Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 7

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a Public Walkways Occupancy Permit for sidewalk dining at Starling Diner restaurant, located at 4114 East 3rd Street. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_09122017_17-0782

Councilman Austin. Pushing case. Thank you, adam. 14, please. Item 14 is a report from Public Works Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a public walkways occupancy permit for sidewalk dining at Sterling Diner Restaurant located at 411 fourth is third street district three. Thank you again to Councilman Price. Thank you. I recommend my colleagues support this item. This is. I know normally we don't have patio dining permits on. We don't take them out of consent. But this is one where the community was very involved and it's at the request of the community that we've pulled the item. So I imagine they would like to come and speak to it. I'm not sure. But I will say that we've worked very closely with the community on coming up with the particular design for this patio dining area. I believe the architect is also here. The business, the community and our public works department have worked very closely to address the concerns in this for this particular location, because it's located within close proximity to a lot of homes. Have also talked with the business owner who has been very receptive in terms of making some operational improvements that will continue to enhance the relationships between the business and the community with this expansion into the patio dining area. So with that, I'd recommend approval by my council colleagues. Thank you. Is there any public comment here? Yes. Very quickly. My name is Maureen Neely. I'm the president of the Belmont Heights Community Association. And I'd just like to state that we really appreciate the opportunity that the councilwoman prices allowed us to have a public opportunity to speak. Fortunately, I think we've covered all of the the bumps and areas that could have been controversial. And we're at the point where we've got a design we can live with. And like the councilwoman said, she's also committed to working with the operator to make sure all of the other smaller bumps about having an operation and right inside a neighborhood next door to residences is as painless as possible. So thanks again and appreciate the opportunity to speak. I don't see the architect here, but the design looks pretty good, so. Oh, hey, Nathan. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Fantastic. And I love to see the see some images at some point. Sounds like a great project. Members, please cast your vote.

Recommendation to review a report on Racial Equity and Reconciliation Initiative and provide input and policy direction. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08112020_20-0751

