live in our city. And they are paying their taxes. They're paying their property taxes. They're paying taxes through their rent. They're paying their sales tax when they shop. They're paying all those taxes. And they are also paying for their trash collection. The median income of those living in apartments in our city who are paying for their trash service today is around $50,000 a year. Today in Denver, we have a fee for our solid waste customers. You just heard a minute ago 30,000 of them are paying for compost. So it is just factually inaccurate to say that residents aren't paying for trash day. Half of our residents are paying for their. Trash. And another 15% or so are actually paying to do the right thing. So the remaining residents are really the ones we're debating and what is the equity of the system we have today? So I just want to run a few figures by folks, which is that 87% of the customers that we serve in this program, they live in single family or duplex living and the median income in the single family homes, that's renters and owners together. That's the median income for both, whether they rent or own. The median income is $108,000 in those in those products, and it's in the high $80,000 a year range for the duplexes. So what we have today is a system where our taxpayers, our apartment dwellers are actually subsidizing the cost of trash collection for a much higher median income set of residents. That is the situation today. And so, you know, I asked the question, so if we had a set of residents who got all the water that they wanted in our city right from their taps, and they could water their lawns as much as they wanted and they could, you know, fill their swimming pools as much as they wanted. And they paid no difference. But then we had another set of residents who was actually paying for the amount of water they used, and they actually were subsidizing the cost for the water of the other set of residents. Would we think that's fair? I don't think that we would. That is what we have is a solid waste system today. And so when we think about what is fair going forward, what is equitable going forward, it's really important to first ask, is the system we had today fair and equitable? And I would argue that it is not. We have a many we have a majority we have a majority of residents in our city today paying some form of cost for their trash, whether it's in the multifamily arena or whether they're paying to compost, majority are paying something. It's actually the minority of households that are not. The other thing I think that's really important to bring up is to remind folks, as we think about the concerns we have for those in our community who struggle, it's not to say that there are not residents of single family homes or duplexes or small apartment complexes who might have financial constraints. We know that to be true, and we have a whole set of tools built into this policy to protect those households from any negative impacts. So just to throw out some of the numbers, the rebate program that this is included in this ordinance will serve households, for example, for individuals earning up to 56 I'm sorry, $58,600 a year. So almost $60,000 a year for a family of four is provided a rebate. And these are among the lowest fees in the country. So I think it is really important for us to debate equity, but I'm going to challenge us to debate the inequities in our current system and also to be very transparent that we have a rebate program for those earning less than this income in this program. So really now what we are debating is even a smaller subset of households and whether it is appropriate for them to throw away all the trash in the landfill that they want subsidized by the others with no accountability to our climate. And so that's the question I think we're debating, and I think it's important that all those facts be out there. You know, one of the things that was said earlier, it was mentioned about a forever fee and it was the it was mentioned a cannonball the size of the earth. And I personally would like to live on a forever earth. One of the things that Councilman Flynn raised with boiling all of the greenhouse gas savings down to a percentage. I can't speak to the math that his engineer did, but I'll speak to the math and the and the science behind a different way of looking at it , which is that for us to meet, our solid waste goal is worth keeping 600,000 cars off the road. So I ask you, as we prepare for more 100 degree days. As the newspaper reminded us that probably only about 30 or 33% of the residents in this city have air conditioning and they are at serious risk of heat related illness and death. On those 100 degree days, if we can take the equivalent of 600,000 cars of greenhouse gas emissions out of the climate, why we would not do that? That is the question for us to debate if you don't want to do that. That is a valid policy position. But to say that this does not have a climate impact or that that climate impact doesn't matter is to ignore the science of climate. The best climate policy is every climate policy that we can pass. This is our behavior locally in the city and county of Denver. We can control it. I cannot control oil and gas extraction happening on the western slope. I cannot control ozone floating in from California, oil and gas or industry. I cannot control what happens internationally. But we can control the equivalent of 600,000 cars emissions simply by not putting proxies from Amazon in the landfill, which every week is happening in our city because recycling bins are full or because compost bins aren't available and we don't have a practice of doing the right thing. So those are the questions we're debating. We'll talk more about some of the operational claims and maybe some of the other details next week. But just wanted to put some foundation out there before we vote tonight on how important it is to move this to second reading so that we can hear more from our community, both about what's hard about this, but also what's necessary, hard and necessary sometimes go together. In our world particularly, we are talking about our one earth that we want to last forever. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we've got Councilmember Ortega. I'm not going to repeat what I shared earlier, but I just want to say that when you look at what we're trying to do and Councilwoman Kinney just talked about the inequity of this system and the way it's set up, it has been like this as long as I've been in the city of Denver. Anything over eight units have always paid for private trash pickup. And anything below that, the city has picked up the trash and that is built into your your taxes that you pay for your property if you're a renter that's passed on to you by the landlord. I have played a role in trying to bring different folks to do presentations before my colleagues to look at how we can be doing transportation differently. Again. That's where we can move the needle. The city council had an opportunity to express their voice when the I-70 project was being constructed and being widened to the number of lanes that it has today. Some of us tried to impact that project. Unfortunately, we were not successful. That added a lot more cars on the highway. So, you know where we talk about where we can really have significant impact in reducing greenhouse gases. It's where we can try to get people out of their cars and create a greater opportunity for mass transit. I think you all know that the state legislature approved funding for front range rail, which would connect Fort Collins all the way to Colorado Springs and tie into our RTD system, will be able to move the needle as we can, get people who commute back and forth and spend a significant amount of time on the highway adding to the air quality challenges that we have. And, you know, this this is an important conversation in terms of encouraging people to compost. That's what we're adding to the equation here, trying to get more people to compost and those who have not been recycling to recycle. And instead of just adding that and figuring out how much that cost and the figures that we've been given is that to just add this new. This new system or this new cost to the system. It's 13,964,000. $768.10. 13 million. 13 point almost $14 million. Right. But what we're going to do is charge 25 million. But that's the that's today's cost in 23. We've been told it's $33,000,483. And. So we're instead of just looking at the compost piece being added, we're folding the whole program under this this new fee. And so when you talk about the end of the what we were proposing as a sunset, these are costs that have been covered by the city the whole time. So the anticipation was it would be put into like an enterprise fund. And that's where I think some folks were expressing concern about what do you do? You put it back into the general fund or what. But to Councilman Flynn's point, the council could figure it out at that point. And I just think we're. Pushing so much of these fees and costs onto single family households and everybody under seven units to cover this cost, to create a whole new program that could be significantly cheaper if we just added composting. So I am not supporting this tonight. I tried to, you know, come up with some ways to lighten the impact on the folks who will be bearing the brunt of this program. And unfortunately, it was not successful in doing that. I think the timing of all of this is just couldn't be worse. And so I will not be voting for this tonight. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Council President. Again, I'll save the bulk of my comments for next week on final reading and when we have the opportunity for the public to weigh in during the courtesy hearing but did want to hit on a couple of things, Councilman Cashman brought up a good question about the amount of methane at the landfill. And I just want to put a flag in another conversation that we need to be having, which is why are we only capturing 30% of that? We need to be making the investments to capture more, if not all of that. But at the end of the day, all of that is methane being created. And even if we capture it, instead of flaring it off where it's just going and burning and creating that emission there it's being captured, is being put in a pipe where it's burned somewhere else. So it's not a sustainable solution to our climate crisis. It's a better option than just burning it right there. But the best option is to not have more methane being created. And the way the path of that is to not throw things away that we have another use for it, that we can reuse, that we can recycle to minimize the amount of methane being created through that process that then either has to get cleared off or in the best case scenario at that point, which is not a best case scenario, has to go and be burned somewhere else. But we really need to again, this is a yes, and we need to be doing all of these things. We needed to be doing all of these things a decade ago or two decades ago to not be in the situation with our climate that we are right now. And we have to take action now. Another thing that I just wanted to play, because I know a lot of things are being thrown out and and and stated as fact. But I just want to point out that we have in our presentation slide deck, it has been presented by Dottie that when you look at the various sectors of who is creating waste that is either composted, recycled or or sent to the landfill. And you look at what we're hauling for a single family, up to seven units versus multifamily as a whole. I know that my my colleague down there has taken some pictures of specific dumpsters. But when you look at the actual numbers of as a whole multifamily versus what we haul for our customers commercial versus what we haul construction and demolition versus what we are, we're the worst. We have the worst diversion rate. So if you were able to take a picture not just of an individual dumpster and what is happening right there, but you were able to take a picture of all of those dumpsters that make up all of that thing. What we are hauling, we have control over here on council to vote on is the worst diversion rate we are sending the most to the landfill. We are worse than the pictures of that dumpster because we're worse than all of that. And so I just want to be very clear. We have that data in our deck, and I think it is I wanted to clear that up that when we're talking about this, it's not about an individual dumpster, it is about systems. And as a system, our system that. We have in place that has been in place for many, many years is the most broken of the systems when it comes to diverting things from the landfill, the climate impacts and also the other impacts. I just want to like again, first reading, we have not had the public hearing yet and I know that there are a lot of people who feel very strongly and me included on this issue, but I would implore my colleagues to to move this out of first reading and to second reading. Even if you are struggling with this issue, even if you have your mind made up about this issue so that we can allow for that public hearing and to get this, you know, through the system, to have that that full debate on final hearing, you know, especially because this specifically and we've talked about this and there's this is in the slide deck, too, and I rehash everything here, but this is something that our own way has been has been put forward as the recommendation and the ask from a lot of different groups. But I want to flag specifically our Climate Action Task Force that came together. And it is it's very difficult with this crisis, with this emergency, for a climate that is happening because it is. Needing to happen every day. And so it's very difficult to keep the level of intensity on it that it deserves and that it needs. And we had that very much when we put together that climate task force, when we created the climate office, when we referred to voters, which voters overwhelmingly approved of the initial kernel of funding , that was just one piece of what the total need was established was to remember how important this is and what an emergency is and what a, you know, an appropriate response to an emergency is. And so at that, I want to take us back to that moment with the climate task force coming to us and standing here , you know, presenting to us and saying, hey, this is what we need you to do, that we took action on a very small part of that report of all the things that we need to do. This is specifically called out almost verbatim to the program that is being presented by that task force, among many others, saying this is what we have to do as a city. And I know that there's been some made of, you know, what it would have might impact if it's too small. We as a city, we can't solve a global climate crisis by ourselves. But if we throw up our hands and say, well, my impact that we can that I can do as a city is too small. So I just won't do it. I won't do anything. That's how we fail as a planet. How we succeed as a planet is everyone saying no action is too small, all of them are necessary and we need to do yes and we need to do it all. If we are going to preserve the habitability for us and for all the other amazing creatures that call this planet home, and this is a part of that. And so I just I don't want that to get lost in this. Oh, this is too small from that perspective. And a lot of people said that when we brought forward all of the climate work that we did with the Climate Task Force was, you can't solve this as a city. So just don't just don't try. It's too hard. Well, it's not a convenient truth that we're up against. It is inconvenient. It is hard. And it is going to take all of all of us in the trenches on all of these decisions, having these hard conversations, if we are going to have a chance at preventing the worst outcomes that we are already starting to see today. Two last things that I just want to flag outside of the climate impact, because with that emergency happening is very easy for all conversations about the environment to go immediately to emissions and climate. But just from a materials standpoint, we are taking things to our little blip on this planet in the long arc of human history. We're here for this moment. We're taking a tonne of materials and we're just burying it forever in the ground and materials that could be used for generations beyond us, that can be reused, that can be recycled. And on top of that, then those things that are buried are creating methane for hundreds and hundreds of years. And just so I asked Jessica and thanks for the quick reply. Give me an idea of scope. And these are numbers that are hard to wrap your head around. But and this is, you know, quick math on the go. So I apologize for that if I don't get it exactly right. But the numbers that we generally have is 181 between 270 970, 280,000 tons that we are putting in the landfill from our systems every year. So I wanted to quickly look at that. When you take out that 75% of our waste room could be composted, recycled, we're putting that meters rolling in well north of 100,000 tons of material that we are putting into the landfill today, this year that doesn't have to go there. I've been on this council for eight years. That's 800,000 tons of material. It didn't have to go to the landfill. That will sit there for hundreds and thousands of years creating methane, creating problems, and being materials that no one after us. And that moment of use can use 800,000 tons in my eight years for some people in their first term. You've only contributed 300,000 that. We have an opportunity. To do better. We have a mandate to do better. This is these are the decisions that have. Been being made. For generations of humans before us that have led us to this place where we are in an emergency, where our our planet is is experiencing all of these impacts from decisions, from people saying it's too hard right now. That's too hard. And not taking a second to say we. Yeah, it's hard. But we can no longer. We can no longer. That can no longer be acceptable. That on on my watch, with my vote, I continued to let 100,000. Over 100,000. Tons go into a place that it didn't need to and create the impacts that it's creating. And so I think with all of that and in respect to public to our Climate Action Task Force, who asked us not just to take action then, but to continue to take action until we have done everything that we need to do to fight this. I would really ask that we move this on from first reading to final, even if in the end that doesn't change your vote or your decision. Let us get to that public hearing and voted out of office reading into final consideration next week. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Clarke. Councilmember Hines. I think your council president I, I don't want to repeat everything that Councilmember Clarke just said, so I'll just. I mean, really, tonight's vote is just to publish this for next week's consideration. So I'll be brief. Generally refraining from comments about preserving our habitability on this planet like Councilmember Clarke has just eloquently said. Um, so just a couple of things briefly. Residents have asked council to slow this process. They've asked me to ask council to slow the process that is moving forward too quickly. Just for what it's worth, this is the single track, single topic I've tracked the longest. I've followed this kind of conversation about pace you throw since before I was even a candidate. I'm excited to hear from the public next week and to finally vote on this issue. So pass or fail, it is time to bring this conversation to a vote. I sure would like to hear from the public before we make that decision. And so I like Councilmember Clark say that even if you were not in favor of the, you know, the the the concept, please allow the public to to voice their opinions next week. I also want to talk briefly about the things that I've heard from perfect ten residents. There are two major concerns. First, the vast majority of perfect town residents pay for trash collection, but do not benefit from it. You know, most of the people who live in and district tend to live in multi-family buildings. Many of them are large multi-family buildings, you know, hundreds or hundreds of units big. And these are the people who pay into the trash collection fee, as in they pay into the general fund, and they're subsidizing the fees for those single family residents and for small unit building. So as one of my colleagues has mentioned just a few minutes ago, who's saying that the single family homeowners are are are getting the the brunt of it? I would say it's the exact opposite. It's actually the apartment dwellers who are paying for trash collection, subsidizing trash collection and not getting it at all from the funds that they're. The fees that they're paying into the general fund are the. And yet the single family homeowners are benefiting from it. So I think this is only the most equitable thing to do for for for everyone, particularly considering we are the only city in the nation that are considering, you know, equity. Speaking of equity, an equity structure for those who cannot afford, you know, just barely struggling financially in Denver. And and we will have an equity fee structure just for them. Sorry. Rebate structure just to them. The other thing that I want to say is that trash collection in some areas of District ten are frankly frustrating. Specifically, there's there's a change of trash collection in Kyra's park that moved the collection from the alley to the street. I have had lots of conversations with dotty leadership and and, you know, the waste collection leadership. And I have sent lots of Congress residents to to that diary leadership specifically for them to directly address some of the concerns. And frankly, the folks in Congress are still frustrated by it. But based on my conversations with with party leadership, it is my understanding that the change was because of efficiency. Put another way, we add, as has already been mentioned earlier tonight in this conversation, we are short workers. While we're short workers in part, you know, we're in the great resignation or as the Biden administration wants us to call it, the great upgrade. But partly we're short workers because we don't have funds to be more competitive with a recruitment retention process and to be more competitive with a way to to make our workers most effective and efficient in the trash collection process. You know, we also don't have the funds to be greener with our trash collection itself. So as Councilmember Flynn had mentioned, you know, our trash trucks are contributing to those greenhouse gases. I mean, we could if we had the funds experiment with electric vehicle trash trucks and this fee will allow us to live our values and and electrify our or at least test or electrify electrification of our trash collection. And and still make sure that we have a process for people's waste to go where it needs to go. Waste as in reduce, reuse and recycle. Hopefully we'll just reduce. But but if we do need to send something out of our home, it can go to the appropriate place for trash, recycling or composting. Those electric trucks, along with a better fee structure, will help us more fully staff our trash collection activities and live our values. What's more, we could with if we had appropriate funds, we could consider trash trucks that are appropriately sized to return trash collection to alleys and neighborhoods where it makes sense, like perhaps Congress part. So I will probably say more next week, but but I'm encouraged that I feel like our colleagues will at least move this forward to publication. I hope that is the case and I hope we have a more robust discussion next week. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Flynn. Backup. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Since I kicked this off, I appreciate the opportunity to wrap up and offer a little bit of rebuttal and clarification and thank you to council members. Can you and Cashman and Clark and Hines spoke with especially Councilman Hines. Let me kick off with just a few brief rebuttal remarks. First of all. The reason that multifamily and commercial properties. Multifamily. Eight and above. The reason that they have to pay private haulers for their own trash collection isn't that the city doesn't want to service them or wouldn't service them. But the state legislature many, many years ago bowed to the private trash hauling businesses and mandated passed legislation that prohibits Denver from serving them. I wish we would serve them and then we could all cover it out of the general fund. Right. That's the reason. It's not that they're doing some favor for people who live in single family or small multifamily. It's that the state lawmakers have said you can't serve them. The the private industry has to serve them. That's the reason for it. Thank you to Councilman Cashman for bringing out the 30% figure, 30% of the methane at at the dad's facility, Denver Arapahoe Disposal site. And we view that on a tour. Many of us. Several years ago, they convert the methane emissions to electricity. Goes back into the Excel grid. That's pretty good, too. Okay. But I made note here that councilman, that that reduces my five and a half ten billions of 1% by yet another 30%. And finally, Councilwoman Kenny, to respond and also to Councilman Clark, there's a false narrative that's being generated up here inadvertently, as I suppose that those of us who don't support charging a fee don't want to see increased diversion from the landfill. We do. We want to see it. We simply don't believe that our failure to impose a fee for our our program is the reason that it is the way it is. We will probably see this November because I believe it's already certified for the ballot. There is an initiative on the ballot that would mandate exactly what I was saying needs to happen. And Councilman Clark, every single dumpster I looked into had 50 to 75% recyclable or compostable material in it. I suppose that can be overwhelmed. That 30 to 82 year total of 82% of what goes to landfill is probably greatly consists of construction and demolition debris. That's why Portland, Oregon, has such a high diversionary because they mandate that it's not because they charge a fee to their homeowners. So those of us who don't support this, we want the same thing that the people who support this want. We want people to divert as much as they can. We simply don't accept that it's our failure to charge you a fee. That is the reason. In fact, I've had constituents call me and say, if you're going to charge me 21 bucks a month for my black card. Why am I bothering to recycle anymore? I'll just put everything in the black card. I would. I don't want to see that either. I want to see us delay a fee for at least a year, do the kind of robust education that we've never done, tell people. Does this thing go in the green card? Does this go on to purple or does it go in a black car? Educate them first and see how they respond without charging them a fee. In this godawful time of eight and a half percent inflation of Excel, a time of day pricing and other fee increases that are coming down the pike. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn and I will go ahead and add in a few brief comments around this. The first thing is, if a councilmember tonight votes to move this forward and have it ordered published, I want to be clear that that doesn't mean that on final that council member is going to vote affirmatively for this bill. And. Really in listening to my colleagues, I'm thinking about the residents. A lot of folks talked about the planet, and I understand that. I understand it innately. I am a wildlife biologist. I went to school for this, but I also am an educator and it is next to impossible to get people to change their behaviors. If we don't tell them why, if we don't explain to them very clearly and explain again and again and again, because there's a certain amount of privilege that just goes along with really understanding these issues and getting into it. A lot of folks are struggling to just survive and stay in Denver, and as my colleagues kind of brought up their different pros and cons around it, that robust education plan is so important and to really implement that and work that plan. And the other piece is that there was an article that came out in The Denver Post today that according to the city of Denver, approximately 30% of our homes in Denver lack air conditioning. We used to have a swamp cooler. It used to work to cool our homes. There are changes in the climate that we know that not mitigating trash is one of the issues. But is it time to do that now? Or is the time to do the education plan? Make sure that we can help support our residents so that they can stay in their homes and be comfortable and be at a place to even hear the education that we as a city are going to put out, or are we going to pass over that and put another fee on them when they might be struggling with credit card debt, rising cost of living in Denver, inflation of student loan debt, etc. There's a lot of bills that our constituents are struggling with, and I'm really struggling with putting another fee on them on top of this without that robust education plan. And so, again, members might vote affirmatively to move this forward to the final reading and the courtesy public hearing that we are going to have along with that bill. But I want to be clear that that doesn't mean that that council member is in support of the bill, because some of us, as you can see up here , are still struggling with the impact that this is going to have on homeowners in the city and county of Denver, coupled with. An unease as to Dottie being able to even secure the trucks that are going to be necessary to roll out and implement this plan. I've been told by some city employees that sometimes it can be 2 to 3 and a half years to get fully orders in and secured. And then on top of that as having severe vacancies within Dottie as well to implement this program. Madam Secretary, Roll Call on Council Bill 22, Dash 685, please. Hines. I. Can each. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black. I. See tobacco. I. Clark. I. Flynn now. Herndon. I. Cashman. Ortega. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announced the results. You have a nice two days. 11 Eyes Council bill 20 to 65 have passed. To remind folks it will be on final reading next week on June 27, with a one hour courtesy public hearing. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screen?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 1601 W. Jewell Avenue. Rezones property located at 1601 West Jewell Avenue from E-SU-Dx to PUD G-14 (office and telecommunications tower to planned development) in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-29-16.

DenverCityCouncil_02062017_16-1166

On the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must director comments. The Council members please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 161166 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1166 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has it has been moved in second at the hearing for council bill 161166 is open. I mean, we have a staff report, Curt Upton in the house. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. Good evening, Curt Upton with Community Planning and Development. Tonight we have a rezoning at 1601 West Jewel and Council District seven. It's in the Ruby Hill neighborhood, and specifically it's located adjacent to Ruby Hill Park, just west of Ruby Hill Park and just east of Raritan Street. The current zoning for the site is ESU X, which is a single unit zoned district, and it's surrounded by single unit districts of former Chapter 59 zoning code as well as the current Denver zoning code. Open space to the East, which is Ruby Hill Park and to the Southeast, some industrial mixed use or IMX three. The subject site is almost nine and a half acres and the requested zone district is a PWD plan. Urban Development as requested to address unique use and uses and the unique location of the site. So I'll give a brief overview of the proposed PD g 14. There is two base zoning districts that were used to create this custom zoned district. The mx2x district was used as the base zone district to prepare design standards and form standards. But some of the customizations in the PD include very large building and tower setbacks. One of the proposed uses on the site is a replacement telecommunications tower. There's an existing telecommunications tower on the site, and the setbacks will limit development on the site to only approximately a third of the total site. All square footage combined in new buildings will be limited to 100,000 square feet, total or less. The building height is limited to 35 feet, which is the same as the current single unit zoned district as well as the surrounding single unit zoned districts. There's also a design standards that limit the bulk and the visual impacts of the proposed telecommunications tower. And the PD will require an improved and visible public pedestrian walkway through the site that connects the community to the north, to the public right away on Jewel Avenue to the south and a bus line. The second based on district is the Jaro district, which is a residential office district. This zone district was used to create customized uses for the PD, so office and residential uses are allowed in the PD hotel or any lodging. Medical offices are not allowed and there are some limited commercial uses that include an eating and drinking establishment with some additional restrictions, one being what we call a Z pen, which requires a public information notice. And there are limitations on the distance or the proximity to residential zoned districts. Any eating and drinking establishment would need to be located a minimum of 150 feet away from a residential zone district, and the total square footage for that use would be limited to 5000 square feet or less. So now I'll get in a little more to the existing context. Again, the existing use on site is a telecommunications tower and a very small office slash storage facility surrounding it as single family multifamily industrial in Ruby Hill Park to the east. Here's some photographs that gives you a sense of the existing context. A large open area characterizes the site. Again, with existing telecommunications tower and smaller nonresidential structure in terms of the public process, it was very extensive, the most extensive zoning process I've ever been a part of. For a single case. It was nearly a year long, very collaborative with the neighborhood and the applicant is here and we'll get into more of the details of that process. There's also a summary of the process that's included in your materials and then the standard notification in terms of planning board signs and so on and so forth were provided. There's a letter of support in the materials from the Ruby Hill Gottesman Neighborhood Associations and letters of support from the Denver Housing Authority, former councilman Chris Nevitt and the Overland Neighborhood Association as well. So we'll get into our review criteria, the first being consistency with adopted plans. There are two adopted plans for this location a comprehensive plan 2000 and Blueprint. Denver Blueprint. Denver character designates this location as open space as an area of stability and Jewel Avenue as a residential collector to the south, air is a stability. The goals of areas of stability is to maintain the existing character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. While Open Space Limited is not specifically designed to find in the blueprint. Denver Open spaces are generally described as places that range from neighborhood to community parks to larger preserves and natural open areas that provide places for the community to gather and for wildlife habitat. Residential collectors are designed to provide a balance between mobility and land access, with a mix of uses that include residential, commercial, industrial areas and are designed to emphasize walking, bicycling and land access over other forms of mobility. And significantly, for this site to create connections that emphasize walking, bicycling and vehicular connections to Denver's parks. So with that, I will move on to the uniform of district regulations and furthering the public health, safety and welfare. We do find that this rezoning proposal is consistent with the goals of Blueprint Denver and Complement. Plan 2000 noted that the rezoning limits development on the site significantly, nearly two thirds of the site will remain as open space due to the design standards in the PD, which we find consistent with Blueprint Denver, as well as the designation for Jewel Avenue to create more of a mixed use collector's streets, which this Stone District does facilitate. We do find that it furthers the uniformity of district regulations, public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances include significant improvements and investments in the adjacent Ruby Hill Park. There has been some additional recreational facilities, but also cultural facilities. Significantly, the pavilion is under construction now, which will create a community gathering spot for the neighborhood and create more of an active park. And obviously this proposed rezoning is consistent with the idea of creating Ruby Hill Park as a as a as a rural neighborhood focal point and a gathering place and as a neighborhood destination. We all find. We also find that it's consistent with the neighborhood context and the zone district purpose and intent. The urban edge and neighborhood context requires a varied development pattern, promotes a greater mix of uses, and improves a transition from commercial and residential uses. The grow or residential office zone district allows, obviously both residential and office uses, but specifies a low to moderate scale residential building form. And the proposed PD meets both of these intents in the Denver zoning code. There's also additional review criteria for pads in the Denver zoning code, and I'll quickly give a summary of those criteria. The first is unique and extraordinary circumstances. This site is unique in that there is an existing large telecommunications tower on the site that's located in an interior location of a residential neighborhood and adjacent to a significant city asset in Ruby Hill Park. Because of the existing location and the existing uses on the site, we feel that it meets the criteria for unique and extraordinary circumstance that requires a unique approach and a customized approach to the zoning regulation. Public benefit is the second review criteria. As I mentioned previously, there are very large setbacks are required and the proposed PD that limits development on the site to approximately a third of the site. The zoning will also allow a greater mix of uses to encourage that neighborhood gathering area and community destination, as well as a required public pedestrian walkway that connects D.J. and the neighborhoods to the north through the site to transit facilities on the south. The third criteria is that the proposed development is not feasible under any other zoned district. There is no other zoned district in the Denver zoning code that has these specific design standards and uses as those proposed in the proposed pudi. The next criteria are that uses are compatible with adjacent land uses. We find that the limitations on retail, hotel, lodging and medical office uses does lend itself to being compatible with the adjacent residential character and neighborhood surrounding and that the building forms are compatible with adjacent building forms. Again, there are very large setbacks that require a very large distance from adjacent buildings. The maximum building height, again in the proposed zone district, is the same as a single unit district to the west. It's also the same as the current zoning on the site, which is a single district, and there are tower design standards. And one of the significant benefits of the tower design standards is that it prohibits guy wires, which are the wires that create visual clutter and bulk, and those are existing on the site. Now with the existing tower, the new replacement tower will be prohibited to having guy wires. So with that, CPD does find that all of our review criteria have been met and therefore recommend approval. All right. Thank you. Kurt, we have three speakers for Council Bill 1166. And I'm going to call them up right now. And you can come up to the front here, Jenny Gentry, Bruce O'Donnell and Sharona Thompson. Jenny Gentry, you're up first with 6 minutes. Thank you. I'm Jenny Gentry. I'm the senior vice president for finance and administration at Colorado Public Radio, where I've worked for the past 33 years. I am grateful for your time this evening to hear about our exciting final conclusion, I hope, to the zoning process. I want to tell you first a little bit about Colorado Public Radio and who we are. We're a501c3. We've been serving the Denver community since 1970. We now have three program services. We have all news, all classical and a new format, which is open air, new music, which has been on the air since 2011. We have 30 signals around the state. We have approximately 600,000 listeners every week, and we have another 200,000 that tune in online in a given month. So we have a pretty huge footprint serving the state with what I like to call 72 hours of programing a day. The budget's $17 million. This year, we have about 110 employees. We're currently housed in a building down in Centennial that was donated to us in 2004. We are as we began this conversation years ago, we are at a point where we will outgrow that building at some point in the fairly near future and are looking at our options of where we could move our headquarters and our studios and all of our employees. One of the first places we looked is at the nine and a half acres that we own on Ruby Hill. After preliminary conversations with the city, it became very clear that we had a number of zoning issues to tackle. The unique situation that Kurt has described between the park and the neighborhood. We have a tall tower that's a currently illegal non-conforming use with a residential zoning, and we're in the Ruby Hill View plane. I think one thing Curt didn't mention is we did get The View Plain approved by Planning Board late last year. So when we began talking to the city, what they suggested would be a great idea was that this would be a good project to have a conversation with the neighborhood and engage the neighborhood before we filed an application. And that was important to us and we had no preconceived notions of what that would look like. Sharona can talk a little bit about how that went, I think, from the neighbor perspective. For us, it was a wonderful opportunity to try to meet our needs, the neighbors desires and work within the Denver zoning code. City CPD has been amazing to work with Dolan's office and previously with with Councilman Leavitt's office is where we kind of started the conversation. So it's really been this ongoing conversation of how do we make it work for all of us. The example I always like to use is we said if we develop this property, we're going to need the tower, a building and parking. One of the first things the neighbor said is We want the parking as far away from the houses as we can get because of heat and and other considerations. Great. We can do that. So let's put the parking blocks. So when you see kind of the blocks that we came up with, we can put the parking, you know, over on the side. So it was that kind of interactive process. We went through a full use table when we went through the grow use table and the uses that that Curt outlined. We actually did that collaboratively with the neighbors. We had multiple meetings, we had a working group, and then we would go back to the full neighborhood association over a course of meetings. It's a very interactive process. Steve Charbonneau helped facilitate those meetings. And it was really a great way to engage all of us to come to a what I believe is a good solution. All of that was done before we filed the application. Um. I think that's all I've got. I'm happy to answer questions. I'm here for the evening. I thank you for your consideration and would respect. Respect, respectfully request approval of our rezoning. Thank you. Mr. Gentry can have a seat there. Bruce O'Donnell. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council. I am Bruce O'Donnell, 770 Sherman Street in Denver. I've been the CPAs owners. Rep on this for I think three. Years now almost. And I'm here in the. Event you have any questions I can answer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. Sharon Thompson. Sharona Thompson. Sorry about that. It's okay. Hi. My name is Sharona Thompson, and I am currently the Ruby Hill Gottesman, co-president. And I've been a resident of Ruby Hill for six years and serving as a president for my third year. I actually live on Raritan and Jewel Street and my house backs that big open field of nine and a half acres. And I know that field pretty well. I can see it out my window. And a lot of the neighbors that border, that field have been very concerned about fire problems, which we actually had this summer. And the fire came up to about ten feet behind about ten houses. And those guide wires actually go right behind my house and they pop when there's static. And so when CPR approached our neighborhood about the possibility of building their headquarters, we were very interested. And, you know, we had a bunch of meetings about possibilities and they've been very receptive and listening to our concerns. One of them is that public housing has apartments over at Ruby Hill Park, and I see a lot of people walking through the field to get to the bus stops or to school, and they're trudging through snow in mud. And they've been really receptive to building sidewalks for our our neighbors to take care of their needs. We've taken one step at a time, going through the zoning and what that looks like. They've been receptive to even the interest that we have in our neighborhood of promoting pollinators and planting zero escaping pollinating plants as part of their landscaping. So we have a lot of people who want to get involved and are interested in using the space for community events as well. We appreciate that, though. They're willing to put the parking lot on the other side of the building. And we we're really excited that that offers more parking space for concerts in the evening because as we've been working with Leavitt Pavilion in parking areas, that is another thing that we can offer to concerned neighbors. And so it's really been a pleasure working with CPR and that they came in willing to work with us and not just impose something on the neighborhood, but really collaborate together. So all 13 houses that back that property, everyone is in support of CPR coming to our neighborhood. Thank you, Ms.. Thompson. All right. This concludes our speakers. You guys can go back to your seat or you can sit up here. We're going to have some questions for members of council. Any questions for members of council? All right. Seeing none of the public hearing for council. But. Oh. I had my name plugged in. Councilwoman Ortega. Go ahead. Please excuse the knock. We're going to go with that. I just. I just wanted to find out who maintains that open space right now. Is that done by CPR or is that done by Parks and Rec? And will that change after the move and then construct the development of the new building? CPR is on the land since 2001 and we maintain it and that would continue to be the case. Great. Thank you. Okay. Then look down one more time. Okay, good. All right. This concludes the council. Bill. 11166 is not closed. Comes firms of counsel, counseling clerk. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to you know, this was an interesting one that came very quickly after I was in office, had already been started by my predecessor, Chris Nevitt. The conversations and this has all of the pieces for a recipe for something that's very contentious it's right by a single family homes is adjacent to a park and it's in a view plane. You know, if you could write anything that would be more controversial. And I have been so impressed with the process here, and I think that that's evident tonight. And seeing that everyone here is in support and everyone's feeling like this has been a really good process. I remember observing at one of the early meetings when the CPR team said, Look, if you don't want us to do this, then we won't. And I think that that kind of approach really is very different than somebody coming in and saying, hey, we're going to do this. And here's our here's what we what we want to do. Is there something we can throw in to make to sweeten the deal for you so that you'll stop complaining? And it wasn't that at all. It was very much a we would really like to be here. We would like to be a part of this community. We have some needs. This is a strange piece of property with a lot of stuff going on that doesn't fit into our normal zoning code. So let's have a conversation about what it would look like for you all to want us to be here as much as we want to be here. And so it was just I just want to commend the process, the CPR team, everybody who is involved. Sharon, on my awesome R.A. presence, thank you for all of your time that you put into this and to everything else that you do for for Ruby Hill and Local District seven. And so I think this has been a great process and I'm very excited to support this and ask all my colleagues to support it tonight as well. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Councilman Clark. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I just wanted to speak to that as well. You know, it's it was it's refreshing to have something that could be controversial, but have a good owner owner that puts together a good team and good dialog with the community. And to somehow get to, you know, to to to avoid what potentially could, could flare up and go a whole lot of sideways actually be a really, a really, really nice thing. So I just wanted to say that that was observed throughout the process. And so thank you all for for doing what you did. And I'm happy to be supporting this as well. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't want to let this moment go by without making a historical note, if I might. What a pleasure it is to see Colorado Public Radio occupy that site. It was known for many years as Chateau Ruby Hill and the home of my former colleague. The late and much beloved Jean Abell, who founded was a co-founder of Kadeem and Cave Body, which broadcasts from up on top of Ruby Hill in the fifties and sixties. And and a lot of folks from Denver will remember those days. And it's a particular pleasure that the classical format that Jean loved, he'd like to wake people up with Vivaldi in the morning that that will be broadcast again from from the top of Ruby Hill. And I very much treasure that memory. So I'm very pleased to support this zoning change and wish you much, much success. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Flynn, our council historian. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Yes, that's always a tough act to follow. I just wanted to add my support as well. I have enjoyed spending time in Ruby Hill Park, having played ball in the you know, in the ball fields there on various teams. Over the years, my grandkids have played there and have really seen the transformation of the park as a whole. And with CPD's commitment to, you know, moving moving back to Denver, if you will, I think it's it's exciting to see all the synergy that's happening with, you know, the the work that was done with the pavilion at the top. When I first came back to the council, we actually had a of a barbecue up there for all the council members to get to know one another because we had so many. New people coming on at the same time. But to see that it's all been embraced by the communities is really the exciting part about it all as well. So I just want to say congratulations for the collaborative work that you've done with the neighborhood and the neighborhood, embracing them, being there, and the improvements that will happen as a result of that. So I'm happy to support this tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call. Clerk AI. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore, I Herndon Cashman. Hi. Can each new Ortega assessment? Hi, Black. Hi, Mr. President. I police lost voting and as a result, 12 eyes 12 eyes council bill 1166 has passed. Congratulations.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Section 16.52.2370 relating to the designation of the property located at 4204 Cedar Avenue as a historic landmark, read and adopted as read. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_12152020_20-1209

Great. We're going to be 27, 28 and 29 together. They're all historic landmarks. Madam Clerk, please read all three items. Item 27 Communication from City Attorney Recommendations to Declare Ordinance Designating the property located at 262 Newport Avenue as a historic landmark. Rather than adopted as read District three Item 28 Recommendation to declare an ordinance designating the property located at 244 Miramar Avenue as a historic landmark Red and adopted as Red District three and Item 29 recommendation to declare ordinance designating the property located at 40 040 Avenue as a historic landmark red and adopted as Red District eight. Okay, I have no public comment. I have a motion and a second Councilwoman Price and any comments. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Customers and their house. Any comments? Oh. Okay. Cover it, please. Because Councilwoman Cindy has I. Councilwoman Ellen. Hi. Councilwoman Price. Councilman. Councilman Sabrina. Hi, Councilwoman. Mango. I. Councilwoman Sarah. I Council member Oranga. I also met Austin Vice Mayor Richardson. All right. Bush and Kerry. Okay. These are, I think, just wrapping up ordnances we have with do item 30 and 32. Item 30, please.

Recommendation to request City Manager and staff to prepare an 8 by 28 plan, a needs assessment and project timeline for eight projects that are critical to a successful 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympic Games; and to prioritize and brand these projects as Olympic priority development projects for future funding opportunities.