Thank you very much, Greg. Okay, with that, we're going to go and move to item 14. But before I turn this over to the two staff, I'm going to ask Councilman Richardson if he would like to open it up discussion for us. Absolutely. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have some comments, a little bit of the introduced as they are under 5 minutes, Mr. Vice Mayor. So first, I want to acknowledge that earlier this summer we heard the voices of thousands of our residents in our streets declaring that Black Lives Matter and demanding change, changes like reprioritizing our budget to invest in our community. In June, the Long Beach City Council adopted the Framework for reconciliation. That opened up a dialog and how we can acknowledge, listen, convene and ultimately catalyze a plan to create a more equitable, resilient city. You know, thanks to our Cosigners Vice Mayor Andrews, Councilman Austin, Councilmember Pierce, I think every resident and stakeholder participated. They shared their vision for a more inclusive city. I also want to thank the community members that participated in this process and the staff that organized this, the steps of the framework, and the third party facilitators who was who assisted like Theresa Chandler, Wynn Manning, Katie Balderas, Kelly Colby and Tom Modica. Third party facilitators like Carl Kemp, Chris Wilson, Dr. Amber Johnson and Dr. Joanie Riggs. Oh, and so. So how did we get here? So we're facing a crisis on three fronts that really exacerbates disparities. So we we have a COVID 19 pandemic. We have severe hospitalizations and deaths for black residents and brown residents. And people of color are disproportionately impacted. We're facing an economic crisis that has significant job losses, and we're at war two Great Depression levels and significant barriers to capital and opportunity for for our businesses. And, you know, with the murder of George Floyd and the countless list of individuals who've been killed at the hands of law enforcement as well as vigilantes, we've seen civil unrest in cities all around the world, in places including Long Beach. And so this these patterns of disparity that have happened by accident, I think there was all the systems and systems are laced with values based on race and gender values of policymakers and influencers. And this moment demands that we take a critical look at the persistent health and economic disparities within our city and understand how public institutions perpetuate inequities so that we can lead meaningful systems change. The Long Beach City Council initiated this process by declaring racism a public health crisis. And this plan is an appropriate response to that crisis. So the new model for a modern and resilient city is one that prioritizes public health and it prioritizes public health and invests in inclusive economy and embraces racial equity as a superior growth model for our city. This comprehensive strategy will make sure Long Beach is stronger as we recover from the COVID 19 pandemic and place a racial equity lens on our government systems and ensure we focus on intentionally updating our policies, closing gaps, restoring public trust in our our local government , including our local police department. And to be clear, this is not the end of the process, but rather the beginning of a transformation. In addition to that, we have you know, we're at a place where we have to really look at this as a pivot, a pivoting point, sort of inflection point for our city, a moment where we can truly focus on a new model of a more resilient city that really embraces racial equity as a superior growth model. And this comprehensive strategy here will make Long Beach stronger and stronger as we recover. So as I close, I want to mention that I'm going I'm planning to come back and I'm hopeful. I'm hoping that through this, we can adequately, adequately address structural inequities that are black and brown residents experience. And that Long Beach can meet this moment by embracing racial equity as a core philosophy. I have some amendments I'll add after the staff report to ensure greater inclusion of our Latino and AAPI communities and some elements that that are not included here. And I just want to close with the words of John Lewis in his final essay that was published. That was publicized. It was published in The New York Times. And this this quote says, When you see something is not right, you must say something. You must do something. Democracy is not a state. It is an act. And each generation must do its part to help build what we call the what we call the beloved community, a nation, the world society with peace within itself. And with that, I want to acknowledge this is a very significant moment, and I want to hand it over at this point to city staff to present the Racial Equity and Reconciliation Initiative. Yeah. Mr. Vice Mayor, are you ready for the staff report? I am. Okay. So, Mayor and City Council, we're here in front of you tonight to present to you the Racial Equity and Reconciliation Initiative initial report. This is going to be a fairly lengthy presentation to really go through what the team has been working on incredibly intensely for the last two months. Today is a really big day for us. We feel this is the biggest step forward in racial equity work in generations, and we're very proud to present what we heard. The process that we went through and then the recommendations that we have to bring forward tonight. It's important to note that this is an important step, but there's going to be many steps beyond this. Each of these items that you'll see is going to go through additional review and and implementation and plans and you'll be seeing this as we go forward, provided the Council gives us direction to move forward tonight. And so we'll have a two part presentation given by Teresa Chandler, our deputy city manager who's been leading this work, and Kelly Collopy, our director of Health and Human Services, Teresa. Thank you, Tom. Good evening, honorable vice mayor and council members. This report was a collaborative effort in partnership with the city manager's office, the health department, many other departments who make up the citywide equity team and community partners and stakeholders. Before jumping into the report, I'd like to take a moment to reflect on how we got here into a moment, into a movement beyond anything many of us have ever experienced. In just 8 minutes and 46 seconds. George Floyd, a 46 year old black father, brother and grandfather, was killed at the hands of Minneapolis police officers. His death added to the collective pain our country feels over the tragic death of Breonna Taylor. Ammad Aubry and too many others who have lost their lives due to police violence against black people. Across the nation, including here in Long Beach, people took to the streets, to the streets to condemn racial injustice. Now more than ever, it is vital for our city to take this unprecedented moment to acknowledge and understand the persistent and exploitive effects that still exist within the government, economic and social systems designed to exclude black people and people of color within our history. Though progress has certainly been made. We can now take bold action to ensure racial equity is woven into the city fabric going forward. Racism is more than just a hateful slur or act of violence from one person to another. Systemic racism is embedded as normal practice within our society and organizations, leading to disparate outcomes for people of color in every aspect of our lives, from housing to health care. The criminal justice system. Education and politics. The facts are there have been racist policies and laws that date back to the birth of our country, starting with the colonization of indigenous land and the kidnaping and enslavement of Africans. Moving forward, racist policies have been upheld through the Jim Crow era Japanese internment camps, redlining, school segregation. The war on drugs. Anti-immigrant policies and mass incarceration. And that history has gotten us to this moment. On June 9th, the City Council engaged in an earnest conversation about racism as a public health crisis and the and the need to restore public trust in city government, including law enforcement unanimously. Council called upon staff to prepare a report that would put the city in a position to enact culture and system change through the framework for reconciliation. This framework includes four key steps to address systemic racism, and I will go into more detail about each step throughout the presentation. Acknowledging the existence and longstanding impacts of systemic racism in Long Beach and the country. Listening to accounts and experiences of racial injustice. Inequity of harm or harm to community members. Convening stakeholders to analyze feedback from the listening sessions and racial disparity data to recommend initiatives that shape policy, budgetary, charter, and programmatic reform. And finally, catalyzing action that includes immediate, short term, medium term and long term recommendation for the City Council's consideration. I don't want to overlook the significance of this moment for us as a city to be able to name racism as a public health crisis. To be able to pull together a team of equity champions from across departments. To embrace this initiative and move it forward. And to fully take on this huge charge with urgency so that we can work hand in hand with the community to change the system as we know it. Yet I don't want to sugarcoat or minimize how difficult this process was. There was deep pain, rawness and vulnerability in many of these community conversations and our efforts to move urgently through this process. We made mistakes along the way. We're not always trauma informed and in turn elicited more trauma and pain for many people. I want to acknowledge and apologize for these actions. Talking about racism in this country has never been easy, and I'm grateful for each person, community member and city staff who are speaking up and leaning into this process, even when it's not comfortable and often very painful to do so. We recognize this is only a starting place, acknowledging there is so much work to be done and committing to dismantling anti-black racism and achieving racial equity equity by way of this reconciliation process. Long Beach may not be able to directly fix the systemic problems across this nation, but we can set an example for what the United States should be and we should stand for. Excuse me. And we should stand for four. Given our diversity and willingness to take a stand for what we believe in, our vision is, is to create a united Long Beach, where race and ethnicity alone do not determine our social and economic outcomes. We see the framework as a starting place that opens the opportunity for all to follow. As mentioned, we started on June 9th and literally hit the ground running, learning and shifting along the way. This process would typically take no less than six months, but we rallied as a city team and aligned this with our city budget process . Bringing it to you in two months. This slide outlines the framework process from the beginning and launches us into the next phase. We will walk through these steps in the next few slides. But first I want to share that we had to we we wanted to remain focused. And so it was essential that we had a clear vision, mission and core values to uphold the process. So I mentioned our vision a moment ago, but I want to reiterate how important it is that we get to a place where race and ethnicity alone do not determine our life outcomes, how safe we are, what kind of job we have, where we live, how well we do in school, and how successful we are overall at this time. Race and ethnicity often determines our life outcomes. All seven of the core values are listed above. But I'm just going to discuss a few with you now. We are committed to making sure that we center and uplift the history, wisdom and experiences of this community, particularly black people and people of color. We recognize the need for the city to offer great compassion, empathy and humility as part of the reconciliation process. We recognize that intersectionality exists between anti-black racism and systemic racism against Latinxs, Cambodian and other communities of color, and that solutions to systemic racism can be inclusive and supportive for all groups. We also center race in our equity efforts because all other dimensions of identity from income to gender, sexuality, education, ability, age and citizenship have an equities based on race. Knowing this allows for a more intersectional approach, while always naming the role that race plays in people's experiences and outcomes. So now I'm going to dove a bit deeper into the four areas of focus highlighted in the framework. We started with acknowledging as a public health professional. I'm certainly proud that our city council called out racism as a public health crisis. In acknowledging this, we thought that no voice could speak with more expertize than our own city health officer, Dr. Anissa Davis. Our report our our report opens with a letter in which she states public health is defined in several ways, but at its heart is the condition by which a population can be physically, spiritually and mentally healthy and well. I challenge anyone to explain to me how black people could possibly obtain optimal public health when someone is telling them where they can and can't live, what jobs they can and can't have, and what schools they can go to in light of the multiple public health crises we are in. Now is the time for us to look at what the data is telling us, listen to what the community is asking from us, and embrace that this is different from how we have ever done business before and move forward with intention to impact change. Kelly will now share public health data and what the city has been doing over the last several years to lay the foundation for this reconciliation process. In public health, we utilize data to understand the root causes of the issues we seek to address. It are used to identify differences in outcomes across the city. To understand why and to design appropriate interventions to reduce the disparities. They are also used to evaluate program impact, to monitor progress, to determine barriers to care, and to influence public policy in Long Beach, similar to other cities across the country. Data show that more often than not, black people and people of color have the poorest health and social outcomes. This is due to systemic racism. Here in Long Beach, black residents are hospitalized for asthma 9.4 times, more often than white residents. 25% of very low birth weight babies are born to black mothers, although although they only account for 13% of the population among all full time workers, white men are nearly two times as much as a Latino woman. White families are two times more likely to own their own homes compared to black families. And we know the rate for Cambodian home ownership is even lower. The data shows that in 2019, 27.4% of individuals stopped by police were black, although they make up just 12 and a half percent of our population. These factors and many other factors such as trauma, poverty and air quality affect how long we live. If you drive from one side of Long Beach to the other, there's about a 17.5 year life expectancy difference between our neighborhoods. Over the last five years, our city's Department of Health and Human Services has been sharing these data, showing health inequities that span across the zip codes. Digging into root causes and building a foundation to advance racial equity within the city structure, the department led three citywide cohorts through the Government Alliance on Race and Equity. Yearlong training housed the first Municipal Office of Equity in Southern California. Started implementing equity one on one trainings for city staff and developed the equity toolkit for city leaders and staff. Through these efforts, the city has over 40 trained equity champions across departments and created a foundation to analyze existing policies and practices. As well as you guys decide to walk for another two miles. Hey, Stacy. Stacy, can you me your phone, please? Wow. Through these efforts, the city has over as over 40 trained equity champions across departments and created a foundation to analyze existing policies and practices as well as guide the formulation of our future work. In addition, the city is focusing on diversity and recruitment and hiring to ensure our government reflects our community and is also focused on economic and digital inclusion. Though we still have a long way to go, we are confident the foundation created by the Office of Equity over the last few years will allow us to move this plan forward in a real, transparent and urgent way as the community is asking us to do. We've shared. Why? Why? Racism is a public health crisis using data. But unless we name our history as the root cause, the solutions will always be focused on individual change. Yet we know that the real change needs to happen at a systemic level because of the way that history has shaped the role of race in our country and in Long Beach. A key piece of the framework is to acknowledge the existence and longstanding impacts of systemic racism in America and in Long Beach. We've done this through the development of a historical timeline of racial inequities in Long Beach, which allows us to understand the root causes of inequities, learn from our past and together build a more equitable community. The resolution declaring racism as a public health crisis. Naming things like life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality. High blood pressure, diabetes. And how all of these things are symptoms of racism that are experienced at higher rates by black people and people of color. The update to the city's historic context statement, which will incorporate topics on race and suburbanization to guide future planning and land use decisions and allow those decisions to be rooted in a deeper understanding of the city's history and evolution, including the communities of color that have helped shape it. After these steps of acknowledging systemic racism, we moved into listening. Once we received the counsel requests on the ninth to prepare the report, four days later, we scheduled our first series of listening sessions. During this process, city leadership, including Tom Modica, Linda Tatum, Kevin Jackson, Kelly Colby, myself, members of the equity team and other city leadership listened to community members, accounts and experiences of inequity and harm caused by racial injustice. These sessions were hard on all of us, city staff and community members alike, as most people who spoke shared personal encounters and stories of violence, mistrust and frustration across a spectrum of personal encounters with the systems at large. We were listening clearly throughout the process and made adjustments along the way. After the first session, we started working with third party facilitators who are not city employees to facilitate the sessions. Because of the COVID 19 pandemic, we conducted the listening sessions virtually via Zoom in a matter of two and a half weeks. We conducted four town hall meetings, 13 listening sessions hosted by the city. Two listening sessions hosted by community partner Ronnie's house. Two listening sessions for city employees, and collected information from a community survey and a staff survey. We had more than 30 hours of listening with at least 560 individuals across the community lists, listening sessions and town halls. Many people participated in multiple sessions, which led to almost 1600 voices across the sessions. When adding attendance to all sessions together, additionally, 412 community members participated in an open ended survey to provide written input. We also engaged city staff in the process through two listening sessions and a survey engaging a total of 503 staff. Community outreach to underrepresented voices is a challenge in normal circumstances and even harder in a pandemic where physical connection is prohibited, and even more so given our short time frame. We tried to get creative in reaching out beyond the city's normal social media and website reach. We blasted out information through the Neighborhood Resource Center listserv, through local churches and through the housing authorities email list. We also had the Housing Authority inspectors distribute fliers at barbershops and beauty supply stores when they were open, and our health team distributed fliers at COVID testing sites. You can find the demographic breakdown for our engagement efforts and listing processes seized in the report. Although we had a fairly diverse group of participants, we acknowledged that due to both the rush to get these started and the limitations of in-person outreach efforts, we missed robust participation of important voices, including black men, youth, people from Central and West Long Beach, including Latin X and Cambodian folks. We also struggled to ensure complete demographic data collection for every session, so we had many who do not specify their identity. Data was collected throughout the entire listing process. We received a lot of written information from both community and staff to help us analyze what we heard. We partnered with Dr. Amber Johnson from Cal State, Long Beach and a team of her students to help conduct the qualitative data analysis on the audio transcripts, chat transcripts and notes. I'd like to thank Dr. thank Dr. Johnson and her team for their partnership through this and her willingness to work fluidly with us along the way. Dr. Johnson's team took hundreds of pages of transcripts, coded them for themes and categories, and distilled the data into a summary narrative that you'll find in the appendix of the report. From this rich information, key themes emerged, including divests from police and invest in community police and government, accountability and transparency, support youth and education opportunities. Affordable housing and housing protections. Economic Opportunity. Health Equity. Equity and environmental justice. After the listening sessions and data analysis, nearly 50 community members and subject matter experts were invited to participate in the stakeholder convenings. These stakeholders were selected based on factors such as residency and Long Beach, participation in the listening sessions, and ensuring representation from organizations that support and provide services for black people and people of color in Long Beach. Stakeholders were asked to review the data and summaries and provide feedback to ensure the community's voice was clearly articulated and represented in the analysis of this report. It was during the stakeholder process that we encountered one of the most challenging aspects of the reconciliation process. Throughout our listening sessions, we clearly heard the need to center black voices. However, we also heard from non-black community members that they felt the process was not inclusive of their experience of racism and inequity. During some of the drafts, we moved away from the term black to communities of color in an effort to be inclusive as possible. This resulted in backlash and hurt from the stakeholders for what they perceive was erasing the black experience from the report, which was certainly not our goal or intent. The stakeholders ultimately requested that we include the terminology black people and people of color and were pretty union unanimous on that, which included both Latino and Cambodian stakeholders who were standing in solidarity through the process. As a public as public health professionals, we let health data drive our efforts and the data show us that black health outcomes are often the worst among people of color due to generations of systemic racism, as described in the beginning of this presentation. We believe that if we create a community where we focus on eliminating black health disparities, we will create the systems, systems and supports to eliminate disparities in our next Cambodian, Filipino and Pacific Islander communities, which will ultimately get us to a healthier Long Beach for all residents. As in many outreach efforts, there are some stakeholders who disagree with the city staff recommendations. To respect this input, we agreed to include their direct feedback to the city's report so that you, the City Council, have their input available for consideration. We made this promise to a subset of the larger stakeholder group and it can be found in Section five of the report. Please note that the work of the smaller work group may or may not reflect opinions of the larger stakeholder group to the degree the city felt, those requests could be feasibly achieved. Their suggestions were incorporated into the city goals and strategies. Moving from a stakeholder phase. The initial report was created moving us into phase four, which is catalyzing into action. As we await your review, feedback and suggestions, we are starting to think about the work plan for each goal and will ultimately move us into ongoing action. Kelly is now going to walk you through the goals and strategies and I'll briefly touch on the potential actions and budget. The report highlights four main goals that emerged in the community stakeholder meetings and surveys. Under each goal, there's anywhere from 3 to 8 strategies 21 total strategies in the report, and over 100 potential actions to support these strategies. Our next steps will be to turn the potential actions into work plans, including what can be accomplished in the short term and what will take longer to complete. Plans will also include metrics to ensure accountability to the work. Go one and systemic racism, a long beach and all local government and partner agencies through internal transformation. Go one is really about getting our own house in order. Acknowledging that government has been long been the creator and perpetrator of racist policies and practices. It's our role and responsibility to proactively to dismantle the systemic racism. As you will see in the report, the potential actions are outlined under the strategies listed here. The first strategy acknowledge the history and current role of racism in Long Beach. Specific actions focus on researching and documenting the role of racism in our history as a city and incorporating this in public facing documents as well as reviewing and updating city policies that are outdated or have disproportionate impacts on black people and people of color. The second strategy Create measurement tools to understand depth and scale of racism to inform and evaluate change. This requires deeper analysis of our city's social, economic, health, safety, and other data to understand the impacts of structural racism. To identify wellness indicators. And to create measurement tools. To be utilized. To evaluate response and demonstrate progress. The third strategy is to center voices most impacted by systemic racism in policies, practices and programs. A core principle of equity is ensuring the voices of those most impacted are centered in policy practices and program design and implementation. The focus here is engaging voices that are not otherwise been engaged, utilizing innovative engagement tools and creating opportunities for authentic dialogs. Four Strategies Build Organizational Capacity to support anti-racist reform with removing the Office of Equity and Language Access Program to the city manager's office to highlight the importance of their work and further support its capacity to retraining , engagement and utilization of the equity tool kit, as well as building a cohort of equity champions across city departments to ensure equity is embedded across the city. The first strategy is to ensure all levels of the leadership and staff fully reflect the diversity of Long Beach. There are nine actions outlined in the report focusing on reducing systemic barriers to city employment, including mentorship, leadership and growth opportunities, and building strategies to ensure implicit bias does not exist in hiring practices. Six Strategies to Use in Equity Run through Evaluate Policies, Processes and regulations to eliminate racism. This includes utilizing equity, toolkit, data and community input to evaluate past and current policies and practices to adjust to adjust based on impact on black people and communities of color and ensuring that all city staff reports include racial and economic impacts on various groups. The seven strategies is ensuring equity is in our budget. Contracting and procurement is a key to utilizing an equity runs and budgeting and resources, expanding community voices in decision making for budgets, and ensuring that decisions are made openly and transparently. Is also focused on creating and implementing policies to ensure city contractors, vendors and consultants reflect the city's diversity. The final strategy under the school is to engage and collaborate with local and private sector partners to implement transformation across systems. This includes working closely with educational transit and other governmental anchor institutions to address racial equity and utilizing joint use agreements to expand access to facilities citywide for important programmatic opportunities. This also includes collaborating with private sector partners in projects and investments based on community needs and priorities. Second goal is to design and invest in community safety and violence prevention across the nation. Violence is considered a public health issue that has strong and evident negative impacts on individual and community health and wellness. A fundamental public health approach moves from reacting to violence to a focus on changing the social, behavioral and environmental factors that cause violence. The actions outlined in this goal provide an opportunity to systemically look at the social and economic barriers which perpetuate violence in communities and begin to address them. While the City of Long Beach has a long history of engaging in community based violence prevention, including weed and seed in the safe Long Beach violence prevention plan, these efforts have been funded primarily through grant opportunities and end when grant funding sunsets. Its first strategy here is strengthening community based violence prevention and intervention systems, focusing on de-escalation and trauma informed communities, and strengthening funding. The second strategy focuses on investing in a broader continuum of public safety, including community based violence prevention and safe civilian addiction services. And the third focuses on increasing reentry networks, which includes exploring creation of a one stop shop and increasing access to much needed services. As you had heard before, there has not been a lot of investment in violence prevention efforts. And so the focus here is to identify and redirect general fund and other funding sources into non-law enforcement programs for violence prevention, redefining public safety to include more social infrastructure support so that more programs are eligible for public safety specific revenues. And reviewing our violence prevention programs to improve what's not working and investing what we know works but needs to be scaled. Our third goal is redesigning the police approach to community safety. Following the tragic killing of George Floyd, the Long Beach community called for reimagining police practices and assurances that none would disproportionately and negatively impact the black community and communities of color. An example of reimagining police practices includes identifying calls for service that could better be addressed by mental health professionals or homeless outreach workers rather than police, and also strengthening police officer training, accountability and hiring practices. The goals outlined here align with those requests. The first strategy is to explore non-police alternatives to law enforcement. Emergency response. This includes creating non-police civilian response teams to respond to nonviolent calls. Creating an alternative dispatch system for nonviolence calls to engage mental health professionals in trauma informed crisis response and engaging more mental health and medical personnel in homeless response. The second strategy focuses on redesigning police oversight and accountability through improved, improved complaint and discipline practices. The actions here focus on CPC reforms. The third strategy redesigns police tactics, training, retention and accountability as focuses on ensuring our police team reflects the diversity of our city. That recruiting standards include higher levels of education or experience as additional training on implicit bias, trauma informed responses and much more, and mechanisms to improve transparency and accountability for the department. The final strategy is pursuing advocacy with agencies to enhance police oversight and accountability. These focus on state and federal policy reforms to improve reporting and transparency around police misconduct and to improve public trust. Our fourth goal is to improve health and wellness in the city by eliminating social and economic disparities and communities most impacted by racism. We know that medical care, genetics and an individual behavior only account for about 30% of health outcomes. 70% of what predicts health comes from social determinants of health. These include the neighborhood where you can afford to live, the condition of your housing, your parents educational levels and stress load, your family's income. Whether we have safe places to play outside the quality of our food, education and environment. These are called social determinants of health. We know that to improve overall wellness, we must invest early in people's lives to create opportunities for success. Focus on economic opportunity, housing and environment. This goal acknowledges and recommends strategies and actions to build opportunities across these areas. The first is to advance health equity. This includes many actions focusing on increasing investments, programing and access to public health services, mental health, food security, libraries and park spaces. It includes exploring the opening of an Office of Youth Development to include mentorship opportunities, youth, job skills and community based youth programing. It also focuses on exploring a community health center for black people and people of color, given the disparities in healthy birth outcomes, diabetes, asthma and heart disease among others. The second strategy focuses on advancing economic equity, which includes many actions focused on increasing access to employment opportunities and jobs. Strengthening small business opportunities and digital inclusion. Establishing geographically based economic empowerment zones. Enhancing the role of the jobs coordinator for plays. And strengthening education opportunities. Job skills and financial literacy for young black people and people of color. Our third strategy is advancing safe, healthy and affordable housing. This includes identifying mechanisms to increase development of affordable housing, expanding proactive rental inspections, investments into previously red line housing to ensure safe housing stock, and addressing the overrepresentation of black people experiencing homelessness and ensuring strong implementation of the inclusionary housing policy and tenant protections. It also focuses programs to increase homeownership for black people and people of color and investment in alternative forms of land and property ownership. The first strategy is advancing environmental and climate justice. This includes equitably increasing access to green spaces in the city and green jobs, decreasing air pollution, particularly in black communities and communities of color. Identifying funding for the cities, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. And exploring investments in renewable energy resources. The first strategy is, is identify new investment in health, environment, youth and economic equity. There are many plans addressing these issues outlined under go for yet few are funded. The strategy focused on identifying new and sustainable funding to support recommendations in this new city plans to promote a more racially equitable city. It also seeks to explore funding for the African-American Cultural Center. And the strategy is cannabis equity, focusing on increasing opportunities for cannabis entrepreneurship, strengthening the cannabis equity program and utilization of measure. M.A. Cannabis Revenue to invest in youth development, reentry programing, public health, violence prevention and economic equity to support communities most impacted in the war on drugs . This is a robust racial equity and reconciliation plan, focusing clearly on addressing the impact of systemic racism in our city and working to mitigate those impacts through focused policies, programs and investments in the city. Strategies include short term, medium term and long term efforts. So how do we start in year one? First of all, the city manager recommended funding, specific strategies and actions in his budget presentation last week. His proposal and his proposal included 3.3 million in funds to invest in this effort. 2.5 million in structural funds and approximately 782,001 time funds. These include 1.5 million to the Health and Human Services Department for Youth Development, Violence Prevention and trauma informed responses. Redesigning the heart team from firefighters to public health, nurse and social worker response. Locating social workers and libraries to support connection to services and funding. Be safe at 11 sites. Public safety funding includes a new Office of Constitutional Policing, support for reforms and innovations in the PCC and Fire Diversity Recruitment Program and civilian ization of 34 sworn positions to 28.7 civilian positions. The budget proposal also includes institutionalizing equity in our city. Reasonable share more about this plan. An immediate action. In order to move this work, there will be an expansion of the equity infrastructure within the city. As you can see here, there are several ways in which equity practices will be infused into the work across all departments by way of using the equity toolkit for decision making, incorporating the equity impact assessment into all staff reports. Increasing the quality and use of data to inform decision making. Implementing staff trainings to build capacity on racial equity. And identifying equity champions in each department to help move this work forward. Starting October 1st, the equity office will be realigned from the health department to the city manager's office. The equity team will be aligned under me as the new deputy city manager overseeing this work. The current structure of the equity office will be expanding to include another 1.5 full time employees. And, as mentioned, equity champions will be identified across departments. Language access is included in this realignment as well. As discussed in the Health and Human Services budget presentation earlier this evening, funding will also allow the Department to open a new Office of Youth Development, strengthening existing violence prevention efforts and out of focus on reentry and continue the department's equity efforts focusing specifically on health and housing equity. I will be focused on on including new staff as well as investing in our community and different programs around violence prevention, health equity and youth programing. We also redesigned the heart to model, as previously discussed from firefighters to nurses and social workers, build social work program at libraries. So that will be a partnership between the Health Department and Library Services to place social workers at three libraries to help connect people to the services they need. It will be supported through trauma informed and homeless grant funds. This builds off a successful pilot last year. Library services will realign library hours across libraries to allow its three flagship libraries to be open seven days a week. And one time funding will be utilized to enhance senior program at the Expo Center and the Be Safe program, which will operate 11 park sites across the city. Well, the Office of Constitutional Policing was not a direct outcome from the listening sessions. The police department has heard the call for rethinking traditional policing in a manner that will help implement equity, justice and constitutional public safety in our entire community. This office will support the Department's goals of policing within the parameters set by the US and California State Constitution while protecting the rights of all people. The office will be responsible for ensuring the Department is up to date with best practices in policing, legal mandates and community expectations, guiding the expansion of data analytics for accountability and transparency . Engaging with key stakeholders and other city departments for inclusivity and equity. Additionally, $150,000 will support a study of CPC to see to identify ways to improve oversight and accountability. The Fair Diversity Recruiting Program will continue with one time funds to support diversity and community outreach in the fire department, and 34 sworn positions will be converted to 28.7 civilian positions. This will transfer task currently assigned to sworn officers such as managing public safety equipment or responding to nonviolent 911 911 calls which include property crimes in which the caller simply needs a written report and instead be handled by nuns for employees. In terms of economic equity. In Year one, the Office of Economic Development will be working to open an Office of Economic and Digital Inclusion, which will be a partnership with technology and innovation. This will coordinate and implement everyone in digital inclusion, a road map and reconciliation report goals and provide ongoing oversight for the economic equity study outlined or sorry cover with CARES Act funding also provide funding for the Center for Economic Inclusion for Home Ownership Assistance. Economic Empowerment Zones in North Long Beach, Higher Learning Center. The Inclusive Business Center program will coordinate diverse small business diversity councils, small business navigation and inclusive small business procurement program. And finally, the Teen Center Workforce Training Program will partner with Parks, Rec, Recreation and Civic Gateway to deliver job training in high need neighborhood teen centers. So we've shared a lot about our process and the road ahead, which is where the real work will happen and the potential for transformation lies. Our immediate next steps include taking the Mayor and City Council's input, conducting legal reviews and assessing feasibility, feasibility of implementation, and developing detailed implementation plans that include actions, funding sources, lead department and staff and timelines for completion. We call this an initial report because this is just a starting point. We commit to remaining responsive to community engagement and our current context, whatever that looks like moving forward, expecting that key initiatives will evolve and be refined over time within the framework and goals adopted by City Council. We will also develop processes for ongoing assessment and feedback and provide routine status updates and engagement opportunities with community members. This could include, but not limited, limited to monthly updates at the Human Relations Commission meetings and ongoing communication with the broader stakeholder network to share updates on progress and opportunities for input and collaboration. We can't undo the damage racism has done during the last 400 years, during a two month process or over the course of one fiscal year. This work takes leadership with a long term vision and commitment. We thank you for your time and willingness to take a bold stand to end systemic racism within the city of Long Beach . Your support shows a true commitment to this work, and that is remarkable in itself. I can't end this presentation without giving another big thank you to the incredible equity team who brought all of this work together to the city managers, team department leadership and city staff who also jumped into this process. And a huge thank you to the community members and stakeholders who did not hold back their two hearts in order to push through to the next level. For all of you, I'm grateful and look forward to moving this work forward together. And that concludes our report. And we are now available for questions. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Kelly Company. First, I'm going to turn it back over to Councilman Richardson before I go to public comment. Thank you. Vice Mayor, I just want to acknowledge before we go to public comment, support letters that we received by elected officials and community based organizations. I'll be quick here. Congressman Alan Lowenthal, Congresswoman Nanette Barragan. We received a letter from the California Legislative Black Caucus representing all ten members of the CBC, Senator Lena Gonzalez. Board member Juan Benitez and Felton Williams. NBCC Trustee Joe. Joe. And took we received a coalition letter by 29 black nonprofit and community leaders. We also received individual letters from Black Lives Matter, Long Beach, Californians for Justice, My Girls in Action, Long Beach, Forward Investing Youth. Long Beach. African-American Heritage is the Heritage Society of Long Beach. Long Beach Community Action Partnership. Long Beach Public Library Foundation. YMCA of Greater Long Beach Community Development. The Children's Clinic. The Nonprofit Partnership. The Justice Collaborative. The Long Beach Center for Economic Inclusion. Long Beach Branch of the NAACP. Ronnie's South. Success and Challenges. United Way of Greater Los Angeles. Love Beyond Limits. Dr. Wade Martin, Long Beach Ministers Alliance Safe Passages African-American Cultural Center of Long Beach, 100 Black Men, Abby Street and more. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay. Thank you very much. Contribution. Could you please call for public comment? Our first speakers, Dawn Watkins. Your time starts now. Hi. So this process was formed as a result of police violence. The mayor, city manager, city staff reconciled, acknowledging harm sustained, but yet no reconciliation by those committing that direct horror in the hands of the state. The police, they were allowed to disrupt and change this process. Removing, defund LAPD, the most documented words from the process. And in the listening sessions and added things like constitutional policing and more money for training which were not found in the CSB summary. You know, we appreciate these efforts. But while we condemn the murders of George Floyd and Amad Arbery, we need to condemn their own killers like Daniel Martinez and John Fagan. Who? Tyler Wood. Fernando Archuleta. Salvadoran military. Jason Cardone. Sanchez. Matthew Hernandez. Jonathan Cole. These are officers in our department who have killed people who have excessive force records, who have multiple items in their records of violence that have cost our city hundreds of millions of dollars. Bradley Lewincamp. Nicholas Farah. Christopher Brammer. Victor Ortiz. Lorenzo Rebeck. Mandatory. There's about 100 officers that I know who have killed and used excessive force. They have shot and luckily have not died. This is harm that has to get reconciled by and by our police department. You can't condemn what's happening across the country. And then here allow a department. Thank you. Our next speakers, Caravan for Justice. Your time starts now. The Hart team is not this is not the solution for trauma, de-escalation. Cahoots is a 31 year old program based out of Eugene, Oregon, whose was initiated because the state was trying to create a more citizen evolved, accommodating community. This was their way of reimagining public success. Over 31 years ago, with success, the cahoots models create calls including conflict resolution, de-escalation, harm reduction, substance abuse, suicide threat and specializes in trauma and force de-escalation a training that our police department in the Hart program does not possess. Also, for cities trying to implement the model, the youth program will offer development and training, material, operation manuals, policy development, classroom training, consultation during the process, assistance with hiring and technical advisory during the whole process. Section two of Bill SB 2054, the crisis that has already confirmed the complexities of emergency issues surrounding crisis and mental health, intimate partner violence, community bar, the substance abuse and natural disasters cannot be addressed more safely with greater impact and more cost effectively and efficiently with community organizations. Not only does Law Beach realize it needs radical change. Our state has made it definitive that there is a severe problem that must be rectified. The numbers have already been crushed. Long Beach, if they implement cahoots in Long Beach, can save over $60 million every year of their budget. Other cities that share a similar crime and mental health demographics like New York, San Francisco and. Indianapolis. Have already begun establishing cahoots base programs in their cities. Thank you. Next, speakers will need a diploma. Your time starts now. Yes. Thank you and good evening, honorable mayor, vice mayor and fellow members of City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. Again, my name is Dr. Moore. I'm a proud resident of North Long Beach, a Mother Nature commissioner. And I also participated in several of the discussions regarding the reconciliation program to address the racial inequalities that have been brought to light by the recent pandemic. The social and racial injustice. And the reconciliation initiative. The desired outcomes that I would like to see for the youth are more afterschool and summer programs as it relates to STEM science, technology, engineering and math. Exposure to these programs in these areas help to prepare our youth for for the careers of tomorrow. Tutoring and resources. Such programs that would be of assistance with helping with a proficiency requirement that lead to college preparedness, readiness and completion rates. These programs foster a college growing culture that is that is sustainable for all members of our community, most importantly, for those in underserved communities. Internship programs and trade programs such as workforce development and service programs. These programs provide job, career and readiness exploration. I know that my concern for you, as well as other members outlined in the Reconciliation Racial Inequality Reference Reconciliation initiative as well as I ask that you take great care at. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kevin, Georgia. Your time starts now. Hi. My name is Kevin Yeager, District four resident The recommendations from the Framework for Reconciliation are great, but they do not go nearly far enough. And that's because our city's true priorities are shown not by the number of different things we can say we did, but where we put our resources in the budget. These 3 million and investments only amount to about 1% of LAPD's budget. And again, we're here right now having this conversation in response to decades of police violence. LAPD continues to receive 44% of the general fund, 240 million, only 4 million less than last year's 244 million. Cutting APD 1.7% relative to last year is not nearly enough. The message from these conversations was to divest from police, invest in black communities. We can solve our entire budget shortfall and invest in critical new programs. By cutting LAPD's 240 million and cutting LAPD doesn't mean cutting public safety. When thousands of renters are evicted in the coming months, LV PD won't keep us safe. LAPD officers can't keep us safe from COVID. They can't even wear their masks consistently. There won't be federal when federal agents show up trying to deport our community members. LAPD will not be there to keep us safe. Please invest in real public safety by funding housing, immigration, defense, health, language access in accordance with the people's budget. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kimathi. Your time starts now. The city created a reconciliation process without community stakeholders, mainly to fit into the city's budget structure and process. This alone is a practice of white supremacy because it perpetuates centering of the dominant cultural practices. Nevertheless, there were listening sessions and town halls with over 1500 participants from our community. The mayor and a few council members have publicly admitted that, yes, racism is a public health crisis in Long Beach and black folks have been harmed for generations. However, the police, who are the main predators of harm to the black community aside from COVID, have never apologized for any harm throughout this reconciliation process. Teresa mentioned the painstaking stakeholders meeting that we had for 3 hours, trying to convince the staff and Tom Modica specifically that it wasn't ethical to alter the data that was collected during a reconciliation process that admitted harm done to black people in the city. Yet black people were erased and the voice of the community demanded it be put back in. Hence the document you see today. It was really disappointing to see one of the council members post on social media that the word black is all over the document. Let me say that was both rude and hurtful to see him belittle the work of the community who helped put the word black back into the document. That was an example of white supremacy practices from that council member. Erasure of black people in documentation are physically driving them out of your neighborhoods or city is white supremacy. This process is not to point fingers at individuals. Thank you. Our next speakers maniac be. Your time starts now. I'm going to finish what Don said. You can't condemn racism and police violence across the country, but not do it once in the report. No police violence has been condemned tonight. And that is a problem because that is not reflective of the community. The question is, what is reconciliation? It is a victim driven process. This is not victim driven. This is institutionalized racism right in the face of the people that you're claiming to be reconciling with. The fact that time you claim that you are data driven. That's what you said to me. And in the same conversation admitted that words were removed. Defined was nowhere in the report. Black was taken out eight times with the data is where those things came from. So you're a liar if you claim to be data driven, but you allowed that process to be changed. And only by us having hoopla and and anger and frustration did you change it. But this process, civilization, what is that? This is all just a crock because it's only going to be 1%. Racism is systematic and structural. This report and this budget does not reflect a structural and systematic method of combating racism for black people at all. And there's no discussion of defunding and reinvesting police budget in a significant way. Then this is just a farce and it's not victim driven. And the people that are guilty of perpetuating racism are trying to co-opt this process and make it sound nice with beautiful pictures on documents and nice, flowery words and reports. But no significant changes are being made if only 1% is coming out of the police budget. Thank you. Our next speaker is Pastor Leon Wood. Your time starts now. Thank you very much. I want to thank you, the mayor, for having me on the program. I would like to say that Long Beach has a lot of high and lows. Over the years, I've been coming here as a little boy for years, and I remember that it's always had some racial issues. And I want to thank Councilman Rex Richardson for his leadership in giving me an opportunity to speak about them and having others speak about this as a longtime member of the black community and faith communities. I know the history here in Long Beach. I know the obstacles young black men face, and I know the needs of our communities. You can look and see that if a community has a really high education system, full employment, and people are treated well, you have less crime and you have less, less violence. Obviously, we don't have those things because we have high crime and high violence are structural. Change will address the inequities black and brown households are burdened with. And we want to see the recommendations in this report to come to life that actually go in and make structural change. And every home that's suffering in the Long Beach community. I've been looking and success and challenges this summer. We had the Freedom School and we were able to to work with young schools virtually. And we really saw that what takes place when you really give some love and care for young people and try to help them move forward. You also see how the parents react when someone cares about. Thank you. Our next speaker is Patrick Swimmer. Your time starts now. Thank you. My name is Patrick Swimmer and I'm here on behalf of the Long Beach Young Democrats. On June 10th, our organization took emergency action to support this framework and other policies to address the racial injustices within our city, such as defunding the police at least $40 million to 2017 levels. So we appreciate that the council felt the urgency to act in time for the budget. However, something this crucial for the health and safety of the black community and our other communities of color requires a more thorough process and should not have been rushed to completion in less than two months, especially at the expense of the integrity of the data you collected. The participants of the study were not representative of the communities for whom this framework was developed. Even still, among the community members who did participate, an overwhelming amount said that their number one priority was to defund LV PD. But according to attachment and the executive summary of the budget, the police department moved only from $264 million last year to 260 million doubt this year. Rather than listening to the participants of this study and the countless community based organizations who have called for the same the police to remain essentially fully funded and only 3.2 million is allocated for the implementation of this reconciliation process. We support the purpose and goals of the reconciliation, but the implementation of this plan must be done in concert with the greater structural changes called for by the community, specifically defunding APD and reinvesting in our communities to a meaningful degree Black Lives Matter. And that should be reflected in our city budget and operations. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Max Norse. Your time starts. Now. Hey, folks, good evening again. I just wanted to chime in and make sure that you know that we need more affordable housing in Long Beach if we're going to ensure to keep what black community we have left here in Long Beach. We need to implement the housing division where tenants can go and handle false accusations from landlords rather than face eviction and court fees there and having the record at Jeopardy! Which affects their ability to rent a new home or even stay in Long Beach. We must continue to listen to black community voices and defund the police and fund the need. Black community voices and defund the police and fund the needs of the community in order to make sure we invest in the most marginalized. Imagine if we created affordable housing units in District three and five people in those units would have longer life expectancies defined. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rebecca Rose. Your time starts now. It is insulting to see the city council vote to talk about talking about racism, reconciliation. We need answers yesterday. It feels like you guys think we're stupid. We aren't stupid. We're watching. We are busy. Like you are busy. We are overwhelmed. Like you are overwhelmed. But the people of Long Beach actually care about those most affected by police brutality and institutional racism and all the other intersections that cause struggle and suffering within the capitalist system. If you aren't radical, then you aren't left. So stop pretending. We we all know the Long Beach City Council are Republicans pretending to be liberal. You give the appearance of caring while you while we hold the burdens of your inaction. So come that. Come the outcome of the reconciliation guidelines is to divest from the police and invest in the community in terms of public health and education, especially in bipoc communities. This means a lot of police officers will likely lose their job, but if they are in the business of helping people, they can find work to help the community without the use of force. You can remove a uniform. You cannot remove your ethnicity. The jobs created from investing in the community. You will employ the people with an honest desire to protect and serve a kind that doesn't put others lives at risk. We need you, the City Council, to expand your imagination beyond the current structures. Based on the current distribution of funding, it is clear that you take punishment more seriously than prevention because Opiates PD received about 44% of the general fund, while other departments that directly serve serve the community. Thank you. Next speakers, Ryan Ballard. Your time starts now. Good evening and thank you so. Much for this opportunity. I first want to say in this public forum that my family extends our sincerest condolences to our mayor and his family. But is with that same spirit in mind that I express. My thoughts on tonight. That is the spirit of humanity. I hope that our elected officials will view this as an opportunity to right an historical wrong. Clearly, the community is hurt. Those who spoke before me spoke with such eloquence, and if I could, I would echo every one of their sentiments. We realize that this is not an endpoint, but. This is merely a start. But many in our community included, are wondering what's different now. We hope that we will really see tangible change, because for many of us, this is this is all too normal. The death of George Floyd and many, many others is typical. So what changed in this time? So we're hoping. That you will vote fully support what this initiative is intending to do, what we hope that it is intending to do, and that is to really abolish the racism that many of us have suffered, not only abroad, but here in the beautiful city of Long Beach. So I would hope that you would vote not only. Thank you. Our next speaker, Sharon Senegal. Your time starts now. Hi, my name is Shereen Sinegal and I'm the executive director of Ronnie House. I lift all the concerns and pain of my black brothers and sisters. I lost my husband to gun violence, the pain that drives my purpose. I'm not alone in this nonprofit. Leaders across the city work from a place of loss and life experiences that has positioned them to be the best equipped to lead the execution of the recommendations on the reconciliation plan. With that said, I urge the Health Department, Economic Development and other departments to invest in community organizations that work from that place and support and collaborate, allow them to lead the way. Thank you to city staff for your hard work in the reconciliation. You will find purpose in your pain and to Councilman Rex Richardson for your bold leadership and to other council members. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tiffany Davey. Your time starts now. I want to thank everyone who's spoken, especially all the stakeholders. And those. Who supported. On city. Staff for their time. I think what we're hearing. Is. Really. We want to understand where we are reconciling. And with whom and to really address. The harms. We must go. Further. It was my recommendation. That we create a Truth and Reconciliation. Commission, something to truly institutionalize equity going forward. These voices that you're hearing on the phone have. More to say and have said have given. Ours. And I look forward. To hearing from them. More and then leading the way as well. I want to thank all those who stood in. Solidarity. With the Black Lives Matter movement here, specifically. In Long Beach, and our efforts to highlight and gain. Justice prefer to cast. Victim of white supremacy within our own city. Our recommendations were sent to the city. Clerk. In full. Defund the police. It's simple the creation of neighborhood justice centers. We need true movement towards addressing centuries old issues. While this is not an impact that I. Thank you. Thank you. Our last speaker is Dave Shukla. Your time starts now. Hello. Well, first of all, if I could correct suggestions, the impetus for bringing this item forward and through the chamber for a very amazing and heartfelt presentation, the better than expected. My name is Dave Shukla. I am the eldest grandson of Bashir on the group of five Shukla, whose name I do not invoke lightly. To do so is to claim one of the oldest familial traditions on this planet. Things like the transatlantic campaign, 400 years of racialized capitalism in America. These are relatively small things in the time, history and perspective of my people and my family. There's a lot with this reconciliation initiative that is a good starting point. Obviously, we've heard a lot about how it needs to be expanded. One Direction. We need a decade old program. We need to revisit this every two years by the anniversary of the murder of George Floyd. We do this in person in two years. We need to start thinking about zero budgeting within two years and fiscal year 2322. We need to think a lot about our budget, obviously, but specifically for having the public safety budget come on the 18th. I've been working 18 hour days for two, three months. We have a much more important item for the city coming up the day of the action plan. Thank you. And that concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now we got a lot to come to mind and then councilman's comments and we'll have Councilman Richardson to speak and then we'll go through the glasses. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Just a few amendments that I have more comments I'll to back up. If I if I run out of time. So first, I want to acknowledge all of the comments from the public. I want to let people know this is not the city declaring that we have achieved reconciliation. This is the city acknowledging that we need to take steps with the goal of achieving reconciliation. It will not happen overnight. I'm not confused about that. I hope that you are not confused about that. This will that will require hard work, dedication and continuing to build and shape our city. Now, a few points here that I want to lift up. There have been a lot of issues tonight with interpretation. I want to start by just acknowledging that we need to correct the interpretation process, particularly if we're doing using remote process here. So I want to see that. I want to see a two from four and I'll put that in my motion, a two from four on how we can think about ways to improve the interpretation process. Secondly, I want to acknowledge the fact that racial equity acknowledges barriers across race. There's a lot of focus here on the black community. The community has demanded that we center this experience on the black community. But I also acknowledge that there are significant barriers facing our Latino population and our combined population. And so I want it reflected in this motion for staff to go and engage directly with the Latino community and the Cambodian community and find out what process they'd like to do to make sure that this reconciliation process moving forward includes them more intentionally and specifically. I also would like to include as a as a as an amendment here that I'd like to see. I'd like to see some tangible change in in order to do that. We have to track, track and measure progress. And so I'd like to see benchmarks and reports on a six month basis. And I'd like to see see it recorded in disaggregated data by race and ethnicity. I want this reflected in my motion. I think that there needs to be some ongoing oversight to some of this process. One of the recommendations within the framework talks about reimagining Human Relations Commission. I think now is the time for us to engage directly with a Human Relations Commission, to create an equity commission that can work hand-in-hand with the Office of Equity. And so begin that I want that reflected in this in this motion to begin the process of shifting the Human Relations Commission to an end and rethinking its scope to work hand in hand with the Office of Equity and and provide some public engagement and civilian oversight to this process. There are a number of other things here that I want to jump into. What I'm going to do now is I'm going to work through it. If I run out of time, I'll come back up. So on goal number three, as it relates to KPCC and investigations, I want to ask a question of staff. I see that we have a of resources in this budget and within the plan to bring on a consultant and begin the process of changing our charter to update the PCC. My goal, I think what's important, what I've heard from the community is that we don't want to see small adjustments but rather an overhaul. So sort of like get rid of the PCC and build a modern oversight commission which will take some, some time, but we want to do it on the next general election. And so I want to understand from staff, one is that the plan here and to more specifically with respect to evaluating other accountability processes, with respect to investigate and other things, are those included within the scope of of this this contract or this consulting that you're bringing on to help work with work on this? That's my first question. So we have included $150,000 in the proposed budget to address the PCC. The our vision is that we would bring on an outside expert who could help us independently review how our structure works, compare it to other structures, and give us best practices. Give us ideas on how a commission could be changed or reformed or improved. We're also looking for short term improvements that the election would not be allowed to be on the ballot until 2022 per state law. So we would have two years under the current system if the council wanted to change it in the future. And so we see it as a comprehensive review that would be year one. And then going forward there would be $150,000 to help implement. So we believe that there are some changes that can be made that would help the current commission do its job a little bit more efficiently. And. Better. And then we could look at all the other best practices as well. Thank you so much. You have one minute, sir. Okay. Thank you. So in that so I'll just stay on this topic and read to four for another. And so in terms of goal to I want to be clear that we're beginning the process of C.P.S. within the scope of that. We also want to look at just the investigations process and the new commission should have some independence. It should have is restore public confidence that you have some some some authority to conduct some investigations. I don't understand what can be done before the election in 2022 and and what the process looks like in the march between now and 2022. So that can come back in two from four. I think on the issue will then go to on youth development, violence prevention. I want to I want to understand it further. And this is questions that the capacity or building on violence prevention, is this a mechanism to bring in more community based intervention workers and things like that to help us achieve violence prevention? How are you thinking about this? That's for Kevin. Yeah. So in terms of the violence prevention structure would be to we would hire one additional person as part of the city's violence prevention team to help manage and coordinate that program. At this time, we only have one full time equivalent supporting all the violence prevention efforts within the city. So we'd bring one new person on and then through that work with community efforts around coordination of efforts, but also providing funding and resources to community based organizations to to engage in violence prevention work that that they are known for. Councilman. I'm out of time, so I have to back up. Thank you. And Vice Mayor. Mayor, if I can ask a question. So I think we're going to hear from the council a number of ideas and comments and things that they would like to see. For staff, it would be really helpful if we had that in the form of a motion so that we can track what is it that the full council supports. So I believe I heard Councilmember Richardson start in saying he was making a motion. I just want to confirm that's the case. And there were six items that we had. If we could follow a process where we have a motion and substitute motions and others that would help us get clear direction. Yeah, we have video of a motion by Councilman Richardson. Yes. Okay, fine. We'll come back you. We'll get that done in that order. Okay. Consequences in the hands. So I just want to say a big, big thank you to Councilmember Richardson for having the courage and the brilliant ness of putting something together like this in, especially as we are facing in this very difficult time. I also want to give thanks to staff. I for this presentation that they gave. That was really great. I know that this work involved a lot of facilitating and reaching out and being creative and and it was long, hard and very emotional for all parties. And I think that, you know, to be able to do this and in such a quick, you know, time was also very incredibly difficult. So I commend you for your efforts into putting this all together. I'm also incredibly grateful to all of the residents and community members that have been involved in this process by engaging in this very painful but necessary and and absolutely overdue work. This report puts in black and white. What would people of color in Long Beach have been have known for for many years? So I'm grateful that we're acknowledging the significance of having these truths come out and and and supported by our city leadership. We should continue to keep in mind that this comes only after decades and decades of our city being unresponsive to experiences of people of color and their activism in the face of systemic racism and white supremacy. We need to really keep that in mind going forward. It's important for us to keep that in our mind and know how critical it has been to be able to listen and actually discuss all of the things that have come out in this report. I'm heartened by some of the policy changes provided in this report, and I think that we have an excellent starting point. Again, I will say an excellent starting point in beginning to address some of these issues. I am particularly excited to see some immediate and short term movement on expanding our language access programs to better include our residents, including immigrants. On very excited about the amendments made to this motion to have something separate for the Latino and the Cambodian community. I, I think that these kinds of structural changes, especially when attached to increasing funding for staff and all the responsibilities are are a good way to create an equitable outcome for us. I also think that it's critically important that we. That that we have space to have these conversations. And in our actions as counsel for, you know, we as counsel have the responsibility to listen to our constituents and hear them out and see really listen to what some of the solutions would be. Majority of participants in the reconciliation process so far have unequivocally voiced support for reinvesting resources and in other departments like youth and programs. One of the things said that I want to see is also investing funds in in prevention of violence. I think that that's very important. So with that being said, I just want to say thank you, Councilmember Richardson, for bringing this forward and really listening to our to our residents. So with that, I just want to say that I fully support the motion and I'm happy to second this motion. Very much come to me. Oh, sorry. Did you take the wrong time, sir? Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Just one point of clarification, Vice Mayor, when you say council members have 5 minutes each time by the council members themselves. Because sometimes when we ask a question, it takes another two or 3 minutes for an answer. I just want to get a clarification on that. Or is it just 5 minutes of total conversation to the council member and staff? You know, the rules say the question and the answer. Okay. Yes. Want to get clarification on that? Yes, sir. Okay. Because it can be a little bit can be a little frustrating. Yes. First of all, I want to thank. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank Ms.. Chandler for taking the leadership in this and and her honesty. She was very straightforward in saying that there were some mistakes made and acknowledge those and that and and address those. And that's is going to make everything better. That's where we're at right now. I mean, let's face it, there have been mistakes all over all over the place, especially in the treatment of people, the treatment of our LGBT community. Keeping the women. And, you know, when it comes right down to it, I see it as a perfect storm. And I will say I said it before, I'll say it again. This started because the atmosphere in our country began with a racist. It began with Charlottesville. It began with his in the willingness to accept the the the decision of a Mexican-American judge who was making a judgment, an adjudication on his. Trump University. It started there Alachua and then a Lach was let George Floyd unfortunately that rest his soul lost his life because of racism. Because of the atmosphere that was created in this country by. And then we have a pandemic. And what did the pandemic do? It raised to the to the surface the fact that there are a lot of inequities and injustices out there in the community when it comes to public health, when it comes to health care in general, that, you know, people can't afford it. And people are having a difficult time getting access to the proper medical care that they need. And then on top of that, we have a down on economic downturn that raised even more issues about wages and disparities in wages and disparities in jobs. And, you know, men making white men making two, three, four times more that than Latino women, African-American women and women in general. And so what we have here is, is the perfect storm. And I'm glad that this came forward because it's putting it to the through the the discussion is putting that on the table and the very painful discussion that we have to have with one another. And it's and it's time and we're we're in a we're in a in a in a in a in a current time right now where we can have this discussion, where we can put it all out there and just put it on the table and, you know, let's clear the air. And I know it's painful. Miss Chandler experienced that pain and we continue to feel that pain and we're working through it. And we will we will we will survive this. We will work this through. And I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for bringing this forward as the idea. And I want to know that that we know we were present. I hope that this document will be a living document. That will be a document that we can go back to, that it will not be shelved, that it will be a document that we will always revisit and make better because we're going to continue this discussion and it's going to grow. Council Member ten there has said it perfectly. You know, we we still need further, more discussions to be held in the Latino community and in the Cambodian as well as to the Filipino community. And we need more input from our LGBT community and women. But I see this document as being alive and being able to add to it to make it all that much stronger. And I'm looking forward to I know Councilmember Richardson has that finished on his amendments that he has for his motion. And I'm looking forward to some of those supporting that. But as a whole, I certainly support support this framework. And I think it's a very positive step moving forward. And I'm very proud of Long Beach. I mean, the people came out, they spoke their piece, and they're adding their voices to this document as well. It's typical is a typical conversation, but it's one that's necessary. We have to have. Thank you. Mayor Raymond Miranda, councilman. Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I really want to take a moment first to recognize our council members that really worked hard to bring this forward. Councilmember Richardson has been leading a lot of the conversation, as he's known to to like to get out there and roll his sleeves up on everything. But we really have to thank the fact that we've got Councilmember Austin and Councilmember Dee Andrews who have been leading this and having their own conversations in their own networks and really facing some of the historical racism that has existed in the city of Long Beach for a really long time. And I say that because when I got on council as a bright eyed, bushy tailed progressive that ran on police reform, when I tried to talk about some of the racial inequities, it was really uncomfortable. And I think that we're having this conversation as an entire city, and it's really uncomfortable, and that's okay. And I know that our staff, like Teresa, who got thrown into a new position and then thrown into it and thrown into this leadership, have found themselves in difficult moments. And I remind everybody that if we didn't have these emotional moments, if we didn't have tension, if we didn't have difficult conversations and accountability. We wouldn't be doing the right thing. And that's how we know that while this process might not be perfect for everybody, it's a process that the city really, really needs to have. I look and I see that we've had council members that have been on this council for a long time stepping up and leading on these difficult conversations. And it it makes me feel really hopeful. I also see young black women that are leading and speaking up on almost every council meeting that I've never spoken at a council meeting before. And the fact that we have people like Don and Shereen, but also Theresa and others that are sharing their stories and trying to facilitate a conversation while also experiencing this difficult moment is really hard. And so I feel very humbled to be a part of this conversation. And I never in my 13 years of doing community organizing work in Long Beach thought that we would have such an open conversation. And so I know it's been tough for people like Tom, and I want to applaud Tom for for being present, but being in the middle of every single stakeholder that has something to say about this work. And I know that that's not easy, but I also know that this conversation was started because Black Lives Matter and they didn't feel like they mattered. And until somebody says, I, I am a black woman or a black man, and I can tell you that I feel respected, that I feel like people in my community see me as someone who contributes and matters, and we haven't done our job yet. And so reading this really in what the speaker said is this is about reconciliation for the entire city, but it's about police, us in particular. And Black Lives Matter have have spoken up community members have signed letters. All the organizations that spoke that Councilmember Richardson listed earlier signed a letter asking for 12% of the police budget to be cut. And I know that when the budget came out, we were really you know, we felt like we were in a really good place. We were at 5% that it was higher than L.A. But then it came back that maybe the numbers weren't exactly what we needed. This is the very first sign that we need to have a transparent budget next week whenever the budget comes back from PD. Our new budget book. I understand we've been in a difficult situation with COVID, but our residents need to see exactly what is in our police budget. I, as a councilwoman need to understand what is in our police budget so that we can match those priorities. I think it's very important that we recognize. That this is really hard for our or our police officers. Nobody can question. You have one minute. Okay. I'll make motions when I come back up. But I couldn't have this vote tonight without grounding us in this. I have always been outspoken about reforming PD, but I also know a lot of police officers and I'm talking directly to our police officers right now. I do not believe. At every single one of our police officers. Is inherently racist. I believe that our police department has lacked accountability and transparency. Is positioned in a military way that allows it to operate without the council having full oversight and without the voters, the constituents, all of the residents live here, whether their voters are not to have a say. And that is what this process has to be about. This process has to be about transparency and accountability and making sure that people's tax dollars are going to make every single person feel safe in the city, not just some. And so I wanted to ground the rest of my conversations and not that I recognize that. And I recognize this is a hard moment, but we cannot let this moment pass this by without making real reform in this direction tonight that we give stop is where we start. So I'll come back up. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor, can you hear me? Hello? Hello. Okay. I. So, first of all, let me just just say, I would really like to express my deep and sincere appreciation to everyone who has been involved in the preparation of this framework document. Now, I salute our city manager for for taking it on, Teresa Chandler, for leading this charge. Dr. Davis, your introduction was, you know, heartfelt, truly felt that reading it. And I want to thank our Health Department Mobile's policy and the many community stakeholders who weighed in and provide hours of testimony over the dozen or so more listening sessions. Those sessions were not easy. Weren't easy to listen to. And conversations about race are never easy or comfortable. And I think it should be noted, and it has been that this is a monumental document that demonstrates our city's commitment to being more inclusive and equitable from the inside out. This document represents a clear denunciation of racism. And it's a beginning and an earnest attempt to repair a broken system. I think it goes much further than addressing police violence and accountability. You know, as the city council member representing the eighth District, I'm reminded of the abhorrent redlining practices that existed in my neighborhood just a few decades ago. I would not have been able to own or live in the home that I live in. You know, 40, 50 years ago. The first black family integrated Bixby Knolls in 1958, Dr. Charles Cherry bought a beautiful home on Cerritos Avenue in Bixby Knolls, and that family was met with vitriolic acts of racism and rejection by their neighbors, who say they did not receive a warm welcome. And being the first being the first black in the first minority is never, ever easy either. Today we vote against racism. We vote against anti-Blackness. If this vote tonight honors the lives of Medgar Evers. Trayvon Martin. George Floyd and many, many others. This vote tonight is when I take this vote is on behalf of my three black sons, my future grandchildren, to live in a more equitable society. As for our youth, our black and Latino youth, and for my youth to be able to live in a city that extends opportunities and supports their dreams. You know, I like to also pay some recognition tonight also to some of the great works that actually preceded this framework document. And I think we'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge Dr. Lydia Holly and the Reading Sea Program and that grant. I know Traci Colombo is still with the city and she worked very hard on that. Dr. Alex Norman in the state of Black Long Beach. I think it's also, again, important to recognize that this is a beginning. It's a start. And I'm encouraged that Councilmember Richardson has made some amendments to extend this this opportunity to really, really dig in deep and talk about our our racial differences, our cultural needs as a city and include, you know, our Latino and my brothers and sisters, because it's important for us to continue this conversation. You know, I said the conversation about race is never and systematic oppression is not meant to be comfortable. But we should get comfortable in having these conversations because I feel like we're going to have to have this conversation for many years to come. You know, I'm impressed with this document. I think it's comprehensive. And if we are able to implement half of what is being recommended here, we are going to be a better city for it. And so I'll just just add to my before I know my time is short. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. The CBC reform package to reform our civilian oversight to provide more accountability. I'm glad to see that that in here and the commitment in our budget to do that. I do believe I brought an item a few weeks ago that actually calls for everything that that that that that Councilmember Richard Simmons is asking for in his amendment . So I'm not sure if that's really necessary. I also want to see greater emphasis on reentry support. I'm glad that we're doing that. I think that is critical, particularly of today with the release of thousands of inmates from CDCR and other institutions. We're going to have to have a plan to support these these these people that will come at home to our city. Cannabis Equity. I want greater emphasis on on ownership and business opportunities. And and I'm glad. To ask you, time is up, so. I'll reach you. But I'm glad to see that the equity will be under the city manager's office because that shows a real commitment to equity in our city. So with that, I'll pick you up later. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilman Austin, Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few, share a few thoughts on the topic. Obviously, we all agree every single member of this council in our city team, that racism is a serious issue and that it's important that we as a city take it seriously. And I love the approach of starting internally. I was very pleased to see the number of city staff members that participated in the listening session. I know that some of my own staff participated in the listening session and some of the ideas that were shared regarding training and hiring practices and promotional opportunities and some of the things that were raised are topics that have been close to my heart for a long time. In terms of gender equity, of course, being that that's an issue that I've personally experienced. So that's been a priority for us to see that being expanded throughout the city and every department in terms of opportunities and access was very, very good for me to hear and for me to get a recap on what those listening sessions were like with the staff. I think the time and energy that's been committed to this topic from both staff and the residents speaks to the importance of this topic. And I want to thank everyone who took time to be a part of that conversation. I know that we had about 8% of the 500 participants, 500 individual residents participated in these listening sessions. And of those, about 8% of them were third district residents. And I know that we've hosted a number of town halls and produced some interviews on this topic to further engage our residents at one of our town halls, we had over 200 participants. And so I want to thank all the residents who have participated on this issue, on on on all sides of the issue. We've had a lot of residents express an interest in rerouting police dollars. We've also had a lot of residents reach out and express a lot of support for continuing police funding. And so we've we've heard from every resident and we welcome that inclusive attitude as far as our office, because we want to hear the diversity on the topic. I look forward to the continuing engagement on this as we continue to work to make this city the best that it can be. I want to thank my colleagues on the Public Safety Committee. Councilman Austin and Councilman Super. We are going through a process on the public safety committee that is a little bit of a slower process. That's a multi-phased approach where we're first and foremost finding out what it is that our police department actually does in regards to some of these topics. And then hearing from them what some of the best practices that are taking place around the nation are, and hopefully working with the stakeholders to develop recommendations similar to what we'll talk about in the upcoming agenda items tonight in regards to recommendations to the full Council for changes. And we'll be doing that consistently between now through October and as we develop some new policies and practices in the full Council, we'll certainly incorporate those and the public safety discussions as well. The document that we have before us today provides a lot of information to build upon and to work from, and I look forward to having more in-depth discussions with the council and city staff as each of these proposals and ideas is researched and evaluated to see what is feasible, what can be implemented, and what works for the city of Long Beach. Recognizing that we can't take any sort of cookie cutter approach. We have a very unique city. We have a unique police department with an amazing police chief who is leading his team and is very open to progress and creativity and inclusivity. And I look forward to having him be our partner in this process. So thank you very much. All right. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Price, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So I'm going to keep working through calls on goal number two. I was talking about youth development and violence prevention, community partnerships. So I know that we're developing this office. But my expectation, my hope and my understanding in talking with the health department is we want to sort of go back to working hand in glove with community as it relates to intervention workers and youth support. I know that the City Council's moved forward a measure for four November that would apply additional resources should it should it be adopted to develop and strengthen some of these partnerships. I want to I want to go back to the health department. Did you speak a little bit more about how sort of is this approach that we're going to just hire a bunch of staff that's going to do the work? Are we going to or are we going to develop, you know, go back to developing community partnerships and do those things? Um. Councilmember So the, the intent would be to hire two staff for the Office of Youth Development. Um, one would be sort of a program manager level support as well as a program coordinator to, to really engage with our community members and then to start to really invest in peer navigators and other, and then with other community youth serving organizations in the community. So the focus right now, based on feedback that we've received, would be to invest in to community based organizations, to focus on peer navigation and the ability to link and youth to different services for mental health services, as well as skill development to youth for managing difficult situations and also mentoring opportunities . There's also a lot of focus on the ability and the ability. So job skills and training, the ability, academic supports and all of those. So the intent would be to, um, to invest in community based organizations now and that and as future funding of it becomes available, the same would be in place for the violence prevention program . As I indicated before, we have sort of one FTE dedicated to violence prevention in the city right now. Now, we would hire one more person for that space to join that, to better coordinate and work within communities. And in that space, we would, um, we would invest in our community based organizations focusing on violence prevention and intervention efforts in the city, and really focusing on reducing community level trauma and gun violence. Um. Moving forward. Thank you. And the reason I ask that question, I think it's important to me and it's important to understand the vision here. I think the vision should be building a capacity within our communities that, you know, people who, you know, many based organizations that are here, people who live within the communities because it's 24 and they you know, they know it's a part of when, you know, I do that on my staff. We hired people that are within the district. They you know, they are it's a different commitment and it's 24 seven and they're really, you know, care about what you know, the transformation. And that's just called community empowerment model. And so that that's really what I'm what I'm looking for here. I want to go three. I want to talk a little bit and asking questions about officer constitutional policing. I know that this wasn't referenced in in the process of the framework. It came in towards the end. I'm just not clear on what it is. I know we'll have a more careful conversation when we get to the budget, but I think that any examination of public safety reform, it certainly has to have buy in from from the department. But we also need to make sure that it maintains the whole point is to build public trust. So I'd like to know and understand, you know, could could you be prepared to talk either next week at the budget meeting or whatever, about efforts that we can do to make sure that there is public trust in that process , public participation in that process, and also an understanding of what the one year work plan looks like from office constitutional policing, because, you know, the health department's put forward a one year work plan. We saw what the Economic Development Department is doing in terms of one year work plan of the equity is putting forward a one year work plan. So I'd like to know what office constitutional policing plan to take on within the first year. So that's a question for Mr. Moore. Okay. And Councilman Wilson, you have one more minute. So I that's my question I'm waiting for. So, yes, we can certainly get into that. The chief is eager to talk a little bit about the efforts and all the things that they're doing that really hasn't been the focus of this effort in the last two months. It's been more of the listening and getting to some of the high level recommendations, but the police department certainly has a lot to share. I'm proud of the efforts that they're working on and that they're thinking of how they can do things differently and look at best practices. And that's part of the Office of Constitutional Policing and it's focus. So I would suggest we get into that next week when the Chief has a chance to present his budget and really talk in his own words, him and while inhibits who's kind of leading that effort to talk about the constitutional policing effort and what that would entail. Okay. I'll give you back the amount of time. Thank you. Consulate Councilwoman Pierce. Thank you. I'm sorry, I. I will pick up now on the emotions that I wanted to talk about. I totally support the moves that Councilmember Richard Richardson mentioned. And I to agree there's a constitutional policing understanding that more and understanding where the oversight is. You know, I think that the question that I brought up before was how do we get to transparency? How do we get to accountability? I support completely overhauling the PCC. There's a lot of great work that's been done nationally about the best models to do that, and I think we as a city have already demonstrated that we know how to put together a commissions that are civilian oversight commissions and we need to do that. But we also need to make sure there are changes put in right away. Something that I would like to include as a motion, as to include a report on the cahoots model. And honestly, I read this and I've never heard anybody say it, even though I've read it through some of the reports. So I hope I'm saying it the right way. But it was mentioned several times throughout the reconciliation process. I have it in a couple of emails and letters from my constituents. I think a report on that would bring us to a place where we could decide what might be the next best step for things like the hunting. I would also like to understand a little bit more about the police hiring. One of the things that's happened in the last several years was we did an H.R. audit. We talked about some of the outdated regulations as it pertains to cannabis, and we made changes for most of our departments, but we did not make any changes that I can recall, as it were, in regards to police officers being tested for cannabis use or for being able to be hired if they had smoked cannabis or use cannabis. Given the state law right now, given the fact that so many of our black community members have been incarcerated for a job that is illegal now, I think we need to make sure that we're aligning our police department. And I know that when we brought this up with H.R. during that study, it was told to us, well, there's different standards for police. Well, I look at this the same way that I would look at a glass of wine or a beverage. We don't need officers. We don't need anybody on our city staff or on taxpayer dollars coming in under the influence of any drugs at all or alcohol. And so I would expect the same thing for cannabis. I'd like to have a report on what the standards are for that, and perhaps that is something that's keeping some of the diversity challenges at bay a little bit, not you spend as much time. So to be clear, so far, I would like to add into a motion a report on the Cahoots Model. I report my support for the PCC and also a review of police hiring. The next thing that has been brought to my attention through this process and also talking to my constituents is the process that happens whenever our police officers. Well, let me back up. The process that happens whenever residents might have their cars impounded. So I know that there are people that have had their cars impounded whenever they've been brought into the police station. I hear tales and this is why I would like a report on this, that they once they're released, even if they weren't found necessary to stay in jail or found guilty, they're still responsible for paying their income fees, which can be 100 bucks to somebody like myself or somebody that's without a job. Can can mean a lot. And I know one of my constituents had her car in impound for several months and likely didn't even get it back. And so I want us to look at some of those policies that exasperate some of the poverty and some of the challenges our residents might face whenever they come into contact with the city. Not just PD, but like I said, telling. Councilwoman Pierce, you have one minute. I will go ahead and take a break. At this point, my next I'll just I'm not sure if anybody's queued up after me, but I think we have some questions, so I'll go ahead and queue up one more time. Thank you. Goodbye. And thank you, Councilman Supernova. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd also like to thank everyone who participated in this effort, because it has been a huge, huge task and it's not gone unnoticed. I also want to thank Councilman Price for for referencing the Public Safety Committee. I think there's a lot of valuable information coming out of those meetings that we're holding monthly, and it'd be great to find a way to get that integrated into this system here. Also, Councilman Richardson mentioned division and I think we can get there with. Clearly articulating what the vision is. My greater concern is with the execution of many of the ideas. And I think Kelly Collopy has multiple initiatives to execute, and I guess it wouldn't be fair to ask her. But the city manager, is there going to be a process where as we we get feedback from Kelly policy on how these things are going that those those items would come back to council or we can provide assistance or reshape these initiatives. Absolutely. So what you're approving tonight is really just some general direction. It's a concept, it's a framework. There is high level recommendations. You're approving kind of staff to keep moving in this direction and be working on these items, at which point we would be bringing them back. You'll notice in the report some are saying ongoing and immediate. Some are short term, long term, medium term. And we put timelines to those so similar to the Everyone Home Initiative to Affordable Housing Plan, we would be working on those and bringing those back. So they all need to still go through legal review, through financial review, through implementation, feasibility and then ultimately council policy approval. It great that that would work. Implementation, feasibility. Also, I just want to complete the thought with my conversation with our fire chief because I did reference this agenda item one when I spoke to him. And that is I just think we have to be very cautious on proposals of balancing a budget by cutting core fire services. These are just essential services to the black community and communities of color with sworn personnel that cannot be, you know, so that was my point here, that we want to be very cautious on just even the consideration of cutting off services. That's it. Thank you all. Thank you. Councilman Chippenham. Councilman Arango. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And, you know, this is getting very frustrating for me. Richardson has some motions he wants to make. Yeah, he had to keep recovery queueing. I concede my attempt to Councilmember Ritchie let him finish what he can. I think I think the proper thing to do. Thank you. That was made during I think the appropriate thing to do, Mr. Vice Mayor, would be to suspend the rule of suspend the rule or extend the rule. I think we're getting out of the discussion and more into the specifics. So. So if you're okay, I would request that we just suspend the rule for the rest of this discussion when we're done with public comment. We're really in the meat and potatoes now, if that's okay with you and I'm hearing you exactly. But you're the last ones cued up, so I just want you guys. This is not your mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor, I've been cute for a while and haven't been. Well, you can, but I haven't seen you up here, so I'm just like Mr. Richardson. Okay? I'm not asking you to go ahead. I just didn't. Get the last one queued. I think that. Yes, it is. Okay, so queue up and we'll put you there. Okay. All right. So if you want. Okay, great. Okay, so I'm going through. So I was on goal three. We talked a little bit, our constitutional policing. We got the response that we're going to hear more at the next step. So that's good. Thank you. I know that the topic of demilitarization came up but wasn't included in the recommendations. I've been looking at what you know, what modern cities do. The idea here is to just make sure that any purchases of things that are not within the normal scope of use of a you know, of police officer has some additional level of scrutiny by the city council before publicly, you know, purchases are made. So it's not sort of a consent calendar or buried within a consent calendar, but a little bit more sunshine. And so I'd like for staff to look at some of these models and I see them all over the place now. They add 60 days, 90 days. Notice the city council when you're buying things like, you know, you know, automatic weapons or or tanks or whatever it is, I mean, I think we need to understand these purchases a bit more and city council needs to and needs to have the time to dove in. So I want to include in my motion for staff to look at some options for the city council to consider that help address demilitarization. So I want to make sure that that's included in here, you know, as we move forward so that I want that reflected in in this motion on goal. There's maybe some other stuff I may come back to, but but on go for about health and wellness and economics. I want to make sure that I know that we saw what the what the one year plan is for economic development. I want to make sure that if I heard Kelly mention the job coordinator on the project labor agreement, she said PR instead of play, I knew what she was saying. I want to be clear with the public. I think that the play is up for negotiation now and I think it should be reflected in the economic developed economic equity piece of this, the very specific goals aligned with the independent jobs coordinator targeting whatever it is we're going to do. I think that should be very clearly set out in the CFF or however this is going to come back in terms of the strategy around the first year on economic development. So I want to see that part come out. I also know that there was in the slide, it's called out a number of things, economic empowerment zones in procurement, all these other things. I want to say that some of the dynamics may change in November in terms of Proposition 15, if it passes, which is the restoration of a front of affirmative action. If that happens, we need to be positioned to we need to understand how that may open up the playbook a little bit in terms of procurement and the things we can do to really make a meaningful difference for local, local businesses of color, minority owned businesses, black owned businesses, Latino businesses, women on business and so forth. So I want to make sure that we are in this next year's work. Clay On Economics, we are paying attention to that because I want to respond to that. Should that be adopted in November and go into effect in January additionally? So so are these two items added into the motion or are these are these more comments now? These are these are in the motion. Okay. I want to see. So you're already we already have the economic equity sort of one year plan in the presentation. I want I want to understand those two parts of this. So the local jobs coordinator and how we can connect procurement to whatever new opportunities come out of the proposition. I think that proposition is maybe about 50, whatever the proposition do. Okay. Five, Thank you. Okay. So next related to the housing and so there's been a lot of discussion in the budget, in the people's budget and over the years about aligning sort of our work around housing and this we can't talk racial equity. I'll talk about housing. 80% of black households in Long Beach are rental households. 70% of Latino households in Long Beach are rental households. I certainly I grew up a renter, but I certainly support homeownership and we need to make commitments to that and we have to work toward that. But but what I what I think what what the community is asking for is for us to be more specific, more strategic about ultimately aligning and creating a division sort of dedicated to this. And what this looks like to me is you have a proposal for a housing and homelessness equity coordinator. Already you have I see in development services you've already made some changes. You have Christopher Coombs focused on housing. Now you have a housing authority to focus on, on, on renters, in subsidies. You have resources that we've begun, begun to deploy around rental assistance. And, you know, should additional resources come out, that's something we want to do. We've been engaged over the last 18 months and moratoriums and renter tenant protections and all of these. Issues, but it's not centralized within our system. And so we can that effectively creates a barrier. And so I want to I want to, within this first year, have this housing equity person focus on beginning to align this to create a front door on this issue. So this is so this isn't adding an additional like budgetary action. What I'm saying is, like within what we have, let's align it and see how we can put a front door. Does that make sense? Tommy Kelly on with what I'm asking here. Yes. Okay, great. So I want to make sure that that this rental housing operation, the vision, however, is going to land. I want to make sure that this is reflected in the into the recommendation. Do that. And we've covered the majority of things that I have here. I'm going to pause and just keep listening to my colleagues if they have anything else but that. That concludes my comments at this point. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mango. Thank you. Just as a quick question. Councilmember Richardson, did you say automatic weapons or semi-automatic weapons? I want you know, I want to be clear, I'm not an expert on the weapons that police department carry. So I want to be clear. What I'm asking is for staff to bring some options to us around demilitarization. The things I'll be looking for is giving counsel additional notification, oversight, oversight. So as things come, we're aware of it. You know, I don't want to make I just militarization get out. Militarization shouldn't be an automatic thing. That's the point. It should be we should be heading in a different direction. And you already have city council in place. Going to have to bring me some bring me bring us some options to think about. And I am supportive of that idea. But I also. Just want to be clear with our constituents that the consent calendar to date, as I as I've been on the council, has never included the purchase of a tank or an automatic weapon or any of those things. I understand the general concept you were going for, but I just wanted to be clear about that because I. Quickly received a text from a family member and just wanted to ask me that question. And I thought I would be public about the fact that. Mr. Chief Lulu, do we have any tanks or any of those things? Chief Looney or Chief Hébert, if you could respond to that. A vice mayor and members of the city council. No, we do not have tanks and we don't have any military equipment. I know that's part of the national narrative, but at one point I can't wait to actually talk about the things that this police department does and what we have so we can get away from all these . Things that people are thinking that we have. Especially because in chief. Linda, please feel free to correct me. But offices across the country are trained in how to occasionally and very few officers, by the way, are trained in how to take apart and ensure that an automatic weapon that's been. Taken. From a resident who should not have one because they are illegal. Even the police need special training to be able to do that because it is so dangerous and you. Don't want to. Put people or officers in harm's way or innocent bystanders. Okay. So now that. That's clear, I want to thank the city. Staff. I want to thank Theresa Chandler and Tom Modica and all the other city staff and community members who participated in all of. The feedback and listening sessions especially. I know that so many of our. Religious leaders have been a. Big part of this. And I just want to thank them. That they've been doing this work for a generation. And today, as they stand up for and. Continue to push forward just. It just the amount of respect and praise and appreciation for them and their. Their fortitude and. Their leadership. I want to say that I see one major thing missing from this reconciliation. I mean, I've heard from the public on a lot of things, but this particular. Thing hasn't been mentioned in a long time. And as budget chair two years ago, it was one of the most important things I heard. From minority communities and communities of color was that there wasn't investment in the infrastructure, in the communities that need that. So if we talk about health, we need to talk about sidewalks. And I'm not saying take all the sidewalk money as it's distributed today and move it. I'm saying we need to add $10. Million of additional sidewalk. Repairs. I worked. With Councilmember Odinga on. Making sure we had funding for a park that was in his community, that had a. Group of community. Seniors that walked every day. And that walking path was of. Extreme importance to him and that. Community. I worked with Councilmember Andrews on a business corridor improvement that is still almost to completion, but these walking paths and corridors are critical to minority owned businesses and our communities of color and the health and wellness of our city and our residents. And so I'd like to find. A way to. Add additional. Funding for alleys. Sidewalks and business corridors. Alleys need to be repaired. They need to be paved and they need to be well-lit. We need to talk about the. Things in public works that also contribute. To the safety and. Well-Being of our community. So I appreciate everyone who's spoken. Tonight, and I appreciate. That this dialog will continue, but I hope that these things that have been brought up before. Yes, we've made significant investment in these things in the last six years. But it's not enough. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman. Mongo. Councilwoman. Yes. Thank you. I support all of the items that Councilmember Richardson mentioned. I think they're all things that our community members have spoken on. And I guess I do have a question for our city manager. Obviously, PD has been a target of a lot of this conversation. Well, PD be responding to this. Well, we have another opportunity. I know that. I mean, I think he's right. Like, I, I feel like we have asked time and time again for a full report from PD on everything from hiring to training, and that that has been really difficult to get agendas in my four years on council . It seems like the prime time to be able to do that and I know we've got them on the Budget Committee or budget presentation next week, but I don't know if that's the appropriate time for us to dove in all the way to all the PD stuff. So. Would you inform us of when that might be? Yes. So that's actually one of the recommendations that's in front of you tonight. We added that it is a recommendation to come back in a study session to have the discussion with the council. The police chief is absolutely right. There has not been in the last two months that kind of, I think, appetite or desire to really dove in and talk about what is PD do currently. And so during the listening sessions we heard loud and clear they did not want to be part of the listening sessions, and we respected that when it came to, you know, creating all of the recommendations, we had all of our departments review those recommendations and be able to provide input into what you've seen tonight. But the police department has not had a chance to come in and really fully and publicly explain the training that they do. What they have for equipment, how they put things into practice, and to have that dialog with the community and the council. They are eager to do that and that is one of our recommendations. I do suggest that you take some time for that and for us to, you know, prepare that larger presentation because there is a lot that they do that this community and city can be very proud of. And and I think the council member mentioned it, Richardson is they also have a workplan of what they want to continue to improve and to look at. And so we we recommend scheduling that. I will work on when we've been able to do that and that work is is starting to happen right now in the Public Safety Committee, as Councilmember Price mentioned. And we can bring more of that to the full council as well. Thank you. And I think as part of this recommendation, not only having it one time, but that needs to be, you know, on a regular basis every year before the budget process starts. We need to be able to fully understand what's happening in our police department. And so I don't know if I need to make that as a part of the motion, but I would hope that annually we have a full review of police practices and any of the work that comes out of this reconciliation process over the next year. I would hope that we have that coming back to us and a full report. I know Councilmember Richardson had in his motion every six months for a full report on the on the framework that we're talking about. But P3 being, you know, the size of the budget and just feel like we haven't had access. I think that that needs to be included in there. So. I'll move on to my next my next topic, which should be my my last topic. So it's mentioned under health. There's a bunch of things that are put underneath health. And I think that the beginning of this report does a great job. Not only I mean, Dr. Davis, like just, wow, I want to say how much I appreciate your voice right now. We know that that this I do not think if this conversation was being had four years ago, that your voice would be so present and so center in this work. And while some people might not love that that I gave thanks to Tom, I do give that to Tom and his leadership, because that hasn't been the city that we've had for the last ten years. So grounding it in health, we then put in a whole bunch of other things. The climate work is really, really important because I think I've said many times over the last several months, the Environmental Committee and the Sustainability Committee, our commission have met a couple of times. They did make a recommendation, a letter of support. I hope that that letter is reflected in the comments and maintained in this report for the long term, but also to the comment around the the jobs coordinator and some of the jobs pieces. I also want to make sure that in this report it's reflected that people have been talking about a resilient recovery. And essentially, if we could make sure that we're talking about what jobs could, as we're closing the climate gap, that climate gap, it's getting late. Sorry for our black community members and our communities of color. We want to make sure we include a review of how our Climate Adaptation Action Plan could provide jobs pipeline for those front line communities, communities of color and our black community members. So that is my last addition. Hopefully that made it as a motion and I am done speaking. Thank you. And you of my time. Thank you very much, Councilman Richardson. Thank you. So I think I'll go ahead and wrap this thing up. So I want to acknowledge Councilman Mango's discussion on infrastructure. I do know that you've been talking, which is excuse me for you wrap this up. I like to speak. So when you finish. Absolutely. Go. Go for it. I was going to acknowledge that the friend had to go for it. Oh, thank you. Thank you very much. You know, and I want to thank every single individual took part in this conversation to come up with this report. You know, as the elder councilman both in office and in age, you know, I can tell you stories about Long Beach in this city. I was not allowed to buy a home in the big city, not because of the color of my skin. So I went to buy me a very expensive car. Then it was brought to this, you know, to the car. And they told me, I have a school district. So that's not the image of a teacher. That kind, you know, car is not the image of a teacher. So I remember when I and other black individuals could not go past almeida's hill and other streets without risk of getting beat by police. I remember when my mother used to earn clothes as a net as a maid in the Wrigley District, which is the big city. Being here for so long, though, I have also seen the inequities to other communities of color, like the Latinos and bodies and Filipinos. Racial equity goals in this report are great but cannot confidently say that I like how we went about this process. Cobra did not help our public outreach process. They are members of our community and still feel left out or a sentiment that this process divided racist. And that's it. Because the beginning that all of us on this does is continue to do the work in our districts. And I'm hoping that our community based organizations truly come together and work for the benefit of our community. I don't want to go under the five minute situation because everyone knows I am going to stop here and that everyone will participate in. And I want to thank you for all the print, Glenn, the Adams. Thank you very much. Now you can finish introducing you Vice Mayor. So I just want to acknowledge. So on the infrastructure conversation, it is reflected in terms of infrastructure. And there's a proposal for economic equity zones in special districts in areas like north central west Long Beach to explore infrastructure and things like that. And John can speak a little bit more about that. Also, the questions about investing in the budget. The mayor made a made a proposal at the end of this fiscal year to begin visioning in a but zero based budget like process. I support that it's already in work, so I didn't lift that up in the motion. But that would be an opportunity to look at things like infrastructure, investment and all that. So I think it's included in Councilmember. If you want to meet a place in the motion, I don't know that it's needed, but I will if it is important to you. And then. And then you want to respond to that? Sure. I felt, though, that there wasn't any specificity to it. So I talked with Ms.. Chandler and Mr. Modica last week about how I'm looking to hear and outcomes and more specifics. In the weeks ahead. And so I'm comfortable with it not being as a. Part of the motion. Okay. We can. Okay. And I'll be looking for that as well. And I think your city staff has heard you. I want to just thank the entire city council. I have to say this. You know, I deal with 191 cities in SCAD region, and this is a step further than any city in Southern California is taking to racial equity. You know, I'm not qualified to say it is one of the most bold steps in the United States on racial equity. But I'll tell you, having been engaged in the National League of Cities, the Governance Alliance of Racial Equity, we're building on the things that we've learned, and we're responding to the moment when other cities haven't even begun to learn how to have these conversation. These conversations haven't been pretty. I've seen I've heard peers on both sides of the conference calls, but I've also seen so many tears as a result of racial injustice in America. And this is a pivotal point. This is the time for us to have these conversations, Leon, and really make a meaningful difference and hopefully put our city on a better course where it's not okay for race or zip code to determine your outcome, but rather our city is not successful. And until almost all of us are successful. So so I want to offer my sincere thanks to the to the city council for this conversation as a zero thanks to city staff, a sincere thanks to all the community members. And, you know, I know that there's this is a big commitment we're making. I know folks want to see us go further. And this does not preclude us from continue to do that. But this is a meaningful step, a beginning of an important conversation in our city. And I look forward to continuing this work. And the city council looks forward to continue this work as we move forward. So that said, I thank you, Vice Mayor, and I yield my time. Thank you very much, Councilman Richardson. No. Can we have we have a motion with Councilman Richardson and the second man councilwoman sending us. Could you please call for the vote? District one I talked to District three I, District four. I. District by. District six. I strict seven. District eight. District nine. All right. Ocean cares. Thank you very much. Right now, we're going to move going to move on to our first round of public comment related to none agenda items group. We have anyone signed up.