LongBeachCC_02062018_18-0094

Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you all very much. We appreciate it. Moving on. Thank you. Madam Quirk, if you can, please, next to item 13. Communication from Mayor Garcia, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Pearce, Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Mango. Recommendation to request city manager and staff to prepare an eight by 28 plan needs assessment and project timeline for eight projects for a successful 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympic Games. Great. Thank you. I will start and then I will pass this off. I know that Mr. Murdoch is going to say a few remarks as well. So I think as a reminder, we know that the Long Beach City Council unanimously earlier in 2017 voted to enter into a partnership with the Los Angeles Olympic Committee as part of those are. First, as we know, led by Mayor Garcetti in the city of Los Angeles, L.A., as we all know, was awarded the 2028 Olympics. As part of that awarding of the Olympics. Long Beach, of course, is a partner, and the council has approved a pretty large partnership with Los Angeles in hosting a variety of games for 2028. And we know that these include water polo, open water swimming, the triathlon, handball, sailing, as well as BMX racing. There's also currently some conversations about other opportunities for the city to showcase the community and its Olympic history. We know that Long Beach has been part of the last two Olympic bids, last two Los Angeles bids that happen and were very active. Should be noted, though, that this time along beaches hosting more games than we ever had in the past. And so those that may or may not be aware, there are some statistics out there that show Long Beach is actually one of the largest cities in the country that has actually produced more Olympians than almost any other place in the United States. And so the project in front of us today, in conversations with city staff as well as the Olympic Committee there, there has been some some interest to ensure that certain facilities, which we're already planning on, on developing that already on the books, be completed in time, of course, for the Olympics. And these are the projects as presented by our our staff and working with the Olympic Committee. We have the Belmont Veterans Pier Rebuild, of course, which will be the centerpiece for the sailing competition, will have the Belmont Pool, which will serve as a showcase of Olympic history and is expected to be widely used for city exhibitions and events. We do have the lifeguard tower rebuild, which will rebuild all the lifeguard towers across the coast. We have our Beach Concession Stands project, which is the reconstruction of concession stands for visitors up and down between downtown and the pier. We have the rebuild and construction of the arena, which will be used for handball events and needs major refurb refurbishment. Of course we have the expansion of the Convention Center Hotel Project and Convention Center connection that we expect will be used for a variety of visitors that are coming to the community. We also, of course, need to complete the airport improvements, including the mentor, the major renovations to the rental car area baggage claim, which will provide obviously an opportunity for visitors coming in and out of our airport. And finally, which is essentially a metro project, but we are partnering, which is the large it's about $1,000,000,000 at that metro L.A. is putting into the blue line for refurbishments all up and down the blue line. And the committee expects that the downtown, the Long Beach Sports Park, which we're currently calling it, will connect to the downtown L.A. Sports Park via the Long Beach Blue Line. So there's a lot of excitement around that project as well. Mr. Markley, do you want to add to that? I know you've been meeting with the committee. I guess, Mr. Mayor, I think he did a very good job of outlining kind of the concept here. As you know, we talk to the committee often. They are very excited about Long Beach. They see a tremendous amount of potential here. And just every time we talk to them, they're excited about, you know, what they're going to be able to bring here and the unique experience that we're going to have for the athletes and all the visitors and the families of everyone who's going to be participating here. So what this does for us is this provides us with a lot of vision. We only have ten years. I know that doesn't sound like a long time, but it actually is pretty short in terms of getting ready for the Olympics. There's a lot of work to do. And so by passing this, the council will give us some guidance on what those priorities are going to be for that we need to be focusing on for the Olympics. As you mentioned, the projects, I won't repeat those, but we'll come back with a report on kind of where we are , what else we need to do and how to how we plan to close some of those funding gaps. A lot of them are either funded, partially funded or fully funded and are moving forward. We have five of those in the Tidelands area, so we have some resources down in Tidelands that we've been planning for several years and that's going to be building on that. One of these is a private development site. That's the hotel, and the city has done a lot to encourage that, both through a total rebate and also a lot of the land sale. We've got our airport project, which is which is funded through the airport revenues and then of course, the partnership with Metro. So we believe this is an aggressive vision, but also a doable vision and look forward to giving you some more information on that. Great. Thank you. And this, I assume, will be the beginning of also regular updates to the Council on the progress of the projects as well as the the progress with the Olympic Committee as well. Yes. So we'll be talking about these projects. And we also do need to come back to you and talk a little bit more about some of the final details, or at least the agreements for 2028. So the council took action on 2024. Since that time, there has been changes and it's now 20. 28. And so we are going to be coming back to you over the next couple of months to to get those final agreements in place with the Olympic Committee. Great. I know that we have to tweak part of the agreement there. So thank you. There's a motion to second. I'll start with Councilwoman Price. Thank you. And I want to thank the mayor for his leadership in bringing this item forward. And I think there's a beautiful synergy here between us and the city of L.A. in jointly preparing for this incredible event that's going to highlight our city. I am fortunate to, alongside my colleague, Counsel Council Member Pearce, to represent the coastline in the city of Long Beach and in the third District and throughout Long Beach. We pride ourselves on being the classics capital of America, and nothing is going to allow us to showcase that more than improving the facilities that we have, that where we will house Olympic events, Olympic athletes, Olympic spectators, family members, visitors alike. So I very much look forward to investing in some of these infrastructure projects that have been outlined here and continue to bring pride to a city that produces more Olympians in the area of aquatic sports than any other city in this region. And that's something we don't talk about as often as we should with so many young Olympians in our local high schools. And having this these facilities be a source of pride for them when the Olympics are hosted here and frankly, always is something that should be a priority for the city. The Belmont Pier, as many, many people know, was damaged pretty significantly last year. And the city has been struggling since last year to figure out how we're going to make, first of all, the necessary repairs and also consider the significant work that it's going to need for the years to come. With the Olympics coming and the sailing events being so heavily focused around the pier area, I think the opportunity to rebuild the pier and enhance its its its status as an iconic facility in the city of Long Beach is very important and I'm looking forward to that and I'm glad that it's one of the eight projects same as the case for the Belmont Pool. Obviously, we've set aside more than half of the money that we need on the project, and we have an incredibly engaged and active community, dedicated and committed to seeing us raise money and look for alternative funding sources to be able to completely fund that project. And I'm very, very pleased and proud to be part of that, that project. So I'm glad to see that that's on the list of eight. The other thing that I think is really important, and I know Councilmember Pearce agrees with me on this is our lifeguard towers. Our lifeguard towers are really in bad shape. They don't reflect the quality of the lifeguard program that we have here in the city of Long Beach, the great work that the men and women of the lifeguard division of our fire department do. And so enhancing those facilities, I think, will go a long way for building community pride, but also making us look like the precious gem that we are within the region when spectators and Olympians come to town. This is a really great opportunity for us to think about creative ways to partner with public and private entities, potential grant funding options, and really explore some out of the box ideas to get our facilities in top shape for the 2028 Olympics. So I thank the mayor for bringing this forward. I think staff for their commitment to these projects. And I ask my colleagues to support with vigor this item. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I am so excited to move this forward. I really appreciate the hard work of the city staff and the court. My colleagues and I really look forward to the opportunity to host an international event right here in a city that's done such a great job in moving itself forward. And many in my side of town reflect back on the year of 1984 when we hosted before. And it's only appropriate that we get our house in order and ensure that we put our best foot forward for the world. I look forward to many sponsorship opportunities for our large facilities, similar to the $70 million donation splash naming rights that were just received in L.A. for the Coliseum. I hope that we have a couple of $70 million offers right here in Long Beach. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. I yes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor, for putting this item together. You know, when this item came to me, I definitely know all the work that's been done. Five of these projects are actually in District two, which is the heart of downtown. And so I had a couple of questions. I, as you guys know, had some concerns about the Olympics in the beginning of supported it. I think that they've done a great job in making sure that there are community benefits tied to the city, as there's been about a decade conversation around what happens when Olympics come to our city. And so I want to applaud the city for working with them on making sure that we're getting some of those community benefits for putting this list together. There are items on this list that I had some concern about before, and I've had a couple of emails, so I just wanted to publicly address them. On naming the Belmont Pool. I was not here for that vote. I know that it is with the Coastal Commission right now and we have, as Councilmember Price mentioned, half of that funding. One of the things I like about this item is that it's lifting up Long Beach and saying, we're open for investments. We're open to make sure that we have good corporate sponsorships, that we've got good athlete organizations that are sponsoring. And so I find this is a great opportunity to make sure that we're not carrying the entire financial burden on our backs. And I look forward to hearing what comes back from the Coastal Commission on that. My favorite project on this list is definitely the beach concession stands, something we've talked about for a really long time. The Alamitos location is going to be phenomenal. I met with staff today and we hope to have some kind of groundbreaking by the end of the year, hopefully. I don't know, Tom, if you want to talk just a little bit about that in the RFP process, because it is something that is probably my favorite project right now. Yes, Councilmember, we have been working on creating some pretty stunning designs on how to engage people on our beach, to come and visit concessions and be able to to have a great experience. So those are there's three different projects. We are bringing those forward to the planning or to the Coastal Commission. They've already gone through Planning Commission. They're really designed both for residents and visitors alike and coastal serving users. So we're hoping to get that through the Coastal Commission by the end of the year and to continue to put together the funding. And so we can do a groundbreaking. We're fingers crossed by the end of the year. Great. Thank you. And I also want to recognize that on that concession stands, I know we've had a couple of conversations with Dolby and other folks about that. So just for the first time, we're looking at breaking up those reps and being able to have local businesses in there, whether it's oysters at one and burgers at another . So I always have to champion that any time it comes up. So my other question is really around the conversation, around housing. I looked at L.A. and it seems like L.A. is trying to get to 100,000, 100,000 new housing units to be developed by 2028. And part of that plan was that you're going to have athletes housed in these units, and then once the athletes leave, that those would be converted to affordable housing. Do we have any plan to house any of the athletes in Long Beach? So none. Not this time. The way that they're creating it, most Olympics create an Olympic village, and that's really where they house the athletes. And that's right now plan for for L.A. but we are going to be the hub. So they're designing us to have people come down here and not just have one event or two events, but really to have a center. So we're a major center, the Long Beach Center. But as of right now, housing down here is not one of the projects that they're looking at. Okay. I know that there's we'll probably hear in community comment tonight some concerns around housing impacts. Any time we've had this and I know there's some studies that show some good reports. Are we going to have an annual report on the 2028 list? So we can certainly report back on how we're doing. I think that's part of the report is to let you know what the timeline is. And then, yeah, we need to stay on target and report back. I do want to answer your question about housing, though, is that is clearly something we've heard from the council that we need more housing and that there's been a goal set. I believe, Mr. Mayor was 4000 units in it, mostly in the downtown area, and we're well on our way. So we are building a lot of housing. There is a number of skyscraper projects that are either breaking ground or. Moving forward. So housing is important and you'll see in ten years a much different downtown than what we know today. Thank you. Mr. Modica, I would like to ask that whenever we get our annual report on the eight projects that we also just have a report about how our housing is increasing. I know that this council and the mayor is taking housing really seriously and just want to make sure that we're following that along with all the work that we're doing outside of it, so that we're addressing the conversation head on. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Andres. Yes, thank you, Amir. You know, I'm really excited about the you know, to my colleagues who are bringing this item forward, you know, also along, which is a long story history and, you know, athletics and the Olympics, you know, good preparation starts early. And I think working that we do to prepare for the 2028 Olympics could be successful and financially viable, you know, which will create jobs. And I would really like extremely like, you know, to ask the city manager focus a lot on local employment and the implementation of these eight projects to a greater degree possible. That is very, very important, I think, to me and anyone else who lives in the city of Long Beach. It's employment, local employment. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I like to speak in support of this item. This is very exciting and there is obviously a lot of work to be done in the next ten years. I was out at Skog last weekend and I heard a presentation from L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti. He gave a pretty comprehensive presentation, and the expo actually included Long Beach in the presentation as well and all of the the the games that will be here. He also talked about the Olympic Committee agreed to to frontload some financial resources to to the L.A. Olympic Bid Committee. Mr. Mayor. And I was curious to know whether or not there's been conversation, to see if any of those resources will be available to Long Beach. And in terms of what to help us get to these these projects, if you know. Yes. And maybe Tom can add. So there's some some extensive conversations going on around funding opportunities, both on the community benefit side as well as on the construction side. So on the community benefit side, for example, we're looking at the as people probably aware, the L.A. Olympics in 84 was one of the few Olympics that actually made money. And the foundation around that Olympics is still actually putting money out into the community through their nonprofit work. So one of the things that they're looking at this year for the 28 Olympics is they're looking at a long term plan to provide essentially to pay, particularly for low income families, all of a kind of athletic programs , swimming programs, parks, recreation, youth programs, and trying to be able to fund kind of a master youth sports program that would last for a decade plus for the communities and where the Olympics is actually in. So that is something that's being actively discussed and a goal of Mayor Garcetti's. And in addition to that, we are we expect some substantial opportunities to work, obviously, with with the Olympic Committee on opportunities to kind of close some funding gaps for us that we might have in in these projects. Great. Well, I look forward to supporting this and working as a council, as a city to make sure that we are a great host in 2028. Thank you. And Councilmember Superdome. Thank you. I have a question and a couple of comments. The question is to Tom Monaco. When will you bring this back for a second look. Do you have a date in mind? I don't have a date at this point. We can certainly get you back kind of a general report. But some of these projects are further along than others, and they're going to require some additional study on what it will take. So, for example, the lifeguard station, we have not started that project yet. We don't have a time frame or a sense. But for things like the concession stands, we have a lot of information. So I'm hoping in the next probably two or three months we'd come back and have that first look and then let you know, you know, further what needs to be done. Okay. So I won't frame my comments as a friendly amendment since this is coming back again. We can discuss that. But first, I just want to follow up on Councilwoman Mango's comment about the L.A. Coliseum, or maybe we should call it the United Airlines Coliseum, $70 million, but it's only for 16 years. And so that's a tremendous opportunity, I think, that we can look into, and I would hope that would be studied. Also, the one point that is striking to me is, is as was mentioned, so many of these projects are in the Tidelands area and that's great for funding. The downside is that it doesn't engage our entire city or all of our communities, but we do have a prototype for doing that. And I would hearken back to our legacy with the 32 Olympics. And you talk about tough economic times, 1932. We're about three years into the Great Depression, but they had a city wide program to ask the residents to plant vacant lots or decorate vacant lots. And that happened all over the city. The winning lot was on the corner of Locust and 14th, which was nowhere near any of the venues. And as a side note, that was that contest was won by a renter who had only been in the city about five years. The other thing I think we should look at is kind of the legacy of the 84 Olympics. And there are two. They looked at the entire community and looked at our legacy from 1932. So realizing that the traffic circle in the fourth Council District was built for the 32 Olympics, they made sure that torch run went down Lakewood Boulevard around the traffic circle. So we have lots of opportunities to engage the community and get these areas spruced up for the event. So that's all I am. Thank you. Thank you. And Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. I wanted to chime in and add my support for this item. I want to also say, you know, I you know, when I drive near the Compton Town Center up Artesia, you'll see that 1984 Olympics logo. And I think we should also also, you know, make sure that we understand how to frame this to our residents is going be a lot of questions about what what our game plan is, what we're doing. And I'd like to understand better or get a briefing at some point on how there will be benefits to the local community in terms of like the L.A. 84 style benefits that were referenced tonight. Those are exciting. They, you know, help support swimming programs and things like that in all areas of all communities. And so I really want to want to better understand that and be able to champion that a bit more. I'm going to be excited for this. You know, my girls will be teenagers. I'm thinking about, you know, what sports they can get into now so they can really be inspired at that time. When I look at these sports and I want to make sure that we get some tickets to the Olympics. Thanks. Well, thank you. Let me take public comment. Please, please come forward. All right. Judy Clarke is the address. Obviously, I support this measure. And if people haven't thought about it, we will be getting even more venues. As I think most people understand, these are the what happened this summer with the smoke and the fires in L.A. Basin, and there's no indication that will not happen again. So we will be getting more venues. I want. To turn to. The issue of having the Marine Stadium included in that as a rowing venue. If you recall, two years ago, I came before the council, I think it was during Christmas break when Casey Wasserman's point people called me three times and said they definitely want to have the Marine Stadium as the rowing venue. It will be completely. He understood that the Davis Bridge is going to be replaced. It will be completely compliant. Unfortunately, what has happened based upon some credible individuals, some information that I find to be very far from a very credible individual. Mr. Wasserman has been. Persuaded away from and somebody for reasons far from commendable has essentially been poisoning the well suggesting that he take it to the first alternative to was up the lake villages which proved out to be very unsatisfactory notwithstanding the overall success of the 84 games because it was so distant. Then there was a place they suggested down by not far above San Diego, equally problematic. Then they were going to put it in Lake Balboa in the middle of van eyes, where even in the best, without any smoke and fires, it's 102 degrees. You know, there are paradigms that are going to address that. But I would strongly suggest you move forward with the plan to have the Marine Stadium designated it. It will be, as I say, the bridge will be in place within 3 to 4 years. No bench. Those two supports structures and so forth. The Corps of Engineers comes in with about 90 days before or 60 days before and does their thing to hold back the tides and the currents. And so there's no reason why the Marine Stadium should not be the rowing venue for these games. And I'm going to put my foot on that. You keep that on the neck of the issue because it makes absolute sense to have it here and it makes no sense to have. Any of the other locations that unfortunately. Mr. Wasserman was steered. To. Thank you very much. I can. Mr. Good here. I know this is one area where you and I agree very closely. And I, I talked to Mr. Wasserman today, and I can just guarantee you that he's very aware of our interest, our strong interest that for additional opportunities for us to host at the top of that list, as you all know, is the event that you're talking about. And so it's a decision, of course, that's not our decision. That's correct. But we they are absolutely aware of our ability to do and host an amazing event, a marine stadium. And so that's something that they know. Thank you. Reinforced. Thank you. Next speaker good evening, council members and Mr. Mayor. My name is Alan Perlman. I am a senior principal at Studio 111 Architecture, an urban design firm here located right in downtown. I'm also a third district resident, and this year I co-chair the Long Beach, the downtown Long Beach Alliance's Economic Development Committee. And tonight, I want to express our strong support for the recommendation to pursue the eight by 28 plan. I think leveraging the fact that Long Beach will be one of the Olympic host cities once again, it's a generational opportunity. It allows us to continue improving our city. And, you know, while completing the eight projects identified by 2018 will be important for the Olympic Games. We believe that they represent infrastructure and quality of life improvements that will benefit all residents of Long Beach for many years to come. So it's about really not just the Olympics, but the long term improvement of our city. In fact, Mr. Mayor, we want to take this opportunity to suggest, to think maybe even a little bit bigger, because while the Olympics represent one catalytic event, an amazing event for us, there are other things in play that are equally exciting. And if you think about putting them all together, the improvement plan for the L.A. River, the changes to Shoreline Drive, that will really create a totally new experience of coming into the city and a much more pedestrian friendly downtown. The expansion of the aquarium, the revitalization of the the Shoreline Village and maybe Marina Green Park and a more productive use of the elephant lot and going all the way up and down our shoreline. I think that all of these things point to an opportunity to take advantage of really one of our greatest assets, which is our waterfront. And I think if you can imagine a cohesive plan of tying everything from the L.A. River all the way across the city, it really ties the downtown and the rest of the city together into an amazing opportunity. So as a stakeholder in the city and the downtown, I'm thrilled at these opportunities. And I think now is the time to dream big about what we could do for our city while we take advantage of ideas about having equitable outcomes which are extremely important and value capture in some of these projects that really can help fund the future of our city and really plan together for ourselves and future generations. As always, the NBA is here to lend its support in these exciting ventures. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, mayor, and members of the council. I'm Jeff Miller. I've lived here a long. Time and I was here for the 1984 Olympics. And I and my neighbors and friends and I enjoyed them very much and looking forward to doing it again. I have a few comments about one specific aspect of the eight projects, and that's the BBC, also commonly known as the Belmont Pool. The agenda item behind you reads the critical phrase there is for staff to prepare a plan with a needs assessment. What this plan needs is a pool that can actually be built as planned. Now, the Belmont pool is the wrong location. The traffic, the congestion, the lack of access. The visitor amenities are not there. No true cost has actually been given for what this would be. And the the money is not there. The in there just insufficient money to build that there. But most important, perhaps, is the issue of sea level rise and other factors that very likely will cause this to be rejected by a coastal commission. The need here is a pool that can be built. So I urge you to look at building this pool downtown where access is assured. The freeway is there. The blue line is there. All the bus lines converge there. There is adequate parking. There are hotels, restaurants, other entertainment opportunities downtown, the aquarium, the Shoreline Park, all within walking distance for the visitors who will come. And a pool built there could very likely not be subject to the limitations of the one being planned. And maybe it could be built so that some of the actual Olympic events could be held in our pool downtown, which is not the case with the current plan to put it on the beach. So I urge you to maximize your opportunities for getting the Olympic funds that are going to be available to use them wisely to put together a pool that will last not just until the 28 Olympics, but on beyond that, and it will not be swamped by the rising sea. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, city councilman and women. My name is Gordon and CJR. My address is in file and I am a resident of the third district. And I'd like to speak to you tonight about a request to remove this pool, the Belmont pool, from this eight by 28 recommendation and request by the mayor. First, I'd like to remind you that the project is under litigation by citizens about responsible planning. The carp group following the council's approval of this IIR for the for the pool earlier or late last year, I should say, May of 2017. I understand that while the suit may have a hearing in May of 2018, that date is not confirmed. In the likely event of a ruling against the city of Long Beach because of serious sequel violations. There will be important issues that the city must remedy in order to move ahead with an updated or supplemental air. One official or one critical issue is the fact that the city chose not to identify any valid alternative sites for the project in the event that another location is identified and one that could potentially be outside of the coastal zone. The mayor's plan for eight Olympic projects may be spoiled, at least five that are planned for the coastal zone. In addition, the appeal to the California Coastal Commission on the city's local coastal development permit for this project is still pending. A hearing to determine the significant issues has not been scheduled and no date has been set by the coastal staff for the appeal itself. As you know, a number of Long Beach residents have appealed this project and it's also important to remind you that two sitting coastal commissioners have also filed their own appeals. Although this action is not unprecedented, it highlights significant Coastal Act implications that this pool has and its location have for the Coastal Commission, specifically its location on the beach and without regard for the threat of future sea level rise further, it's clear that the pool will never be used for these Olympic events. It's being designed as a hall to host exhibits, and I'd suggest to you that there might be some other locations within the city of Long Beach that might be more appropriate for that kind of use. Specifically because of the funding uses that are funding sources that are going to be needed for the rest of these projects that are being proposed. I'd like you to consider removing this item from the eight by 28 project. Thank you. Q Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor Garcia, Council Members. Vice Mayor Richardson, thank you for bringing forward the home purchase project. I think that's great. We're very excited about having a rebuilt Belmont Pier. I can't tell you how many people I certainly in the third district and around the city will enjoy that. And so that's a great project. I would like to. Suggest one addition to what you're working on. I think the lifeguard stations. Are important, but I think a lifeguard headquarters. A marine safety. Headquarters, the building that they're working out of on Junipero, is it? It's very antiquated. And in September of 2016, the city had a presentation. There was apparently plans being made to rehabilitate the lifeguard headquarters. So that was presented in 2016. And I've tried to reach the gentleman who was Pine's, who was the contracted by the city. I haven't heard back from him, so I don't know where that stands. But please talk to the marine safety people in the lifeguards. They really need a upgraded location and they need extra equipment. They need the room and they need really modern. We're going to have a lot of people to watch over. And also I join in. Urging you to think about working with the Olympic Committee. If you're going, there's no one who. Doesn't want the aquatic community to have a nice. Pool and they want a pool for events. And that's their large interest for diving, for a water pool, for swimming. And so it makes sense to do what the. Olympic Committee is going to do, which is to put their pool in downtown Long Beach, where there's parking, where there's access. Those things I've mentioned already, and there's going to be even a more beautiful. Place to watch from the pier and watch the sailing. If you let us keep the Olympic Plaza Park and I do urge you to go out there, it's a beautiful scene. There's the park. People are enjoying. It all the time. You can see the pier from there. You can see the sailboats. I think there's just such a win win of trying to. Encourage the aquatic. Community to get their mind around the fact that there can be a beautiful sand Long Beach aquatic center in downtown. It'll better serve the people who live on the east and west side, and it will cause much less dissension, which we've encountered because of the lawsuits and because of the coastal problems. So I really urge you to to work on that. I'm glad America's in charge. I'm sure you'll do a good job of putting all this together. And thank you very much for listening. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Johnny Coleman. I'm with a coalition called New Olympics. L.A. represents many housing advocates, homeless advocates. Anti-Imperialist. Immigrants, rights workers. Groups across Southern California. There are over 30 groups in our coalition as we speak. We launched a year ago. I've spent basically every day in the last year working and dissecting and credit and critically looking at this bid. I'm curious to see how many people in this room have actually read the bid. It's extremely long. I've read it many times. It represents a very bad deal that the lawmakers in L.A. have negotiated for. It puts the L.A. taxpayers on the hook indefinitely. It puts California taxpayers on the hook if it goes 270 million to 540 million over it. And and this is to say that it has been passed by L.A. City Council with no budget. There is no budget for the L.A. 2020 to 2028 Olympics right now. This is historically unprecedented. This has never happened in 100 plus years of the Olympics. So that's very disconcerting. Not to mention, thank you for whoever brought up the possibility that this might have a negative impact on the housing on people's housing issues, the affordable housing crisis or homelessness. But what was not talked about was what this will mean for sanctuary. It is a national special security event, the Olympics. That means that the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE and CBP and the NSA, is not only allowed but to encourage to work with local law enforcement. So if anyone here in this room that's sitting in front of me was a proponent of sanctuary status and in Long Beach acquiring that, then this is directly contradicts and undoes all that work you're doing. Also, it's really interesting to hear you people, especially Eric Garcetti, the mayor of L.A., touting youth sports. I don't know if anyone's been paying attention to the news recently and what the Olympics do under the guise of youth sports, but it's extremely irresponsible. I also want to correct what someone said earlier about United. The United to naming rights are the Coliseum. The IOC actually prohibits any city from letting the venue use corporate naming rights during the period of the Olympics. So United, for example, cannot be called the United Coliseum during that period. And they actually didn't know that when they negotiated the bill. As The L.A. Times wrote about this yesterday, we also talk about the. Legacy of the 1984 Olympics. For who is the question? I work a lot with activists in South L.A. and in Skid Row, and you should ask them what they thought about the 1984 Olympics and all the power that it gave Daryl Gates and how that led to initiatives like Operation Crash, Operation Hammer and the 1992 uprising. We'd also ask that the city, if it does actually make any sort of profit, that funds not go to the 84th Foundation, which is a nonprofit and is not accountable to the people that have elected you all. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello. I am also with the No Olympics L.A. Coalition. And so I followed the Los. Angeles bid extremely closely as well. And and following that process. I've been shocked at the haste and lack of. Transparency in the process. There was not in. Any kind of adequate community involvement from the get go. The vulnerable communities that Johnny before me mentioned, but who are most likely to be impacted by the games, were not included in the conversation, let alone told about the the risks. Involved in hosting. Every Olympics ever, such as increased gentrification, police militarization, budget overruns and displacement. Then when the International Olympic Committee cut a deal with L.A. and Paris and gave Los Angeles the 2028 Games, City Hall quickly just flipped to the numbers and voted it through without any more public input or even the illusion of public input or a budget , as Johnny also mentioned. So in assessing these massive Olympics related projects in Long Beach, I encourage. You to act differently and include the tenants and other vulnerable people who will be most impacted. By them. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Stephanie Dawson. So the Democratic Socialists of America, Long Beach chapter. Point of order. Before my my time starts, Mister City Attorney, I've noticed three different conversations that have gone on tonight between council members and people in the audience. I'm just a simple wee lawyer, so I'm not the best person when it comes to analyzing the California Public Records Act . But this is an agenda, a public meeting. And if they want to be doing constituent services during the meeting, they need to be in the evening, make appointments during that for that specifically. Secondly, Rex, the other day when we met when you met Donnie Anderson in the street, you might want to talk to him about his felony that he picked up during Operation Crush in the 1994 Olympics. As he was sitting in his house and minding his own business, Daryl Gates and the LAPD crashed down his door and struck him with a fellow with a felony that he only this year got removed thanks to the work of the California ACP. He is just one of thousands of people who are victimized by the police militarization that happened as a result of the Olympics during that time. Talk to the people who are still living in North Long Beach in Compton. And they all they all have very similar stories about the about the oppressive nature of the police that happened. They were allowed to happen during that time. Secondarily, if you're looking at ways to of the projects that are being named as targets for improvement during via the Olympics, none of them do have to be specific to the Olympics. These are all projects that can be funded through progressive income taxation or through parcel taxes that can be achieved, that can be achieved by you guys passing policies separate to the Olympics, trusting the Olympic Committee, which is internationally reputed to be one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. It's a reason that we rejected F1. Racing is the exact same reason that we should be doing that. We're rejecting the Olympics. It is an untenable, corrupt organization that extracts money and works as a displacement engine for especially low and moderate income people inside of the city. If you want if you want new sports again, we can raise taxes within and on our own, on our own residents in a progressive manner to be able to pay for it. So finally, please, if you think that this is going to be some sort of massive gentrification effort on the on the part of and improving public infrastructure. Just Google the 24 Olympics. In in Athens. You know there's slideshows now of most of these or most of these past Olympic venues. They are covered in moss and mold and not being used anymore. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you, counsel. My name is Max Norris. I'm here on behalf of the Democratic Socialists of America Long Beach chapter. I would. Like to take a moment to ask. Mr. Parker again what exactly. The Council's position on the PRC laws is. We saw it again twice. Two members go into the public. Speak out of turn during a meeting. My understanding is that violates the Public Records Act. So I'd like disclosures from those people. To be made public. Thank you. Beyond that, I'm. Here to speak against the Olympics. This is a deal that's. Not for our average Long. Beach's. This is a deal for Eric Garcetti. Mr. Wasserman and elite people of Los Angeles. We may have the most Olympians coming out of Long Beach, and that's great. But wouldn't it be great that they got to go some? Or else. And that all these problems that everybody tells you about. Would be. Somewhere else. We have enough problems. We have plenty of things that we. Could all be talking about. Instead of cheerleading for the Olympics. I implore you, Mr. Richardson, specifically, take a closer. Look at this. I know you have aspirations higher. Than this office, and this will be a stain on your record. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Mr. Mayor. City Council. My name is Richard Foster. I was 12 years president of USA Water Polo and also past president, Olympic Century Club and the aquatics capital of America. And that's the two organizations I'm here to represent tonight. We strongly support this. This plan. We're really excited that you have really thought this through and are going to do a really good job, because I've been to seven Olympic Games and some some Olympic hosts have not been that good in preparation. And it shows. But those who are prepared and do a great job reap the benefits for decades. And I think this is a great plan. I'm really excited personally and on behalf of those two organizations that you're taking this step. Just to address a couple other comments. The best run Olympic Games in history was 1984 in Los Angeles. Financially and otherwise, we have a great track record here in Long Beach. As Councilmember Price mentioned, we put out Olympics. I don't know why we put on so many Olympians, but we just do. In 2012, if we were a country, we live in the 15th ranked country in the world in medals. So it's been really incredible. And going to Miss Richardson's comments about the effects on youth. When I was President U.S.A., water polo. Every time there's an Olympics, we have a real upswell in young children wanted to participate in Olympic sports, and no year was greater than 84 when we had the Olympics right here. And you can imagine for water polo, which is kind of our town sport, having hosting the water polo events here, we're going to skyrocket. And young people, boys and girls, wanting to participate in sport. So the benefits on our youth are just tremendous. So thank you for voting to be part of Olympic Games. And we we obviously support this project. Thank you so much. Next week for peace reasons. Thank you. Hi, Mayor Gordon. Gordon Norwood. Again, I was listening to the conversation about the projects and all the money there is going to be invested in Long Beach and I'm really excited about that. But my I just came to mind that I want to make sure I want to be assured that it's going to benefit all communities. As a person who was a youth in 1984 in South Central, there was a lot of money put into Los Angeles, but I can tell you that it didn't come to South Central where I grew up. And so I want to make sure that all of our council district or some representative from all council districts is on that committee and that we are looking at all committees and not just the more our communities and not just the more affluent areas where the the coastal line, where we already are constantly building. But I don't see that same building happening in District six. So or and, you know, other not as affluent areas. So I just want to make sure that all that everybody is represented and is going to benefit all areas and not just certain areas. Because again, we're talking about the 1984. It was a wonderful, wonderful situation, wonderful event for L.A. or wonderful for L.A. But I was a young girl in South Central. I didn't see all of those the great things that we that I just heard about happening in my neighborhood. So I want to make sure that. Is that true. And Long Beach. Thank you. Next week or please. This is our is going to be the last two speakers. Okay. I will close the speakers list. Thank you, mayor. City Council, City Management. First of all, thank you for the leadership. When L.A. first announced that the Olympics they were bidding for the Olympics, Long Beach was noticeably absent. And so it was with your leadership that got Long Beach into the game and got us into the. Bid and we. Became part of the L.A. Olympics. So, first of all, thanks for doing that for our. City very much. Appreciate it. I'm Steve Goodling. The Long Beach Convention Visitors Bureau president. Our board looks forward to this event. Our membership of over 500 businesses looks forward to this event. And we couldn't be more pleased that you all are taking the leadership. What Mr. Modica said is absolutely correct. Ten years will fly and all of you involved with public work programs know the process between Coastal Commission and everything else that needs to take place. We have to begin now. So this eight and 28 is exactly spot on. These facilities will not grow moss. The convention center. Is was built in 1965. It needs new seats. It needs work. It has. And have had that touch. But yet it. Served us with the California Women's Conference, with the TED Conference and other events. That is a community facility. And now our nonprofits in our city, in addition to our convention, but also our nonprofits are using it to raise money to support their groups of women's shelter and other programs in our city. So our city assets are benefiting our residents in addition to the economic impact of showcasing Long Beach. So on behalf of our board, the Convention and Visitors Bureau. And on behalf of all of our. Membership, we'd like to thank you. And we look forward to working with you in hosting the 2028 Olympics. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goodling, and our final speaker. Good evening. My name is Kevin Yeager. I'm a member of Democratic Socialists of America, Long Beach and a constituent of District One. I appreciate what previous speakers have said to highlight the risks that the Olympics will bring to our city. So I just wanted to, as a democratic socialist, dwell on the undemocratic processes that have got us to this place in 2017. Our City Council approved the city manager to enter into an agreement for the 2024 Olympics, and if so, what Mr. Mayor described as a tweak actually happened. And it's sorry. And that's moving the Olympics from 2024. Four years later, it's 2028. Long Beach has to date not approved anything having to do with the 2028 Olympics. This was done under our nose. And we're just going along with, you know, big brother, Los Angeles dictating what's happening here in our city with international business agreements. So why were the Olympics awarded in 2028? Well, it's actually unprecedented for the Olympics to be awarded this far ahead of time. And the reason, well. In at least. Many people's opinion that they awarded the 2028 Olympics is because the Olympics are decreasingly popular among cities. More and more cities are waking up to the risks that the Olympics bring. After we've seen devastation and raising rents in London or just so many disasters in Rio. People are realizing that the Olympics are terrible for cities. So that's why the Olympics were concerned that if they waited four more years for the 2028 bid process, they wouldn't even have any applicants. So they tried to stick us with the 2028 Olympics right now. And so this is why it's so mind boggling to hear the previous speaker talk about how ten years will fly by and how a mr. Monica is saying, you know, ten years really isn't a lot of time to prepare for the Olympics. It's the most time any city has ever had to prepare for a modern Olympic Games. So as I said, I think there were undemocratic processes even when we voted for the 2024 Olympics. It was presented as a done deal. There wasn't much substantive conversation around how this would impact the most vulnerable communities in Long Beach. And now we have another four years. So I would urge the City Council to take a step back and take these extra four years to get more input, do more studies on how this would affect rents, how this would affect police militarization in our immigrant and people of color communities. And if we're going to pass any priority developments, the only thing we should be prioritizing is affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Yeager. Members Bruce Gordon Castro votes. There's a motion in the second. Motion carries. Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Next item is we're going to do item 12.