Recommendation to, subject to prior review and consideration by the Personnel and Civil Service Committee in accordance with Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.03.065, confirm a Charter Commission appointment pursuant to Section 509 of the City Charter and Section 2.03.065 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

LongBeachCC_09092014_14-0722

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Civil Personnel and Civil Service Committee met just prior to this meeting and made a recommendation to approve the mayor's appointment of Ms.. Tracy Eskew. She's a person, an environmental attorney, with great qualifications, and we are completely confident that she will serve our city well as the next appointee on the Board of Harbor Commissioners. I'd like to make a motion that this body approve the appointment. Thank you. There's been a motion in a second, and I'm going to have Miss Ignacio come forward and just give a few remarks. And then if there's any questions from the council or comments, we'll go ahead and take take those. So you see Gorski. Thank you, Mayor. Garcia. Counsel, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you this evening. I have served the state of California since 2001 as a deputy attorney general, then went on to serve as an executive director of a regional, a nonprofit, environmental nonprofit, and then was lucky enough to serve as the executive officer for the Regional Water Quality Control Board, again for the state of California, all while living in Long Beach. And I've never been able to serve my city until hopefully now. So I very much appreciate this chance and I promise to this council and this mayor that I will give my all. And I'm very proud to be able to do this. Thank you. Thank you. And I want to say a few things about Mexico. Ask you and then turn over to the council. As we all know, Missy Glass, you is a resident of Bixby Knolls and has a private practice here in the city, but also has served with distinction in the state of California and our legal system. And I want to thank her for for for all of that work. One one fact about Missy Gorski that a lot of people don't know is Missy Glass. You also won the largest settlement in the history of the Clean Water Act at the time, which was, I believe, with about $5 billion through with the city of Los Angeles. And through that process, really put in place one of the largest environmental programs that I had seen when it came when it comes to the issue of water and stormwater management. And so I also want to thank you for for that incredible work that you did. Mr. Glass was is committed to, I think, balancing the interests of the important issues that are happening at the port when it relates to industry, but also knowing how important it is for us to protect the environment and to ensure that the port is really the greenest seaport that we have in the world. And so thank you for your willingness to serve your city. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember Councilwoman Price. Welcome. I just wanted to let you know that in reviewing your background and qualifications, I was very impressed with your extensive background in environmental law. I think that's going to be a huge asset to the port as here. I'm sure you're aware, we've recently had issues that have required us to consider some of the legal ramifications of some of the business that's done at the port. And I think that you'll bring a great perspective to the port that is already very diverse and very rich with experience, but that what you'll offer to them will be very welcomed and very much needed in the future. So welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. I want to say congratulations and welcome as well as the chair of the Environmental Committee. I know that there's a few things I'm sure we can work on, but looking at your qualifications as well was very impressive. The only question I had was Where have you been hiding this whole time? But it's really great to see a new face and also to welcome you to the port and to the city. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I made some comments earlier during committee, but I just during our full council meeting, I did want to just share that. I'm very appreciative of Tracy's acceptance of your appointment and our confirmation, should we decide to confirm. I guess I shouldn't presume. Yeah, but I do want to thank you for that. I've. Many of you know, I've worked with Tracy for a great many years. And I have to admit, I myself was very surprised that I wasn't aware of your full resumé. Tracy was the staff, the lead staff, the executive director of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. And we're obviously a committee as a city, and we know of her great work there. But. But you're absolutely tremendous. And I don't know that there's a single environmental leader in the state of California that isn't jumping for joy at your appointment today. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I also want to before I turn it over to Councilmember Turanga, I also did, I also think Vice Mayor Lowenthal, when we began this process, I think she was by far one of your strongest advocates. And I just continued the whole time to advocate for you. And when you ask people, you know, some of the top enviro environmental leaders throughout the state, there was a consensus that, you know, you were you were the person. And at the top of that list was was the vice mayor advocating for you. So thank you for that. Councilmember Ranga. I want to thank you, Mayor, for passing it over to me. And I also want to echo many of the comments that have been made. I made my comments earlier at the Civil Service Committee, but I'm more than happy to have you there as a member of the seventh District, a resident following the legacy of many activists who are very much concerned about the environmental issues, especially as they affect the seventh District. And we're looking very forward to working with you as we move forward with a lot of the important issues that will be addressing not only the city, but the residents in the seventh District. Thank you. Thank you. Got somebody, Richardson? Welcome to the team. Feel free to count on me as a resource. We're happy to have you bring a lot to the table. And as we lead this city, I'm sure you're going to be a great asset to the port and to our city. So welcome. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. With that, we will have we have the motion on the floor. So, members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion carries language. Yes. Okay. Congratulations. Give a warm welcome to Long Beach. We'll look forward to your service on the commission. Okay. We're moving on to the agenda. Mr. Clark will take the next item. Item number five is a report from the City Manager and Financial Management with the recommendation to award a contract to Emily Green for improvements to the infrastructure along the Sorrento Alamitos Bay shoreline.

Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or His Designee to Execute an Amendment to the Lease with Pacific Shops, Inc. for the Tidelands Property Located along Clement Street between Alameda Marina Drive and Willow Street, Generally Known as Alameda Marina. (Community Development 216)

AlamedaCC_11192019_2019-7395

Okay, this one is six. The introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager or designee to execute an amendment to the lease with Pacific shops for the Tidelands property located along Clement Street between Alameda Marine Drive and Willow Street, generally known as Alameda Marina. Deja vu all over again. I got a. Groundhog's. Day. Yeah, right. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Nanette Mchunu in the Community Development Department. So in May of 2012, the city entered into a lease with Pacific. Shops. And the structure of the lease was for 66 years total. The first portion was a 25 year option and with three conditions precedent. One satisfied the the tenant would be able to exercise its option for 41 years and thus have the total 66 year lease. The three conditions precedent of the three that applicant has satisfied. Two. The third one has not been satisfied from. No. No. Not because of them, but because of extraneous circumstances with outside agencies. The tenant and the lease provides that if they do not meet the the the conditions precedent that the lease would automatically terminate. Instead, the tenant has asked that we would give them an extension to meet as a third condition. And and we have tonight the staff is recommending that you do give them a one year option, an extension with a six month extension administratively offered. If they if they're still holed up from the outside agencies, if the city manager could offer them for a total of an 18 month extension. And and then if if in that 18 months, they do not meet those the three conditions or that third condition, the lease again could automatically terminate in exchange for the extension. The amendment to the lease staff has negotiated a few things. One is related to the Boatyard Project and there has been a lot of work done on the boatyard and RFP and interviews with with boatyard operators and under the direction of the council. We've said try again, try again, harder. And working with our planning department, there will be another RFP process with a third party managing it and try it with a goal of getting a great boatyard operator in place. So that was a negotiated as and in exchange for the the extension of the amendment. The other thing that we negotiated was related to compliance with our Climate Action and resiliency plan. We are requiring the tenant to to to offer charging stations in in the public lot. And in addition, they will not have gas gas appliances in in their in their residences. There will be some ancillary gas activities or options related in the residential, but it won't be inside of the units. We think that this is a good exchange for the extension, this 18 month extension, and we hope that you'll consider it tonight. The one thing that I would like to call your attention to is there the agreement and the staff report and audience were not in agreement, and we noticed it this morning. And so the agreement refers to a two year extension and council gave staff the direction for one year with that six month option. It has been we've edited it and there are copies outside for people. The second reading will include the revised version, but the version will reflect what the staff report is recommending. Okay. So just read us the correct language. Sure. It's okay. It's in section 23.4 is hereby added to the lease as follows Land Use Entitlements Tenant hereby covenants to obtain all other permits, approvals and land use entitlements required by all governmental agencies exercising jurisdiction over the development project collectively regulatory permits on or before the end of this year. Nine. Formally it said ten for avoidance of for avoidance of doubt and end of leave. Year nine is December 31st, 2020, the regulatory permits deadline. If tenant fails to obtain the regulatory permits by the end of year lease year nine, subject to any extension of tenants performance due to a period of delay caused by force majeure event as provided in section 2521. Landlord should have the right to revoke tenant's option notice by providing written notice to the tenant, and this lease shall expire on the expiration of the initial term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, tenant may request in writing from landlord a six month extension of the regulatory permits deadline, which may be granted by landlord in the sole discretion of the city manager. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Okay. So, counsel, any questions about the staff report? Yeah. Question Councilmember de SAC. Is it correct that at some point in time, Bishop in York was interested as being the operator of that ship area, but they just couldn't come to reach some kind of a negotiated discussion, negotiation with Pacific shops. So Bishop China bought us a portion of the Swenson's operations, which included the boatyard, but they decided to to combine the boatyard operations with their Richmond boatyard because they felt that the space at the Swenson's location was small and not viable for what they wanted to do. And and I can provide you with a letter from Allen Cameron where he talks about the fact that there's diminishing shipyards and that there was it was a better option for them to combine with their with their operations in Richmond. So that I mean, I had seen your question earlier from later today. But that's exactly that's what happened. So they should have not considered it, but instead they combined it and they moved some of the operations of suspensions to their main street operations. But the the sentiment of the correspondence from patient and that was that there is a diminishing number of boatyards in the in the region. And it's better to have a larger space because there's a lot of environmental concerns with boatyards and things. And it could be better served in a larger a larger space with more units or more occupants within. And so that was their decision. Okay. So what was conveyed to me was that there was some difficulty in in the discussions. Negotiations, I don't know what between bishop in yachts and Pacific Marine's and as a result that's why bay shipping out left for Richmond. So it was more they were discouraged away. So what? So what I can tell you is this I actually wasn't too much involved in the whole boatyard discussion. However, when Alan Cameron was writing the correspondence to the city, he actually called me and he said, You know, we really feel like it's better that we do this set up where we move our operations to Richmond. But I don't want to cause any waves with anybody. What do you think I should do? And I recommended it. He tell his truth to the council because we're not experts in boatyard operations. So just tell us what the real story is. And so that is what his email and correspondence says, is that, you know, they thought about it. They thought it was best to combine their operations with their Richmond operations. I actually have a copy of that correspondence with me right now, if you'd like to see it. I think I have five so I can give it to the council to look at. But that's what happened. And was that correspondence sent this afternoon? No, no. It was a long time ago. It was. And it was real time when that was happening. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Miss Mchunu before we hear speakers? Councilor Rody, just briefly. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So we're kind of doing a do over on the, um, on the on the boatyard, right? As I understand. It, we're going to do a do over and hopefully we'll get an operator available. Operator. If they, if that's not possible, then they're going to look to the, the, the plan the and go back to the planning board, I believe, and figure out what their other options could be for the use of that area. But our planning staff and our our planning department will be working on trying to. So hopefully the effort will be stronger than the effort that was last year. I would. I would think and I know. Your offense, the developer. Right. I believe that the staff we. We're involved a little bit in that process. I attended a focus a little a couple of meetings to talk about boatyards, because we do have experience of having a boatyard as a tenant before you all remember Nelson Marine, which cost the city over $1,000,000 to clean up. And so we don't want that to happen to us again. And so we were we we talked a lot about that. Okay. Thank you. Um. Did I see your hand? No optical illusions. Okay, so then. What? I have another question from Councilmember De. So why don't you give Ms.. Marcano just a moment to get back to the podium? Now there's. From the outset, there's always been community concerns of preserving maritime industry in the area. And I think the way that this whole process has unfolded, I think there has been an effort by the owners to do just that. But at the same time, there's some concern that from what I'm hearing and my talks with residents, there are some concerns that that we still might be at risk of losing maritime businesses, especially if two things occur or don't occur. One is that we make a concerted effort, particularly with regard to Building 19, I think, where Dore was making a concerted effort to attract some of the maritime businesses that are there right now but located elsewhere and potentially have them locate relocate to Building 19. So the thought that I want to kind of raise is, you know, what what consideration has been given to prioritizing Building 19 for commercial uses generally, but prioritizing the redevelopment of that ahead of of other parts because there are certainly some parts of the of this project where, you know, they were apartments want to be built, but there's also building 19. So what consideration has been given to prioritizing, you know, commercial development? Ahead of you residential development. So I'm just I'm going to answer part of this, but then I might turn I might turn over to the planning director, Andrew Thomas, a little bit of this. But what I can assure you that if a property is in our tidelands, it must be a maritime use. And so you always have that guarantee that on the land that is ours, you will have a maritime use. But as you. Know, the commercial. Will have to have a. To be maritime first. It's Highland. So, I mean, you could do a short term, less than five year nonconforming use. But that's I mean, you have to I mean, that has to be maritime use. So you will be guaranteed that. So related to the the the parcels that are not ours that are on feet title of the of the tenant. Andrew Thomas Guinness. Wanted to make it worth your while to be here. Oh, it's been fascinating. Oh, I hope. Yeah. The the entire commercial core, which includes Building 19, the entire commercial area on the land portion is in phase one of the project and the master plan has phasing requirements. You can't move to phase two to finish phase one. So that was our way back a year ago when we got down to the master plan to make sure that the commercial portion of the project got built early. I think right now and for the next couple of years is going to be the toughest time for the commercial because from a development perspective, you know, they're putting in all new infrastructure for not just the housing, but also for the commercial core. So there's this going to be this tough transition period where existing businesses in older buildings are going to have to move out. The good news is we're so that they can take those buildings down, put in new infrastructure. The good news is the main building, Building 19 is in the commercial core. The commercial core is as part of phase one and approximately half of Building 19 is in the Tidelands property that that that was talking about. And a good portion of the commercial core as well is in the, you know, overlaps the Tidelands property. So we think there is a future for maritime uses at Alameda Marina. Obviously, the 530 boat slips are not going anywhere. I think we all believe there will always be some boat services, you know, rigging services, navigation services, people around who can help work on your boat. The key issue with the boatyard, that is still the question that's still sort of out for discussion. Is there is there an operator who wants to come in and who can run a profitable business for the part of the work that the on your boat that has to occur on land, the scraping of the hull, the repainting, that also is the type of work that generates the hazardous materials and a lot of the regulatory hurdles that any future operator is going to have to to jump over. I think in terms of this this next second try at the RFP, the RFQ, the first one was not successful is the introduction of this third party to help us evaluate what is really going on out there in the market. Why did was the first effort so unsuccessful? And what can we do or adjust in the second effort to try to be successful? And if we're not, we come back to the council at the end and we explain to the council, here's why we believe we are still unsuccessful and here's what we think is the path forward that does it. And if we're unsuccessful on the boatyard, it doesn't mean the commercial core goes away. The land for commercial that's devoted to commercial for maritime purposes stays. The question is, if it's not a boat yard, what? Where, where does Pacific shops think we should go? You know where it is, where the city staff think we should go from here. Okay. Thanks. Any further questions before we go to public comment? Let's go to Pepper Summit. And how many do we have? We have seven. Okay, so with seven speakers, you each get 2 minutes. Okay. Listen for your name and come on up. Dorothy Freeman, then Chris Nicholas, then Nancy Hurd. Good. And good evening. I'm Dorothy Freeman, a member of SOAR. And this is what you did to my speech. When the city of Alameda placed the Alameda Marina. On the. Housing element in 2012. It did not envision a loss of the maritime industry to Alameda and the entire. Bay Area boating community, both recreation. And commercial. Several of the main businesses are already gone. Presently, many of the remaining. Businesses are being forced into a smaller, inconvenient space where. They thought they would be able to move into a renovated building. 19. Several of the remaining. Businesses are choosing not to. Have their business. Disrupted by small spaces. Two Relocations and a future future at Alameda Marina. That is not very predictive. So many of them are now leasing leaving town. Another issue with the marina. Development is. The efforts to retain the operator for the. Very much needed boatyard. So understands that two prospective boatyard operators have shown interest in managing a boatyard at the marina. Unfortunately, their interact interactions with Pacific shops was very discouraging. Bay West and Pacific Shops. Has been reminded evidently. About how important the boatyard return of a boatyard to the city of Alameda is. To the boating community and to the Greater Bay Area. I'm pleased to hear that there is increased effort for the boatyard. Sau is also asking for the City Council to make maritime tenant retention a priority by completing the commercial space at the marina so the remaining businesses can move into more permanent business locations. So understands the time element for the start of construction and what it means for the bulkhead improvements. But Alameda Maritime Business is also an important asset to Alameda. What's going on. In the next speaker is. Chris Nicholas and Nancy heard. Mr. Nicholas and then misheard. Tell me when. Hi, my name is Chris Nicholas. I am Commodore at Island Yacht Club. I've said it before and I'll. Say it again. The guy, I'm a 33 year resident of Alameda, the guy who taught me to sail. Second wave in Normandy. Said An honest job in sailing after work is what we won the war for. We're going to have 500 we have 500 slips there. Island Yacht Club is going to be celebrating its 50th anniversary there. And we've been running races there as an all volunteer organization since our inception. It's more than just a sterile. Scenic environment. It's a integral part of the fabric of this community going back to the beginning of recreational boating. When you see all the sailboats out there as part. Of the picture, that's us and our community and. Our challenge is we are in building 14, which, as per the Historical Board has been deemed unsalvageable. So our challenge and we are in dialog with Marine is to find a workable transition plan. We understand the realities of. Real estate in the Bay Area. But Alameda marina has will have a unique asset in the boat hoist and. The small boat program. Which is a result which was not in the original plan. So as of asset that has come through these dialogs. What we're asking you is to ensure that there is a workable. Transition plan and. No gaps so that we will continue into the future. Perfect timing. Thank you. I Nancy heard. Good evening. I'm Nancy Hurd and I'm representing save Alameda is working waterfront or. I was pleased to hear that there is some movement and having a third party come in to do the RFP for for the boatyard. I'm going to sort of throw out the mike speech that he's going to say and try and speak. My main focus right now is then saving the maritime businesses that are there now when and I think the way to do that is that when they need to move a business because they need to to do whatever they need to do to to go in and build what they need to build. They cannot be moving these businesses into unworkable spaces and telling them that they can't that they aren't going to have these spaces for potentially a couple months. These these businesses need to have the assurance that they're going to be there for, you know, long term and they're going to have the space that they need. So I would really like to see Bay Building 19 get developed sooner rather than later, sooner than the apartment building, even though they're both in phase one. I'd like to see Building Number 19 done before the apartment building so that the businesses can stay there. We are in the process of of potentially losing some of these businesses. And once they lose the island and moved to someplace like Vallejo or Mer Islands, we're not going to see them again. And it's not going to be that easy to get other businesses to move in there. So I really want everybody to be thinking in terms of say, you know, keeping retaining our maritime businesses here in Alameda Marina. And that means having space and and preferably the permanent space, because this is very disruptive to a business to have to move two or three times because of the at the convenience of the developer. That needs to be more to the convenience of. The next company. Janet Franco, then Jamie Camacho, then Paul Mueller. Or any of the speakers. We've driven them away. Okay. So Jamie. And the next one is. Paul Miller. Okay. Hi. Hello. My name is Jaime Camacho. I am the vice commander of Island Yacht Club. I'm here to remind you that we are a little bit scared of our future. It's under threat. We serve the community at large, including the Marine community. We have been. Sponsoring a Sea Scout troop, Sea Fox, for 28 years now. That. Ah. We're very proud of them. They're considered the ranked second best in the nation. And six months ago, they saved a drowning man in the middle of the bay. They received that training at Building 14 OC. We serve the community and we need your protection for our continuation there. And we need to, of course, talk with the developers. But I am concerned and I'm worried and I do have a mandate of my membership for the continuation of Island Yacht Club. So I would appreciate the consideration of this board at sea to secure the businesses and marine operations that still exist at the marina to continue and not be under threat like they are currently. It's it's tough. It's tough over there. It's hurting the club because our pool for people to join the club has been just hammered. It's empty. Okay. How can your club survive if we don't have a community there? If we don't have boats, if we don't have activities, it's basically pretty well closed down right now. And it's hurting our ability to bring members into the club to to make the club strong, to continue. So we're kind of weak right now because of this. So this development is seriously affecting us. And let alone that our club 14, our building is going to go. Be torn down. So we need a future. Help us. Thank you. Thank you. Parties don't want to speak. So the next one is Trevor Yamamoto and then Sean Murphy. Thank you. Mr. Yamamoto. Good evening. My name is Trevor Yamamoto. I'm also a member of Island Yacht Club. I've been the Treasurer there for several years now and everybody who's spoken so far from the city planner on to the members of the community have said basically the same thing, that from a business perspective, the uncertainty as well as the the need for a workable transition plan to establish continuity for the businesses, the maritime businesses that have been there, like in our case for 50 years, can go on. We need to have something workable because we understand the exigencies of business that permits get delayed, financing gets delayed. That's just part of development and development will go on. However, the businesses there need the assurances from with the working with the developer, working with the council here that we can have something that's workable, not just conceptual, a workable plan going forward to ensure that the businesses can survive there during the transition. If it involves a move that such a move is practical, it's economically feasible that the businesses remain viable. So that's essentially what I think what the speakers here have been talking about and what we are asking for tonight is that rather than just conceptually, that we have a clear plan that establishes a workable continuity and workable transition for the maritime businesses that I think we're an asset to the community of Alameda as well as the Greater Bay Area, especially in terms of both in terms of the business, the yacht club, the boatyard, etc.. So that's why we asked you for that tonight. Thank you. Thank you. And do we have a. Murphy. Question? Murphy. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Fellow City Council member Sean Murphy, Aluminum Marine Civic Shops. So we're excited to have this important tightly and lease item in front of you tonight. Just a brief recap. In September, we got units approval from a third meeting from the historic advisory board, which is that commercial maritime core. We've been working very diligently on every aspect of this project, and last month we had, you know, approval on the first residential project, 360 units from planning board. So there's we've been working on this project for essentially eight years. We're very committed to this boatyard, and we look forward to working with the city and third party EPS to push that boatyard, RFQ, through again so that we can find a qualified operator. Electrification, absolutely. A big component of the Karp plan is implemented with this master plan and then the regulatory approvals. We've been working diligently since last summer with all of the agencies, Army Corps Bccdc, and we're making great progress there. And then really the most important component here is the tidal lease, because it allows for us to finance this project. This project, the the real focus of this project is our sea level rise that we must deal with. And there are failing sea wall. And it's with this lease extension that allows us to amortize that, to then pay for this massive infrastructure costs. And so this project is an important one for us. It's an important one for the city as our partner, because it really addresses a number of issues. Yes. The critical housing shortage. Yes. The job creation that we have for that maritime core. Okay. And this is the applicant, is it? Well, actually, I am. I might call you back because I have a few questions and I am going to start first. Thank you, everybody, Miss Mercado, for your presentation. There you are. And all the speakers. Um, I would like to know and staff Mr. Thomas or Ms.. Mercado, if you can answer this. Otherwise I'll look to the Pacific Marina folks. But, um, so we've heard some concerns about the existing maritime businesses that are at the Alameda Marina now. We've heard from the Island Yacht Club concerned about their future. I'm aware of that Sea Scout troop. I was just helping with scouting for food this past Saturday, and they came in to the the church. That was one of the collection points. And somebody said, hey, that says he's got a group and there's some of the fellows who are on that rescue were there. So that was kind of cool to see them. But anyway, what, what, if anything, is is the city doing can the city do to see that these existing maritime uses have this? I think it was I think Mr. Yamamoto phrased it quite well. He said they want a clear plan that establishes a workable continuity and a workable transition. Anybody want to take a stab at that. Under the terms? I mean, this is a project, this redevelopment project, two thirds of the land is privately owned by Pacific shops. The Tidelands is obviously leased to them. There's no provisions in that lease or the master plan for their property that basically inserts the city into their leasing decisions. They're obviously limited by the Tidelands lease in terms of the types of businesses, the maritime issues we were talking about with Councilmember Desai, but we are not involved in their conversations with their tenants. Okay. So then I will ask Mr. Murphy to come back. Please. I'll give you a summary. So I understand from Mr. Thomas that the city doesn't have a role in. In relocating businesses or finding new locations. But, um, can you tell us what you are doing to make the transition smooth? If you're doing anything to make the transition smooth for folks who are out there now, especially the maritime uses? Because we very much I think we understand the idea that this is the maritime based side. And so we want maritime businesses out there. But what what are you doing for the folks say that we've heard from tonight. Happy to discuss. So for instance in that first phase, really executing on the city council's approved master plan, it does focus on the maritime core and then the housing component. And so for the first phase of tenants that were maritime, those are accommodated in the balance of the property in phase two. And so we have transitioned those tenants over to the eastern part of the property with this project. Building 19 is a is a it's a great building that sits in the center. We need to be reminding ourselves that a project like this has to deal with sea level rise. We have to bring the whole portion of that project three and a half feet up in sea level rise. And so there is absolutely a transition with the renovation of those buildings. We're making the maritime core a priority. As I mentioned, three separate historic advisory boards, which then in September got unanimous approval, which allows us to then start working with staff and the building department to start implementing the renovations of those buildings to the Secretary of Interior Standard, because three of them, and principally Building 19, is a historic structure. And so there's absolutely a transition for existing maritime tenancy. Uh, and, but there, you know, these are big projects to take on and three and a half feet of sea level rise will not be able to happen overnight. And so the seawall, construction, all of the agency work that we've been doing it, it does take a tremendous amount of work and capital. So. Okay. Um, okay. So you're you're saying I think if I understand you correctly, that you are moving some of these tenants to phase two phase two areas in the eastern part of the project. But then you're tackling this core that includes 19 and that's going to take some time and a lot of money. It is. I mean, one of our major elements beyond the sea level rise is the environmental remediation. We have a very dirty site related to the boat repair. We want to get a new clean boat repair operator. It's part of this, you know, this rescue effort, 2.0. But we must remediate from prior actions. And so we cannot fill the site until we clean the site. And there's absolutely activities that we're embarking on with the county, with here the city to start remediating those 50 years of. You know, environmental contamination. And frankly, a lot of it is on the city property. And it's it's important that we understand, you know, the complications and timeline that are associated with that history. And so we're embarking on it right now. Okay. Thank you for the questions. Councilmember De. Thanks for answering questions. So a comment was raised that possibly. Building 19 and whatever uses happened there. While in phase one comment was raised by a resident having that prioritized above the apartment that were to occur were the family that to occur in phase one or as a demonstration of that, you're aggressively going to, you know, create the space to save the businesses, some of the businesses that are being moved to the eastern side. What was your response to that? If we can prioritize building 19. I'm sure you'll excuse the interruption. I have a housekeeping item. It is. I don't know how I got to be this late, but it is 1057 and we have to make a motion and pass. It was for affirmative votes to consider remaining items past 11 p.m.. So we have two council referrals after item one is on the code enforcement. We have three speakers and the other is on diaper changing stations. So Council, what's your pleasure? I move that we extend the meeting to 1130. I think those two items go pretty fast. Okay. What do you think we have second. I'll second that. Okay. We have a motion to extend the meeting to 1130 and and presumably to fit in as to council referrals. So moved and seconded any discussion. Councilmember Odie if we're at 1125 and we're not there yet, can we extend it longer? We'll cross that bridge him to. Make sure we're an island. Yes, we can. Are we allowed to consider that? Yeah, we can consider it even. Yeah. Okay. It's been moved. It's been seconded out in favor. I, I was there about five guys. Yeah, look at that. Okay, please continue. Strive for Delta. Member de sog to try and be concise because you still have action here. And so since ah you announced approval, the master plan with the city council, which we took place in in July of last year, our first effort was that maritime core in in so much as that we went to historic advisory board three times and just in September we got units approval for those buildings as proposed by our architecture team. That was the first approval that we sought. And then last month, yes, the apartments absolutely. The apartments really are the financial mechanism to pay for this 20 plus million dollars seawall. But the apartments were our second unit has approval that we achieved last month. So the maritime core is it is a critical focus for us and I think that we have a track record of going through these approvals with that focus. So last question. Would you have a problem if we prioritized pulling building permits or whatever for Building 19 when it gets all finished, that ahead of allowing for building permits being pulled for the residential. I yeah. I know what I'm going to choose to ask the city attorney to offer some advice or opinion or anything we should be mindful of at this point. Obviously, we want to stay on the agenda items that's before you, members of the council. And so to the extent possible, the matter before you is the lease extension. So I would advise that we as much as possible, stay on that point. We'll take in. Okay. Was that your last question? Okay. Um, does anyone else want to ask Mr. Murphy? Anything? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Okay, counsel. So, um. Right, we've. We've heard this side and we've heard our speakers. We have a decision to make. Who wants to lead the discussion or make a motion? I'm happy to do both. We multitask. Take it. Away. Yeah. So I just want to. I want to thank a members of SA who met with me. I did follow up on the questions. I got a lot of you know, but the staff report clearly laid out that we have we have an RFP. So I think those concerns around the in a process to to make it as effective as is humanly possible which I appreciate staff working really diligently on that. So that's good. And I do believe we have a transition plan that is going to work to the best possible. We have proved a master plan that to me that the key thing is here. It saves the city $20 million that we don't have to come up with on the seawall and whatnot. I don't want to get into dickering around trying to renegotiate the master plan in the phase in at this point in time, we need to move this thing forward. My hope is that that the Pacific shops have heard from us for now, almost two years, that the Maritime Corps is very important to us and our our local community organizations are also very important to us. And I have strong confidence that we will move forward with that and in great haste. I'm not moving forward. This lease stops the entire thing. It stops the Maritime Corps. It does not save anybody anything. It just causes risk to the city. So with that, I would like to move that. We approved the staff recommendation as written. Let's get a second. Think we can have discussions. Going to. Second Councilmember Vela and Councilmember Vela. So I and I'm going to be supporting this and I do want to say a few things. First, there is a substantial benefit to the city and it's directly related to our goals, related to addressing climate change and sea level rise, which is a priority of this Council. I am not interested in increasing any more costs to that than are necessary because I think the cost is already substantial. I would also add that we have also stated that another priority of this council is housing. And so I am very troubled to hear that, you know, I don't want to lose sight of that. And I think that putting forward, you know, subsidizing for profit businesses when there's a, you know, a plan in place to try to work with them while also addressing our need for that seawall and getting the housing that we need. I think that's really important. And frankly, I just I don't like the direction that. I want to make sure that that's not a direction that people think we're open to because. Not before. It's not before us today. And I think it also undermines what our priorities are as a council. You know, we just heard an agenda item where we were talking about the number of our meetings when we were talking about fees. And one of the things, the number of meetings that were actually using the facility and I think the scouting scouting program is great. But I also think that when we're looking at some of these things, we're looking at how many Alameda those are going to be impacted and and that sort of thing. And and what is the cost to them? And I do not want to increase the cost of housing any further. I appreciate the electrification and all of that. Again, we're getting a lot of things that are in line with our goals, and I think we need to be supportive of that. Thank you. Any other comments, Councilmember? Thank you. Just real brief. I will associate like with the comments made by my two colleagues. I mean, we get a second bite at the apple at the boatyard, so that's good. Gives us a chance. And, you know, whatever complaints somebody may had about the last process, you know, we're having a third party. We're having our staff. So I'm hopeful that we'll have a more positive outcome. You know, electrification, that's kind of exciting, too, because now for the first time since we passed our our climate action plan, we have an opportunity to implement it. So, yeah, you know, I was catching up with Madeleine from the chamber today and you know, she mentioned they had a maritime some type of forum or event where they were talking about attracting maritime business. So I think that remains a priority of of this council of of our staff, of our chamber. I mean, if there's some issue I mean, I'm not going to I can't really dictate from up here. But if there's some concerns from some tenants that it's not a workable transition plan, I would encourage everyone to keep talking and see if you can figure out something that that meets that definition for those that are impacted. But I mean, I'm ready to to vote in favor of this at this point. Mr.. JASON So did you want to add this? Well, thank you very much. We're here tonight because, uh, Pacific shops would like to get a one year extension in order to make sure they get its approvals as well as they would like to exercise the, the 41 year trigger. So. But in pursuing these items, they had not satisfactorily fulfilled at least one of the three items. So to me, that gives me an an opportunity, frankly, to pursue the concerns raised that I'm hearing from constituents in my discussions with constituents. I know we all represent different constituents, which is the way that each and each of us on city council represent our different truth. And but we do our best to to speak our truth. And what I'm seeing, frankly, when I'm hearing from the residents, even tonight, is that the effort to save the maritime businesses needs to be . Better than what we're seeing. And so I'm just not seeing that. And when I hear that we have to go to a second RFP and I'm glad that we're going to a second half, but better than not going not doing that. But it kind of makes you wonder, you know, why was the first one so bad? There's something in the air, I believe, that is being discouraging of maritime businesses, comments provided notwithstanding. And so what I'm seeking to do is basically pursue the second bullet points on the alternatives section, which is basically the second bullet points was to direct staff to renegotiate specific lease terms. So. Mr. Day, so I appreciate your comments. It's 1107 and we have a motion in a second. But it. Is, of course. So that's what I'm trying to pursue. And I obviously I don't have enough votes for that tonight, but I would say it will be a sad day, though, if we begin to lose a lot of the maritime businesses, not just the people who showed up tonight, but some of the people who are there operating right now. It'd be a sad day. I mean, because these are the businesses that help give the city of Alameda an island, its identity. I mean, at the end of the day, let's not forget that, you know, our flag, the symbol of the flag, is an anchor, you know, obviously reflective of of of our maritime tradition and history. And honestly, I just don't see I see a rush to build more housing. And even there, you know, I mean, the housing is needed, but sometimes there's just too much housing. And so I think, you know, we need to give a better effort. And I hope to have seen a better effort at saving the maritime industry, which I don't see tonight. Thank you, Mr. de seismic. My comments brief. Well, as far as housing, I don't think we can build it fast enough. And there are a lot of things that keep me up at night. I don't like the thought of losing maritime businesses, but there are also it's always a balancing act. I'm also mindful of the cost to maintain and restore the seawall and shoreline to make them adequate to address the anticipated sea level rise would cost between 15 and $17 million, and 80% of that needed work is on city property. And as far as the boatyard operator, I like the approach the way that it is being done this time around. I will also share that I think it was maybe two weeks ago, a few of us were at the Wheat Board meeting, the Water Emergency Transit Authority, because we were supporting the New Sea Plan, the ferry terminal and one service. But when the executive director was giving her report, she mentioned that one of the things because we did water transit around the Bay Area is expanding, which is wonderful. We're on the water. We should use that water transit. But she mentioned that they are finding it increasingly difficult to find maintenance facilities to maintain their boats. Now, granted, these are ferries, so they're bigger than sailboats. But the the gist of what she was saying was that this is just one of those fields where there are fewer and fewer people doing these jobs, which means you get creative about the way you do it, and sometimes you bring the workers to them. But be that as it may, I think this is a very important measure for our city and I am prepared to support it too. So we've had a motion, we've had a second all in favor. I opposed abstained. Those opposed. Okay. So that motion passes with four affirmative votes and one in opposition. Thank you. Okay. Now we are going to rush on to the next item.

Adoption of Resolution Commending Alameda Fire Department Division Chief Matthew Tunney for His Contributions to the City of Alameda. (Fire)

AlamedaCC_01202015_2015-1152

Whereas the Council of the City of Alameda records its appreciation for service faithfully rendered by division chief Matthew Turney to the city of Alameda. And. WHEREAS, Matthew Tunney's career with the City of Alameda Fire Department spanned 29 and a half years, starting on July 1st, 1985, until December 12th, 2014, and included the following assignments firefighter, apparatus, operator , fire captain, division chief and Acting Deputy Fire Chief. And. Whereas, Matthew Tony was promoted from firefighter to apparatus operator on September 28, 1997. And. Whereas, Matthew Tony was promoted to fire captain on August 1st, 1999, and served as the Fire Department's Training Director from July 2nd, 2000 until May 4th, 2003. And. Whereas, Matthew Tony was promoted to Division Chief on November 11, 2007, served as acting deputy fire chief on several occasions from 2010 to 2013, and managed the department's facilities, projects, maintenance, capital improvements and safety since 2007. And was Matthew. Tony and his wife Felicia are looking forward to spending additional time with family and friends. And. Whereas, on December 12, 2014, Matthew Tony will officially retire from his position as division chief for the City of Alameda Fire Department and will be greatly missed by the department, city staff and the entire Alameda community. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council of the City of Alameda does hereby congratulate Division Chief Matthew Tony for his outstanding achievement in his service to the city of Alameda and to the fire service profession. Madam Mayor. Council members and staff, thank you very much for the opportunity in this honor. It's been a pleasure. It's been an honor working and serving the city and the citizens of this town. I have had a wonderful career. I really enjoyed working with everybody. The fire department members have been just such a great group to work with over the course of the career. Many friends and family are the relationships that you leave behind. And you take those with you. For the rest of my duration. Thanks for this. Opportunity. I greatly appreciate it. So at this point, we don't have any more commendations, as some of you may want to be leaving. You're welcome to stay. If you don't, we'll have to have the fire marshal in. But thank you very much for coming out tonight. Nice to see all of you. It's. Nick. Thank you. Let's just. Next on our agenda is going to be 60. The correct presentation on the status of environmental conditions and cleanup at Alameda Point. And I believe we're going to have a staff presentation on this, and I know we're going to wait a few minutes, but we can kind of start moving along to. Try to sneak by there. Nice. Especially.

A bill for an ordinance reorganizing and amending Chapter 20, Article XI of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding Auditor subpoena power in connection with performance of internal audits and investigations and enforcement of prevailing and minimum wage. Amends Article XI, Chapter 20 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding Auditor subpoena power in connection with performance of internal audits, and subpoena power related to investigations and enforcement of prevailing and minimum wage. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-20-21.

DenverCityCouncil_05102021_21-0078

Ten Eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-20465 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Bill 78. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 78 on the floor for final consideration? Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 20 1-0078 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to amend. And thank you, Madam President. I move that council build 20 1-007 be amended in the following particulars. I will. When I come to the part that is added, I will make note of that on page one. Line 21 insert the following section one that section 20 dash to 76 of the defunct Denver Revised Municipal Code shall be amended by adding the language underlined to read as follows. And I'll point out the underlined section by section 20 dash to 76 internal audits. Paragraph A The auditor shall be provided access in a timely manner to officers, employees, records and property of entities that may be necessary, as may be necessary to conduct an audit or perform audit duties as provided in Section 20, Dash two seven. Five of the DRC contractors with the city that have a contractual obligation to provide information shall provide access in a timely manner to the contractors, officers, employees, records and property of entities as may be necessary to conduct an audit or perform audit duties. Here is a section that is added the sentence that is added to the end of that paragraph the custodian of confidential and or proprietary records or parts of records sought under this 20 dash 276 may provide the auditor timely and reasonable access to inspect such records on site in lieu of providing copies for offsite use. Remember internal bill sections as section two through Section eight accordingly. Okay. All right. Thank you. Council Member Flynn and thank you for the second by Councilmember Hines questions or comments by members of Council on this amendment. Council Member Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. This bill has been in committee I think three times now, and it's been very contentious and a matter of a matter of dispute and conflict among the parties that we're being audited and the auditor and it's hard for us to sit here and know exactly what what all the facts have been. And and maybe with this amendment, that's not entirely necessary for us to sort out. It's just not comfortable to legislate in the dark. And so what this amendment does, it carves out a very narrow point. That proprietary and confidential information that is that is subject to an audit is entirely open to the auditor when there's a performance audit or a financial audit or an internal audit, entirely open to the auditor, but not the entity being audited does not have to make a physical or a digital copy and release it out the door. It would be inspected, subject to inspection onsite as audits have traditionally been done for decades. The the events this week with the East Coast having 45% of its. Energy resources through the Colonial Pipeline being shut down by by hackers demonstrates nationally the need for vigilance on cybersecurity. And in fact, the auditor's office here in Denver earlier this year released an audit that was critical of the city's own audit employee training practices. And so what this does is it allows the entity being audited to protect the proprietary and confidential information from being released offsite to a third party. But it also gives the auditor the access that is required under the charter and under the code. With that narrow point, that's all the amendment does. That does not touch the auditor's other responsibilities for which he's seeking subpoena power and for rent, which I'm in full agreement, and that is enforcement of prevailing wage for our workers under city contract and for enforcement of minimum wage, which we have just acted on in the last several years. So it does not touch that at all. It's only this narrow this narrow point to provide security to confidential information. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Canete. Thank you. Council President I recognize that these conversations are iterative, and our goal of trying to discuss everything at committee is not always realistic or possible. But this is an example where this is a very big change. I would disagree with the characterization of it as narrow. It doesn't just involve a situation where there is a dispute between the parties. It restricts the auditor from taking anything considered confidential or proprietary off site, ever much broader than where there's a dispute or where there's a subpoena involved. And I will just say that, you know, for decades upon decades, the auditor has had access to confidential and proprietary information. And so to suddenly change the entire access practice based on a concern about subpoena power, where there's a narrow dispute to me without will give examples of the questions I would have needed to investigate to get comfortable with this. And I'm not going to ask anyone to answer these questions tonight because I'm just going to vote no on the amendment. But examples of what we didn't explore is what are the general accounting principles in regard to analyzing information offsite? What are the cost implications of sending a multidisciplinary team on site versus being able to examine materials? What are the practices over decades that have been successful in terms of offsite materials and have not caused disputes and would now be terminated or prohibited under this amendment? So I feel concerned that businesses have basically taken a conversation about subpoenas and used it to try to blunt the auditing tool. And frankly, these are the contracts where the auditing tool is most important to us because we as council members don't get to see those kinds of books. We can see most of the city's books directly, but we don't get to see the books of contractors that do involve proprietary information. And it is only the auditor who's kind of the eyes of the people on that. We can't serve that role. So to blunt that tool without analysis of what states and cities that have similar powers are doing with regard to this, to me really potentially undermines our ability to protect the taxpayers interests and make sure that those audits are done well. And so without that type of deep analysis and discussion, I just am not comfortable with this change tonight. And I would urge folks to vote no or to limit any amendments simply to situations where there's a dispute resulting in a subpoena, if that's an issue, versus blunting this power for all audits from this point forward. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember H. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Madam President. You know, I had a lot of the very same concerns that Councilman Flynn raised when he was talking about this as this came through and kind of this back and forth between what, you know, what the issue was and, hey, this was we gave this access. We we didn't get this access and being put in the middle of that in the in the midst of this discussion about subpoena power and I think some very important stuff that's in this proposal. I appreciate that this amendment keeps the preservation of the powers on the wage issues. I think that it's a very fair amendment that makes me feel much more comfortable with the overall bill. I think that, you know, I think the councilman for keeping this narrow in its scope and really tackling, I think, the issue that was the most contentious and the one where we were getting differing information from from different folks . So I just want to say thank you to Councilman Flynn for taking the lead on this and finding a pathway to what I feel is a very fair amendment that preserves the overall intent of this, but also, you know, provides a little bit more clarity specifically in that vein, where they feel like there was just a lot of confusion and a lot of back and forth and and still preserves the the the integrity of the audit while providing a little bit of, you know, protection, especially. You know, I think, as Councilman Flynn talked about, with cybersecurity being increasingly, you know, an issue of concern, I was recently working with some folks from the city of Baltimore where their entire city system was hacked and they were all having to sort of Gmail accounts. And so. I think. That it's not an unreasonable request for some of these more sensitive proprietary information to be audited with full access, but in a way that works for these entities. And I think the Best Amendment captures that in the narrowest way possible that preserves the powers. But addresses that. Concern and that issue. And so I am very supportive of this amendment and will be voting yes. And I just want to say again, thank you to Councilman Flynn for taking the lead on navigating and finding a way, I think, to take the edge off of those concerns while preserving the overall intent. So thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. And I agree with everything that Councilman Clarke just said. I chaired the three Finance and Governance Committee meetings where we discussed this bill. And really, I really pushed us to move it out of committee because we were. We weren't going to resolve. All of the angst that we had over it. And I think the bill deserved. To come to full. Council for discussion. But it really, I think, was at risk of failing. And so I think, Councilman Flynn, for coming up with this as a compromise so that the auditor will get his subpoena power. But this is. Just one. Guardrail. We all received a ton of feedback from a lot of different groups who felt like there needed to be some kind of guardrail. And I think that. This this addresses that. In a minor way, but still grants. The authority to the auditor. So I will be supporting it. So thank. You. Thank you. Councilmember Black. And in the cue we have Councilmember Hines and then Councilmember Flynn. We'll get you back in. Thank you. Council President. Question for I guess, our attorneys. Councilmember Can each is amendment to the amendment? Is that possible for us to do? Or is it really. I don't I don't know. I don't know if we can do amendments to amendments. I'm kind of filling time while Miss Crawford is promoted. We'll get it right there. Good evening, Council members. Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council. If there is proposed language. It it could happen logistically. Yes, we might need to take a break and makhija. Our council secretary might have some concerns or. Solutions, but I do think. It's possible. Yes. And this is a bill we can use our council member discretion to push a week. Right? This is right. Okay. Just make it sure. So may I ask Councilmember, will you repeat your proposal? It's something like if a subpoenas actually issued, then then onsite can be requested. Madam President. Go ahead. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilman Hinds, for your question. This is my. This is not the amendment as drafted is not a guardrail on the subpoena power. I just want to be really clear. Councilman Flynn, I shared my feedback with him. It is a limit for all audits forever. For all time can only be conducted on site period. That's what this is I want. This is not a guardrail on the subpoena. It prohibits the auditor ever taking anything considered confidential or proprietary off site ever again. That's why I consider this is a humongous change in practice. My suggestion to Councilman Flynn, which he did respectfully he considered and did not take, was that the language could be limited to say, you know, the process in the bill right now is about a subpoena where item has been requested and the party does not provide it . Then there is a notice and then if there's failure to comply, the subpoena shall issue. You could write in the guardrail at that point where and the court shall decide whether or not. So if the Court is deciding whether or not you get the information, the court can also decide whether or not a guardrail is needed for the review of the materials. That was my suggestion. It is a guardrail on the subpoena where there is a dispute. That is a guardrail on the subpoena. That is not how it was drafted. So, you know, and I will just say, this is first reading tonight, correct? Yes. I believe no is the second. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Losing track. Well, all right. So so anyway. Yes, thank you. I hope that answers your question. Thank you. Councilmember Teenage boy. So I'll defer. I think Councilmember Flynn maybe has some comments, maybe he can address. Councilmember, can you just concern and I would like to understand that the difference here, so I'll just leave it at that for now. Thank you. Council President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Flynn, do you would you like to clarify? Because I know that there were some statements made and then Councilmember Herndon will get you right in. But I don't want to get too far out without some clarification from Councilmember Flynn. Sure. Thank you, Madam President. I thank you. Councilwoman Nature, respectfully, I disagree with with your characterization of the amendment does not mean that never again with the auditor be able to take information off site, even if the third party deems it confidential or proprietary. It just says the third party may, in lieu of ask that it be done on site. They can still provide copies if they choose if there is an agreement of some sort. Subpoena power, as the auditor said in committee, would probably be used extremely sparingly in the first place. If there is a dispute over whether the the auditor wants that information and doesn't believe it's confidential or proprietary, then they can always go to court under this new subpoena power that we're establishing. That's always been true. So the auditor will have the ability to get information off site if there is an agreement or if he takes the subpoena to court and the judge says, no, this is not I don't deem this confidential. You can have this you can have it offsite. So that's why I'm saying that it is very narrow. So I do disagree with your characterization. I understand your I understand your argument for. But I just disagree. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Herndon. Amen. President. This bill bothers me for four reasons I'm not going to get into now. I think that my colleagues did a really good job of having these conversations at committee, but I appreciate an attempt to try to remedy some of the concerns that multiple members of council have, though not the perfect amendment. I hear what Councilman King need to say. I don't I don't believe that will occur. And this is something that I would like to I will be voting yes, but my colleagues will as well. And then we can see whether the bill as as amended hopefully get the vote, because I still have issues with it, but I appreciate attempts to try to make it better. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Hines, are you. Good. Do you want us to take a recess to look at an amendment? Or may we vote on the amendment on the floor? So thank you. Council President So we have a disagreement between two different council members trying to figure out how do we how do we get a tiebreaker. Or get. Called a. Vote? Well, I mean, I want to understand that there's a disagreement with the interpretation of the amendment. So, yes, of course, we could vote on it. I guess. Ms.. Crawford. If you are willing to to to weigh in and if we have to take a recess for you to feel comfortable weighing in, I'm okay with that. But I think that the the interpretation are you. So I guess, Mr. Bradford, are you aware that the difference in interpretation by council members can each influence? And if so, do you have a sense for how you interpret the amendment? Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel Again. So I think that. They're interpreting the language. In the bill the same. In other words. That we're changing the scope in a different provision, not the subpoena provision, but the internal audit provision. So I don't hear anything. About a different interpretation. There. I did hear only sorry, but I did hear some legal concerns raised. And I just want to say, if we want to hear from Mitch there. He has probably dug in a little bit deeper than me and the auditor standard auditing provisions. But as far as this process, I think you are see some acacia about voting down the amendment that's currently on the floor and. Then discussing something else. Okay. Thank you, Ms.. Crawford. Um. Thank you, council president. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, ma'am. I was just chiming in, too, to beg us not to do a recess. I mean, we have differences on language and amendments every Monday. So let's I appreciate. I think council members can each and planned have been succinct and I think we should vote. I just wanted to hopefully we're going to take a break from present. Great. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. And this is something that I've definitely dug in to as well, because I do share Councilmember Herndon's concerns as to this bill as well. But I'll go ahead and pause there and hear from my colleague, council member each, and then hopefully we can do a roll call on this amendment and see where we go next. Councilmember Cami. Thank you. Council President I just for the record, wanted to note that the Council received a communication from the auditor indicating potential legal challenges with this amendment in terms of the charter language and the interpretation of powers related to audit standards. And so, you know, I understand that the votes may be there to pass this, but I just want to note that council has been advised that the city council has been advised that that we could face a legal challenge, that this potentially conflicts with the charter provisions. And so I just wanted that to be noted for the public who may not be aware that that concern was raised before we vote. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Kimmich. And this has been a long time coming with three times that committee and our conversation here tonight. And so, Madam Secretary, roll call, please. On the amendment. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman. I. Can each. No. Sandoval. All right. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. No. Clark. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Two names. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes. The amendment to Council Bill 20 1-007 has passed. Councilmember Black, we need a motion to now pass as amended, please. I move that council bill 20 1-0078 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. Thank you. We have the motion and we have a second by Councilmember Hines. Council Bill 20 1-007a is on the floor for final passage. Questions by members of Council on Council four Bill 78. All right, scene. Oh, here we go. Councilmember Herndon. They remember I don't know how much conversation was had on this last week as I was out, I was just going to say I will be a no on the bill as amended. I think the when you're trying to list reasons for a change and those reasons continue to be questioned by organizations that you audited, just gave me so much pause that I did not think that this bill was fully baked. And I by no means I appreciate all my colleagues, multiple committee meetings doing their very best. I'm still not comfortable voting yes to allow this, and I'll be a no today. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon, Councilmember CdeBaca. It's. Possible. Of the zero four office speak to how the amendment changes. Their bill and. If it to them. Sure. We've got Kirsten Crawford on the line here and your audio broke up a little bit. Councilmember CdeBaca So hopefully Kirsten got your full question. It's actually for the Auditors city attorney. If they could speak to whether or not they support the bill with this amendment. Okay. We'll go ahead and get them promoted up into the queue. All right, Mitch. Go ahead. There was a question posed to you. You're on mute. Yes. Hello, council members. I believe the effect of the amendment has been accurately discussed in your conversations and the auditor has expressed his position on that and will support the position and have not looked into that yet as to the challenge that's been described. But we will look into that for the order as requested. Is the auditor able to speak to whether or not he. Would rather see. This bill die or. Passed with the amendment? Another position to speak for the auditor on that question. Is the auditor available to promote? I'm looking right now. I'm not. Seen him in the queue unless. Auditor O'Brien If you're there, if you would, please raise your hand so we can promote you into the panelists. I am not seeing the auditor in the attendees council woman. He's not on the call. He's not living. Is it possible to take a recess. So somebody could get him on. The call? I think it's pretty important. I believe that if this is his bill and he felt strongly about it, that he would be here tonight. And so I would prefer that we go ahead and vote. If he's not here, I don't believe it's to any of our benefit to wait for him to tell us that he doesn't like this bill as it is . I agree with you that if he was here. That that would you would expect. Him to be here. But we all know how technology works. And I just want to make sure that he's not having technical difficulties because it doesn't seem like he would miss this meeting. I. We can go ahead. Let me see if he. He's not here, so it's his bill. I am very surprised that he wouldn't be here and. As we've been talking about this, if he was monitoring it, I believe that he would come into the queue and basically he's going to tell us that he doesn't like it. And so are you making a motion to take a recess or are. I see. Councilmember or Buckhead Councilmember? No, go ahead. I believe that we should vote on this. This has been belabored beyond. I have never seen anything belabored more than this. And so I would ask that we don't take up anybody else's time on this. We're doing our council work. I don't think it's appropriate that we wait to have the auditor join us. And so I would like us to go ahead and vote on this. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 1-0078, please. Black. I see tobacco. As. Clark. I. Flynn. Hi. Herndon? No. Hines. I. Cashman. I can each. I. Sandoval No. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. CdeBaca. I. Madam President. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Three days. Nine eyes. Nine Eyes Counsel Build 20 1-0078 has passed as amended. 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 I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Black, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Madam President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 21 04720478047904620463046704880493049403710372037303740375037603770378038003810382003830384038504280429043004310432043304340435048104820177045504606046804690470049104250442. And last but not least, 0427. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. I see tobacco. I quite. Like. Flint. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman. I can eat. Right. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, dash 0308 changing the zoning classification for 2000 West Virginia Avenue in Ashmore Park. A combined required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 20333 Changing the zoning classification for 3001 South Federal Boulevard in Harvey Park, South and Council Bill 21, Dash 0352 approving a proposed Loreto Heights rezoning and impede development agreement between the City and County of Denver and ACM.