Recommendation to adopt the Budget Oversight Committee’s proposed funding recommendations, as amended, to the FY 16 Proposed Budget. (A-11)

LongBeachCC_09152015_15-0892

Item 16. I'm sorry. Yes. Item 16, this is the budget oversight committees proposed funding recommendations to the fiscal year 16 budget. The first part of of the motion is a affirmation of what we just did, which is a motion to approve Mayor Garcia's recommendations as originally proposed. Even though we took action on it. I do want to share that the Budget Oversight Committee felt it was important to articulate. Mr. City Attorney, I have one, two, three, four, five, six motions under this item. Do we take them separately? It would be helpful for me to follow that. And I want to be helpful. Thank you. Okay. So the first motion is to approve Mayor Garcia's recommendations as originally proposed. And Mr. City Attorney, I believe that we can do public comment. Can she just read all the motions and then we do it as one? Yes, you could you could go through all of the motions, take public comment on any of the items of the six, and then walk through and have individual votes on all six. Okay. So let's do that. Item two is a motion to appropriate any unspent fiscal year, 15 year and general funds surplus in the city prosecutor's office up to $250,000 for the PATH Program and other city prosecutor programs. Item three is to fully restore the proposed fire department's reduction of one full time FTE Marine Safety Sargeant boat operator in the Tidelands Operation Fund and to offset the cost of $140,000 by reducing the Tidelands funds in the city manager's department by $25,000. The Parks, Recreation and Marine Department by $46,000. And the Economic and Property Development Department by $69,000. Item four is a motion to forward to council from BFC the appropriation of a total of $2,666,000 for capital infrastructure programs to be divided by nine for city council districts. From the following sources 950,000 of supplemental funds for streets and sidewalks, 675,000 of unallocated fiscal year 16 temporary surplus. $341,000 of general fund fiscal year state mandate reimbursement funds $300,000 of fiscal years 16 General Fund Beginning Funds Available $200,000 of fiscal year, 16 uplands beginning funds available and $200,000 of funds for document imaging project. Item five is a motion to recommend using fiscal year 16 General Fund Beginning funds available to appropriate $50,000 for Rancho Los Alamitos Plan Check and to appropriate up to $30,000 for municipal band to match 1 to 1 additional funds raised above $85,000. In addition. In addition to those to those amounts just mentioned, we would allocate $50,000 to Rancho Los Cerritos, as well as $50,000 to a weekend to instate to initiate a weekend graffiti abatement program citywide. Thank you. And I think the last part of your motion is the last sentence. Correct? Yes, I have the motion to recommend using $200,000 fiscal year 16 General Services Fund Beginning funds available for the Document Imaging Project. Thank you. There's a motion in a second. I just I clarified with the city attorney. And so we can actually take one vote on all these items and put one public comment on all the items. That's correct. Mayor and if I could just ask for a clarification from the vice mayor. I was given a sheet with the items, but I, I don't have the two items. There's two items missing on that sheet. So it's everything on this sheet. Post edition of 50,000 for Rancho Los Cerritos. I So. The Rancho Los Cerritos is there for. The top and top on top of the Alamitos. And I failed to mention the source. I apologize. Okay. So the 50,000 for Rancho Los Cerritos and then the $50,000 for weekend graffiti abatement citywide. And the source would be from the Small Business Incentive Program, which has just started. And so in the start up, we anticipate that there would be about $100,000 unused. And so that's the source. If if the program itself becomes highly subscribed, we will make an adjustment that during the year. The thought is, as per staff, because the program just started, we're only going to use 100,000 of the 200. So that's where to go. And then we can always do the adjustment later on. So that is the motion. So you have those two additional pieces. Mr. CITY Attorney. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry. And on the municipal bond item, there was a friendly amendment which was accepted at budget oversight that if the matching funds are not fully utilized, the balance of the funds would be used to improve any park locations hosting the concerts so that there would be improvements to the concerts, I'm sorry to the parks made as opposed to releasing the funds. Okay. So that's the that's the motion on the floor. And I'm going to first take public comment and then I'm going to add, is there any public comment saying none? I'm going to go back to the council. Let me start with the second or the motion, which is Councilman Mongo. I want to thank city staff for working very diligently to find ways that we would be able to fund all the priorities throughout the city. I think that it's important that when constituents reach out to us and tell us their priorities, that we are able to respond. And so I thank you for your hard work on this. I also want to appreciate the members of the committee who we've worked alongside one another for such a long time to get it right, to make sure that the community felt involved, to give them their voice and to get to where we are today. So thank you to everyone. This has been a very worthwhile process. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I have a question for the city manager on the plan tracks for Rancho Los Alamitos. I understand that they have a potential seismic issue and that they have to submit plans to the city. The city has to review the plans, determine the scope of the project, what the potential costs of the project would be. And, you know, in terms of the city's maintenance requirement, make a determination as to, you know, what those infrastructure needs are. Is this this money contemplated to go to the city to fund the costs associated with obtaining a permit and and having those plans checked? Or is it to go to the entity? Mayor councilmembers. This money will actually go to the ranch, on the ranch, and will use those moneys to pay the fees for the plant checking. So during this seven month process, as we go through that. So at the end of the $50,000, at the end of the process, we should have the ability for the rancher Apollo building permit. I see. Okay. And so I think it's it's definitely my desire. And I know there are others on the council who obviously believe that maintenance of the ranchos both ranches is an important priority for the city. And so I would be supportive of the motion. And I want to thank the vice mayor and committee member Mongo for their efforts in getting us to this point. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have just a few comments and some questions. So within these recommendations, there are a number of things that I'm really excited and eager to support tonight. One of which is, as most of you would remember, we came to city council with a proposal to fund a program, a young adult, 18 to 24 year old diversion program called Path. Promising adults tomorrow's hope that uses that uses education and workforce as a means to and in lieu of criminal prosecution in certain cases. And so I'm glad that over the last few months, we worked to craft this program and we proposed a a budget solution to help get the program off the ground. And so I'm glad to see that the EEOC recommendation includes that solution. So so that's something I'm eager to support tonight. Secondly, I know that I've met with the lifeguards and a number of I know the council has met with the lifeguards. So I'm glad to see that there's a solution to the lifeguard issue. I have a number of questions with some of the other bills or recommendations. So first, I see that we have a number. We have 2.6 million allocated four divided by nine, and that all exceptions to this must go to city council for approval. Now we. Every year it seems like we've had different rules to the divide by nine resources. And fortunately I've been able to see how that's impacted certain vision, certain goals. Like if, if I have a train trust, train trestle, whatever it's called, and, and it gets painted with graffiti or if I have a utility box that's, that's been vandalized, a lot of times I have to figure out which year of resources we can use to actually impact or improve that. And to me, the condition of our the actual esthetic condition of our infrastructure is just as important to many folks as whether it works or not. So I'd like to make sure that and I want to hear from some other council members on this, but I want to make sure that whatever isn't legally restricted and also there are some sidewalk funds we want to make sure go into infrastructure, but I want to make sure that council offices in conjunction with departments are able to make flexible decisions on how these resources are spent without having to come to city council. For every small decision, every small decision here. So so that's something I that's a question I would say I would pose this to the EEOC chair. How would you respond? Councilmember Richardson I think that's a very fair question. And if we can ask Miss Erickson to identify how much of the 2.666 million is absolutely restricted and where there might be some flexibility. Vice Mayor Lowenthal Right now, the boss recommendation was for capital infrastructure programs. As the Council member stated, in past years, City Council has chosen to have a carve out of a certain amount for program existing programing. So last year that was $50,000. So right now there's the recommendation stands. It is for capital infrastructure programs and it would be up to city council to to identify if there would be any exceptions to that. It should be noted, and the city attorney can speak to this more. There is a process for how this funding can be designated. It really does need to be department. Existing programs, existing capital, infrastructure needs. And and so that would stay and no matter and so any exceptions to that would need to come to city council. So before Mr. Attorney answers, I just to be consistent, I think that portion that we had slated for economic development, I think that was the catchall flexibility. I'm sorry. There was I'm not sure that there was not approved in the economic times. But in our conversation for the carve out, examples of economic development projects came up, such as developing bids along new business corridors, major business corridors. And so I think if if the council member would like to see that retained in this process, we could ask our council colleagues to consider that. Mayor and Vice Mayor. The the problem with having the carve out for the economic development, those would have to come back for a vote of five members of the council to spend that money. You couldn't make that decision tonight under the charter because under 208, the body acts as a whole to identify those projects and approve those projects. The individual council officers doesn't do not have the authority to make those decisions and spend those funds here. How will you divide by nine? You have the capital infrastructure program divide by no money, which is approved by the council and then existing programing which has already been adopted or approved. But outside of that exception, you while you could bring those projects back, you do need five votes of the council to act. Okay. So just to give some examples. Last year we didn't see it coming, but we were blessed enough to receive some funding to host the beach streets. And the whole city came to North Long Beach and the funding received the 250 $300,000 was fantastic. We received it, but the investment was much greater. And so we had to go through the process, identify which of our one times was flexible, which we're not to be able to support our business district to actually host an event of that magnitude. And it was good that I was able to look back, identify some of those resources that have flexibility to do to respond to those things. Another example would be, I know that there's been sort of inconsistencies about whether one time resources can be spent on planning efforts. Right. So I know there's been a number of planning efforts across town and know that I'm planning to I'm working on a planning effort now. Some of those years we did not have that. Some years. We do. And there's a direct impact on infrastructure. But the interpretation, you know, depending on who you speak with in city staff, is that doing a master plan for a corridor is not necessarily infrastructure, whereas it has a direct connection to infrastructure. Right. Another example I brought up an example of murals. Well, I've heard inconsistent examples of of of murals, whether a mural or using art to mitigate graffiti is an accessible use of your one time infrastructure. So what I'm asking is if there's a if we have the legal ability to do tonight, I think we should say no more than say I would propose something like no more than 50% of your District nine funds, no more than 50% can be spent. You can have the flexibility in partnership with your with the appropriate departments to have to basically have that flexibility on those things. So like a fifth. So instead of like a $50,000 threshold for whatever is divided tonight, 50% of it infrastructure as defined by our city attorney, the other 50% can still be infrastructure, but if it ends up being murals, programs, anything that does not require direct vote of city council, like if you're going to give away money to a rancho or something that probably would need to come to city council, a public, public benefit projects. That's the way I would define it. So how would you respond to that? Ms.. Madam Chair. Vice Chair, Budget Committee Chair, Vice Mayor. All of it. All of that. All of it. So when we've had this discussion before, the 50%, because we have such a dire need for infrastructure. Council members have been reticent about that. So I think it's helpful to hear from Alice. Um, um. I just know that. When these resources are used for infrastructure, it has such a lasting impact and we don't have the infrastructure repair and restoration schedule that we'd like to. There was a time when we talked about whether it was tree trimming or the streets or the curbs, you know, can we be on a certain number of years doing it? Every certain number of years. And so being able to spend it as council districts really helps carry us through until the public works department can take the overall approach. And so. I think it'd be helpful to hear from other colleagues, but I, I struggle with that 50% because it's such a small amount as it is. I mean, you can spend $200,000 on one ADA block, right? So I think that becomes challenging. So. So I'd like to come back to that. Just have one or two other things I'd like to just comment on and then we'll hear from the rest of our colleagues. So. So I think it's important that we do invest in things like our like our Rancho. And I hear the the information about plan check and that all make sense. We've got a number of facilities across town that absolutely need those sorts of resources. I would ask, what would be the difference if, let's say we wanted to do some other plan effort, right? If we wanted to do a master plan on a corridor. Versus right now. I need to use my district nine one times to do a master plan or a plan check or something like that. I have to use that. So why are we taking a different approach here? By allocating $100,000 to something that our one times can be spent on. So maybe we can just elaborate whoever the maker of that motion is. Maybe just elaborate on why these particular projects are exceptions to the way that the rest of us treat our district assets. Yes. Can I. Yeah. Okay. So the question was, what is the difference between the corridor planning efforts that may be funded through one time funds? Is there a certain particular reason? And it's not a huge deal to me, but is there a particular reason? We've carved out these two specific locations and I get their historic significance relevance to our city. You mean the ranchos? Yeah. Right. Why did. Why did we specifically spell these out? Whereas. I just think we're not necessarily and I would like to for the sake of conversation, I'd like to be consistent. I understand that certain people feel that certain things are citywide assets. But the reality is, some people would say that the restoration of the clubhouse at Houghton Park is a citywide asset. Or so some. Would say, a public art piece of city. Warehouses. And I knew that. I'll go ahead. Yes. So if we as council members determine something as a priority in our district, I've seen over the last five years we've spent our own one times to make that happen. If that's so, I'm guessing what I'm struggling with is how is how are these two projects different from any other projects important to a district that might have a citywide value? And I know Councilmember Austin and Price might like to address that. If I can just briefly state, because there are several of those examples in the second district as well. You have the aquarium, you have the Queen Mary. And how I've regarded that is their city owned property. You know, we talk about assets, maybe having financial value as well as other benefits, but when we just look at them as city owned property, if we don't contribute to their upkeep, it's deferred cost, right? It's deferred maintenance, it's deferred costs. And at some point that dollar amount becomes larger. And it's still our responsibility because they're city owned properties. And so maybe assets might not be the right word to use because we're not clearly specifying that we own these pieces of property and it is in the city's best interest to ensure their upkeep. So I think that makes that makes a lot of sense. I don't I think that's a good response for me. And I would say I can absolutely support that. Let's make sure we remember that to forward the whole council. Well, let's remember that, because I would say there are projects that maybe haven't received that level of maintenance that are very significant to our city and maybe we just haven't had the exposure to it or the education to it. So let's just remember that moving forward, the last thing I would say is I think it's great that we're investing in municipal band and in those things. I would say that just to provide a little bit of context, the concerts in the Park series have really emerged and local communities have adopted them and embrace them and put their own brand on them. The communities that do not have municipal band performances, and I can say that to a municipal band performance, would likely be like into our Latin Jazz Festival at Highland Park. It's to me it's the same thing. Thousands of people show up. It's a great way to to get involved in your community. So in the same spirit of the last of the last item I think is great we invest in our ranchos I think is great we invest in municipal band but this is yet again two items here in these recommendations that have that are not like they're geographically not located in certain portions of town. And so I would say I can support. Making investments in municipal bond. But I'd like to hear how we can also invest in our concerts in the Park series and the way and the way that we've done it here that incentivizes raising funds, external funds. I think that's great. There are actually fundraising efforts going on around town to support things like our festivals. So I'd love to hear Madame Vice Mayor, like, what could we do to support our concerts in the park in the same way that we support our municipal band? I think that's a fair question as well. You know, we have areas throughout the city that the concerts in the park are just better received. And I agree that we should provide some level of support currently. How would you say it's currently funded? Is it? I think that would be a better question for for park staff. I know that personally that some of the concerts in the park were not as well-attended as, say, a muni band. So we invested in certain ones to bring in the art, bring in the the talent and the entertainment that really brought it up to that level . So I think there was a memo that Parks and Recreation sent out that said that a muni band I mean, excuse me, a concert in the park, they they likened it to about $6,000, was what it cost to really invest in that. So even so, if we were to make some sort of an effort, I would like to look at those areas of town that aren't particularly impacted by the Muni band and see if we can find some resources maybe that recommend that number that staff put out in the memo, the $6,000 per area would be something to help support those efforts and think that would just be fair. Absolutely. And I think Mr. Scott is sitting right behind you, if we can hear from him. Mayor, members of the city council, Councilmember Richardson. You are correct. The community band concerts or community concerts run roughly $6,000. I do want to point out, though, since 2012, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine has not provided a community concert series. Any of the community concerts that occur throughout the community are either led through community organizations or other fundraising activities. Council officers and council officers? That is correct. Do you know, Mr. Scott, how many concerts we had this last fiscal year? Four concerts in the park series. Five. Four. It looks like about five. Okay. So. I agree with you, Mr. Rich. Councilmember Richardson I do think that and I can point out communities where a concert in the park would go a lot farther than than a municipal band. And I think this council should look at that. Great. Let's say we hear from more councilmembers, but thank you for acknowledging that. I think those are the rest of my comments at this point. Okay. Thank you. We're now moving on to Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. Thank you to the bossy Vice Mayor Lowenthal Council, Stacey Mungo and Suzie Price. I know this has been you know, you have to be very diligent because so many different priorities come about. But this is, I think, a very fruitful discussion we're having. And I see here where it could be very, you know, important going forward and how very important it is for much of our district, but again, city wide. And so, uh, I want to. Sorry. I'm just losing my train of thought here. My apologies. So first I wanted to clarify, actually, as we're talking about the municipal band, I believe there was discussion about adding it to other districts. So Stephen, can you discuss that a little bit more? I guess I'm not clear as to I know Districts one, District six and District nine do not have concerts in the park currently by the municipal band. From what I understand. Mayor, members of the City Council, you're correct. There are several districts that do not have municipal band concerts, council districts, 167, they'll close to Los Cerritos Park and Council districts nine. And so the series right now. Is split across the third, fourth. Fifth and eighth districts. The additional week of municipal band is slated to maintain the existing schedule or nightly schedule for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. But that's something that we could look at for the additional week for that Tuesday night concert in additional location outside of the five week schedule. Okay. And that would just be one additional location. So perhaps rotated between the the districts that do not have or what I mean, is there any thought in that as to what would how that would be implemented? Well, there would there would only. Be one additional concert through this six weeks. So we are all very hopeful that the friends of the municipal band are going to be extremely successful with their fundraising efforts. I think they have goals to even exceed a six week and I think in the future. As we look. At those at their fundraising, if it's an opportunity to expand even. Further, there would be additional. Opportunities to expand. To other areas of the city. Just to clarify, I know we consider a concert, but we're really talking about four additional performances. If you include the 30 and the 30 will be fundraiser. That's I think that's right. Sees that every Tuesday four. So that would be every Tuesday of the month, correct? I think it would depend whether you add an additional week and multiple concerts or whether you added an additional concert to every week. So it just would really depend. Right. Great. Um, okay, good. So I just wanted to clarify to ensure, I mean, again, I kind of reiterate what Councilmember Richardson is saying. I do believe, you know, we should have it widespread. And I think it's also a very big city asset. And people love seeing the municipal band and it's very apparent. And to have that in different areas would be would be great. Um, so secondly, I have a, let me think here had my notes and then now they're, they're gone for some reason. Okay. I also wanted to mention the appropriation for PATH, which I think is very important. Our city prosecutor does some great work, and I think it's been very important to to have this this program available. And then lastly, the graffiti abatement, I just wanted to thank Vice Mayor Lowenthal for bringing that up, because I know that graffiti abatement in all of our city sometimes oftentimes does not happen over the weekends. And I think it's important to get tagging down, especially if they're gang related and get them down in a very fast and a very expedient way and I think are a million for for for that information actually are if you want to come up , I just want you if you can just clarify what that will mean, because I know some residents all over the city have asked about graffiti abatement on the weekends. And so this $50,000, what that breaks down to in terms of weekends and what that looks like. Honorable Mayor and honorable council members are a graffiti program currently is between Monday and Fridays. This additional 50,000 basically will cover the weekend. So we're estimating about $500 a day. So weekends will be about $1,000 and 52 weeks. Our original estimate was $52,000. We're grateful for 50 if it's approved. And that will take care of all the graffiti abatement during the weekends. Just want to give you some more data. We're averaging about 250 tags a day, translates to about 7000 a month. And that's that's the effort that's being to to to mitigate the graffiti. And unfortunately, you know, I don't have the data with me, but it's it's tags. It's by location. And we we use square footage to cover them up. We have a very robust graffiti program. I'm very proud of that. It's very advanced. And we use Go Long Beach. We use different methods of transferring that information to the contractor to abate the graffiti. We are even to a point that we match the colors when they're painting. This is high level of service compared to the other city. So I have to say that we have a great, great program and buy this additional 50,000 of council awards that we will be having a seven day a week program. Great. That's wonderful. Thank you very much for the information. And what I will mention, I think Vice Mayor Lowenthal and I were discussing this is a better outreach program to let people know that there is this opportunity now on the weekends should this pass, because I think that would be very important for our residents to know and feel like they will call they will do go Long Beach and it will actually be taken care of. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember your income. Thank you, Barry. First of all, obviously, I want to thank the BBC for its work. It's difficult work. It can be very contentious, obviously, and can be very. Important in terms of what we come up with. But I got to say that we got it right. I mean, the B or C got it right in terms of making some adjustments that needed to be done, providing money for the additional for the additional rancho that we have with that did not exist before and also for funding the municipal band. However, everything comes with some with some issues in regards to the ranchos and the discussion that that had previously, I think it's important that when we fund these kinds of of city assets that we put some, some, some restrictions per se. I can't find the right word right now. But to put some some elements of citywide responsibility, for example, making sure that there are opportunities for our youth to visit the ranchos, to provide additional educational programs there, to provide additional historical perspectives of what the ranch was mean, where they came from. We originally know that they were Spanish land grants, Mexican land grants, in fact, back in the day. That is not adequately shared in that. Well, no, I think we need to expand on those things and we need to have the ranchers be more receptive to providing additional feedback. Let me rephrase it. Additionally, additional educational opportunities for people to learn about the history of the ranches and their and and the history of the Californians as a whole. The the municipal ban. We're adding some money there for them to expand their opportunities to have more concerts, which is fine. I totally agree with that. The issue I have with that is that I think they've been such a bit ingrained to visit only certain parks and on certain dates, on certain times that certain music. We need to have a variety. We need to diversify where the concerts in the park are held. I share as an example, I share a Municipal Ban concert with the eighth District at Little Cerritos Park. I have nothing in the website. I would love to see something happening in the West Side in West Long Beach. And you will always hear me talk about West Palm Beach, because when you look at my map and you look at my district, the West Palm Beach area is isolated. It's an island in Long Beach. You can only reach through crossing some bridges. And they have a lot of needs out there and there's a lot of cultural activities that don't take place out there because they're simply not provided. And we need to have that outreach out there. And I'd like to see some additional money go down there. Councilman Rich Richardson had a great jazz fest at North Long Beach that he put together himself with his. With his. One time funds. You know, I'd like to be able to do that, something like that in West Long Beach. I have a very diverse community in West Long Beach, something that I could provide if I had the resources. A great concert that would that would focus on that diversity of that West Palm Beach community. So I would love to see something like that. Which brings a final to my third point, which is, are these one time funds that we're talking about divide by nine? You know, if it's divide by nine and I have responsibility in my district to use those funds, I want to use them like I feel like I can use unrestricted. I want to be able to decide if I need it for for a sidewalk fight, if I needed to. A tree, a trip tree, a trim, trim, a tree. I want to be able to use it. Or if I need it to knock off a mural, put a mural up there, or do something beneficial that's going to end up being beneficial for the community or for public safety purposes or whatever. I want to be able to have that discretion. Now, does it mean that I want to do it on my own or that I'm going to do it unilaterally? Of course I would talk to my two department staff, those that are involved. Of course I would do that. It's my responsibility to be responsible as a council member, but I also want to be responsive. To my community. And my community has a lot of needs. They they want to see a lot of things happening out there. I met with a constituent today who wants to put put a Christmas tree in the middle of Willow and Santa Fe. I can't do it. Not right now. I don't have the discretionary funds to do it. But if I were able to have that discretionary fund in the future, certainly I could help support that because it would be a public benefit not only to that community, but to the city as a whole, especially when it's a main artery like Willow that comes into the city of Long Beach. So I. I'm going to support this budget, no question. But I do want to raise those issues for future discussion. We do have a fiduciary, fiduciary responsibility to accept it tonight. And and delaying anything would put us in trouble. I know that. But certainly something for future discussions of future royalties, maybe even a mid-year adjustment that we could make come March or so that we can put some aside money to to address some of the issues that that have been raised by my colleagues here today. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Andrews? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I'd like to thank Councilman Richardson to bring it up. You had him about two divided by nine. I think all of us, you know, would like to think that if we got that, we would be able to spend it as we please. But we doing it with responsibility. And I think in your communities, everyone would like to you to do things that they ask to. But you have to understand, we don't have that type of money. But I think right now we'll get in there. This budget is one of the best I've had since I've been on this council deal because all of a sudden we're solving for 4 to 6. The biggest point I'm asking for right now is that. Lena, I know you were talking about the graffiti program. This that you just brought up, I think is one of the best things that we've had here on this council since I've been here, because when I leave on Friday and all of a sudden I can go down the street and see graffiti everywhere that needs that. We probably won't get that until Monday. This I missed. Or I would just like to know where do we call in? Who do we get in touch with? If in a situation we do get this money in order to be able to do it on the weekends? Who do we get in touch with? The vice mayor or Ms.. Who I think Mr. Malloy in was clear from Councilmember Gonzalez's request that that has to be part of the promotion, because most of us don't know now that it would be available on the weekend. And so we hope to test that with him and his department to make sure that residents are aware that they can call the graffiti hotline on the weekend as well. But I think Mr. Malloy is here to answer that. Well, no, that's that that's that's fine. That's good to know. But I just want to, you know, really thank you, Lena, for doing that, because I think it's a great idea. And I think it really benefit the city of Long Beach because some of it's really out of line. So those are the only thing I have to ask in this budget. I would totally support it. Mr. Mayor, may I ask just on Councilman Andrew's point, are most of the requests coming in through go Long Beach or are they phone calls or. Mr. Malloy. Honorable mayor and honorable council members. But 90% of the calls go through the hotline and about 5 to 10% goes through the language. So on the hotline, is there an outgoing message? For instance, you know, you've received you've reached the hotline and. Wait for a customer service rep. Is that what it says? I don't know that. Okay. The answer to that question. But to also expand on Councilmember D's question, this will be an extension of existing programs. So whatever's happening today on Mondays, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Fridays will occur on Saturday and Sunday. So. So there are ways internally that we can promote this one is the scrolling messages on our city TV. Two is when you call City Hall, there's that hold time message. And in that message we could say and now we're open on weekends as well. So I think there are lots of ways that Mr. Malloy can identify that this could be marketed. Absolutely. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Then I'll make some closing comments. Councilman Orson. Thank you. And I want to thank my colleagues for all of their great comments and been a lot of insight here. I do. You know, as a as a district city councilmember, we are very fortunate to have a lot of great tradition in our community. We do benefit in my community. It looks forward to the municipal band playing every year. It wasn't just a few years ago that we were talking about eliminating that from the budget altogether. So to be having a conversation about restoring and actually doing extra more, more municipal band concerts is a says a lot about where we are as a city today. And I think the I actually would support expanding this tradition to to other areas of the city. Hearing from council members Gonzalez in Urunga and in Richardson in that regard, I think this budget actually can accomplish that and seeks to do that with provisions for extra concerts matching with the municipal band, doing some fundraising themselves. And it would only helps them by expanding their scope to other areas of the city. And so that's something I think we should look at doing. The tradition that I talk about is rich with the ranchos as well. I mean, these these ranchos are really the the genesis of our of our city and require our attention. Those ranchos are no longer maintenance then managed by the city of Long Beach. They are managed by the foundations, which I think make them unique in that regard. They don't get a whole lot of funding. They do get a an annual allocation. But when it comes to some of the maintenance issues with these these historic gems that we have in our cities, I think it is our responsibility to to pay attention to them. And so I'm glad we we're doing that as well in this budget. And I wanted to speak to the the the conversation regarding discretionary flexibility for council offices. I think that's important for us to have that in our infrastructure. I don't I've been a big voice for for infrastructure on this council since I've been here. I'll continue to do that. I know we have dedicated a great deal of one time funds and even our discretionary dollars, the eighth District, toward infrastructure improvements, streets, sidewalks. We're making progress. However, I do agree that the one size fits all model isn't necessarily the best model for for our city. Our districts are are different. Our city is diverse. We have different needs. And I think as council members, we should seek to to to recognize that as well in this budget as well. So I would hope that we can get to a place where there's a little bit more flexibility with the discretionary dollars that are coming our way. And I look forward to to supporting this budget with those. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you. I'll be very brief. I think it's important to I agree with the comments that my colleagues have made. I would encourage my colleagues to to. Really look. Holistically at the things that we do do as a city council, the projects that we support one another in. Sometimes there are projects that are very important to a specific. Group. Of residents in our community that may not impact other residents at all. And yet we support them because we understand that this is a very diverse city with different interests and different needs and different services that their constituents take advantage of. And I think it's important for us to all support one another. And and rather than saying, well, remember this, the next time something comes up, we should think more holistically about how we're allocating money citywide and supporting one another in the programs that we're trying to bring to the communities. I do want to highlight, we do have a legal contractual relationship with the ranchos that requires us as a city to provide some maintenance to those two facilities. And, and I completely agree with Councilman Yarrawonga regarding what the ranchos do in terms of giving back to the community. I know he knows this, but I think it's important to highlight that every student in the Long Beach Unified School District goes to both ranchos every year. It's a mandatory requirement and it's something that the ranchos put on in addition to the free tours that they give to the community and the fact that they open up those two facilities as a museum to every single member of the public. So I think that's really important. But the fact that our children tour that facility and learn about the history of and of that facility and its roots in Long Beach, and that that's part of the curriculum. At Long Beach Unified School District, as is the Long Beach Museum of Long Beach Art Museum, is also part of the Long Beach Unified School District curriculum, as is the symphony. So those are it's not just city resources or city assets that we've called them. They actually are facilities that our partners in the Long Beach College promise are utilizing to help deliver our end of the Long Beach College promise, which is inviting our children into those facilities. So I think that's really important. Never mind the liability that we may have in terms of these being city, city actually facilities. So with that said, I agree with all the comments that my colleagues made. And I think it's important that we, you know, support all the different programs, services and facilities that help every single one of our residents. I don't think you'll ever see me opposing something that any of my colleagues feel is going to benefit their constituents and their community in a positive way. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry. Yes. May I make a slight amendment to the verbiage of the motion? Yes, I was actually just. Trying to address that. Thank you. No, but I'm going to let I was going to just have the city attorney kind of repeat that piece and then you make the the adjustment that needs to be made. I just want to say a couple a couple comments. One, I want to start out by thanking the BBC. They've done really great work. And I think it's it's a lot of additional work to be part of that budget process. And so I want to thank all three members, especially Vice Mayor Lowenthal, for for walking us through that project. The second thing I want to mention is just so that everyone's aware, the municipal band is actually very much interested in expanding their programing to other parts of the city. And so I think that is a core part of what they're trying to do and discussing is how they expand their reach. And so that's something they've talked to me about. I know they've talked had a conversation with many others as well. And so we we all encourage that. And we're we're very hopeful that that will be occurring. And we want to thank them for for their commitment to doing that. Just a quick note about our ranchos. I think this is something that's always interesting to me is, you know, our ranchos are literally the birthplace of Long Beach. That is where our city's history was developed. And the great the great assets, of course, for for the entire city. And so I want to I want to thank both the council members who've been advocating for both of those of those ranchos as part of an important part of our of our history. Mr.. Mr.. City Attorney, there was a friendly amendment in discussion about the the amount of of the discretionary one time divided by nine money that the Council's proposed. I know that legally we want to make sure that we're working within the legal framework right now as the motion is presented by the boss. Can you just repeat at one time. Mayor remembers that council. The motion as proposed by the Bossie allows the use of the $2.666 thousand for capital infrastructure programs divided by nine. And that would include programs that, you know, are consistent with the city staff recommendation, with the normal capital and maintenance programing and decisions. And I think Vice Mayor 11,000 is going to do a perhaps a friendly amendment to that. Yes. So in addition to the language about capital infrastructure programs, can we add and existing programs. If I understand the existing city programs? So that would include operational expenditures for programs that are originated and developed by city staff and directed. Yes. Perfect. Okay. All right. Public comment on the item before us. Say Nonmembers, please go ahead and cast your votes. I do. Where do I see somebody from the left. Please come over here. Actually, you have to come up front if you have a comment. I just. I didn't prepare anything. You have to just state your name and converse. And what? State your name for the record, please. Carl Gunter. Okay. I have not prepared anything, but I. I was I had an issue of concern. So I'm also not really familiar with your program here, but I wanted to speak to these gentlemen of the room. I wanted to make a comment to the gentleman, if I could please. To the gentleman. Actually, right now we're only dealing with the the Budget Oversight Committee's recommendations so that you can comment on that. Or if it's something else, it would have to wait till the second public comment period. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I see no other public comment. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. Next. Exciting Vice mayor.

Recommendation to approve the use of the Sixth Council District's one-time infrastructure funds transferred from the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) into the Economic and Property Development (EP) in the amount of $80,000 to support the preservation of a historical and cultural asset at the top of the building located at 1030 Pacific Coast Highway; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute the necessary documents with World Famous VIP Records LLC, a private organization located in the City of Long Beach, in an amount of $80,000 to be used for the removal, restoration, historical landmark designation, and temporary storage of the iconic World Famous VIP Records sign, until a permanent location can be determined within the City of Long Beach; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Economic and Property Development Department (EP) budget by $80,000.

LongBeachCC_05092017_17-0366

The motion passes. Thank you. Item 22, please. Communication from Councilman de Andrews and Mayor Garcia. Recommendation to approve the use of the sixth District. One time infrastructure funds in the amount of 80,000 to support the preservation of the iconic world famous VIP record sign at the top of the building located at 1030 Pacific Coast Highway. Thank you. Councilman Andrews couldn't be here tonight, so he's asked that we move this item forward. And I know he's asked Mr. Kyser to do a short staff report for the council, and then we'll go back to the city council. Mr. Keisler. All right. All right, mayor, honorable mayor and members of the city council. Tonight I'm presenting a quick overview of world famous. VIP records. Sign Restoration. World famous. VIP. Is a longtime, locally owned small business. And a member of the Sussex District community. Over the past 38 years, VIP records. Has served as. Both a record shop and recording studio for talented young musicians. And many notable musicians got their start there, including. Snoop Dogg, Nate Dogg, Warren. G and others. The record store. And. Its iconic world famous. VIP sign is. An international tourist draw and an. Icon for the music. Industry as. Well as locally. It's located in can see in central Long Beach on Pacific Coast Highway near MLK. There's the picture on the right shows you. How close it is also to poly high school in in central Long Beach in the sixth district. So what we're proposing is that the city is going to support. Providing $50,000 to VIP's LLC to restore the world famous VIP record signed. This will include $30,000. For fundraising. Restoration costs directly related to the the requirements. To bring it back. Into its its condition and absorb the cost for the removal storage of the sign and assist with temporary storage. Until a permanent home within the city. Boundaries is established. World famous VIP records will retain complete ownership of the sign throughout the process, all intellectual property associated with the sign and has agreed to. Work toward restoring the sign within 24 months upon the execution of the. Agreement and any fundraising associated with restoring the sign over and above the amount that the city can provide. World famous VIP and Kelvin Anderson, the owner of the. Sign, have agreed to move forward with making this sign a historical landmark and maintain that the sign will. Stay in the city boundaries. Where it where all. This historic activity began. And ultimately our next steps are to move forward with executing an agreement. For both parties removal and restoration of the. Iconic sign temporary storage, and then identifying a permanent location and reinstalling it. So with that, I will end my staff report and be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. There's a motion and a second to make a public comment, and I'll go to you first. Okay. Is there a public comment on the motion before we go to the council? Please come forward. Go ahead. By. My name is Ramon. I'm in the fifth district. This is a this is an interesting sign. I like it. But I don't feel that this is an appropriate use of of funds for using taxpayer money. I know that we have already some office holding accounts that seems more appropriate, more of a freedom of speech thing, I think. However, I also notice that. I think the. Costs are significant to our city. I'm certainly willing to to undercut the price that this guy has done. I don't know how he's getting the contract. I'm certainly willing to do everything that this guy is going to do for $5,000 or less. So I don't know how are you going to beat this thing out, but I'd like to be part of that. And if it's necessary. I will certainly look for that. I'd like to work with my councilwoman or District six, and when those bids go out, I'd like to be part of that. Thank you. Thank you. Are there public comment? Please come forward. Good afternoon. My name is Michael Baker. I'm a business owner here in Long Beach. I own a barbershop next to the AP records. I am a native here in Long Beach, and I can remember when we used to buy vinyl records and VIP records. Where we used to see. Different entertainers like jazz entertainers, country western entertainer. It was just a place where people could go buy music during the old days. We had a lot of record store here in L.A. County. And to have a VIP record here at Long Beach, where we were able to see different artists be able to buy vinyls every week, be able to buy tapes, CDs. Some of you guys probably don't know vinyl CDs, but we used to have those back in the days. And VIP records were always there to supply us. And if we didn't have the music there, they always was able to supply us with it. Whenever you think of Long Beach. Throughout the world, people know VIP records, people, travelers from all over the world just to look at VIP records, not only just for the different artists who came to be BRP records, but it's just like when you think of Long Beach, you think of VIP records and the guy earlier said it all. I'm just trying to piggyback a little bit of history on it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Speaker, please. Hello again, Cami Johnson from KABC on Bay City College. And I'm here to actually I'm is a fortunate day that we've come here because we've come here to celebrate diversity in our community and representation of different racial groups and different groups of cultural standing. Because today, you know, we're marking the day that we are standing on a culture icon and this is a worldwide cultural icon. And no disrespect to the AAPI community or the Latin American community or any other community, but they are highly, highly represented through a mola, through the Pacific Islander Museum. And this is just the first step beyond just a record store, but as actually a cultural significance to the African-American community. This is history we're making today. And so I'm just here to let you know that this is more than just a record store. This is more than just buying vinyl. This is more than just the history. This is more than anything you can possibly imagine. This is a worldwide phenomenon. We're sitting in our own community and there are people from all over the world, Germany, Japan, that I've seen specifically just coming to my website to just find out more about what's going on with VIP and Long Beach. When people come to California, they come to Long Beach, they say, okay, Queen Mary. But second to that is VIP records. And so therefore, I just want to let you know that this vote is important to our African-American community and all people of color in our community that need to be represented in such a phenomenal way. Thank you very much. Thanks so much. Next speaker, please. Hello, everyone. Mayor Garcia, the council members, I am indeed honored to be here today. First of all, I'd like to thank the mayor for embracing me and sitting down with me to discuss a lot of possibilities. Like to also thank in his absence the Andrew's and the mayor for getting us to this point that we are today . Special thanks. Go out to John Keisler, John Edmond and John's assistant, Isabella, who have been working above and beyond to support VIP in this movement. It's a may the mayor year a little over a year ago. I have packed it in. I felt like that I did all I could do in Long Beach. I just kind of felt kind of disconnected on love and what a different year and a few months make. Because today I feel optimistic. I feel included. I have a new relationship now with the city that I haven't had for many years. And, you know, it's just a great feeling and a great possibility for the future. I look back over the 38 years I've been a businessman in this city, you know, the love, the respect that I have been shown over the years of being here, the love that I have for this city and shown to this community. You know, I think back over the times, you know, when gang violence and stuff with at an all time high in the early nineties and I just felt that I had to do something to help the kids in the community. And that's what led me to open a record in a small recording studio in the back of my store. And as you are, many, you know, is that that is the launch pad for artists like Warren Snoop Ricky Harris, rest in peace and and others. And, you know, I got a chance to, uh, you know, save lives. I wish I was able to say even more. But, you know, with where we are today and moving forward, I feel that my work is not done in Long Beach. And I feel that there's a lot more that can be done to create opportunities for youth moving forward and in this community. And I just thank you for this opportunity and thank you for connecting with me. Youth. Many years ago, I had a great relationship with this city. I was looking through some of my accommodations, both city, state and government that I received in the years past. And it's a I feel today that I can have that new relationship in a new beginning. And I thank you all for this time. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, Mayor Garcia and Councilmember City Attorney. I want to thank you, Mayor, honestly, for your amazing leadership and guidance. And Councilman Diaz and John Edmunds and Keisler, we're not taking steps today to restore a sign. We're taking the first step to preserve legacy. It's Long Beach legacy. It's Calvin Anderson's legacy, but it's also the legacy of black music. There was a time when slaves were banned from playing loud instruments or dancing. There was a time when greats like Sammy Davis Jr performed for thousands but could not use the same restroom. And today, we're taking the steps to make a sign that represents hope. Because the truth is, that sign built its name and its brand in a toughest area of Long Beach where we had the highest crime and unemployment. There was a beacon of hope outside of Hollywood or New York that you could just walk down the street and pick up the mic for the first time, or maybe play an instrument for the first time. And although we didn't think that that was or he didn't think that was going to save every life and everyone was going to be a rapper or a singer, it. Gave a platform. And what our hope is today is that this is not a District six project. This is stemming because of the faith of District six. But it's a citywide project. And we hope that we can work with all of the council members to really help restore this legacy, preserve it, and provide opportunities in different districts to further the education so that young people can touch and see the stars they dream of, and they're not so far away. And so we take the city's faith in us very seriously. We have mobilized the best of historic landmark experts, preservation experts, so that we can ensure that the sign is restored and that the integrity is held in place . And together we will work with the city, follow the city's lead, and at times are going to have to follow our lead. And together I think we're going to really create something amazing for Long Beach. So thank you. And we hope that you will support us today. And just one more thing. I thought I would use this moment to market our new line of clothing in honor of Mr. Richardson's new baby. So this will be the smallest VIP clothing line ever. Mr. RICHARDSON So we just wanted to thank you guys. Sorry for the PR plug. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I think this is our final comment, Mr. Good here, and then we'll go back to the Council for discussion. Very good here. This city is fortunate to have no shortage of members of the African-American community there. It's a city can take, proud of and do outstanding jobs and have a wide range of a wide spectrum of. Events and undertakings in this city. Unfortunately, I think. The stigma associated with this for the individual that one police in the article that you've seen a few times. Refer to as Long Beach is number one thug. The degenerate snoop dog overshadows that. So I think the best place to hang that, quite frankly. That sign and keep it. Is in the top floor of. The Long Beach City Jail, period. Well, given the amount of blood that Snoop Dogg was responsible for spilling on the sidewalks, in the. Streets of. This city and his treatment of women. Thank you. Okay. Coming back to the city council, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I've had an opportunity to speak with Councilman Andrews and his team. And so I want to applaud the mayor, the council member, the community for coming back in fairly prompt, short period of time with a plan to restore this. There's no question to me or to to others on the city council that this is not, you know, that this isn't anything else but a symbol and an emblem of our own cultural tapestry and our history. And it says that, you know, we as a city take seriously art and culture and historic preservation of all of our all of our our communities here in Long Beach. And they all have specific value. And there's no question how much value has been brought to Long Beach by the activity that took place have taken place historically within the VIP record. So I'm I'm happy to make this this motion. And I encourage the city council to support the most of this action tonight on behalf of Councilman Andrews. Thank you. Councilwoman Price for the second. Thank you. I'm happy to support this item as well. I will say as a point of clarification, because we did receive some emails today that this is a project that's being led by Councilman Andrews. It's a it's a project that he has worked in collaboration with the mayor and others in our community to bring forth and to fund. He is using his discretionary money to do it. And I think when we think about projects that enhance a community, sometimes there are projects that aren't quantifiable but mean a great deal to the people and the community where the improvement is being made. And so I wholeheartedly support his his decision to to support the community and anything that he wants to do in regards to this this particular request, I wholeheartedly support and I think thank his team for working with the community on it. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Pierce. Yeah. I want to thank everybody that's worked really hard to educate the council and staff about the importance of the sign. But I really want to say that in the last couple of years, Vice Mayor and myself have really, along with everyone on this council, talked about equity and preserving the sign. While it's something that Councilmember Andrews has decided to do out of his direct funds, I think that preserving the history of the artist that performed there, that sold their albums there and the people that go into VIP records is so important to Long Beach. I'm from Texas, from Houston, Texas, and VIP records was something I grew up with. And so being able to move here and to see that we are a city that's going to preserve that history, not knowing what that next step is is really important to me. And so I wholeheartedly support this. And I want to applaud you guys for making sure that we've found a way to preserve the history and to be able to tell the stories of that struggle and how we come out of that and make our lives what we need them to be. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And also like to just, Lynn, my support and say that I will enthusiastically support this this item. I want to congratulate Mayor Garcia and of course, sixth District Council member Diane Andrews for for reaching a resolution that I think is going to be one that the community will appreciate that that hip hop, hip hop artist and enthusiasts throughout the country will appreciate it is a a symbol, an iconic landmark for for our city. Any time that somebody visits from out of town, it's a it's a destination point for me to show off our city. Much like in Hollywood, there's Capitol Records and the Hollywood Sign VIP records. That symbol in the Central District or central area of our community is is is a symbol of of of something that many of us grew up on. I know it's important to my generation. And so I'm happy. And I was rooting on us to get to a solution, a resolution here. This is one of those issues where, you know, you take the lead of the the councilmember in that district. And I'm proud of the that the Andrews was able to make this happen. So I'm happy to support. And congratulations, Mr. Anderson. Thank you. And before we get to a vote, I just want to just first that Mr. Anderson, thank you for being a small business owner in Long Beach for almost 40 years. And I think that is. You know, over over those over those many decades, you provided a lot of jobs. You provided a lot of opportunity for youth. You opened your store when there was a lot of gang violence and challenges within the central Long Beach and across the city. And so I just want to just take us for a moment beyond just voting for this project. I just wanted to honor you as well for your incredible commitment to the community and to Long Beach, because I think that it's hard to be a small business owner, you know that. But to do it and to open a business and to remain committed to the legacy of a VIP and to the location and your your effort in this process is really commendable. So I just want to start by by thanking you for for that. I just also want to add that talked to a few folks as well. The truth is that VIP records is is the most famous hip hop records brand in the country, if not the world. And so when people think about famous record stores across the country and famous places that sold music and music developed within within the hip hop community and that type of music, VIP records is incredibly well known across the world. And in fact, I can't you know, oftentimes folks will will tag you or send you photos of places they are in Long Beach. And I constantly get pictures of people that take photos over by the VIP sign. I'm on PCH. And so I think that this is about certainly preserving their VIP legacy, but it's also about the history of Long Beach. And I think we have to honor all of our history and our history in the city has there's a lot of great things about our history, whether it's the Navy, whether it's the arrival of the Queen Mary. Whether it's the development of hip hop music and West Coast rap that developed in Long Beach, whether it's a variety of other parts of our history, they're all a part of our city. And so and whenever we can preserve our history and this is part of our history, I think is really important regardless of the type of music or the location or all of that. And so I'm really happy that we're at this place today. And the last thing I'll say is, not only is VIP records an important part of the history of Long Beach and the development of music, it's also an important part of black history. And I think that it's important to recognize that within our African-American community in the city and the development of that community within Long Beach, this is also an important part of that history within the community. And I've heard that consistently from numerous members of our African-American community within the city of Long Beach. And so for all for those reasons and others, I want to thank Councilman Andrews for taking the lead on this issue. He wanted to be here, couldn't. But I told him that I would kind of speak in his stead. I know I speak for both of us when I when I when I give these remarks. And I want to thank the council for supporting this and look forward to a strong partnership in the future. So contemplate, please cast your votes. Motion carries. Great. Congratulations. Okay. We are. And just to make it just also sure announce it. We're going to be doing the we have a hearing and then after the hearing, we're going to be moving up item 19 to the front of the agenda. And then we'll go will be we'll be going on to the rest of the agenda as well. And we also have we also have public comment, which we'll do right after the hearing. Okay. And so with that, we'll begin the hearing and turn it over to the clerk to begin that pass.

A bill for an ordinance setting the salary of the district attorney for the second judicial district. Amends Section 18-95 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to amend the salary of the District Attorney for the four-year term beginning 2021 through 2024. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-15-20.