A proclamation recognizing January as Denver Blood Donor Month, recognizing Vitalant for its Lifesaving Work, and announcing the 2022 Southeast Denver Blood, Platelet & Plasma Donation Drive.

DenverCityCouncil_01032022_22-0025

Thank you, sir. All right. Well, thank you, Counsel Pro Tem Torres, for sponsoring that very important proclamation. And we've got a second proclamation. Council Member Sawyer, will you please read Proclamation 20 2-0025, please? Absolutely. Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation 20 2-0025 Recognizing January as Denver Blood Donor Month, recognizing vitalant for its lifesaving work and announcing the 2022 Southeast Denver blood placement, platelet and plasma donation drive. Whereas the need for volunteer blood, platelet and plasma donations is constant to meet everyday patient needs for traumas, surgeries, cancer treatments and more. And. Whereas, Vitalant, the nation's largest independent nonprofit blood service provider, is exclusively focused on providing lifesaving blood and comprehensive transfusion medicine services for about 900 hospitals and their patients across the U.S.. And. WHEREAS, millions of people in communities throughout the country depend on generous volunteer blood donors and by talents dedicated team to make sure lifesaving blood is available when and where it is needed. And. Whereas, each year in the U.S., approximately 735,000 volunteer donors give about 1.4 million blood 344,000 platelet and 180,000 plasma donations, which are processed into more than 2.1 million blood components for patients in need. And. Whereas, currently, all blood types are needed, especially type O blood donations, type O-negative. Blood is the universal blood type. Er, doctors reach for it first to help stabilize patients before their blood type is known. And. Whereas, blood donations come solely from generous volunteer donors and cannot be replicated in a lab. And. Whereas, the majority of the population is eligible to donate, but only about 3% actually do. And. WHEREAS, the month of January is recognized as National Blood Donor Month and a time to encourage and recognize volunteer blood donors. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the city, by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver hereby recognizes by talent for its lifesaving work. Section two that the Denver City Council shares in the efforts to raise awareness about ongoing need and hereby joins in the national celebration by proclaiming January 2022 as Denver Blood Donor Month in Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affixed the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and then a copy be transmitted to by talent. Thank you to Councilmember Sawyer. Your motion to adopt. Hang on. I got to pull my script back up here. I move the proclamation 22 zero 0 to 5 be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Councilmember Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. We're proud to have a tenants main Colorado campus located in District five, just north of Lowry's Great Lawn, and will be hosting the second annual Southeast. Denver Gives Blood Drive this month. I also want to give a huge shout out to the residents who've already pledged to donate over the next month. I'm sure, as you can hear in my voice, I've got COVID and I'm looking forward to donating myself so that I can donate some convalescent plasma as well. Our goal is to reach 75 donations by January 31st, which would save approximately 225 lives. And if that alone doesn't convince people to participate. Each blood donation is checked for COVID antibodies. So consider it a free antibody test as well. The need for blood has continued for childbirth, cancer treatments, essential medical procedures, traumas, and also everyday emergencies. But as I said in the proclamation, donors of all blood types are needed, but especially those with type O and because convalescent plasma type O is the most in-demand blood type helping patients that are facing life threatening conditions and emergencies every day. O-negative can be transfused to anyone, and O-positive is also especially needed because it is the most transfused blood type. COVID plasma, also known as convalescent plasma, is collected from those who are recovering from COVID 19 and contains antibodies that can be used to treat patients with active and severe COVID 19 cases, which gives them an extra boost to fight the illness. So even those who haven't been diagnosed with COVID can help because when donors give blood or platelets, they're informed of their antibody status. And if positive by talent produces that convalescent plasma donation, there are a lot of people out there who don't even know that they had COVID because there are so many asymptomatic cases. So just want to give a shout out to everyone. Thank you again. If you have already signed up to donate, you can schedule an appointment at by talent dot org or you can call 87725 vital vital l8772584825. And you can email our council office at Denver Council five at Denver golf dot org for more information and look on our social for the blood drive pledge link. So that's it. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we have Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank Councilwoman Sawyer for. Bringing forward this proclamation. I try to give blood regularly. I gave blood today at Children's Hospital because it's something that we should be doing and we should never have a shortage of blood because most people are eligible to donate. And I was in at 1230 and I was out about an hour later. And so I want to encourage everybody to do that. I had conversations with the District 18 today about possibly doing something in northeast Denver because it is something that I care passionately about. So thank you, Councilman Sawyer, Councilman Sawyer, for doing this. And I would encourage all those to do it in and out. And it literally saves lives. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon, and happy to support this important proclamation tonight as well. Madam Secretary, roll call. Sawyer. I see tobacco. I. Clarke. I. Flynn. I. Herndon, i. I. Cashman. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced the results. 11 911 IES Proclamation 20 2-0 0 to 5 has been adopted. Council member Sawyer will start the five minute timer and I believe we've got two individuals who are joining us online, Brook Way and or Brittany Calvert for the acceptance. Hi. Yeah. Why don't you go ahead? Thank you. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you so much for having my talent join you tonight. We are very honored to have this proclamation and have National Blood Donor Month recognized in Colorado and specifically in Denver. We just came out of our holiday season and that's one of the most difficult times for us. People are spending time with their families. They're traveling, donating blood is not at the top of their minds, however. And that's why we want people to remember donating blood throughout the year and in January for National Blood Donor Month. So thank you so much to Councilwoman Sawyer for supporting this and hosting this blood drive all month long in District five. And thank you to Chris for also donating today. It's so lovely to hear that. And we really appreciate regular donors. And if anyone hasn't donated, please give it a try. It's very easy, like Chris said. But we are still seeing the impact of COVID 19, and we've had to cancel hundreds of blood drives this year alone and and in 2022 because of COVID 19. And we're trying to make up for those lost blood drives, meaning thousands of uncollected units to help patients who really depend on transfusions for so many different reasons. Cancer patients need platelets, and there are so many other patients who need all types of blood. So we're really, really honored to be joining you this evening. And we want to make sure that, you know how grateful we are for your support. It's community partners like you that really remind our Colorado community to head to a donation center, blood drive and give back. Because every 2 seconds someone needs blood and there's no substitute for it. So I don't have five missions to talk about, but we really appreciate everything you guys do. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we missed you introducing yourself at the beginning of your comments, if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself for the public record. Yes. I'm Rick Way. I'm the communications manager at my time. Very good. Thank you. And thank you for the work that you do. And to Councilmember Sawyer for sponsoring this proclamation. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on in the agenda. Madam Secretary, would you please read the bills for introduction.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4600 South Kipling Street in Marston. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from OS-B to S-RH-2.5 (open-space to suburban row-house), located at 4600 South Kipling Street in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-18-19.

DenverCityCouncil_08192019_19-0576

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman, can we please put council will 576 on the floor? Yes, thank you. I move that council bill 576 be adopted on second reading and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 576 is open. May we have the staff report? Let me get this open. Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. I apologize for my voice. I'm getting over a cold. So this is a map amendment for 4600 South Kipling Street. The request is to rezone from open space B, which is private open space to suburban row house. Two and a half storeys. So the location of the property is City Council District two in the Marston neighborhood. The request again is to rezone two suburban context rowhouse two and a half stories. The suburban context is a single unit and multi-unit residential area with commercial strips and centers and office parks. The primary building forms allowed in this zone district are suburban house, duplex and row house with a height 30 to 35 feet. Again, the subject site, the zoning is open space B, which is private open space. To the north is a PD. Some mixed use two story and some row house, two and a half storey and then to the south and east. Chapter 59, r one, which is single family residential. To the west is Jefferson County R-1 A which is also single family residential. The property itself is vacant. There are a few barns and that kind of thing on the property because it was used for agricultural purposes a while. Back to the north is commercial strip mall and a gas station. South, east and west are single family residential. This just gives you an idea of the location of the property with a larger view. So the form and style or scale of the surrounding properties, the property itself is the center top which is vacant, and then three property, three single family homes to the southeast and west are the to right hand pictures in the lower left and then the commercial property upper left. It shows you the scale. So informational notice on this went out in January of 2019. Planning Board held a hearing in May of this year and unanimously recommended approval. Rudy Committee saw this on June 18th and passed it on to full city council. And of course, we're here tonight at a notice that has been properly noticed. So there is one R.A., the Glenbrook Autumn Run and Park West Neighborhood Organization. And then there's ANC. The R.A. has submitted a letter of support for this. And then there are three letters of opposition from individual neighbors, one expressing concern about the loss of open space. Another expressing concern about the drainage from the project. And another expressing concern about traffic to and from the project. So the criteria is consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering public health, safety and welfare, justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. The two plans that apply are Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver 2019. Current Plan 2040 speaks to Equitable and Affordable Housing, inclusive housing, strong and authentic neighborhoods and environmentally resilient neighborhoods. And the details are in your staff report. Blueprint Denver talks about this as a suburban. In the suburban context, it's single family and multi-family residential commercial corridors and those commercial centers. The residential intensities are generally there can be some residential intensities, but they're generally separated from each other. And of course, there's not the regular grid street system that we're used to in the inner city, but curvilinear streets and irregular blocks. The future place that blueprint classifies. This is residential, low, medium. This is mid to low scale residential, with multi-unit buildings interspersed in single and two unit residential at a height of no more than three stories. Kipling Street is a residential arterial which basically tries to balance access and mobility and a few future growth strategies. All other areas of the city, which is anticipated to see 20% of the new growth in the city and 10% of new employment. Housing and Inclusive. Denver speaks to creating affordable housing in vulnerable, vulnerable areas and in areas of opportunity and promoting equitable and accessible housing options along the housing continuum. This suburban rowhouse will allow development of a mix of new housing units that is on an opportunity site. So staff believes this is consistent with our adopted plans that by using a standard zone district, we're furthering the uniform application of our zone districts and by allowing development redevelopment that is in character with the neighborhood in scale and intensity, we're furthering the public health, safety and welfare justifying circumstances. This property under Old Blueprint was originally single family residential and only would allow single family. Under the new blueprint, the residential low does open the opportunity for a place type that offers a little more diversity of housing, including multi-unit. So with that change, Steph believes that's a correct justifying circumstances change. Circumstances is justified. And we did. Excuse me. I'm losing my voice. We didn't talk about the neighborhood context, the suburban context. And Steph believes this zone district is consistent with that. And so staff does recommend approval. Thank you very much. We have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you signed up for this one, feel free to come up to the front row. I'll call you up when I call your name. Come right up to the microphone. You have your 3 minutes. First up is bonny nasal like. Good evening, Bonnie. Angelic with Norse Design 1101 Bannock Street. I'm here representing the applicant and also the potential homebuilder, which is Meritage Homes, who is here in the audience this evening. Thank you, Miss Lucero, for your very thorough staff report and summary. As Ms.. Lucero noted, the proposed MAP amendment to as RH 2.5 enables development that is in character with the surrounding single unit properties. It enables development at the same scale as the surrounding properties, and it encourages development where infrastructure and services are already in place. We have been working with the Glen Brook Park, West Village, West Neighborhood Organization on this MAP Amendment, and we're part of a large neighborhood meeting last fall. As a part of this outreach, we have established a good neighbor agreement with the neighborhood, and I want to read two sentences from that agreement. So it's clear what we're proposing for use limitations. The owner agrees that with respect to any portion of the property located within 100 feet of the eastern and southern boundaries thereof and located adjacent to lots containing existing single family detached residential dwelling, the property may be principally used and developed exclusively for single family detached dwelling units. With respect to all other portions of the property, the property may be principally used and developed exclusively for single family detached dwelling units or two family duplex detached dwelling units. So on page two of your staff report, it notes three different building forms the suburban house, the duplex and the real house as available within the stone's stone district. We would be limiting it just to the suburban house and the duplex. Based on our conversations and in our agreement with the neighborhood association. Unfortunately, the R.A. president was not able to attend this evening, but she did include a letter of support in your staff packet. Thank you all for your time this evening and our team is here if you have any questions. Thank you. Next up, Curtis Williams. I'm part of the team. If you could come, just state your name for the record and state that you're here for to answer questions. That would be great. Hi. Good evening. Curtis Williams, engineer on the project and here to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you very much. Next up, Alyson, all Tara's. Good evening. I'm Allison. Terrorists without and Johnson. Legal counsel to the applicant. I'm just here to answer questions if there are questions. Especially as they pertain to the good neighbor agreement. Thank you. Next up, Glenn and Glenn near. Good evening, Glen. Near with Meritage. Homes. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Alicia Hemet. Hi. I'm Alicia Hammett. Amateurish design, and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Good evening. Chairman Sekou Blackstar. Some movement for self-defense representing the oppressed, the poor. The homeless, the elderly. The youth disabled. I'm having a conversation earlier today. We talked about how we can do better. And then. We do the same old, same old like. This is my last hit. I'm a crack head, and as soon as God delivered me from this, I'll never do it again. Then come back around. I'm on the set of crack head legislation because I know you can do better than this. Come on, man. Who got occupied this poor people. No. No. So where do we go? Does anybody care? Anybody here in us, we need to know what is it that is going to resonate with you? What is it going to take? Or maybe later. I mean, for you. Come on, go. This is not affordable housing. Before people. And yet you act as if there's no poor people in your district. And we're everywhere. Everywhere, including the help in the mountains and universe of you. Where do we go after we work? Well, we got to go live in Milton. We got to go in Westminster. Oh, we got to go anywhere but the city county of Denver. And yet you talk about this is the place for everybody. Why don't we stop lying? And that's not casting aspersion on nobody. That's not talking about nobody's bad intent. I've been down here for 15 years. I know what your intent is. So you ain't got to protect that because you talk out of both sides of your neck with this book. And those are conjunction that negates everything that follows that. And we're talking about this will be about this and that, rich and poor. But it's just chatter. So here we go, little rascals. Here we go. Adults playing like children because chicks are for kids. How long do you think you can get away with this? I'm sorry, but your time is up. Jesse Paris. I do not want to go home. And not see him. All right. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council on this item? Councilman Flynn. And thank you, Mr. President. Bonnie, or the attorney, could you address what form the agreement with the R.A. takes? You said it was a good neighbor agreement. So the actual format, it's called a development agreement. We currently have it signed by the landowner, the prospective developer and the registered neighborhood organization, and it can be recorded assuming the map amendment passes. Okay. It will be recorded. Yes. Okay. Right. As long as you're here. Just a couple of quick questions. One of the concerns that was brought out was the traffic on Kipling. This is a landlocked parcel. And Mr. Van Orden, the owner, has been trying for years to find some kind of a development concept that would work here . Jefferson County came in maybe 20 some years ago and put the median down. Kipling So this would only be a write in and write out or are there other have there been talks with Jefferson County about allowing a left turn in from southbound, as they did with the the development up north by Quincy, that that is in the county and not in Denver. So we've been working with city staff as we've been preparing a site development plan, working with public works and traffic to work through the details of access. And we'll continue to work through those details as we do the site development plan and the transportation engineering plan. I think our civil engineer might be able to give a few more specifics of those conversations. Okay. Thank you. Just quickly, I don't I don't need, you know, chapter and verse, but there was a concern from one of the folks who wrote a letter, one of the three letters of opposition that he had been struck by a truck on trying to cross Kipling Street some years ago. And he's so he's concerned about traffic having to make U-turns at Stanford if they cannot get out to go southbound otherwise. Yeah. I appreciate your concern. We have been working with the city engineers on requesting a left turn lane in the median for access on our south access point. And we were denied through the city engineering. They reviewed it and they came back saying that they feel that the situation of the right in, right out is acceptable. And so they did deny that left turn movement. Okay. We would prefer to have it, but it was denied. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. And one more question. Maybe for Barney or I'm sorry, the engineer there, the bowls lateral irrigation ditch that cuts diagonally through the property. Is there has there been any talk with the ditch company as far as reconfiguring that? And along with that, having a sort of a public access. Access. Easement because the wagon trail park trail dead ends at Tim's property and it would be great for the community to have that daylight and for all the the pedestrian and cyclist to who right now are kind of winding their way around Kipling in order to get through. We have spoken with a Dutch company and we are trying to set up some additional meetings right now to talk about the details of that. We have discussed relocating the easement and or the ditch and have received favorable comments towards that. But we do need to discuss the details of the trail. We believe they will need access for maintenance of that ditch. And so we are pushing to have a trail, but we do need to work with the ditch company and make sure that they agree to that. But we will continue to push for that. Okay. Thank you. The ditch company, as you probably know, has under grounded some of that ditch on the west side or on the east side closer to Wadsworth or to Dudley. And, you know, they they probably will want you to do that, but they do have access along that. Well, make sure to remind them of that. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega. I just have one question. Councilman Flynn asked a couple of my questions. Can you tell me if there will be new roads put on the site? This is, what, about an eight acre site? So to give access to the new homes that will be put in there, I'm assuming. So, first of all, can you tell us approximately how many homes that can accommodate? And then talk about the the roads that would be put in there. There will be at least a road planned through there. We currently have two access points. And so with only those two access points, we will use those connect to connect a road so that the homes will be accessed off of a local street, not Kipling. The current yield studies that we've done and we have submitted a site development plan for show, it's in the low fifties. I forget the exact number, but between 50 and 55 homes. Okay, great. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. See no other questions. The public hearing for Constable 576 is closed. Are there comments by members of Council Councilman Flynn? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I've lived down. This is my neighborhood as well, and I've lived down there for the past 38 years. And Kipling was still a two lane street. And this was an Gordon Tree farm, I believe. And I know that the family has been wanting to have this turned over and developed in some fashion for for many, many years. And there have been many attempts to do that. And and it's good to see a solution come along that introduces a new mix of housing type as well to the neighborhood. There are some duplex and there are some townhouse just to the north of that along Stanford. So being right on Kipling I think is an advantage. I wish we could work out that with the city engineer and with Jefferson County work out the left turn as well, though. But other than that. Mr. President, I'm very happy to support this and ask my colleagues to do likewise. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Flint are black. I see tobacco. I. Gillmor, i. Herndon Hines. High Cashman. I can teach Ortega. I've seen the vote. I swear, I. Torres. All right, Mr. President. I. I'm secretary. Please. Cause voting in no results. 12 hours. 12 hours counts. Bill 576 has passed. Councilwoman, can we please be accountable? 577 on the floor.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. RFP PW18-058 for design-build services for a public safety parking structure; award a contract to W.M. Klorman Construction Corporation, of Woodland Hills, CA, in the amount of $9,279,400, with a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $927,940, for a total contract amount not to exceed $10,207,340; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments; Authorize Public Works Department to initiate the realignment of the public safety fueling facility and the preliminary design for a new fleet maintenance facility, previously housed in the Lincoln Garage, in an amount not to exceed $500,000; Express intent to issue a bond to finance up to $13,300,000 for the costs associated with the construction of a public safety parking structure including project management, relocation of the fuel station, preliminary design of a police fleet maintenance facility, and costs associated with issuing a bond; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to ex

LongBeachCC_12112018_18-1102

Motion carries. 23. Report from Public Works, Financial Management and Police Department Recommendation to award a contract to W.M. Clurman Construction Corp. for Design. Build Services for a public safety parking structure for a total contract amount not to exceed 10,207,340 authorized public works department to initiate the realignment of the Public Safety Fueling Facility and the preliminary design for a new fleet maintenance facility. An express intent to issue a bond to finance up to 13,300,000 for the cost associated with the construction of a public safety parking structure. District two Any public comment on this? Please come forward. Dave Shukla on. File in. The staff report pdf with the item. There's no mention of meeting the zero net energy. Requirements for building. Construction or for. Putting battery storage. Or doing any of the other fun things that you can do with a parking grid, a parking structure like a microgrid. It would be encouraging. To see opportunities like this not go to waste. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion in the second. Please cast your votes.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; accepting easements granted to the City of Seattle for installation, operation and maintenance of storm drainage facilities, sewer facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, a pedestrian walkway, retaining wall, combined sewer facilities, pedestrian and vehicular access, storm detention drain facilities, stormwater runoff, storm water drainage facilities, outfall discharge pipeline, storm sewer drain facility and appurtenances necessary for drainage and wastewater utility purposes at various locations in Seattle and unincorporated King County, Washington; placing the property rights and interests conveyed by the easements under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06202016_CB 118689

Agenda item six Constable 118 689 relating to Seattle Public Utilities, excepting easements granted to the city of Seattle for installation operation maintenance of storm drainage facilities. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember Herbold The previous bill was an easement or easements for water utilities. Council Bill 11 8689 authorizes SPU the partial or full acceptance of 46 drainage and wastewater utility easements. Similarly, these are easements that are required of property owners when they develop or improve their properties and the their requirements of SPU to be able to either move existing facilities or access new facilities. These again are at no cost to the city. And we are batching these ordinances both 1186, 89, 446 separate drainage and wastewater utility easements, as well as the previous ordinance of 12 separate water utility easements. And we're batching these in two separate ordinances in order to save time. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Any additional questions or concerns? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. BURGESS All right. GONZALEZ Purple Juarez. O'BRIEN So on. I beg your eye. President. Harrell All right. Aden favor and unopposed. Will pass and Cher will sign it. Should you would you want to read counts for her vote? Should we read seven through 13 all at once? Let's start with seven and eight. First District seven and eight into the agenda place.

Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 15472, “Calling a Special Election in the City of Alameda on April 9, 2019 for the Submission of a Proposed Initiative Measure to Change the Designation for an Approximately 3.65 Acre Site on McKay Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Office to Open Space, and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional District to Open Space District,” by Amending Section 1 (Ballot Question); and Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 15473, “Submitting to the Electors an Ordinance Entitled “Caring Alameda Act” at the Special Municipal Election to be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, April 9, 2019,” by Amending Section 3 (Ballot Question). (City Clerk 2220)

AlamedaCC_01102019_2019-6397

Shortly. This is where it is. Okay. Again, my name is Doug Biggs, executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative. Just wanted to comment on a couple of things. One, I did follow up on last week's meeting with a letter further explaining the loss that the agency would incur if the election was done later. I'm often told that I am incoherent when I'm speaking in front of the council and hopefully that provided additional information. You needed to confirm that we would be at a loss. That is not the reason to have the election early, of course, because the additional cost to the city and the deferred costs of the facility itself. Regarding the agenda item related to things, the matters as they're written I think are very clear and well done. It's just a shame that we're at this point. I feel very bittersweet that this is a wonderful project that needs to happen. And I'm sorry that representatives of Friends of Crab Cove aren't here tonight to be able to talk about it and explain what they're doing. And further, I'm very sad that they're not continuing to talk with us to come to a community agreement around how that program can operate. Well, within the community, we have a right to create that project. They have a right to raise concerns. It can be addressed without this. And it's just a shame we have to get to this point. But here we are. Thank you very. Much. Thank you, Mr. Biggs. All right. And I have no further public speakers. So with that, the. Okay. So we have two resolutions. The the revised. Ballot language on the initiative and then the. The resolution, the language on the Cities Initiative, the Caring Alameda Act. I'm going to suggest that we start with the initiative first. So Council wants to start and I will just add that we had two subcommittees working. Councilmember Vela and I. Revised language for the initiative. The proposed initiative measure to change the designation on Mackay. Mackay in both the general PEN, the zoning amendment and Vice Mayor in Knox Wyatt and Councilmember Ody work together to draft the ballot measure, introducing an ordinance entitled The Caring Alameda Act. But let's start with the the initiative itself. There is proposed revised ballot language. Have you all had a chance to review that? Any questions? Thoughts? Councilman Brody. Thank you. I just had a quick question, so. This should say 15473. Right? Yes. So then the resolution also should say one five, 473 at the whole. So then before the meeting. I realize the mayor wants to talk about this first, but then the second one also says one four, 573. Which is seven four. That one should say seven four. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So when we when we make a motion, we have to motion to amend it. Is it read the right. Yeah, it's it's pretty and it's a typographical errors, so I can correct it. Okay. The 73 and 74. Okay. What was that, the extent of your copy. Of my question? I'll just listen to comments. Okay. And chime in when you call on me. All right. Very, very well, then. Let's see. Any when. Councilmember Vela. Well, we obviously were the authors you went to speak with. I think the intent of our language here was just to make sure that, you know, we spent some time reviewing the initiative itself and to make it very. Responsive to what the initiative purported to do. And so in that respect, we made a couple of changes. Most of them were to the structure of the question itself. Right. As mayor. Just and know, I can go either way on this and I thought this was fantastic. But felt he had to say that. No, no. I think I think it's I think it's written really well. I wonder if we want to consider changing the term, the word former to existing former federal. They are federal buildings. They continue to be federal buildings until. They are no longer an existing. Also I think is clear that they are there and not in some giant state of disarray. So I will actually chime in in response to your comment. The note that I had made was to describe them as vacant federal buildings, because I think that's informative to the public that there there is no use being made of them. So would that that was the the comment of the suggested minor amendment I was going to make. Councilmember Vela And it was one of the points that we had discussed about the the wording there. And we I think we had gone back and forth. So I'm fine with that change to make it all right. And. Councilman Brody. So. Help me. How many words out here are there? Do we have. We read. One. Or two. Oh, um. What's your. What's your thought? I think we're below that. Below was the suggestion to change form or to vacant or maybe add of vacant former federal buildings. No, no, not to add. Yeah. They. It's federal poverty. It's GSA. It's not a former federal building. So. That would be factually incorrect. Okay. So Bacon is probably a better word. Okay. I'm fine with. That. Okay. And Councilmember De, thank you in the way and want to say. Thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedules, both of you, for putting this together. But other than that, I. Think you're welcome. Thank you for thanking us. Okay. So so we can agree to that wording that might have wording change. Okay. So with that, then, do I have a motion to amend resolution number 15473 calling for a special election in the city of Alameda. Probably can let the um the we have if many no no worries we have many meetings going on this evening under one roof. Hi, everyone. Okay. Okay. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution. Obviously. Updating the typo from 141547 2 to 1 5473 throughout and changing the word on the draft ballot initiative conversion of former federal buildings to conversion of vacant federal buildings. The motion to have a second. Second. All right. All those in favor. I opposed. Abstain. Okay. So the motion passes for four? Yes. And one abstention. Thank you. Now we're going to move on to item, not item that to the resolution. This is the Caring Alameda Act. And this is. Resolution number 15474. And this is submitting to the electors an ordinance entitled The Carrying Alameda Act. Okay. Any discussion on this one? A vice mayor. And that's why I. Would simply we use the term existing in arts and I would simply suggest we use the vacant buildings so that both both initiatives are describing the buildings in the same factual way. Okay. So let's see. So in the second line. Shall the ordinance in the City Council's actions to permit re-use of vacant buildings? Okay. Okay. So again. We could add federal as well as federal buildings at the same. That's a good. Idea. Yeah, I think it's good to have that consistency. Good point. Okay. Yes. To permit the re-use of exactly vacant federal buildings would replace the word existing. Correct. All right. Any other comments? Suggestions? Nimitz canceled. Good question. And I don't know if the public's been informed on this, but, you know, should they both fail? And maybe the city clerk comment on what happens to the action the council took already. I think we might ask the city attorney's office to come in and. No, no. Either one. I don't care. If. If both measures fail, the council action that it took back in December to change the land use designations would remain in play, that it would not negate or cause those actions to be null and void. It would continue in full force, in effect. Okay. So even though we're using the word confirming. If it fails, it's not erased or invalidated or anything. Right. And and that was explained in a memo we got this evening. But just for the. For the sake of the benefit. Of the public. And I agree with those changes. You know, we did work a lot on this. So I appreciate everyone's everyone's appreciation of it. I do as well. I do as well. And this was a quick turnaround time. We all had deadlines. And thank you all for for meeting them. We've been working very hard in our first week and a half on the job. Um. Okay. So I am looking for a motion to. Amend resolution number 15474 and. As as previously described, is there a motion to approve. So so moved with the change as set of 15 or 74 and. And as the language change as noted. Okay. As noted. Thank you. Motion. That a second. Sure. I'll second guess. I'll write the motion and it's been moved and seconded. All in favor. I am opposed. Abstain. So the motion passes with four in favor and one abstention. And I just want to say in closing that there is still time. If the Friends of Crab Cove were so moved and so inclined to withdraw their initiative, they have until 5 p.m. tomorrow, Friday, January 11th. And although City Council, City Hall and the city clerk's office is closed, there is a mechanism in place whereby there they can email the city clerk up until 5 p.m. tomorrow. So it's not over till it's over. And we will. We'll see what happens. But. With that. We've we've disposed of that item and we have no further business. All right. So with that. I just want to get my appreciation that the city attorney's office was really, really we worked fast and hard, but they were also very responsive. I would just want to give my great appreciation to. And Selena in particular should get the should get the kudos here. I looked at it that she did the hard work. Thank you. I that that is that is well stated Councilmember Vela. And I would like to note that the 9212 elections report, which I know that we based our our question off of as well, was very helpful and informative in terms of outlining all of the issues at play and streamlining it. So and Celina did a fantastic job on that. Those are very difficult reports to put together in a way that is linear and easy to follow. And I thought it was one of the best ones I've ever seen. So and I will just echo my thanks and appreciation for the quick and comprehensive response back. We got to our questions up to and including today going into this meeting. All right, Councilman Brody, I'll. Just say ditto to all. That, you know. Nice. All right. Councilmember de seconded. Okay. All right. With that, we will. We're out of here. Thanks. Everyone will be back Tuesday the 15th for a regular meeting to.

Recommendation to receive and file the application of Phatreeya, LLC, dba Naree Thai, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 101. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_09222015_15-0970

Item 15. Report from police recommendation to receive and file the application of Maritime for an original application of an ABC license at five, five, five East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 101 District two. Thank you. I'd like to make the motion to approve. To receive and file the application for an original ABC license. It's been in motion. And a second. So staff report. Deputy Chief Hendricks can provide the staff report. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor. Members of the Council. The item before you is an original application for a type 41 on sale beer and wine license to be used at a restaurant at 555 East Ocean. Police Department does not anticipate any adverse impact to the community or to city services. This concludes the staff report. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on item 15? Seeing nonmembers cast your vote. Councilman Andrews. Motion carries. Item 16 was taken. Item 17.

Sets a public hearing on 5-31-16 for the formation and establishment of the Five Points Business Improvement District (BID) in Council District 9.

DenverCityCouncil_05092016_16-0308

Just come in, Mr. President. Go right ahead. So, public council members, this is Bill 308. What this resolution does is set a public hearing 531 Tuesday, the day after Memorial Day, for a public hearing for the business improvement district of wait for it. Well, 10th Street. Five points, which we're so excited for. This will actually be heard tomorrow in the Business Development Committee. For those of you who can make it to that, so just wanted to alert you to that on Friday, the petitions have been signed and filed by the clerk's office. So we are moving through the process. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, any other comments on three eight? Scene nine. We will move on to the next 1 to 97. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like for us to do this? I'd like to call it out for a separate vote. And certainly let's first get that on the floor. Councilman Ortega, could you please have 297 ordered published? Yes, I move that council bill 297 be ordered. Published. It had been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Espinosa. You. Yeah, I'm going to read actually from a paraphrased email that I sent not on this particular parcel, but it's the exact same situation. And I've asked that other situation, vacation, alley vacation be brought to committee to talk about this very issue.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including a Standard Offer, Agreement, and Escrow Instructions for Purchase of Real Estate, with the Estate of Roy Masaru Tanaka, for the purchase of certain real property at 1400 West Wardlow Road, Assessor Parcel Numbers 7311-017-027 and 7311-013-001, in an amount not to exceed $1,105,000; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including a Reimbursement Agreement with Breakers Development, LLC, a California limited liability company, for the reimbursement of $55,866 of the purchase price of the Subject Property; Accept the Categorical Exemption CE 19-154; Increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Economic Development Department by $1,105,000, offset by various fundings sources including grant reimbursement revenues and transfers from other funds; Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $50,000 to offset a transfer to the Economic Development Department; and In

LongBeachCC_06182019_19-0555

Thank you. We're. We have two more items that have been moved forward. That's the Tanaka Park item and the center cha item. So they want to take those. Next item 30, please. He actually. Yeah. Item 30 Report from Economic Development, Parks. Recreation, Marine. Recommendation to execute all documents necessary for the purchase of certain real property at 1400 West Wardle Road in an amount not to exceed 1.1 million and execute all documents necessary with breakers development for the reimbursements of 55,866. Of the purchase price of the subject property district seven. Country ranga. But we go ahead and have a staff report on this. Mayor. Mayor, councilmembers. This truly is a very, very unique night. We have the opportunity to make Tanaka Park a permanent park in the city of Long Beach. Our team has been working very hard on that and then you give a presentation. John Keisler from Economic Development and Stephen Scott from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Take it away, guys. Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council, thank you very much. We're very excited to present this item in partnership between our two departments. What we've got here is a piece of property located at 1400 West Wardlow Street. This is on the West Side. You'll recognize this is just below the 405. In just a little bit east of Santa Fe, it is approximately 60,000 square feet. So it's a it's a big piece of property. It's a it's a sort of triangular shape. And in 2001, the city of Long Beach entered into a lease with the Tanaka family to turn this space into a recreational space for the West Side residents. So currently since 2004, we've had this collaboration between the seventh District Council office and the surrounding community, various departments, including Economic Development and Parks, Rec and Marine and the Tanaka family, to provide access to about 5800 residents in the half mile radius of the property. And the way that we describe this is primarily as a passive park. So we don't have, you know, sports leagues and and other permitted uses. But it does have a really great playground, half court basketball on some benches and a perimeter walking trail. And that perimeter walking trail is a great asset, particularly for our West Side livability plan and neighborhood use. And so what we're looking at is essentially that the Tanaka family had indicated that they were going to sell the property they were going to listed, and the purchase price listed was approximately $1 million. And of course, with the due diligence, which is some environmental review and administrative costs associated with escrow or closing costs, the total purchase price that we negotiated with the Tanaka family is 1.1 million and $5,000. And we believe that if with council approval we move forward and enter into escrow, we could actually close as early as September 20th of this year. And this is really special. We're really grateful, the Tanaka family, because they could negotiate with anyone. It's possible if the property were put on the market for other uses, that it could actually command a higher purchase price. So I wanted to make this point that we negotiated a good purchase price and if zoned for other uses, it possibly could go at even a higher market value. And so an important thing that we always want to present to the City Council, in addition to the details about the transaction, is the actual funding sources. How did we come up with $1.105 million? So the first funding source, of course, is our seventh District Council member, Roberto Durango, pledged council discretionary funds of $50,000 to get the project going. That was fantastic. $764,455. We are extremely grateful because the Los Angeles County safe, clean neighborhood and Parks and beaches measure of 2016 approved by voters countywide, actually put a 1.5 cent parcel tax on countywide properties. To develop and fund the acquisition of open spaces, parks, beaches, etc.. And so this is a really, really fantastic funding source for us to pledge for this park. $234,679 would come from construction and demolition funds. So we're very grateful for this funding source from the Development Services Fund, which actually these are funds that come from recycled deposits. And when developers or builders are not able to recycle all of the material or choose not to. These funds are available for these kinds of acquisitions and development. And then finally, this is a wonderful opportunity, $55,866 that is coming as a pro-rata share price per square foot from the Breakers development company, which is a local development company . And that is actually Pacific six. They're working on the Historic Breakers Hotel, and there's a portion of the public space in front of their hotel that has to be reconfigured as part of that new renovation of the project. And so as a result, um, they're required to replace 2 to 1 that park space somewhere else in the city. And so it just, so has just so happened that the timing of this project and the timing of this acquisition lined up and so Pacific six and the Breakers Development LLC, we're very, very grateful that they were able to contribute to this project. So a number of funding sources, a number of partners. This is really an exciting project and I will be able to answer any questions. We also have Steve Scott, the assistant director from Parks Rec and Marine, who knows a bit more about some of these funding sources and the park uses here to answer any of your questions. That's the conclusion of our report. Yeah, I think that's I think that's a good report. So, Councilman Ranga. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank our staff for making this presentation. This is a almost a once in a lifetime opportunity that we have to get open space to become permanent open space in the city Long Beach. I want to thank the Tanaka family for offering this property to the city and for their ability to cooperate with us in getting a price that would be amenable to us so we could we could purchase this. So last month, I contributed $50,000 to go towards funding this event, this this park, so that we could get it started. And and as we just heard right now, we got the money to do so. As we know, open space is hard. It's one out of every six people in the city of Long Beach are are missing an open space opportunity to go out and recreate and create healthy, healthy lifestyles. And this park will certainly do that in perpetuity. So I hope that my council colleagues can vote with me tonight to provide this opportunity for this land acquisition of the park and looking forward to getting more people to enjoy it and having a big celebration once the the deal is completed. So I think at this point we went. There are some individuals in the audience who would like to come up in and say anything about this opportunity here. You're welcome to do so at this point. Thank you. Please come forward. So I've got two comments, then I'm closing the speakers list. Good evening. My name is The Oregonian. I'm a long time resident of West Long Beach and a member of West Long Beach Association. And we would like the mayor and the city council members to support this issue that was presented by our council member, you, Regan, in light of some of the other things that were said earlier this evening. In West Long Beach. We have the highest rate of childhood asthma. By making this a permanent location is helps in that reduction last year earlier this year USC issued a report that asthma in the city of Long Beach is down. However, regionally, West Long Beach still has the highest incidence of childhood asthma. And we would like for you to consider that when you are deliberating for your vote. But as city. Good health is the main course to enjoy freedom. The freedoms that we here. Take for granted. It's normal that some of the earlier speakers spoke in reference to Planned Parenthood. All freedoms count and you cannot enjoy any of them without good health. And I would like to thank you and once again urge you to vote yes on this. Thank you. Next speaker, please. So I can face this district. First, I just want to thank the estate of Mr. Tanaka and the vibrant history of the Japanese American population here in the city of Long Beach. This is a living example of their contributions to the great and peace as a whole. When I was younger, I used to live in West Long Beach in the Springdale housing projects. And, you know, there is a divide on the west side of green spaces such as this outside of Silver Lake Silverado, sorry, and Admiral Kidd, you know, and so this one off of Wall. Recently when I played soccer there, I won a couple of weeks ago with some friends. So this is a great acquisition. I want to thank Councilman Urunga and the seventh District, especially for taking the initiative to contribute more green allocate more green space to, you know, West Long Beach and the overall, you know, access for children on the West Side in general. And I encourage the Council to follow the recommendation of the. Mr.. Your Honor, and adding this to the Parks and Recreation, you know, park space. Thank you. Thank you so much. Council man Minister. Thank you. I'd like to just also lend my support. Congratulations to Councilmember Turanga and the residents of the seventh District on the West Side. Obviously, when we can add park space, we are winning as a city. Recently Long Beach was has gone up in the rankings in terms of public park space. I think we were in the top 20 in the country now number 18 and more park space just will improve our our our standing but it's desperately needed on the on the west side. I think it was mentioned by one of the residents there. Anytime we can we can add park space. We should. And this is a great use for that space. I want to congratulate again Councilmember Urunga, the residents of the seventh District, but also applied staff for being creative and putting together the deal. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. I yes. I also want to congratulate the west side and Councilmember Urunga. You know, I remember when we did our first Long Beach Rising, which was in 2010 or 2011, your wife Tonia gave a presentation to about 100 of us about park equity, in particular on the West Side. And so I wholeheartedly support this and thank all the parties that have been involved. I did have a question because I had a constituent ask on the two for one replacement. Whenever they take away park space that can be put back anywhere in the city, is there any requirements on that you want to support? Sorry. Yeah. Council Councilmember. I'm sorry. Surprise question. I was going to ask the city attorney to, uh, to explain the ordinance, but Steve Scott from Parks Rec and Marine will do that. Yeah. Just a quick. Thank you. Catwoman Pierce. Members of the city council. So for the two for one replacement, 50% of that needs to be within district and then the rest. The other 50% can be outside of the district. Okay, wonderful. Well, thank you again, everyone, and congratulations. Thank you, Vice Mayor Andrew Fine. So I congratulate Congressman Unger for this wonderful project because in fact, I think all of us realize, you know, a retired kid is a good kid. And I think this park is going to keep him day. So thank you very much. Count summary Ringo. Again closes out that this 18 years ago started with no longer on the city council and we're going to close it out and make it a park in perpetuity with another rung on the city council. So I'm very proud of that, and I hope that I could get the support of my colleagues to approve this Park District acquisition. Thank you. Thank you. And I just I just want to add, I think from your rank, I think you deserve a lot of credit for making this a top priority. Immediately you came to the staff and certainly to me and was very, very active about how important this was. And we support you and good work and thank you to the community and members. Peace. Gordon, cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. Great motion carries. We're good there. We have I still have. The last one that got moved up was the central chore. And then I have public I still have the public comment list. So we had a lot moved up today. So I won't need to get those done first and then we will move on to the remainder of the agenda. So we have central chore item 28 and then we're going to the public comment.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5 Cook Street in Cherry Creek. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 20 to C-MX-8 (planned development to mixed use, 8-stories), located at 5 Cook Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-14-21.