DenverCityCouncil_12212020_20-1553

12 eyes. Resolution 1436 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Bill 1553. Councilman Hines, will you please put 1553 on the floor for publication? Jesse Benton, president of the Council. Will 2553 be ordered published second? Q It's been moved and seconded by Councilman Herndon. Questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you. Madam President, I wanted to go on record voting no for this one. Asked my constituents what they felt about this salary increase, and I heard from them loud and clear that this is not a salary increase they feel is appropriate at this time. I'm wondering if there's a possibility to get a courtesy public comment when we get this on second. You know, let me check with our Madam Secretary, because that's a unique request that I don't believe we've entertained before, especially around a salary increase for an elected official. And so, Madam Secretary, or I know we have Kirsten Crawford on the line as well. Good evening. Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Counsel. And it you know, you're you're absolutely right in the sense that that is not something that we've considered before, because it is an action that has to be taken. Set with the before the term of the day begins. And it's also you know, the rationale behind the law is that they salaries shall be set for the four year term to de-politicize the the setting of the salary. Nevertheless, the rules allow the council president to have the discretion to hold a courtesy public hearing if you are deemed appropriate. And then we would have to also consider later at that time what implications, if anything, were to change in the bill, because that could trigger, you know, a new publication, which then would potentially jeopardize the deadlines that were under. And I certainly think it would be good to hear from our council parliamentarian as well. Hey, Marcus, you're here. So it does look like, you know, if there's no legal ramifications that we do not have any public hearings scheduled for January 4th, which would be the final consideration of this bill. So it would just be a request at this point if legal is allowing that. Okay. Thank you. Well, I would like to have the opportunity, since it's my decision finally to think on this a little bit and think about the ramifications, because this is for a currently elected official, but that it's also setting the salary for their. The person that comes in after them if they are not reelected. So I'd like to have a little bit of time to think about that. We've got a little bit of time before the January four council meeting, and so I will make sure and get back to you on that, Councilwoman CdeBaca And we've got a few more folks who are up in the queue, and so I'm going to go ahead and go to them. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. If Kyrgyzstan is still here, what would trigger a republication? Of this, if this were introduced and published tonight, in your opinion, what would what would cause it to have to be delayed for another publication, which would put it beyond the date of the swearing in. If there were any changes to the. Any substantive changes, I think, to the title or the description. So the title. Yeah. Okay. I'm looking at the title. Just setting the salary. Right. I don't see how any. It's you know, it's a it's a very good point. I mean, I, I was just giving you as much information to consider since. Thank you. It's coming up last minute. Sure. And if I could ask Councilwoman Black, who chairs the committee, I apologize for my clock here. I'm a I. I'm not a member of the committee, so I did not attend it. And I had some other work that prevented me from viewing the video. But I and I did talk to the district attorney McCann, and I believe she's actually in our audience as well. But I understand that this was amended from in committee, from what was originally submitted. And I want to understand how we got to this point where the raises are set out for a year one, two, three and four. And I don't know if Councilwoman Black can answer that for me. Mm hmm. We can go ahead. She's next up in the queue. So, Councilwoman Black. Thank you. Just as a clarification, the. The bill includes no raise in 2021. Right. Right. And then a raise in 2022. Only if other city employees also get a raise and then a raise in 2023. Only if other employees get a raise. And what was amended at the request of Councilwoman Sawyer and we all agreed was that in that fourth year, the raise would also be contingent on other city employees getting a raise. So we made that amendment. Yep. All right. So is this consistent with the previous years? But as a reminder, there is no raise in 2021 at all. Right. And I did want to point out that we had public comment scheduled for fin gov and nobody signed up for it. We did have a long discussion about the proposal that McCain was there. And I think. People were satisfied with her proposal and with this amendment that Councilman Sawyer suggested. Thank you, Councilwoman. Madam President, I would I would have preferred that the raises not just be contingent on pay increases for career service individuals city citywide, but that it not be a fixed 3% in years three and four. But it be the average of these career service wages. And I did have a discussion with District Attorney McCann about this. I know that there are some inequities in the level of pay between Denver and the first judicial district, which is Jeffco Gilpin, where they are paid the DA is paid more but handles fewer cases, I believe , than than our in our district attorney's office. But I, I really would have preferred the. That the races in years three and four be pegged to the average raise for city employees rather than being its career service in 2023. Got a 2% raise, then the district attorney gets 3%. So I'm a little troubled by that. Madam President, I listen to the rest of the discussion here. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. Well, as was said earlier today, just because we can doesn't necessarily mean that we should. And I appreciate Councilwoman Black giving that summary, because I was going to ask that that be done. So there's no raise for 2021 in the future. Years are contingent upon what happens with our city employees. So I'm just questioning. What will come out of a public comment in regards to that. Maybe with the exception of just encouraging council members to lower the salaries. I don't I don't know at all. But the idea of having time of we have to do this, this is and you can't just vote no, we are required to set the salaries. So it just my thought, Madam President, certainly your decision. But I that's just what I wanted to add to the comment. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman CdeBaca, we've got a couple other council members up. I'm going to go ahead and bounce to them. Councilman Kimmich. Thank you, Madam President. And to my colleagues who weren't there, Councilman Flynn, in particular, you raised a question about the amount. We did have a pretty extensive discussion that city employees don't actually get an across the board amounts. So when, for example, the city says we are going to give merit raises at the average of 2.9%. City employees might get a raise as high as 4% or as low as two, depending on their performance, depending on which quadrant they're in and, you know, where they're at in their in their particular scale. And so I think for me, I raised the point that it's very difficult to say that it will be pegged to which city employee, to the city employee who gets the best merit score to the city employee who get you know, gets the average. And so so I think that, you know, for predictability of budgeting, frankly, you know, I don't see the second issue that I raised personally was just the question that that there is no other elected official whose salary is set to be variable based on that factor that council salaries do are based. The council mayor and other elected salaries are based on a formula that looks backwards at city employee raises as part of the formula. But it's not that those but then we pick the amount and we distribute it as a certainty each year. So I think that this is already unique in saying that the salary increase may not happen at all if city employees don't get it. And I think to make it further contingent would just be a little bit inconsistent with how we treat the clerk and recorder and the auditor there. You know, the other thing that I thought was compelling is that the state of Colorado pays for more than $100,000 of this salary, which is it makes it unique as well. So just a few things that came up at committee that may or may not be important to folks, but just wanted to get them on the record since we're we're having a little version of that debate. So important questions about timing. But I also just wanted us to think about, you know, consistency between electeds who, you know, are also city wide electeds like our clerk and our auditor who are not subject to those conditions. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Canete. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilmember Flynn, I have the same question as Councilmember Orange said. We did we did talk about that. And and because of the timing, it just made it difficult to do a lot of the detailed discussion beyond what councilmember. So the only other thing that that I mentioned that that I want to put on the record is it was alluded to by President Gilmore, and that was we I hope that we have a day of color or even better, a woman of color who is our district attorney at some point. And if we if we start all races now, then that makes the position less competitive for for attorneys who can make way more money in the private practice and not have their houses physically protested or personally in person protested, or have all of their decisions open for scrutiny. So, you know, I it's it's a lot of money. It's more money than I've ever made. But but I'm also not a well qualified attorney. And and so, again, hopefully someday we can have an idea of color or even better, a woman of color. And I wouldn't want there to to be a huge deficit between what the D.A. makes and what what private attorneys make. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Well, thank you, Councilman Hines, and your backup, Councilwoman CdeBaca. We have this on the floor to vote on its publication. So after your comments, we're going to go ahead and vote on the publication of this. Awesome. Just a quick comment and a question. The comment is regarding having the public input session at committee ten 3130 in the day is often a major challenge for regular people to be able to tune in and participate because many of them are working all day long and don't have the ability that we have to set aside time and do some public testimony. And so I understand that it happened that finger and believe that the public should have an opportunity any time they like to address us, especially if the things that they're planning to address are going to be helpful for us in the future. And my question for Kirsten is we know this has to the salaries need to be set, but because the salary needs to be set, does that mean it needs to also be increased? Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council. It's a good question. No, there's no requirement to increase. It could be frozen over the four year period. That is a decision that council needs to make prior to the term of office beginning. Got it. Thank you very much. That's it from my questions. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn, your backup. Just quickly, Madam President. Thank you. I am going to vote yes to publish because we have to have this finalized by the next meeting. So there's no doubt about that. But I am uncertain on the amount of the raise as as is Councilwoman CdeBaca. So I want to I will talk more with colleagues and with the D.A. and with others over the holiday. And and. Kirsten, I suppose that we could amend this on final because we're not changing the title. Correct. Silence means consent. Right. I'm not sure about that. Well. Just assume they're sending a child back in there. I'll just assume it does. And I do understand, as Councilwoman Kennedy said, that the the merits of the pay raises for career service are that they have an average and everybody gets something different depending on performance. But I would have much rather seen this pegged to the actual career service average overall raise rather than 3% no matter what career service gets. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And so the motion on the floor is to order Council Bill 20 Dash 1553 ordered published. Madam Secretary, roll call. CDEBACA No. Clark. I. When I. Herndon. I. Hi. Hi. Cashman High. Image. I. Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. One knee. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. Bill 1553 has been ordered published. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or a block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Hines, would you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration, for final passage on the floor? Thank you, Madam President. I hope that the proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on final consideration and do pass for a block for the following items. 20 Dash 1560 420 Dash 1430 420 Dash 1430 920 Dash 14 2020 Dash 14, 26, 20 Dash 14, 2720 Dash 1437, 29, 1438, 20 Dash 11 7120 Dash 13, 1120 Dash 13 1320 Dash 1340 220 Dash 1340 420 Dash 1340 520 Dash 1380 620 Dash 1401 20 Dash 1406 2514 1220 Dash 14 1320 Dash 1430 320 Dash 1409 20 Dash St 1341. Thank you. It has been moved. Again. Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Whack. I see tobacco. I. Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hynes. All right. Cashman. I can eat. I. Sandoval. Ortega's still here. Oh, I apologize, Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The proclamations and resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. The pre recess announcement tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 1177, changing the zoning classification for 3621 Lowell Boulevard. A required public hearing on Council Bill 1180 for changing the zoning classification for 2567 Albion Street, a required public hearing on Council Bill 1399 designating 910 Galapagos Street as a structure for preservation and a one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 144 for renaming Columbus Park, located at 1501 West 38th Avenue as La Rosa Park. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up during the recess. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a ten minute recess. Council members, please remember to turn off your cameras and meet your microphones and we will return at 6:24 p.m..

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_06012022_2022-0180

Okay. Our last item on the agenda is proposed ordinance 2020 20180, which proposed to the King County Charter to move elections for state and county offices from odd numbers to even numbered years. And we would by passing this, we would send this to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection of the November eight, 2022 , general election. The Staff Report begins on page 22 and Nick Lowe briefs, and I hope we still have with us Julie Wise, director with the Department of Elections, and Kendell Hudson, chief of Staff, Department of Elections. And Councilmember Bell, did she introduced this? Do you want to say anything now? Councilmember rebuild the chair and wait till after the staff report. I'll wait. Thank you. Okay. And we're a little rushed on time. If we can, we would like to take action on this today. But if not, we will do so at our June 15th. Go right ahead, Auntie. Good morning. Andy McLellan. Council Central Staff. Just as a note, Cherie Sue is the lead stock of this item, but I will be presenting the verbal staff report this morning. I mean, as you noted, we also have staff in the departments, but options on the call materials for this item begin on page 22 of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2020 201801 Placed on the November 2022 election ballot, a charter amendment proposal to move elections for County Executive, County Assessor, County Director of Elections in County Council members from odd numbered to even numbered years. Each of these county positions was most recently elected in an odd numbered year for a four year term ending in in either 2023 or 2025. For each position, the proposed charter amendment would change the following term only to a three year term 2023 through 2026 or 2025 to 2028. And then move to move to an even your schedule, subsequent terms starting in either 2026 or 2028 would again be four year terms. A little bit of background. Every November, the state holds a statewide general election. By default, county officer elections are held in even years, with an exception for counties governed by a charter that provides for ideal elections such as King County elections for the county executive assessor. Director of elections and councilmembers are outlined in Article six of the King County Charter. As we've, as I mentioned before, they are currently elected in odd years. The remaining county office, the prosecuting attorney, is a position created by state law and is elected in even years. The Elections Department administers elections countywide for federal, state, judicial and local positions, along with state and local ballot measures. Table one on page 24 summarizes the type of elections currently administered and even at odd years of the seven home rule charter counties in Washington, Kingston, Home and Whatcom hold elections for county officers in odd numbered years. Moving to the analysis section, beginning on page 25, as we just as I just noted, but in table two summarizes on page 26, the proposed changes to the election schedule under the proposed Charter amendment, both for the county executive and council members from districts one, three, five, seven and nine. These were most recently elected in 2021 for a four year term to end in 2025 under the proposed Charter amendment. The next term would the term would change the following term only to a three year term from 2025 to 2028. Again, after that, the terms would be four years for the county assessor, elections director and council members from districts two, four, six and eight. These were most recently elected in 2019. Under the proposed charter amendment. The next term would change for a three year term for 2023 to 2026. After that, the terms would again be for years, the remaining county elected office prosecuting attorney was most direct elected and most recently elected in 2018 and serves four year terms. The proposed ordinance also repeals some sections that would no longer apply. Summarizing some of the cost considerations in this can be found on page 27 of your packet. Operational costs election staff indicate that moving county elect county officer elections from odd to even years would not directly result in operational changes or costs to department, executive or election staff believe it's unlikely that the proposed change would impact turnout and even are odd years and therefore unlikely it impacts staffing and costs. The only potential, a potential operational change or cost would be if moving it to even year elections resulted in two page ballots. Administering two page ballots would incur additional costs for printing, storage, space and staff time to sort through the boxes. Data does not show that moving to giving year elections would necessarily result in two page ballots. There is a table on page 27, table three, that summarizes the total number of ballot items in recent elections. The exact number of contests on a ballot given ballot would vary with respect to the allocation of election costs among county, state and local jurisdiction. Election costs are divided proportionally across jurisdictions appearing on a given ballot, the allocation of cost would shift. Is moving county officer elections to even years changes whether or not the county appears on the ballot. Turning to your direction or directing your attention to table four on page 29, this shows the potential fiscal impact if county officer elections had been held in even years instead of on. Moving County office elections from odd even years when occasionally have a fiscal impact to the county, and even years if the county would otherwise have no races or ballots or other measures on the ballot and table for these would be highlighted in blue. If the county does not run a ballot measure in odd years, local jurisdictions may see an increase to their election costs, since there would be no county races or measures. Since 2009, there have been three elections where holding county officer elections in even years would have increased cost to local jurisdictions. The 2009 primary, 2011 primary and 2015 primary elections in table four. This is highlighted in orange. In the in these odd year elections, the county did not run a ballot measure and only ran county officer races. If county officer races had instead been held in even years, the county would not have any races or measures on the ballot. Additional costs would have been passed along to the local jurisdictions. The cost to the county with the increase in the cost to the state would increase in this case. I will now discuss some of the potential policy considerations. This begins on page 30 of the open reading packet. Low voter turnout over the last 20 years, I can tell you have seen higher voter turnout in even number of years. There's a chart on page 30 that summarizes voter turnout or general elections in the county over the last 20 years. You can see that since 2010, the county's average voter voter turnout rate is 77% and even number of years and 47% an odd number of years. Low voter turnout data is also available from King County elections by precinct, and this is displayed in the two maps on page 31. Regarding impacts to your voter turnout based on voter turnout in other counties, data does not suggest that holding Cobb County not holding county officer elections in even years rather than odd would impact volunteer turnout. Number of races on ballots in county officer elections to even years would increase the number of races on even your ballots and reduce the number of races on all of your ballots. It is not clear to what extent voter response rates are impacted by ballot lanes, ballot position or voter interest in the types of races. What measures and finally, alignment with federal and state elections. Moving county officer elections even years would align with the election schedule would align the election schedule of these county offices with federal and state elections, which are held during even years. This means that county officer elections would take place in a different electoral context. Whether council desires, desires to align county officer elections with federal and state elections is a policy decision. Just a quick timing consideration to place this potential charter amendment on the November 2022 ballot. The last regular council meeting date for adoption as a non-emergency would be July 19th, 2022. As I mentioned earlier there, staff from the Department of Elections to answer any questions. This concludes my remarks. Thank you. Thank you very much. And excellent work. And this was mentioned, Julie Wise and Kendall Hudson from the Department of Elections are here to answer any questions. Do any of my colleagues have questions of Andy or Julie Wise who can. Vote. Hudson? COUNCILMEMBER two. Thank you. Caracol Wells. So my question is, I sort of heard a sort of reference phrase generally the state legislature considered a change like this to move a lot of these other races at a statewide level to even years. And there were a lot of legal hold ups and challenges in terms of what state law required. Did anyone do an analysis of how this might run afoul or not run afoul one way or the other of other state election laws? I'm for this. What I would need to divert to election staff, where we would have to get back to SRI or somebody would have to get back to you offline without question for the amount of analysis done. Do we have any data either of our election staff wanting to answer that question? Good morning to Chairman Reynolds and council members. It's great to be with you all this morning. Kim County Director of Elections Julie Wise. Councilmember Dunn I'll attempt to answer that question. Under RTW, county offices are up for election an even numbered years unless a home rule county decides otherwise. I know this is, I think just mentioned by Andy. So of those seven home world counties in Washington, King Snohomish and Whatcom counties are the only ones who hold elections for county officials in odd years. So I believe it does not run afoul of current RTW. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Okay. Look, so, councilman, rebels itching for a question and then this is prepared for me. Thank you. Maybe for Andy. Thank you. First of all, for the very detailed staff report and the visualizations in the staff reporter are really impactful. And I think they were super helpful. You mentioned that you looked at the number of resources that would increase or decrease if we made if the voters chose to to make this move. I did a quick count myself, and I believe that the difference in any given ballot would be between one and three positions, up or down , no more than that in any one year. Is that is that on track with what you found when you looked at it? I believe so. Again, I apologize. Sherry Steele is the lead staff on this, but I believe that is what was in every staff report table. Yes. I mean, it makes sense because you've got your council member in each vote, only has one council member and then you've got the executive and two other county wide positions, but they are not all up in the same cycle. So you would have your council member plus the executive, I believe, or you would have two other statewide positions. So and that depends on whether your council members, even district or district. But the point is when people talk about the ballot getting longer, the most number of positions that you would see added to any ballot would be three. On ballots that routinely have between 20 and 30 plus items on them. That's without a whole lot of measures. And by the way, this this this council has been responsible for a whole lot of measures. Thank you. Thank you. Council members online and then followed by council member Jim Barnes. Thank you, Chair Wells. Thank you, Andy, for this great briefing. Can you explain a little bit more what the reasons are between the fiscal impact chart? The table four that you had provided were the reasons behind increases or decreases to estimated costs. Yes. Just give me 1/2. I do apologize and I will defer again if the election staff wants to increase. But I believe, Julie, if you would like to help, I believe it's if one is removed, there'd be costs because there's proportionately divided among the jurisdictions. If the elections were shifted and ones were removed, there would be a cost that if the jurisdiction still had ballot items on the ballot, that they would receive that reduction in cost if the counties that had one more time. But that's what I think is happening there. It's offsetting the cost. If the county would remove their ballot items from the ballot, but again, would defer to election staff on the exact date of calculations. Thank you. Julie, did you want to add anything to that? I think he did a fabulous job. But yes, it really is the cost. The cost shifting between King County, the state and local jurisdictions based off of what appears on the ballot. So, for example, let's use like a real world example here. So in 2015, primary, the city of Kent. So if there wasn't anything from King County on the ballot in the 2015 primary, the city of Kent would have seen its elections cost go up from 43,000 to about 62,000. Right. For the years that the county cost would have increased. As Andy laid out in the in her presentation and in the report, you know, the years the county cost could have increased that numbers between 1.5 and 2.5 million. But it's all about that shifting between county, state and local jurisdictions about what appears on the ballot. I don't think I'm understanding at all, but I'll ask for further clarification offline. And then I'm happy to. We have Chief of Staff Kendall Le Van Hudson, who does a fabulous job explaining it. So we want her to take a go at it as well. We're certainly happy to do that. Let's have let's do that. Is she here? I'm here. Thank you. Count for number 500. Kendall Hudson, chief of staff for King County elections. This takes me multiple times to grasp when I first started. Seconds number. It is not you. The way election costs are divided is based proportionately on the number of registered voters per jurisdiction. So Kent's portion is based on how many registered voters there are out of the total. When you add the county in or take the county away, that means a whole lot of registered voters out of that total. So the costs aren't going up in any way. They're just spread out differently depending on what that denominator is. I don't know if that helps, but we can we can go off and do it again, too, if that helps. So why would county costs go up? First of all, by reading the chart that costs would go up if we moved to odd years or mine. I mean, even years are in my misreading that. It would really depend on the year. So there are some years where the county now wouldn't have anything on the ballot. In those years, local jurisdiction costs and state costs would go up. There are other years where the county otherwise wouldn't have had something on that even year ballot, or all of a sudden the county is paying a large share of that election. So the other I think thing I didn't mention is it doesn't matter how many things you have on the ballot. If you're on the ballot, it's based on how many voters you have. So the county could have one race or the country could have five races and ten measures. The course, the question of the cost is the same. I got it now. Thank you so much, gentlemen. Thank you. Councilmember Dombroski. Thank you, Chair. Call Wells and Andy, thanks for your excellent staff report presentation. Thank you, Director Wise, for being here. Very interesting issue with respect to the turnout and the issue of ballot drop off. We know that in a presidential year, a lot of people vote in that presidential race and some don't vote for anything else on the ballot. But usually as you go down, there's a drop off. Where would the county races appear on the ballot? These are the federal candidates or even years in Congress, state candidates, when we have the statewide elections, legislative candidates. Kind of. Where would these races appear? Other ballot questions, city races. If they were to come over. Thank you, Councilmember Dombrowski, for the question. You're correct. They would come after you got federal, state, and then it would. Be all. The state offices and then the county. And we can, of course, draft up an example of what that ballot would look like. Oh, you could. Sure, we could do that. That would be. Amazing. So I was actually I didn't know it would. So the county races would be the last on the ballot down at the bottom on the back side. Is that what you're saying? That is correct. But they would come before, right? Like if there was local jurisdiction ballot measures. And except for judicial, I think would be the very last. Okay. I don't mean to put you on the spot on this, because I. Think. It might be interesting to see see a ballot. And then since we have some counties that are doing this, of the 700 charter counties in the state, three of us, I think you said are on odd year, the other four on even. Could we have some analysis done of the percentage drop off of the county races, you know, and maybe apply that to here? I think as I understand it, the expectation is that are the number of people participating would still be expected to be higher. But I'm kind of curious as to the magnitude of that. If they were to use other jurisdictions, say the mean of the other four counties that are doing it, even their drop off on a county council or some of those are commission counties may be kind of what that would be. Okay. Thank you. And Counsel. I have one more question. Okay. Yeah. This is of great this is of interest to me. I didn't hear it addressed in the public testimony, which was excellent or in our staff. And I'm not sure if that's because it's more of a political question. But when you're talking politics, you're often talking money and we no longer have public financing in the county. We did have a program years ago, and that is a big issue in terms of access. And I'm it seems to me the cost to run an election where if if the number of voters you have to reach, it'd be higher. And I am interested in whether we could do any assessment of of that, either at the county with our independent staff or maybe maybe some of the folks who are interested outside the outside of our government could help us with that. But the issue of kind of incumbents being able to raise a lot of money and a barrier that that attracts to greater participation on the ballot is such is of interest to me as we explore this question. Thank you. Jerry. Thank you, Councilmember Perry, followed by councilmembers. Hello. Thank you. Thank you for this. For all of the great testimony and for this report, direct wise, I'm always interested in your reports. And so it's from what I'm hearing statistically, if we actually follow the data on this, that there is more participation by by a huge volume of people voting on those currently off year elections when they're moved to on your elections or on year elections moved to even year elections, there is because there's a certain amount of voting in the on year elections. And then then what this what the data is saying, if I'm hearing it correctly, is that it only increases, it doesn't decrease, but it only increases when it is moved to the even year elections. Is that correct? Director was doing to answer that. Councilmember Perry, thank you for the question. You know, it's really difficult to predict what changes could happen with turnout. But yes, even your turnout often reaches 70, 80% in the end. But then in an odd year elections, we will see like here in South King County jurisdictions, hitting 30% turnout. So even years generally, again, are getting double what the turnout is in an off year election. And I'm not sure if that answers your question. Well, I just I'm trying to be really clear on like trying to understand this. And first, I'd love to see a ballot. That would be awesome. And maybe I need the the off line conversation that councilmembers are asking for. The question I have is, statistically, we have the statistics, I think, that show the increase in participation specifically for those that would otherwise have been in an odd year election when they moved to an even year election, either in our state or elsewhere. We have the statistics available to us, do we not? Of those that wear those ballots, then have an increased response than those of where they sit on the ballot, simply because an exponential number or a greatly increased number vote on even year elections. And by virtue of those that would already be motivated to vote in odd year elections, you already have that population. Plus you're putting in front of people who vote only in even your elections that don't often vote in odd years. So you're putting it in front of more people. So I'm just wondering about the data itself. So because we have these sort of big ideas about it, but I know that you were talking about the statistics and others were talking about the statistics. Is it possible to actually see those statistics where there's been a shift that we've been able to record? As in to say, you know, selecting those that voted that don't previously they vote only and even your election said don't previously vote in of your elections showing statistically where those folks now vote when they had the opportunity. You know for those folks down ticket the police director was. Councilmember Perry, just to clarify on the question, of course, I'm happy to get my, you know, my data from the office around this to see what sort of data we can pull out here. So I think we can definitely follow up. I'm not sure if the question is, do we have any models or examples of things that used to be an off year elections and are pulled now to the general and that we've seen a higher turnout in that. I can't in the 22 years that I've been here in elections, can't recall something where we're going to be able to identify that. But we certainly will take it back to the office and dig in deeper around that. And it sounds like it looks like, Councilmember Perry, that that was your question is do we have something that that would which would show a similar sort of change? Right. Are there examples that exist that way? Because I think that's the verbiage around this is people are saying, no, no, it won't. And others are saying yes, it will. And do we have any simple examples of where, in fact, that has been the case? I'm just curious about that. Councilmember Perry, I'm going to move on now to Councilmember Satellite previous question, because we're really getting late. We're already almost 15 minutes over our meeting time. And I want to have to thinking about did she be able to comment on her legislation? So Councilmember satellite and then councilmember about it. Thank you. Chair Caldwell's I think I'm asking something in a similar spirit as Councilmember Perry, but maybe hopefully easier data to track down in the areas that have shifted to even year elections to local level elections see the same or significantly higher percentage turnout as compared to if they were still in the artier elections. This is not a trend that we see. From some members. Actually, we can try to dig into a little bit of the data around California. California has completed sort of a recent change, which is what comes to mind with Councilmember Perry's question as well. But when we look across the state, turnout patterns across counties with even versus your county races don't show any real pattern . And turnout varies so much anyway across the state. But looking across the country, we haven't really been able to find any real valid comparisons to help us understand what might or might not happen with such a change as this. But again, happy to take it back to the awesome Team Kerry elections team to see if there's some more data sleuthing we can do here in Washington state and across the country. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to now have Councilmember Balducci speak on the legislation. And Councilmember Bell, I think given the lateness of the time, we will defer taking action on this to our June 15th meeting so we can get the material from director wise as well. Yes, thank you, Chair. I think that's that's good to make sure that people get answers to their questions to the extent that there is available before we before we take action would would make good sense. I just wanted to say a few words about this. The this proposal came to me from some advocates in the community for who are looking to improve access to elections. It is a principle that this council has supported in a number of ways over the last several years, including expanding access to ballot boxes, including really pioneering prepaid postage for ballots that then went statewide. We have, along with our elections director and department, been very diligently committed to increasing access to the ballot box and thereby making sure that the people like us who are elected to represent the public are elected by as representative of a sample and as large of a sample of the public as possible. And so this that's what this is about. This is about making elections, continuing to make elections fair and accessible. You've heard a lot of numbers, and I know that there's a lot of desire to dig down deeply. But just at the very base level, you look at the turnout for positions in this county like assessor in 2019 , where the turnout was 31% of registered voters like our elections director who we love. But who's the vote on her line in 2019 was 41% of registered voters. And then in 2018, the year before, when our prosecutor countywide position is up 61% of total voters. So you see just the number. The increase from one year to the next is in double digits. I think it was pointed out very well in some of the excellent public comment that we heard today that we we would invest in something that got us safe, two, three, 5% increase in participation. And here we're talking about 20%, 50% in some years. It's it's very compelling. But for a neighborly example, last year, in 2021, our King County executive race saw 40% turnout. The Pierce County executive, who's I think they're statutory county and therefore do elections in even years. 82% turnout. Turnout for King County Council members in 2021 range between 30% and 47%. Turnout for Pierce County Council members in 2020 ranged between 75 and 85%. And you're not always going to get those eye popping numbers because it's not always going to be a presidential election. But those are the people who voted for president and Pierce County Council. They got down there to those to those lower level ballots, lower level votes. Voters who are more engaged in odd year elections tend to be older, whiter and wealthier than the general electorate that vote and they are voters more likely to be paying attention and voting in off year elections by moving to even year elections. We would align those with these important local offices with more high profile state and federal offices that attract higher turnout by more voters and more diverse voters. Younger people, more people of color, more renters. That makes us the people who are elected to sit here at King County, more representative of the people who send us. And that's that's got to be good for democracy. So I'm going to stop right there. I guess the last thing I will say is we are by no means pioneering here. If we do this, if we put this out to the voters and the voters approve it, we will join the majority of counties in this state that have their positions elected in even years, because most states do that because they are cold states. But we will also join other charter states that do this. So charter counties, I should say. So it looks very compelling to me. I want to make sure that members have a chance to get their questions answered and that we can then hopefully move forward to ask the voters to have their say about when they would like to see these positions on the ballot. I thank you, Chair Caldwell's for the extra time today. Well, thank you. I found Jeremiah's very compelling, and I'm glad that I also signed Spencer to this legislation. Are there any questions of councilmember ability to. If not, we will take this up at our next meeting, which is on June 15th, and we will hope to have some materials or a sample ballot that we can look at that will be provided by Director Wise from the Department of Elections. And I think this has been a terrific discussion and something that is new to all of us here at this county that I think has a great deal of promise. And I thank you, Councilmember Belgian chief, for bringing the legislation forward. Now that I'm Kirk, I know that Councilmember Von Bauer was excused from some votes. Were there any other members who were excused? Madam Chair, council member Monday about what is on the line right now. Oh, yes. Okay. Councilmember Bowen. Right. Would you like to vote on the measures that you missed? Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me all right? Yes, we can, Madam Chair. Thank you. All right. Barbosa Affirmative. Okay. So for any of the votes that you missed, you are saying you about you vote now affirmatively for all of them. That's correct. Thank you very much. And did any other member miss the vote? No, Madam Chair. No, nothing. Very good. Before we adjourn, I'd like to let you know that our next regular meeting of the committee of the hall is scheduled for June 15th, at which time we will hear from a panel providing a status report on the Harborview Medical Center. We'll also take up action on the ordinance, placing the ballot a charge, a change to our ballots to even number of years. And we will have further discussion and possible action on the reappointment of beneath the condo wall as director of the Department of Public Defense. And a preview for our meeting after that, which will be July six. We're planning now to have a panel and gun safety measures that are provided by the state, the county and other local jurisdictions, jurisdictions likely these will the panelists will be members of various departments in the county. And we will also have a discussion on what else might be done to ensure greater public safety in the question of gun use. I know that Councilmember Dan Barsky is already working on some legislation, and if that timing works out, we could take that up as well. If anybody else is working on legislation, we might be able to include that as well. So one other item that we will also hear from Dwight Daly and we will take up a motion for a discussion and possible action on that is sponsored by council members on extreme weather sheltering. And so I think that that'll be a good time to get ready for this summer. I thank you all for participating in today's meeting. And if there's no other business we are chairing.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 2.01.380 and 2.01.1020 relating to officeholder accounts, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0062

We're under ordinances. Item 16. Item 16. Communication from the city attorney's office. Recommendation to declare ordinance. Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the office holder expense funds. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading City Wide. There's been a motion by Councilman Andrews and a second by Councilwoman Gonzalez. This is a first reading of an item that's been taken up already. Councilman Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I want to thank the city attorney for putting this together. I am going to be opposing this item tonight and for the very reasons and concerns I shared last week, I respect my council colleagues. And on this issue, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. I'm on the opposite side of that. So I ask you now, certainly for continued support on this. I think that, again, we've we've talked about this a multitude of times, but, you know, the the large and this of our city, but also the positive impact that I see that it could be implemented into our into our communities is really essential. So continue to ask for support. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I don't want to belabor the the debate on this, but I would just ask my colleague, Councilmember Price, is there any any is there would there be any appetite to to massaging and coming close to to to to to an agreement that that we can get 100% consensus on? Do you have any recommendations? Thank you for bringing that up. I you know, I'm concerned about the dollar amounts here that we're talking about. So if there was a will by the makers of the motion or the folks who are in support to come up with a compromise number, that lowers it a little bit. I would be in favor of that again. I don't want to belabor the issue either. And I have nothing but trust for my colleagues here. And like I said last week, my concern was more about the policy implications moving forward. You know, we we make decisions that last much longer than we're here. So that's my concern. But I don't want to belabor the point. I don't want to make, you know, make anyone feel uncomfortable if they feel very supportive of this. But if we were to lower the numbers, I think I'd feel a lot more comfortable with it. So our the recommendation on the floor and that was debated was to and I think amended by Councilmember Richardson was to triple the amount of officeholder accounts. And it's current it's currently $10,000. It would go to $30,000. And also the contribution limits would would be increased. I I'm curious to know what what would that number looks like in terms of what's acceptable would be it would be an acceptable number? Well, I think a compromise position, and I have no problem with the contribution amounts being raised. I understand the logic behind that. But maybe $20,000 would be a nice compromise position if people were open to it. Are you making a motion? Well, I'd like to make a friendly amendment. I wasn't sure that there would be a will and that would be accepted. But if the maker of the or if Councilman Andrews is open to that, I'd be making an amendment. So. So the maker of the motion has declined. And I trust that the second year of the motion. I have you, Councilman Andrews, as the maker of this motion today. So I think the maker of the original motion was was Councilmember Gonzalez or and then the amendment was Councilmember Richardson. But as point of order, we have to go by the maker of the motion for the first reading and the second or that those are the two individuals and need to be consulted. And so in asking Councilman Andrews, the maker of the motion, to consider the friendly amendment, he has declined and Councilman Gonzales has as well. Okay. Councilman Austin, anything further? I'd like to make a substitute motion and I'd like to make a substitute motion to reduce the the amount of the office holder account to $20,000 for city council and $50,000 for the mayor. Second. Oh. Oh, no word of press. Oh, you moved it. Okay. The substitute motion. Did you withdraw your motion, councilwoman? Pressure. The substitute motion was made by Council member Councilman Austin. And you're free to second if you wish. So the motion to substitute is to reduce the original amount approved by the council to 20,000 for council members and 50,000 for the mayor. It was the second year of the motion. Susie G. Second by Councilwoman Pryce. I have others queued up. Councilman Austin, is there anything else? Well, I'd just like to say that currently. I was I'm an important supporter of raising the limits for our officeholder accounts for every reason that has been stated over the last couple of weeks. I think it is necessary. I think it is is time. I mean Longreach is a big city and we have great needs and great demands on our city council members over the last time these officeholder accounts were raised. I believe it was 2007. That was seven years ago. I don't think inflation has gone up, tripled in that period of time. I don't think the cost of anything has tripled except maybe health care. But I don't think we're dealing with that. And so I do think doubling the amount is a is a fair compromise to get us gets where we need to be. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So so I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this up again. I would say that I don't know that a compromise is necessary, as we had a majority of council members who vote in support of this in advance. And I thought that we had a good, healthy, lengthy discussion there. I would say that there's a lot of context here. I think we consider that city council budgets have diminished significantly over the last decade. I remember when I began as chief of staff four years ago, we were able to have four staff people and then that was moved down to three. Now we're looking at we have less staff. And absolutely no supply budget in our offices. And that's that's that's a that is a reality in our offices as we have to find outside sponsors to help sponsor community events, help provide breakfasts or meals that are community assemblies, because we don't have the capacity in-house. So I think the work that's placed into having an office holder to go out and raise dollars to support these things, it's it's necessary. Secondly, you know, a number of the committee assignments that I was given upon taking office, they require travel. I was placed on the National League of Cities and was not able to go to that to that conference, the first Fed alleged visit. My budget could not support a trip. And actually, you know, our mayor's office denied us attending because our budget did not have the availability to go. So we had you know, so we had a healthy bit of discussion about this. So I feel very strongly that considering that there's been over a six figure cut in our office budgets to talk about raising on the private side $30,000 that, you know, to negotiate it down to 20 out of the sake of not having enough discussion, I don't know that that's really a fair conversation. So that said, I'd like to offer a substitute substitute motion. So my substitute substitute motion would be to go back to $30,000 and $75,000 for me, or $30,000 for city council and $75,000 for mayor. And to add in a CPI to build in a CPI consistent with the same levels that our campaign finance limits are in the election code for elections. There's been a substitute substitute by Councilmember Richardson and seconded by Councilmember Gonzalez. Okay. And that is to go back to the original. The original ordinance with the addition of the CPI. Councilwoman Gonzalez Yeah, I would add that, you know, our committee worked very hard. I think we're a committee that has done tremendous work, both myself as the Chair, Councilmember Turanga and Councilmember Mungo. We based this off of information based on adjacent cities. So this wasn't just an arbitrary number we picked out of the sky. This was information that we we we received from various cities that are our size, are larger, and we're pretty much behind the times. We're a little bit antiquated in our policies. And our main goal here is to reform a lot of our campaign finance policies. This was something that we could do and that was attainable. We all agree that the largeness, largeness of our city, the complexity of our city would certainly make sense for us to increase our officeholder accounts, both on the mayor side, the city wide side, and the city council side. And inflation, your rate hasn't gone up. It's not based on that, but it is based on a lot of our council budgets going down with RDA gone, with the discretionary funding gone, we do have to find other facets to be able to take care of our communities. And so I see this as certainly one of them. And so that's my certainly my stance. I believe that the substitute substitute motion will take care of that, and I hope that we can move forward with that substitute substitute motion. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilwoman Mongo. First, I want to thank the work of the committee, the committee that. Councilmember. Yanga. And Councilwoman Gonzales. And I have worked extensively hard on. And I was most comfortable with a number closer to 20,000 as the committee originally debated and came forward with $25,000 for council members and 75 for the mayor. And so in the spirit of collegiality and continuing what Councilmember Austin put forward, I would ask that a friendly amendment come forward, which would be to restore to the original recommendation of the committee, as debated at 25 for council members and 75 for the mayor, with an adjustment for CPI to pull in the forward thinking this of Councilmember Richardson. So so as the maker of the motion, I have the ability to do that. I want to talk through your era here. I want to see if we can work this out right now. So the issue that I would take with this would be the increase to the citywide electeds would be a three times increase, whereas a citywide the increase to city council will be two and a half times increase. So would your friendly. So is your friendly. Are you interested in making it consistent at two and a half times across the board? So the reason. I remember that argument from when we first debated this at Hampton Park, the committee's research came from other comparable cities. Yes. And it wasn't to be proportional. The mayor isn't three times more demanded at events or community functions or anything like that. It came from looking at comparable cities and comparable officeholder accounts and the such. So I feel like the original intent of the committee at 2575 with an adjustment for CPI two, both would be the most logical. And a compromise. Between many people. I get that. And what I would say is, is there. So which cities and specifically more specifically, which cities of a comparable size are you comparing us to? So they pulled together a bunch of charts and brought them to the meeting. Larry Herrera brought forward documentation, which I don't have with me tonight, but I could have someone run up to the office. And Paul, do you remember Councilman? Anaheim was on the list, but I think Anaheim and I think our city attorney is up to speak as well. So maybe I. Have that. I'd like to know about Anaheim and Los Angeles, and let's just hash out this and figure it out right now. I know Anaheim is on the list for. Anaheim, almost a thousand per donation. If I might if I might weigh in. Councilmember Richardson, this is this right? Councilmember Richardson, may I address this? I know in the spirit of compromise, this is something that's been vetted by the committee for quite some time. It was vetted in a very healthy way the last time this came up on the council floor. So. There is a substitute substitute motion made by Councilmember Richardson, seconded by Councilwoman Gonzales. I have. Councilman Mongo, is there anything further? We're seeing the friendly amendment to restore to the committee's original intent of 2575, incorporating Councilmember Richardson CPI. I'm not in support of that. So no. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I appreciate everyone's comments. One thing I want to point out, and I hope it's something that we can respect as a body, not just today, but moving forward is if an idea or a concept is discussed in committee. And no doubt every single member of this board, this council works diligently on their various committees. No doubt I have full respect for the work that comes out of committee. However, it is perfectly acceptable and appropriate for council colleagues who don't sit on that committee to question certain aspects of the findings and recommendations of that committee. That's actually our job and that's what the taxpayers have elected us to do. So. So I appreciate and I think last week I said several times that I appreciated the work of the committee and and my thoughts on the issue were no reflection at all on the work of the committee. Furthermore, if an item comes before us and then we give a recommendation and we have a debate and the recommendation results in an item coming to us for a first reading and a second reading. The whole point of that gap in time is to allow an elected body to vet a particular idea, a proposal, a change with their citizenry, with their community, to study up on it, to find out what the vibe is, to see how they feel about it. Because the decisions that we make, when I press this button here, this is a decision I have to live with. It's my conscience. It's something that I have to be comfortable with. And if I express hesitation one week and do some more research and learn more about it, I'm not tied to what happened the week before. That's the whole point. That's why the system requires a first reading and a second reading. So, you know, I've heard this in the past and I've tried really hard. I know it doesn't seem like it, but I do try to bite my lip when I hear things like we already talked about this. Why are we talking about this again? The whole reason there was a first reading and a second reading is so that we can have an opportunity to further educate ourselves. And if there's an issue that we feel uncomfortable about it to to to say it. And I started off this discussion tonight by saying we can agree to disagree. I don't want to talk about it any further because I didn't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable. It's my personal belief is that fund raising and raising the limits adds noise in an area that we don't need. And I understand. I don't I'm sure the committee did their research on what other cities do. And sometimes what other cities are doing is something that we can learn from and grow from and adopt in our own city. But sometimes we can simply say, we are Long Beach. We are different. We do things differently. We reject certain things that aren't healthy in other communities. Just because other communities are doing them doesn't mean they're healthy for us. And that's my opinion. So there are many things that the City of L.A. is doing that's fantastic and great and would be great for us to incorporate. There are a lot of things that are doing that I don't want to see here in the city of Long Beach. And I've had that attitude in my job in in every in everything in my life. You do what's right at the moment, not based on what everybody else is doing. So with that, I have a feeling I'm not going to be doing what everyone else is doing tonight, and that's okay. But when we're talking about, you know, we already went through this or this already went through, you know, every single time an item comes before us, it's an opportunity to express concerns, support, hesitation, whatever the case may be. That's my right as a member of this council, and I'm going to exercise that right. I'm not going to be bullied into. We already talked about it. Why are we talking about it again? I will talk about it until I feel like I don't need to talk about it any more. And tonight I tried not to talk about it. For the record. Thank. Councilwoman Pryce. I appreciate that. I think my comments were directed at Council Member Richardson in expressing my own opinion that that's where I'm coming from, that I felt that it was a thorough discussion and I'm satisfied with that. It is not to influence yours or anyone else's. But expressing my own, I oftentimes, as with everyone else, we all express our opinions differently, as you just did. And that was my way of expressing my opinion that I have great appreciation for the work of the committee as well as the discussion we had last week, and that I am satisfied with that. That is a personal opinion of mine and I hope that the remarks you just made, you will ensure that you regard everyone else's way of expressing their opinion that way. That was mine. City Attorney. Vice members of the council, just for a point of order. On the third motion, the substitute substitute motion to return the limits to 30 and 75 and add the CPI. If that motion is successful this evening, then it will come back for a first reading again on February 3rd. By adding the CPI adjustment. That's a substantial change in requires to come back two more times. So that just FYI. Councilmember Richardson, if I might ask perhaps that you can ask for a report on on the potential of adding CPI later as opposed to adding that. Would that would that keep it? That makes a lot of sense. Is that would that keep this as a first reading? The the problem with removing that as then it's not a substitute substitute. You're basically making the first motion. And so you would go to your second motion first. You know, you actually, Mr. City Attorney, it would be a substitute substitute to keep the the amounts. The same with the addition of asking for a report in 3 to 6 months, whichever the maker of the motion would like from staff or the committee on the concept of adding a CPI down the road. I would disagree with the chair. The the motion that would pass would be the item of the recommend the recommendation in your your original motion. The request for a report is is not what would be relevant for what you would pass. You would pass was actually recommended by council. So in essence it would be your original motion. Okay, what was the substitute motion? If you can remind me. The subsidy motion was to change the limits to $20,000 for city council and $50,000 citywide. Okay. We have a couple of more speakers that we can certainly take up the substitute motion and go back to the original if that is what ends up happening. Councilwoman Gonzalez. I'm sorry. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. So I think I think most of my concerns were were vetted out. But I wanted to just say that by no means, you know, is this discussion implying that folks shouldn't bring up certain topics. I think it's fine. Absolutely fine. And I appreciate the fact that you, Ms.. Councilmember Price stated that she didn't want to talk about it. I agree. I don't want to talk about it either. Councilmember Gonzalez. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you again. We welcome the discussion. You know, this is a really healthy discussion. I think what where you know, it may get heated at times, but I think we can all respectfully agree to disagree, like Councilman Price had mentioned. But I have to reiterate, you know, we're each representing about 50,000 constituents and $30,000 to me is but $50,000 individually in our districts, 500,000, half a million folks. And so $30,000 each to me is not really, really too much. So I'll I'll stand firm on that. And I respect the comments that have been made out there. But, you know, certainly I need to stand firm and what we originally decided. Councilmember Urunga. I totally agree with my colleague, Councilmember Gonzalez in this call for the question. Are we voting on the substitute substitute council member Richardson? I would love to get back to the original motion to vote on. So what I what I'm going to do is I'm going to withdraw my substitute substitute and I'm going to encourage my colleagues to vote no on the substitute motion. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson and I will do the same. I will ask my colleagues to vote no on the substitute motion. We are taking up the substitute motion at this time. Members, cast your vote. Public comment. I'm sorry. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 16? Very good. The clerk has the address. First, I would suggest you hold off because I don't want to embarrass anybody. But I would ask I would think that if I. Each one of you had to stand up now. Insight sentence for sentence, what you're voting on. I don't think you know what you're voting on, period. All right. At the end of this day, nothing's going to, you know, a day, another week is not going to rock the boat. What I have serious issues with this and there's no issue with having a fund. Period. It's how it is. I understand it. Unless my information is wrong. Some of these monies are all of these monies could be if you wanted get to some political dynamic within to a labor union or to the Chamber of Commerce. Is that a that needs to be clarified, because if that is the case, that should not be done, period. It should be only for legitimate parks, neighborhood association improvement projects and things like that. There's an easy way to address the funding issue, quite frankly. Is, first of all, cut travel. This is the high tech age. You don't need to travel, period. We have emails, we have Skype. We have teleconferences. We conduct wars by teleconference. Your only reason for traveling is to try to build your political career, period. So go a couple of years without any travel. Secondly, you need to put sideboards on it so we don't have this type of thing. Again, the hymnal to hold know this hymnal of hosannas using taxpayer money. Or donations to fund some political hack or pipsqueak, period. You do have a serious problem. I understand that with inflation and shortage of money, but that's very easy. Just cut out your travel. Period. And if, quite frankly, I'd even cut out your automobile, aren't I? Did you get a bus pass, period? That's the way to solve that. But again, I before you vote. Stand up and recite exactly what you're voting on. If you do know it, you will have no problem. If you don't bring it back and think about it or think about it and then bring it back. Thank you. Members. There's been a substitute motion by Councilman Austin and seconded by Councilwoman Price. Please cast your vote. And this is on the substitute. Motion fails. All right. We are now back to the original motion. Made by Councilman Andrews, seconded by Councilwoman Gonzalez. Members, please cast your vote. The motion passes was five three. Thank you. Thank you. Members. Item 17.

Om the message and order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Forty Million Dollars ($40,000,000.00) in the form of a grant, awarded by the United States Department of the Treasury to be administered by the City of Boston’s Chief Financial Officer/Collector Treasurer. This grant payment is made from 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). Pursuant to the requirements of ARPA, the grant payment would fund provisions of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue of such State, territory, or Tribal government due to the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year of the State, territory or Tribal government prior to the emergency, the committee submitted a report recommending that the order ought to pass. The report was accepted; the order was passed; yeas 12.

BostonCC_04132022_2022-0504

Behavioral health, climate and mobility. Arts and culture and early childhood and early childhood. Dr. Number 0504 Message In order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $40 million in the form of a grant awarded by the United States Department of the Treasury to be administered by the City of Boston as Chief Financial Officer. Collect a Treasurer. This grant payment is made from the coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund. C o. F. R. F. In the Treasury of the United States, established by Section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 RPA. Pursuant to the requirements of the RPA, the grant payment will fund provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue of such state, territory and tribal government due to the COVID 19 Public Health Emergency relative to revenues collected in the most fiscal in the most recent full fiscal year of the state. Territorial tribal government prior to the emergency. Thank you, Mr. Court. Docket 05030504 referred to the Committee on Boston's COVID 19 recovery. Mr. Clarke, please read Docket 05050505.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1974 and 1990 South Huron Street in Overland. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-TU-C to E-SU-A (two-unit to single-unit), located at 1974 and 1990 South Huron Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-4-22.

DenverCityCouncil_02142022_22-0016

13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Final Consideration of Council Bill 20 2-0003 with its public hearing has been postponed to Tuesday, February 22nd, 2022. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0016 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 2-0016 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone. Yes, Madam President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 20016 with this public hearing be moved to February 22nd, 2022. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilmember Herndon look honest, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on the postponement of Council Bill 22, Dash 0016, please. CdeBaca. I. We might need you to say I again, Councilwoman. I. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. I. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. I. Madam President, i. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 13 hours. 13 ies. Final Consideration of Council Bill 20 2-0016. With its public hearing has been postponed to Tuesday, February 22nd, 2022. On Monday, March 14, the Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 1528, changing the zoning classification for 3435 North Albion Street and Northeast Park Hill.

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

LongBeachCC_07072020_20-0585

Refrain from doing so. We're going to go ahead and go into our first hearing and and then right into public comment. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record concluded the public hearing declared ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to interim housing. Read the first time and lead over the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance amendments to the California Coastal Commission citywide. Thank you. Go ahead. Read this overstep. Mara, I'd like to introduce the development services staff that will make this presentation. We have Oscar Orsi, Development Services Director, as well as Alejandro Sanchez Lopez for this presentation. Thank you, Mayor, and members of the city council. Alejandro, our project planner, will give you a brief presentation. Good afternoon, honorable mayor and members of the City Council. The item before you today the citywide zoning code amendment to update the definitions, land use regulations and operating standards related to various forms of interim housing. This update seeks to address local, regional and statewide housing and homelessness crisis by expanding the zoning opportunities for various forms of interim housing. Update and add definitions for said housing forms and related services. And establish operating standards that are based on best practices for these uses. In doing so, it would bring the city into compliance with applicable policies, most notably SB two, which was adopted in 2007 and has specific zoning requirements for emergency shelters that the city does not currently meet. This update will make it easier to develop interim housing and related uses and broaden the opportunity sites for said uses in an equitable manner throughout the city. The next few slides will walk through each of the major changes proposed. This isn't. It's a different kind. Again. Staff You guys are putting up a different presentation on the screen right now. So can you please take this one off? So my city clerk is working on pulling that stuff off. Thank you. Okay. Moving along. First, the update will create a new definition for interim housing. Interim housing is an umbrella term that encompasses all uses involving temporary sleeping accommodations for people experiencing housing insecurity. These uses include emergency shelters, transitional housing rates, housing and safe parking sites. In a definition. In addition to the definition itself, the update will establish general operating standards for interim housing. These operating standards include a coordinated assessment system to connect residents to services and networks, along with security and lighting requirements for all sites. Next, the definition for emergency shelters will be amended to allow for kitchens and additional supporting amenities in shelters. Shelters will also be allowed as an accessory use in existing religious facilities and as a primary use in certain residential, industrial, commercial and institutional zones to address the dearth of site availability currently allowed. As a map here shows, current zoning regulations severely restrict where shelters are permitted in the city. The following map shows where Seltzers may be permitted either by write or with an entitlement. The hatching indicates an entitlement is required in that corresponding zone. Next, the definition for transitional housing will eliminate a minimum length of stay. Specify a target population and require there to be a link to supportive services. Land use regulations will also be updated to expand this housing to be allowed in the industrial and commercial zones shown on the map as well as pre permitted in an ancestor use and when incidental to a primary institutional use. Next, a new definition will be created for safe parking sites. Safe parking programs have become more common throughout the state. Different jurisdictions addressed the housing crisis at the local level. These sites are limited to properties outside of the right of way that are managed by an institutional or nonprofit organization to provide a safe place to park overnight for folks who are working towards gaining permanent housing. These sites help to address how to maintain public safety, provide services to people at risk of falling into cyclical homelessness, and prevent spillover effects into residential neighborhoods. Safe parking sites are proposed to be permitted in limited commercial, industrial and institutional zones as an accessory and as an accessory use in all zones only where all lots are owned and operated by the same entity. The update will also establish operating standards to minimize the impact these sites have and implement best practices. Next, the definition for supportive housing will be amended to specify the various populations that can be served by this use. Additionally, the land use regulations will be expanded to allow for more sites in certain industrial and commercial zones, as shown on the map. Next. Social Services. Social services facilities will have the definition updated to broaden the scope of applicable services, such as showers or storage facilities, Imani's for pets and meal services. These facilities will also be permitted in additional commercial zones. Finally, it is important to note that this proposal is not in conjunction with any one specific project, but merely a zoning change. In all zones where an interim housing use is allowed by. Right. Any project will still be required to submit for an administrative land use review. This review process maintains a level of staff oversight and an appeals process for any agreed parties, but it does also provide a reduced application cost and a streamlined process for applicants. As an example, the map on the right shows that Magnolia Industrial Group Business Improvement District area in the Purple outlined the majority of this area, which is hatch wood acquired and entitlement for an emergency shelter to be located there or any project in the areas in dark gray at the North and South ordinance would be required to go through the administrative land use review process. As a reminder, city staff conducted three public outreach events and two presentations to the Planning Commission. Public comment at the outreach events was generally supportive of the code changes. In addition to the public outreach notice of a public hearing was published in the Long Beach Press Telegram on June 23rd of this year and notice of the proposed code amendment was distributed throughout the city. Link Lobby. Email Notification System. City Councilors before them. The public comments submitted to the city since a hearing notice of public. In conclusion, the Planning Commission's recommendations that the City Council accept the negative declaration for the project, approve the Interim Housing Zoning Code Amendment, and adopt a resolution to submit the Code Amendment to the California Coastal Commission. Thank you for your time. This includes staff presentation. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you. I'm going to start with councilman's in Dallas. Thank you very much for this presentation. I know that it it is something very good that, you know, that we're doing this and I am supportive. Thank you. The second by Councilmember Pearce. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you staff. I am really happy to see this come before us today. I think that the city, at least in my four years on the council, we consistently try to identify new locations. We consistently have conversations about where else in the district or in the city. We can put some of these transitional supportive housing and also safe parking. And so I was happy to see a lot of areas marked in the second district. I had one question. You mentioned that existing ones would still have to go through a review to be able to operate there. I just want to make sure that we're not and I think I know the answer, but we're not setting ourselves up to where like our transitional parking that we've already identified in those locations that going through this process would mean that they no longer could operate that transitional parking where we've already identified areas. No. Councilmember, this is Christopher Coons. To answer more precisely, existing uses that were approved by the city have existing rights to continue. I think that reference was made to there are operating standards associated with this package in front of council and we will be attempting to apply those operating standards to all entities, including those that already exist . So this is going to help us in terms of our community expectations and being able to to make sure the operations are run well. The other thing is we oftentimes see these entities grow or change and they subsequently come back to the city for various permits. In that case, these new regulations would apply to them. Wonderful. And I had a question about outreach. I knew about them at the Planning Commission. I have to say that it either on my end or I'm not sure what what slipped through, but I was not aware of the public meetings being had around this topic. So can you share with me how we did those meetings? I see. One was locally here near us at the Mark Twain Library. How were those notified and what was attendance like for those? Good evening. Councilwoman. This is Alexis Harpaz. A current planning officer at the. Three events. So the two open house meetings were advertised via the link L.B. as well as to stakeholders. And on our link l be notification. It's about 1500 people. That are. Subscribed to that and the attendance at both of the meetings was ranged between 20 and 25 people total. Yeah. I just. I really love this idea, and I wish that I saw more areas on the map that were open to that and so on. I guess my last question would be the consideration around putting these really only in the commercial zones and adjacent areas. Can you just speak to that before I give my wholehearted excitement support for this item? Yes, sir. Council Member So this is a legislative item and we feel that it correctly addresses an existing problem where the city is out of compliance with state law and city attorney is on the line, if you'd like to hear more about that. So I hear your comment. I think that staff was balancing input from stakeholders that, you know, some may have like your comment felt that that additional sites were needed. Other comments were received that what the city is proposing is too many sites or includes parts of town, that it's not included. So our goal was to expand the number of available sites to do so consistent with state law and federal guidance and to do something that was workable and an improvement against the status quo. We're going to evaluate these as part of our housing element and as part of our annual reports back to council. So if what we've come up with tonight is not sufficient, it would be within Council's discretion to add additional areas or make changes in the future. You have public comments in your packet. Some of those comments are positive. Some of them are negative. It's never a fun position, but oftentimes we know we found a sweet spot when not anyone is perfectly satisfied and everyone is only slightly dissatisfied. And we think that that's where we found ourselves with the regulations that are in front of the Council. I really appreciate that thoughtful comment and that I wholeheartedly support the fine. Thank you. Thank you. You know, I do have other council members. I have a comment, but I didn't see it. Is there any comments from anyone else, Madam Clerk, that we need to do from the public or any sort of appellant comment that has to happen? Or can I continue with the Council comments? There are three public comments for this item. If you'd like to continue with those. Well, are they are they connected to the actual hearing or are they just just public comments? No, they're connected to the actual hearing. Okay. Let me let me let me do let me do. No, I understand it. But I mean, is this members of the public or are these individuals that are that staff has been working on as part of the hearing that was. Members of the public? Okay. Okay, then let me finish with the councilwoman. I'll go to the members of the public. Perfect. So Councilman Richardson and Councilman Super now I'm fine. I cued up the second, but I've got to my comments. Thank you. The ultimate super or not. Thank you. I just had a question for staff. If you could walk us through the parking things and specifically the traffic circle area on the map that it shows, like a big red area. And if anything you can add to how this process will work, that would be helpful. Sure. So the safe parking sites, we do have at least one operating in the city today. And what we were trying to do was formalize the opportunity for that use. So the map on the slide, which does include some commercial sites around the traffic circle, as well as sites throughout the city, are just locations that the zoning would now allow for a safe parking use. There are no locations proposed at this moment and they would need to go through the appropriate process. And these typically are an accessory use, which means you have a primary use that could be a church most commonly, but might be a different type of use or social service use, even a retail use. And they allow folks that are living in their vehicle to safely park overnight. This is something that occurs without the benefit of regulation throughout the city today. And what we're trying to do is have it occur in safe locations with specific standards so that things like waste and noise are controlled. So you did note that the location within your district, but if you can see the slide, there are locations in every council district of the city. And what we're trying to accomplish is places for people who are living in their car to try to park overnight without being towed, but to do so in a safe manner, where there is a sponsor who is making sure that the location is clean and orderly and that folks, to the degree possible, are matched with social services. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I don't have anyone else on the council to do that. Mr. Clarke, can you do the public comment? First we have Janet West. Your time starts now. Okay. Um, I objected to this zoning update. The public was not informed on Housing First. State law, which requires admission of drug and alcohol users even if they refuse to get rehabilitative therapy services. The public was not informed that the target population and current ordinances will be eliminated for supportive housing. In fact, there was misleading information on that table and personnel did not include looking at AB 1763, passed in 2019, which includes major density and incentives for these housing developments. The public was not informed of the increased parking problems which which will result from these changing changes. The public was not informed that these developments are not restricted to Long Beach area residents. The public was not informed that a person may be designated as homeless solely based on their oral statement. That there's a possibility of them becoming homeless. The public was only given a vague, term, appropriate level of security with no indication of what that means. The public was not informed of how the neighborhood compatibility will be achieved with no required on site staff. If anything, that COVID 19 has taught us is that we should not be increasing density. These new ordinance will increase density, especially with the major increases to the density for low income housing. Supportive Service. Supportive housing is included in all the residential areas of the city. This will change our city and it will change it forever. And although I know the supportive housing requirements are, for them to be in all residential areas is a state law. Long Beach. Should not. Be increasing the likelihood of these developments being built. Thank you for your time. Thank your next speakers and control your time starts now. Good evening. And Cantrell. And my main objection to this is lack of notice. I don't receive the press telegram, as many do not also don't. And the only notice I am aware of was. Published in the Press Telegram on June 1st. I am very. Much agree that we need to get the homeless off the streets and into safe and sanitary conditions. But there was no time to read all the pros and cons on this item, and I urge you to lay it over till the public has been informed. Also carelessly attempted to sign in to speak and missed the 12:00 deadline because it's not published. So I would like to read. Her. Comments. She says there are many good things in the every home report, every one home report. And I'm pleased the city is moving out to work to work out the homeless issue. However, many residents in Long Beach do not know about this rezoning and do not realize the rezoning could result in a low barrier homeless facility. In. Close proximity to their neighborhoods and schools. Low barrier means the clientele are not obligated to commit to drug or alcohol rehab and the mentally ill who at times exhibit violent behavior, will be residing in these facilities. Only two public meetings were held on this back in January, which is inadequate public outreach on a serious topic that will change streets and neighborhoods. I doubt more than 25 people in the city know about the rezoning plans. Please delay moving forward with approving rezoning and request that town hall meetings be held in all districts to roll out the Everyone Home report and capture and integrate public input into these plans. I'm concerned that policy statements in the Everyone Home report are being implemented without a public vetting process. The maps shown in the staff report seem to identify locations, but there is no verbiage that makes these maps a governing document, and that is the conclusion of Chorus's report. Thank you. Thank you. Our last speaker is to Africa. Your time starts now. Hello. Dave sugar on file? I'm speaking to you from outside City Hall, where I'm staring at a lot of confetti. Two quick points. Density does not mean overcrowding. And that's a very important thing in the middle of a global pandemic. We want people to be able to live. And live well and live safely. And we seem to do it just fine now, though, we're building more buildings. But second point, equity is not about keeping people. Right. I mean, even from people who got in the game, it's about picking the team that puts people in this socially antagonistic relationship, like being a perpetrator and the victim or mistaken identity or overgrowth. We're in the middle of a pandemic. We have a vested interest in not only compassionate. Servicing and the application thereof. But in continued public education will thank. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you for that. And there is no way I'm going to go and cause a hearing. There is no more council comment either. And we'll go ahead and do a roll call vote. Please call the Robert. District one. I. District two, i. District three. I. District Court. Right. District five. I. District six. II. District seven. I. District eight. Hi. District nine. Right. Motion carries. Thank you. We are moving on. Madam, quick, if you can facilitate the public comment. Period. Thank you.

A resolution approving the Mayoral appointment of Armando Saldate as Executive Director of the Department of Safety, pursuant to Charter Section § 2.2.6 (D). The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-9-22.

DenverCityCouncil_02222022_22-0145

Madam Secretary. Please put the first item on our screens. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Resolution one, four, five on the floor for adoption? Yes, ma'am. Madam President. Pro tem, I move that resolution number 22, dash 0145, be adopted. It is a moved and seconded comments and questions by members of Council. On Council Resolution 145. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Since the appointment of the director. The. And I've called this out tonight trying to lift up the voices of my constituents and residents across the city. So many residents are concerned about this appointment for several reasons. My constituents have raised the issue of the lack of proven successes, as well as the lack of concrete commitment to community recommendations regarding reimagining policing. Constituents have pointed several times to the confusing, problematic and ineffective initiatives around traumatic displacements of the sick and unhoused. These initiatives were implemented unsuccessfully under the leadership of Mr. Solidarité and have been the only examples of his capabilities. Yet here we are elevating him to the highest office that is responsible for public safety at one of the most challenging times in our history. As an employee, he participated in false allegations against not only my office, but other situations, as we heard in public comment. And each time he failed to show the integrity that we should expect from a leader at this level of government and speak up against injustice. I hope that in this role he'll find the courage to not only speak up against injustice, but to act to remedy it with his new powers. Because I have not witnessed his ability to act courageously in a public fashion or show the leadership necessary in such a powerful and controversial role. And because I must honor my constituents concerns as their voice. I cannot in good conscience support this appointment tonight. So I'm a no vote on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Next up, we've got Councilman Cashman. You know. Thank you, Madam President. I see Mr. Soldat in the audience. Can I ask him up for a question, please? We'd ask that you introduce yourself for the public record. Hi. I'm Armando Soldat de, the third interim executive director. Public Safety. Well, it's good to have you here, sir. I think one of the most important things that the Task Force on Reimagining Policing brought forth was shining a light on the importance of looking at public safety through a public health lens, as well as the traditional enforcement arrest and incarceration lens. Can you talk about your view of public safety through that public health lens and anything that you have done or plan to do to honor that perspective? Yeah, absolutely. And thank you for the opportunity to address this question with counsel and members of the public. So I don't know if you've heard me in the past or you've heard me talk about this. Well, before I became the interim public safety director, I've always talked about public safety through the public health lens. I thought that a lot of the challenges that we face, a lot of the major challenges we face in public safety are rooted in public health, those being mental illness, substance misuse, sometimes the co-occurrence of those both. Public health has been very impactful. I mean, our lives were all upended by this pandemic. I saw that firsthand. I was one of the efforts I took forward prior to being in the latest roles and working in homelessness space. I led the effort that the Department of Safety stood up at the Pepsi Center for COVID testing. It's something that is very near and dear to my heart. As I was in this position of being an interim executive director and my former duties in homelessness and the homelessness response for the Department of Safety. I needed some help. I needed some help in that regard. And I reached out to our public health and environment executive director in the mayor's office for that help. And I asked for Jeff Holliday, who many of you know, he's currently the director of Office of Behavioral Health Strategies, but he's also someone I know personally and I've worked very closely with throughout my time here with the city. And I asked for his help to back from that position for me. On loan. He's on loan right now because I'm waiting to be confirmed. But he's he's on loan to our department. And he's already been a significant voice in helping us create our priority and agenda around public health. I don't just want to talk about it. I want to do it. And him providing his his lens as a clinician, as someone that as a mental health commission, as a licensed clinical social worker, and in his role at public health and environment. He's been over in our office helping with us in that regard. Thank you. One more question, Madam President. What is what have you done thus far and what is your intention moving forward as far as interactions with the task force? So my interactions with the task force have always been a priority to me, just not only the task force, but community. Since the time I was a young officer in the early nineties in Phenix, Arizona, where I was born and raised, I was always involved in community as a uniformed officer, but also on my own time I got to know my community that I served. I felt that that impacted me a lot and made me a better police officer. When I hear Councilwoman Ortega talk about we didn't see that I was one of those young officers in Sweden seed neighborhood working with kids one day in uniform and one day playing basketball with them in those same neighborhoods, trying to divert them away from gangs and all those other things that we were working towards. The first call I made after I was announced by the mayor as the nominee was to Dr. Robert Davis from the task force, the task force coordinator. I wasn't asked by anyone to make that call. That was something that was important to me. I wanted to start the dialog. I wanted to start the conversation. We were in spots. We meaning public safety. The city and the task force were both in our corners. And I don't I know one thing for sure. Nothing gets solved. No problems get solved when people are in their corners. We have to come to the middle. We have to be able to talk to each other with respect, with courage. We have to be courageous to have these smart conversations. I've always made myself available for those hard conversations. So I committed to them. I had a very good conversation with with Dr. Davis. He's someone I respect and someone that I've worked with in the past. On other endeavors. I committed there to try to start the productive dialog work of our teams getting together and trying to come to some solutions with all these challenges we face. I committed to go to the next task force meeting. That was a commitment I didn't take lightly. I actually I was conflicted in that commitment. I wanted to make sure I came to that first task, first meeting. But my daughter was also going. Undergoing a medical treatment at Children's Hospital. So I took that note. Even with that balancing that priority, because it was that important to me, I didn't do it for politics or anything like that, but I wanted to make that commitment. I didn't we I made myself open for questions. I answered the questions. And then I made myself available the next week for another time. Another time. And I know they're volunteering. So I made a time that was mutually convenient for a lot of those folks, and I made myself available for another 90 minute dialog. I continued to. I will take their calls. I will I will talk to them. I will I will get to a space where we can talk, but we are going to disagree. That's the problem. There's going to be disagreement. We can't just take that disagreement and then say, well, you know what, we can't talk to Armando because he disagrees with us on something. We need to have a dialog and I hope to still foster that productive dialog. Thank you for that. I, I do believe there are areas where we can come to agreement with that, with the recommendations, and I hope we can find those in short measure. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Next up, we've got Council Pro Tem Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Armando. I have just a couple. Of questions for you as well. So what would we expect to be different or to change under your leadership? Well, the first thing I really want to show, and I think I've shown this, is accessibility. Accessibility to the community being out and being seen by the community being available to you all. And that availability isn't just business hours Monday through Friday. It's being able to talk to you at all times when problems come up that I hope that all of you can reach me and reach my staff. I've also set an expectation with my staff that it's not only going to be me and the community and me here at these meetings, it's going to be all of them . I think it's important for us to be seen, but it's also important for us to also treat everyone with respect and to have dialogs with our our constituency. You said something about Commander Fleece earlier that really resonated with me as he listened to the community. He handed it over to people in Westwood to hear. We need to do more listening and handing things over to folks. And really. So that's something that I really prioritize. And so one thing you're not going to hear from me is a lot of promises, a lot of, you know, big agendas, big initiatives. I'm not going to say that we're going to do an opportunity index or we're going to do that. What I want you to see a substantive change on things that matter. I want to also build sustainable change. And I want to back that up with policy and practice what we do and what we say we're going to do. We're going to back up with policy and hopefully you'll see a much more communicative and and much more information sharing from my office and with council and with the community. That's something that I hope that that we accomplished here in this and the time frame I have. Okay. Thank you. One of the things that I've. Experienced and I think. Anybody who lives in any major city. Has seen. Seen this expressed in Denver. I joined the city in 2001. A public safety review commission. We reviewed complaints after IAB can review them. So this was the predecessor to the Independent Monitor. Toxic employees create a toxic workplace, and we hold our public safety personnel to a really high standard because we literally place our lives in their hands. What is your commitment to removing toxicity in public safety departments? Yeah, absolutely. So my my career part of my career has been devoted to internal accountability, internal affairs, functions. I've arrested uniformed cops. Very hard to do. Very hard to do. I've had that. That's been a responsibility of mine. When I first joined the city, I joined the city as a calling. At the time when I first moved here, my wife's career brought us here to Denver. And thankfully this is a beautiful place to live and to raise my family. When I got here, I was watching in the news. I'm a news junkie. I was watching the Denver Post. The Denver Sheriff's Department was in the news for not good reasons. Marvin Booker Those situations just came out. They were talking about backlogs in their internal affairs functions. It was just an utter disarray. The sheriff had stepped down at the time and then there was a calling for. External candidates for to help their internal affairs department. At that point, I said, you know what? I could help. I can help there. I have good experience there. And I came here as one of those external investigators. Then rising to their civilian commander, their accountability has been something that's always been important to me. And I'm not afraid to hold that accountability for our officers. I do think with the power that an officer has the power to arrest or to detain, we give them a firearm. You know, ultimately they can take someone's life and the preservation of other lives. That's significant. And we have to make sure that those folks that are out there wearing our uniform and doing the job that they've sworn to do are held accountable when they don't when they are those toxic employees, when they are the folks that shouldn't be wearing the badge. I've encountered those folks. They need to go and they need to have that accountability. So I'm going to work hard with our independent monitor, with our citizen oversight board, with all those entities that provide oversight, but also with our leadership team, with our leadership teams of our departments, and letting them know that this conduct misconduct is not going to be tolerated. And when I'm making those final decisions on discipline, you can trust that I'm going to make those decisions based on, first the evidence, but ultimately on holding folks accountable. We cannot continue to to allow behavior of misconduct to take place and not me. And with that, though, I do want to balance you know, people make mistakes. Officers are not are not robots. They make mistakes. I made mistakes as an officer. We got to balance that. Right. We got to make sure that we're not exacting a pound of flesh for an honest mistake, that we we recognize that that folks will make mistakes. Where can we train? Where can we make our officers better? We have to take advantage of that as well. So I want to work with our our police, you know, our police department, our fire department or sheriff's department, community corrections, all our departments and our safety department to make our staffs better at their job and provide them more training. So it limits those mistakes that we do make. Thank you. I appreciate that. I will look for that. I will support your nomination tonight, but I will hold you to that standard. It may only be a year and a half. Left in this particular administration, but every one of. Those days matters to our residents. So I hope you'll be swift and judicious in that work. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for not seeing anyone else. And I'd like to hear from you. Earlier, I was on, I was like by 3 minutes, hoping. We continue on. With our meeting. Madam. Mr. Hagan, you. But this is not the time. Madam Secretary, please roll call on Council Resolution 145, please. See tobacco. No. Clarke, i. Flynn. I. Herndon, I have. All right. Cashman, i. Kenny Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black Eye. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. One Me 12 Eyes 12 Eyes Council Resolution 145 has been adopted. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I will then, as President, I move that proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on final consideration and do pass in a bloc. Vote for the following items. Proclamation 244. Resolution 146. 153. 154155156157158148. 1491 5132. 133. 134. 135 to 38. 239 240. 129. 136 137 139 one 3815. Ten. 21. 15. Ten. 22 127. And I believe that's it. I believe that is it. We we got them all their council secretary. We did. Thank you. All right. Wonderful. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CdeBaca. I. Eye for an. Eye. Brendan. Hi. Hi. Cashman. Hi. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. I swear, I. Torres. I. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The proclamations and resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 20003 changing the zoning classification for 735 North Milwaukee Street in Congress Park.