DenverCityCouncil_10252021_21-1019

Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Pro Tem Torres, will you please put Council Bill 1019 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 20 1-1019 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1019 is open. May we please have staff report? Good afternoon, members of City Council. My name is Jumping FPL and I'm an associate city planner with Planning Services. And today we're going to be looking at the rezoning for five scope, five Cook Street from a period 22 CMCs eight. Subject property is in Council District ten, represented by Councilman Hines. In the Greek neighborhood. The property is located on the northwest corner of Hook Street and Ellsworth. The site is 6262 square feet and currently contains a two story building used as an alternative medicine office. The applicant is requesting to resign from Chapter 59 beauty to see him x eight to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. The proposed urban center neighborhood context means mixed use eight storeys maximum height allows for a mix of uses and it allows for the town house building. For the general building for the shopfront building for. Previously mentioned, the existing zoning is an old buddy. 20 established in 1979. Surrounding zoning includes eight directly to a North Sea IMX five to the east. A beauty to Israel and GMU 12th to the west. 20, was established in 1979 and converted the building to a business use in 2004. That structure was torn down and the current building was constructed on the existing foundations with the second floor building 2007. The beauty states that the business use is limited to those allowable under B1 Sun District regulations of former Chapter 59 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver. The B1 Zone District allows for uses such as residential use, banking and financial services office use, retail fire station, museum, police station. Church Childcare Center. Postal Facilities Library and parking of vehicles. Purity is very prescriptive and is and states in detail the land coverage and use for this 6262 square foot lot. The current land use for the site is office use and in the immediate vicinity the areas land use are multi-unit residential. Other office uses commercial retail and some parking uses. You can also see on this map some mixed use development at the corner of Steele Street and First Avenue. As shown on these photos. The two storey building currently on the site is surrounded by much bigger and higher buildings on all fronts. West of the site is a 16 storey multi-unit residential building. North of the site, there is an eight storey multi-unit residential building. West of the site, there is a ten storey office building, and south of the site there is a four storey parking garage structure and a 13 storey multi-unit residential building. Concurrent with the rezoning, the applicant is also facilitating a voluntary, affordable housing agreement signed and to be recorded by the property owner. The agreement will apply. To the entirety of the site and it will require the property owner to commit to at least 10% of the total units affordable. 75% of those income restricted units will be affordable to residents earning 60% of the area. Median income and 25% of the income restricted units will be affordable to residents earning 80% of the area. Median income. The income restricted units would remain at this level of affordability for a minimum period of 60 years. Throughout the rezoning process, application modifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval anonymously on September 1st. Today, staff has received comments from only two individuals opposing the rezoning. Three of those letters were received in January 2021, before the applicant voluntarily postponed his public hearing to allow for more community outreach. One of the letters refers to the potential for this project to ruin their views and negatively affect their building and reduce the value of their property. The other three letters of opposition were sent by the same community member and they mostly express concerns with setbacks and lack of on site parking or service loading area for the project . The applicants met with the R.A. and the stakeholders 11 times between June 2020 and May 2021 to introduce a project and develop a good neighbor agreement. In January 2021, Councilman Hines referred the applicant, the CCE, R.A. and the neighbors to a free mediation service performed by a third party neutral facilitator. All parties participated in good faith to work towards a memorandum of understanding or better known as a good, good neighbor agreement that is intended to mitigate the neighbors concerns over the rezoning and proposed development. For the draft good neighbor agreement. The developer has made several commitments to CCE including. To not exceed seven storeys in building height to comply with the setbacks required for the pending Cherry Creek East Commercial Overlay Plan. To take specific steps to minimize impact on the griffin the building to a north. To consider the effect on existing buildings and pedestrian experience in the architectural design of the project. To have the delivery trucks access the property between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., not to block the alley for more than 15 minutes to ensure owners that city's required parking ratio is achieved through parking agreements with neighbors to ensure owners that construction has reasonably minimal impacts on neighbors. The Cherry Creek East Association sent out a survey to the Cherry Creek East constituents, who then voted in favor of the rezoning contingent on the execution of the Good Neighbor Agreement negotiated with the applicant. Informed by the survey, the GCA R.A. voted to support the rezoning. Just a quick note here on some of the early access traffic and parking concerns raised by the leaders of opposition. It is important to note that responding to a southern district, not a specific development proposal, potential traffic impacts related to a particular development are not assessed as part of the rezoning request because the development plan is subject to change. At the time of the site development plan, transportation engineers will identify if mitigation measures are required by intuition issuing a permanent. Okay. So now moving on to the Denver zoning code criteria, it must be found that the requested MAP amendment is consistent with five criteria. In regards to criteria number one, there are three adopted plans that apply to a requested rezoning Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver and the Cherry Creek Area Plan. A stated in the stuff report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals in the comprehensive plan. The rezoning is consistent with two key goals in the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element. A seat allows additional housing in a rich, mixed use environment. Near Arctic transportation opportunities. The proposal. The proposed rezoning would allow for mixed use development, including an increase in allowed housing density, while also enabling additional housing units close to services and amenities , some of which would be restricted to residents earning less than the area median income. It is therefore therefore consistent with the strategies in the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element. Finally, the rezoning is consistent with two key goals in the environmentally resilient vision element, as it will enable mixed use development at an infill location where infrastructure is already in place. The requested zone district broadens the variety of uses allowing residents to live, work and play in the area. Therefore, the response is consistent with Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 recommendations. Now moving on to consistency with Blueprint Denver, the proposed TMX eight zone district is part of the urban center context and is intended to promote safe , active and pedestrian, skilled, diverse areas through the use of building forms that clearly activate the public street edge. Mixed use districts are focused on creating mixed, diverse neighborhoods, since the proposed district allows a mix of uses and allowable building forms that contribute to street activation. The proposed rezoning is to an urban center. Context is appropriate and consistent with the plan. The Future Places MAP designates the subject property as a regional center and describes it as providing a mix of office, commercial and residential uses. Buildings are typically large in scale and orient to a street with a strong degree of urbanism and continuous street frontages. Heights can be generally up to 12 storeys in the taller areas and should transition gradually within the center's footprint to the surrounding residential areas. The proposed mixed eight zone district allows for a variety of commercial residential uses in a pedestrian oriented pattern with an active street level. Therefore, the requested CMC is appropriate and consistent with the future places and direction. Blueprint. Denver directs growth to key centers, corridors and high density residential areas served by transportation options. The subject property falls within the plan's growth strategy area of regional centers, which anticipates a 50% of job growth and 30% of new housing by 2040. The proposed rezoning will achieve this goal. Finally between Denver on the land use and build for general section policy three encourages owners to rezone properties from the former Chapter 59 Zoning Code to new code so that the entire city is covered by the Denver zoning code. Now looking at the Cherry Creek Area plan. This plan was adopted by City Council in 2012 and applies to subject property. The plan notes that the area where the subject site is located should benefit from new development, reinvestment and more intense use. The plan recommends that the city modify land use policy, zoning regulations and design guidelines to encourage appropriate reinvestment to assure that these areas continue to mature in a positive way. The requested rezoning to see them exceed such change in zoning regulations and would enable reinvestment and development in such property as expressed in the plan. Additionally, the future land use map for the Cherry Creek Shopping District designates the subject property as a regional center, where the recommendation is to continue to support a mix of uses, including office retail, commercial use, multi-family, residential and hotels. The maximum building height recommended in the plan for the site is eight storeys. Therefore, the requested CMCs site is appropriate and consistent with Cherry Creek Area Plan recommendations. Stuff also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district relations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. The application identified several changes or changing conditions of the justifying circumstance, the adoption of Denver's zoning code in 2010 and the retention of the former Chapter 59 Zone District on the subject property, including custom zoning during the property to a 1979 site plan, is an appropriate, justified circumstance for the proposed rezoning. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban center neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and with the CMC's proposal and intent. With that stuff. Requirements, approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, friend, for the staff report. And this evening, we have two individuals signed up to speak, both online. Our first speaker is Meredith Gabel. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Meredith. Gabo and I live at two Adams Street across the alley from the subject's site. Last time I was in front of city council, actually, it was November 2018 for the historic designation of the his the Henderson House. Community Planning did an exceptional job preparing the application. But today I'm in front of you opposing the rezoning of five Cook Street. I regret that CPD has yet to develop small guidelines. The property's own p you date. It could have been part of the zone map overlay in 2010 or 2012. I forget when the adjacent block phase was being redeveloped as an apartment building, but both times they opted out. And now we have a 50 foot orphan lot asking for rezoning to see him exit with limited open space entry requirements. The proposal for the project is 30 units plus retail, with no onsite parking and no mechanism in place from either Doty or CPD to administer the adjacent buildings, use a common access and parking easements in their deeds. And this isn't a parking agreement. This is actually recorded. So. I know that the applicant is saying that in Cherry Creek East the there is a large availability of parking, especially at the seasons that Pudi has over 900 spaces, but those are required by the Pudi. So any type of parking agreement would have to be above and beyond the requirements for the PUDI. But the reason why there is so much availability in Cherry Creek is, is because apartment buildings charge $100 plus monthly for a space and folks are just parking on the street. A presentation to the Cherry Creek Steering Committee by Denver Police explained how the majority of car break ins come from these apartment buildings. COVID pandemic has made everything a little complicated. I know that there have been meetings and things like that. I do have 70 people who came to me to sign a petition in opposition to this rezoning, the neighborhood association, actually. Well, let me skip that real quickly and just go to say that that enclosing no small lot zoning guidelines, no onsite parking, no way to enforce this monumental change for parking requirements. I can only say no, and I hope that you take this seriously. I hope that there is an education component from that used to happen for neighborhood organizations so they understand how to work with the city so that we don't have things like that time. We have a lot of speaker. Our next speaker is joining us online as well, Jesse Paris. Any member of the council cannot be heard. Yes. Yes. My name is Jessica Sampras and I'm representing the Black Sox and will win for self defense, positive action committed for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am against this rezoning tonight, even though it's supposed to be the consistency with adopted plans, the uniformity of district regulations for further public health, safety and welfare, justified circumstances, inconsistency with neighborhood contexts, zoned district purpose and intense. I had several questions. Um, I think during the presentation they said something about there had been a traffic study or it couldn't have a traffic study because it was still plan developments. I want to know if there was a traffic study done on this, if there was a parking study done. As the previous speaker has alluded to, there will be no on site. Parking. So this seems like a disaster just waiting to happen. These units are not going to be affordable. I mean, I guess it's affordable for Cherry Creek where the average income is 120% AMI level. But overall, this is not affordable. We have a housing crisis in the city and I guess Cherry Creek is not be exempt from that. By creating housing that is not affordable. Only 75% of units for them, we are 60% among and 10% of the units are only going to be affordable. Out of the only 75% of that, 10% are going to be 6%. 25% are going to be at 80%. This just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. 30 units plus retail. What exact retail is going to be here? What exactly units are going to be here? What is the square footage of the units that are going to be placed here? As the previous speaker said, she had a system fine with 7070 people signed a petition in opposition. There was mention of five letters of opposition from three neighbors. Like I said, this is a disaster waiting to happen. So I would urge Denver City Council to may not vote in favor of this rezoning. And seriously, developer, go back to the drawing board and rethink this because this doesn't make any sense. You have a property that's going to be eight stories with no onsite parking and there hasn't been a study done. There is one thing I'm glad about this neighborhood agreement. So the affordability will be in place for years to come. But outside of that, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1019. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Fran, could you describe the Cherry Creek East commercial overlay provisions that are referenced throughout the staff report and in the Good Neighbor Agreement? What are those provisions? So it's still not approved. It's still on the works. But there is some setbacks that are going to be in place. I don't have the details of it is because I know it's changed recently. So. We still don't know what's going to happen with the overlay, but the application has been in the conversations and he said that whatever comes from the overlay, he's going to he's going to comply. So he'll comply with whatever setbacks they require. And this is the overlay. It's being revised. So, Councilman Hines, I heard that you were like today. I heard that you're working on kind of like the revision of that. And it's. I don't know if you can speak a little bit too. Ahead, Councilman Hines, if you want to. Thank you, Madam President. Councilmember Flynn, the the Cherry Creek East Area neighbors is currently in the process of creating both a residential and commercial overlay in the jerker case neighborhood. That is not an approved plan, but it's something that they've been working on for, I think, two years now. So a considerable amount of time. So it's getting close to close to prime time. It's, you know, so we're still we're still in conversations. But but we should if the schedule moves forward as we're expecting it, we should see it in the next couple of months, you know, moving through the process. Okay. Can someone tell us what are some of the provisions that it is likely? To contain. So and again, I saw it at the beginning when he was like giving very you know, it's I know that it's changed a lot in the last months. So that's why I don't want to go in what I saw. There's a lot of details like in materials of the facades. What's going to be the setbacks required for commercial uses? There's there's a lot of details are going to look. I think that some of some of the issues that CBD is having is like figuring out what's more the best use like design guidelines and what's code. So because there was a lot of little details in like that, having certain materials in the facade or how high should the ground floor go up to where should be like the second story set but stuff like that. So. Okay. I'm a little concerned about having this before us before that as a before that's nailed down. But I understand that that's not always up to us. Does 55 cook? That's the eight story building that's just north of this property. As I looked at that, does that have a five foot setback from the street? The primary street. I'm not sure which one is 55 is the one on the Griffith. It's the, it's the eight storey building, the Griffith Griffith's apartments. I'm pretty sure they having the fifth because the code right now requires 24. I think it's 20 foot in the fifth floor, so I'm pretty sure they have it on the fifth floor. A as I said, back. From the from the street. I think so. Okay. So this would this would have a five foot setback. The property in question. We have a five foot setback from the primary and the side street. Yes. Okay. At least the ground floor. Yes. Okay. No, no, no, no, no, no. Sorry. Like in the ground floor, it's not going to have, like, cmcsa. It has zero setbacks. As what? Zero setbacks. See, I'm excited. Okay. Because when I looked at 55 Cook and the current building that's at five Cook, they are set back somewhat. And it looked to me like that could be at least a five foot setback. I'm just curious if it would if the new structure would match the Griffith's structure as far as the setback? Yeah, I think that that's also part of like the good neighbor agreement that they're going to match what's existing there. And I think that that's also guided in what's going to be on the overlay. Okay. Thank you. I do have I'm puzzled by when I looked at the site in question and the Griffiths Apartments that the eight storey building is literally this far from this, the building that occupies the site in question. So under this eight storey but limited to seven under the good neighbor agreement, if there is a seven storey building next to it, would the neighbors have balconies that where they could like a stranger, a cup of sugar on the seventh floor? Will they be that close together? Is there no set back from the lot line? So they have like five requirements that are going to I'm sorry, they have five requirements that make them have certain said there will be. Yes. Do we know what that would be? No, I'm not sure. But also, like in the Good Neighbor Agreement, part of the design that he's proposing is that the windows are not going to match. He's going to try to make it so that they have certain privacy, the apartment, so that the windows are not. Looking in. There. And when I looked at the Griffiths, I'm not quite sure how that would work because the entire side that would face this new building is marked by balconies and and windows and things like that. And again, like, that's the tricky part of like the rezoning process, you know, like it's we don't really look at the other project. It's like, that's unfortunate. I know, I know. I wish Councilwoman Ortega were here to back us up on that. Finally, there's no onsite parking for 30 to 36 units. So he has an agreement with the parking lot across the street. That's a parking structure. So he's going to have an agreement to provide the parking there because there's no way to make it feasible to have the parking like the biking requirements on site and the code allows to have an agreement. It's going to be in the deed. So it's it's it's recorded with the land. And he would provide I think he's required .75 parking spots per unit. So he'll provide that across the street. There's a building across the street. You mean to the east on Cook Street? South. South it's. Go south. Okay to see a parking. Structure like a. Five story structure. Okay. Do we know that the owner of that parking garages is willing to lease spaces for 30 to 36 units? I believe so. Okay. Is there someone here from the owner? The representative. Of the owner should. Be. Um. Is the owner all. Answer questions, I. Think. Okay. Because the way I read the good neighbor agreement before there could be a building permit obtained, there would have to be. Yes. Agreement for the part at the point 75. That's spaces per unit. Yes, that's correct. So he wouldn't get the permits to build like he wouldn't be he wouldn't get this ESDP approved unless he has that like that agreement already. So. So under this reasoning, the owner of this building could not redevelop it without getting a parking. Without leasing parking spaces from the folk across the people cross street. What? I wish I owned that parking garage. But then he wouldn't be able to develop it. That's correct. Correct. If I owned that parking garage knowing that the guy across the street couldn't develop it unless I leased him some spaces, I could set an interesting price for it, probably. All right. Thank you, Madam President. I think that's all I have. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn and Fran, the owner, we had two companies listed. Could you give us a name of the owner or we can ask them to raise their hand. Canon law or canon law. Law. Family. Okay. Councilmember Flynn, did you want to restate your question? Yes. A couple of questions. Number one, about the parking. And is there have there been talks about leasing some of those parking spaces? Apparently, that will be a prerequisite to getting a building permit. And then as to the design of the building, how what are the anticipated setbacks? Side setback from the Griffis units, which I'm looking at here on line of that is covered that that side facade is covered with balconies and windows of the neighboring building. So I'm curious just how close your north wall can be to the south wall of the Griffis Building? I completely agree. It's definitely a design challenge. We do want to have offset windows, like I mentioned earlier. We're also actually included in the Good Neighbor Agreement. We have a requirement that would consider different ways to make that a facade is, as I guess visibly pleasing, is possible for the neighbors of the Griffiths. So that could include a green wall or something along those lines. But yeah, we're very cognizant of that challenge. Right now we're kind of focused on the rezoning, but we do know that that's going to be a challenge and something that we'll have to compensate for. Right. So the first designs kind of basic math things that we put together have at least a five foot setback, but that could change and be be larger in order to kind of allow more breathing space between the two buildings. So that's where we are with the facade on the north side. As far as the setbacks, that's also included in the Good Neighbor Agreement as part of the traffic use overlay that we, you know, agreed in principle to abide by, that's actually said within the agreement that will have five foot setbacks. So it would be a similar setback to what you see at the Griffis. So just think of, you know, you see the existing building, the new envelope would follow a pretty similar envelope to what exists on the site right now. That kind of gives you a good visual. As far as the parking, you know, we haven't had in-depth conversations with the neighbors, but, you know, we're just aware of there being, you know, low occupancy rates in parking garages in Cherry Creek. So, you know, we're confident our ability to move forward there and find some long term parking agreements. But like Fran mentioned, we're not going to be able to get our permits if we don't get those agreements in place anyway. So there's no way that there's not going to be parking accounted for in this project. Why is it that there's no parking on your site? Because of the dimensions of the site, it's extremely challenging to actually fit the required amount of parking and it's also extremely cost prohibitive. At a certain point, it's only 50 feet by 125 feet. Those types of dimensions make it really hard to try to build a ramp in there. And if we want to have ground floor retail, which is something that was also included in the Good Neighbor agreement that the neighborhood really wanted, we would in it would have two ground floor parking only. And then we wouldn't actually have the, I guess the cafe or the retail tenant that the neighborhood also requested of us. So it was just kind of, you know, the best way to move forward and to maximize the use of the site and this location and this kind of corner facing lot you want to have retail is to have the parking off site. All right. Thank you for those answers. I appreciate it. That's all right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And for the record, if you could please introduce yourself. I know we've got you listed as Canon Law, but we appreciate you introducing yourself for the record. Right. My name is Canon Law. I'm the son of the owners of the property. So the current ownership is through my property LLC. The members are my parents who have operated and own this property since 2003. As an acupuncture clinic, we've been neighbors in the neighborhood for a long time and just intend on continuing to be neighbors in this neighborhood in perpetuity. And I hope that that's reflected in the amount of time that we spent in negotiating this good neighbor agreement and the number of times we actually postpone this hearing so we could have our voices heard here. Great. Thank you very much. Next up for questions, we've got Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President Minutes. Did you are. You aware of this? Miss Gable talked about 70 letters of opposition or of a petition. Are you are you aware of that? Well, we she was aware that she could have done a protest petition. And I sent Harold the documentation to do that. She told me multiple times that she had letters of opposition, but the only letters I received were from her. So, I mean, we have multiple ways through receiving everyone's comments and opposition and support, but I didn't receive any. Okay. So so that's I did notice a bit of a discrepancy between our packet and and and then the testimony from his that about the all the letters of opposition. So we, we don't have any way to verify that that all of those members, whoever they might be, are in opposition. No, but she has my email. She's emailed me multiple times. So like she could have sent them to me and of course there would have been part of the package if I receive them. So I everything that I included is everything that I received through the whole process. From the beginning, the public hearing was postponed multiple times. And you describe to her the process, should she want to submit letters and or collect letters or encourage neighbors to submit letters? Yeah. Or to request a protest petition as well. Okay. Um, can you can you briefly describe what a protest petition is for our viewers? I have never done one, so this would have been my first one. But I went through the process of asking like what it required. So I talked to our technician and he gave me a buffer of all the percentages of the buildings, how many signatures we required from each building. So I even got that map and then it requires I can't remember where the numbers because this was a few months back, but he was like us. I want to say. Here, let me how about I phrase it in the form of a question? So the idea of a protest petition as if many of the surrounding but some percentage of the surrounding neighbors disagree that they can come together and they can file a protest should they meet that certain threshold. So, you know, I'm not looking for specific numbers, but that's no, no, no, you're fine. And I don't understand why you're answering the way you are. But but just theoretically, there is a way to to lodge an official protest. And should that protest be lodged, then supermajority is required to pass the rezoning. Is that right? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Um. Yeah. I don't. I don't have any, um. I don't have any further questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council member Hines. Next up, we've got Council member Cashman. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I'm not sure if this is for planning or for referral, but. So we've been talking about that it's a requirement to have parking spaces to get the building permit. Okay. What I'm wondering is, so how long does that what type of contract do we have to see? Because if it's a five year contract on spaces and they build, they're building it, what enforcement do we have that in perpetuity? They need to present parking. Oh. You're welcome, mate. Good evening. Members of Council Nate Lucero, assistant city attorney. Here's your question. What do we do when when a new owner comes in and they don't have the parking agreement. Or they they build the building? Well, in. One way or another. Whoever occupies that premises is required to provide whatever parking it is that the city requires. So even the owner that is requesting the rezoning now is required to provide parking, whether that's on site or via a shared parking agreement. The fact of the matter is the zoning code requires them to meet the parking requirement, whatever, whatever that is. So it could become a challenge at some point in the future, but that's not really the city's problem to solve. It's it's the developer or the property owner. It is their problem to solve. And they have to prove to the city that they that they meet the parking requirements, whatever they are at the time. So their certificate of occupancy would. Be invalidated if they cease to provide that parking. And I don't intend to beat this horse too much more, but I'm just wondering what our enforcement tool is. Well. So I think they would have to submit a site development plan. Right, that complies with the city's rules and regulations. And if they can no longer comply with that site development plan, then they would be in violation. Then they would be in violation of that and that would be a zoning violation and it would go to at least the Board of Adjustment hearing, possibly through the court process. So that's where our enforcement is. All right. Well, it sounds like it's not something you've dealt with thus far in your time with the city, but that you're confident that there are enforcement mechanisms. Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And we've got Councilmember Sandoval. You're up next. Thank you, Madam President. My questions for neatly Syria as well. Who does the audit on the parking site parking program? I'm sorry, Councilwoman. Can you repeat that question? Guess who does the audit on the offsite parking program? So if they do offsite parking right now and that parking goes away, who audits that? Mike What agency does the audit? Well, I think it would be. It would come back to community planning and development whenever there is a change in the site plan. I think that might be a question for Fran, because I really don't know how they address that. And I mean, do you have an answer? I can look into that and get back to you for sure. Because this is an issue that keeps occurring in Council District one. And so I'm. Sure it's going to occur everywhere else and nobody seems to have an answer. There doesn't seem to be a program to do the audit for offsite parking that we allow in the zoning code. Nobody goes back and audits these type of parking permits. So Councilman Cashman has a very good point that what triggers an audit for the offsite parking program? Yeah, I can definitely look into it and get back to you with an answer, because if it's going to keep coming up, I think it's important that we clarify it. So thank. You. Thank you for the question. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Seeing members in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1019. Council Member Hines Thank you. Council President I, uh, I suppose I'm a little surprised to hear about the, the 70 letters in opposition. But since we can't find them, I don't know if they're for sure. I don't know how to reconcile that. The testimony by Mrs. Gable. And and so I just have to set it aside for right now because. Because there's no way for me to reconcile that. That having been said, the developer and the surrounding community as as as was already stated, had 11 meetings and they also took advantage of our we we offered a mediation session, which is something that the city offers at no cost to either party. And so they voluntarily entered into that mediation session. And after that, after all of those 11 meetings, they they came up with a signed Good Neighbor agreement, which was one of the requirements or one of the strong desires of the the R.A. that oversees this area, the Cherokee East Association . Ah, no. And and I don't know if you noticed, but the affordable, affordable housing component was 75% at 60% AMI. And that's something that we as a council and in our discussions for the Golden Triangle Text Amendment decided was very important that we re the standard of of affordable housing to 60% AMI whereas you know, most of the rest of the city it's 80% AMI. So I thought that was a great move on behalf of the developer to try to match some of the the value statements that we've made clear as a as a council that as I mentioned, it was a sign good neighbor agreement. And regarding parking, I I'm not sure that that. I'm not sure exactly where that might fit in the five criteria. But. But what I would say is that the last Cherry Creek steering committee meeting, we had a a robust discussion about parking in Cherry Creek. And several of the people who were there, including Nicole Masters, the head of the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District, and and others, have talked about how there's plenty of parking in Cherry Creek, both Cherry Creek, north and east. And so while there might not be as much street parking anymore, there's plenty of parking in some of the structures. And as we already discussed, there's there are requirements, although we might not have all the details about exactly what the enforcement provisions for those requirements are. We have the requirements nonetheless. So as I said, we've got a letter of support from the R.A. and the letter references, a survey that they performed to to to their members. And the survey did ultimately result in a favorable recommendation, which the Reno factored into their letter support. So with I recognize that not any rezoning is unanimous or perfect for every neighbor. But but the the neighborhood spoke and and said that they agree and want this rezoning to move forward. I believe it meets the five criteria. And I hope that my colleague I will vote yes and I hope my colleagues will also vote yes. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hines and I do agree that it does meet all of the rezoning criteria and happy to support it tonight as well and not seeing anyone else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1019. Sandoval. I. Hynes All. Right. Cashman I. Can. I. Sawyer No. Torres I. Black I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. One May ten 810. Ies Council Bill 20 1-1019 has passed. Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Bill 1021 on the floor for final passage? I move that.

A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Shawn Peterson to the King County gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force, representing the Na'ah Illahee Fund.

KingCountyCC_03162022_2022-0051

Any person in the minutes have been abducted. Well, now go to number five on our agenda, which is to confirm the appointment of Shawn Peterson to the King County Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Inclusion Task Force. And Shawn is representing the nonaligned he fund. The task force was established in 2000, meeting to develop a recommended countywide gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion strategy and work plan to implement the use of an additional gender designation or designations in all appropriate administrative processes and use by county departments. We have Sam Porter with us from our central staff to provide the briefing on this item, along with the appointee to answer any questions. Sam, I'll turn it over to you. And do we have Shawn with us? Yes, we do. You are as Shawn. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Sam Porter, Council policy staff. The documents for this appointment began on page eight of your packet. Your summary of its course was very comprehensive. It was established through motion 15162 in June 2018. And they have the task force has been meeting in accordance with the initial framework that was adopted through motion 15623. According to executive staff, they are anticipated to complete their work in mid 2022. The proposed motion would appoint Shaun Peterson. She currently serves as the Gen seven program coordinator for the Lahey Fund. According to the organization's website, she has more than five years of experience in youth program development and implementation, including a program called Native Girls Code, which is focused on computer coding, coding and culturally relevant STEM content for Native girls. That concludes my remarks. Sean is with us along with Mina from the Executive Office. There and Max. Sam, before we proceed. Are there any questions of Sam? Okay. Well, welcome, Sean, to our committee of the home meeting and congratulations on your appointment. And I would like to invite you to tell us a little bit more about yourself and about why you wanted to be serving on the task force. Thank you, Chairwoman. My name is Sharon Peterson. She her. Channel. Baby. Will come. From Vancouver Island, Canada. And I work for the not only fund. And my current role actually is community partnerships manager. I just changed roles and this work is very important to me because within my organization I'm really trying to bring forward LGBTQ. Lens to separate lens. As our organization historically has served native women and girls and as a queer identifying person, it's really important. That we're visible. And that we have a place. And so I was. Approached to sit. On this task force because there weren't very many there wasn't another indigenous person sitting in that space. And I think it's really important for me as an indigenous woman living in the city of Seattle to have a voice when it comes to these kinds of things as relates to the county. Thank you. And congratulations. Have you been able to attend any church? Yes, I. Have been attending regularly for probably the past three months. Terrific. Yeah. Is there anything you would like to share with us about your impressions of the task force and thing that you particularly want to work on or emphasize? Oh, yeah. I have really been impressed with my colleagues in the committee and how much experience that they have, and it's a variety of communities represented, which I think is really important. And a lot of, you know, communities in this area that are marginalized and really trying to put a voice to how these things are implemented, and then also how one of the mechanisms at which any of our recommendations are put into place in the county, and that those that we see those through and that we have a way to understand. And once we put things forward, like how it's actually. Going to be done. Is something we just variously. Talking about. Anchor. Are there any questions of Sean or comments anybody would like to make on the council? Let me. Constantly rebounding. I was just a thumbs up. And I thank you for serving. Yeah, thank you. Yes, very much. Thank you for serving. Councilmember Dombroski was the honor, I should say. Yes. Councilmember Brenda Dombroski was the one who actually came up with the idea for this task force and got it going. And Councilmember Dombroski, give anything you want to comment on. I just will thank Shawn for their service and move approval of the motion if you're ready. Okay. The motion has been made. Before we go to that. I'm wondering, though, if Meena from the executive office would like to say anything. Good morning, Mina. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Mina Hashemi with the executive offer. We are excited about Sean and that path for our staff. Significant time in 2021 doing outreach to ensure that we had a diverse and full task force. And we are excited about Sean's experience and the passion that she'll bring to this work. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else? The motion has been made to a proposed motion 2020 20051 to give it a due course recommendation. Does anyone else on the committee want to say anything else? Okay with that, could you please call the role and propose motion 2020 20051. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council member Banducci. Hi. Council member Dombrowski, I. Councilmember Dunn. I. And some of them. McDermott, I. Councilmember Berry. I. Councilmember at the ground. Councilmember Bond. Ray Bauer. Council member. Caroline. I. Madam Chair, on the board is ayes. No, no. Council member. Bond. Bye bye. Excuse. Thank you. Council member. And can vote before the meeting screen. That. Please let us know. Thank you, Rick. Our vote. We have approved proposed motion 2020 2005. When we will send this motion with the due pass recommendation for the consent agenda to the April 30 Council meeting on stemming objections. Great. Congratulations, Sean. We will be taking this up on the consent calendar. You do not have to be at the meeting to speak. And if you are wanting to be there, you can tell them otherwise. And we will, of course, let you know after the fact as well. Thank you. Great. Thank you all so much. And thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Great. Okay. Our next item, number six is a briefing on a 2020 to be 0039 with King County Regional Homelessness Authority. Providing an update will be Mark Jones Chief Executive Officer and also Felicia Sauceda, who is Executive Director.

Recommendation to adopt resolution to allow the installation of angled parking on: a. The north side of Shoreline Drive from Chestnut Place to Cedar Avenue; b. The north side of Shoreline Drive from Aquarium Way to Pine Avenue; and c. The south side of Shoreline Drive from Pine Avenue to Shoreline Village Drive; Approve the expansion of Parking Meter Zone 20; and Request City Attorney to prepare an amendment to Section 10.28.130 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, relating to parking meter zones. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_10062015_15-1015

Motion carries. 35. Report from Public Works. Economic and Property Development. Recommendation to adopt resolution to allow the installation of angled parking on Shoreline Drive. Approve the expansion of parking meters Zone 20 and request the city attorney to prepare an amendment to the Long Beach Municipal Municipal Code relating to parking meter zones, District two. Thank you. Vice Mayor Bill Giovanni comments. I to just briefly, I wanted to just share that the existing angled parking on Shoreline Drive has been a big hit so far. So I'd like to thank our public works team for making this change. Not only are we increasing the capacity for restaurants, we're making the area more pedestrian friendly by taking less lanes away from shoreline and reducing the overall vehicle speed. So, Ira and your staff, thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on the item saying that? Please cast your vote. Council. Motion carries.

A proclamation in recognition of Dale Coski upon the occasion of her retirement. A proclamation in recognition of Dale Coski upon the occasion of her retirement.

DenverCityCouncil_06232014_14-0498

We have two proclamations. This evening. I would like to call on Councilwoman Fox to read proclamation number 498. Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation number 14 498 in recognition of Dale Carnegie upon the occasion of her retirement. Whereas Dale Caskey was hired by the Denver Police Department as a patrol officer on January 1st, 1982. And. Whereas, Dale served for three years as a Denver police officer and during her tenure was severely injured in the line of duty in September 1983. And. Whereas, Dale was hired by the Agency for Human Rights and Community Relations on January three, 1985, as a community relations consultant and worked as Dale Service Dog Perseverance, also known as Percy, has the distinction of being the first service animal in the state of Colorado in 1984. And. Whereas, in 1985, Dale, with Percy on her side, testified before the state legislature to create laws for service dog access. And that year the legislation was created, passed and signed into law by Governor Richard D Lamm. And where whereas I worked with the former manager of safety. Beth McCann to create the Denver Disability Parking Enforcement Program in 1993, helping to ensure disabled parking access and enforcement for people living with disabilities and where it has since the program's inception. Dale Caskey, as the coordinator of the Disability Parking Enforcement Program, has trained and supervised 40 volunteers advocating for the rights of people living with disabilities. And. Whereas, on June 30th, 2014, Dale Caskey will retire as a full time employee from the Agency for Human Rights and Community Partnerships, fulfilling 32 years of dedicated service. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council recognizes Dale remarkable and inspirational. Constant contributions over the years and on behalf of Denver residents wishes her well in retirement. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test and fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Dale Caskey. Thank you, Councilwoman, for your motion to adopt. I move that the proclamation be adopted. Thank you. It's been moved and multiply. Seconded comments. Councilwoman Fox. Thank you very much. I am extremely proud that Dale is both a constituent and a friend. She has been a role model to me showing how you can overcome adversity and certainly in developing new areas of leadership. The handicapped parking regulation was really, I think, just a brainchild of Dale Caskey, and her goal has always been to help those who truly need the spaces be able to handle them. Not only did she deal with the with service dogs at the state legislature, there was a change in the state law that also regulated who and under what circumstances were able to get the handicapped parking stickers. And Dale was a true leader in that. I worked with her on that issue. And I feel that we made some some valuable changes at the state level because of her insight on this issue. It pains me to say that I wish her well in retirement because that means she's retiring. She is going to be used as a full time resource for me to rely on, as I have for so many years. But Dale, I know we won't be saying goodbye, and I truly hope you'll stay active with the Denver Denver's handicapped parking enforcement community. You cannot be replaced. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Pat's Councilwoman Lehman. Thank you, Madam President. Dale, I just like to say it has been an incredible experience working with you. And every time we need to walk and talk, it is just. Enlightening. To me. And I would like to thank you for all you've done and know that you will continue doing it in so. Thanks so much. Okay. Councilwoman One Chair. Thank you, Madam President. I also want to say hi, Dale. I remember the first time we met when I was a council aide, and I learned all about the commission from people with disabilities. And I truly believe that you and your leadership have really taken the level of community support. It's gone up. I just want to say that every time I've ever seen you, I always get so happy and you've just brought a light into the city, and I wish you all the very best. It's been my honor to be able to know you and call you when I have questions about handicapped parking or we have some problems that we need to resolve. One thing that's always been very, very important to me is that you've always been an advocate. And if people were parking where they weren't supposed to or they had somehow they had obtained a handicapped tag that they should know of, you were always just such an advocate, and you always did it in such a great way. So thank you so much and I wish you all the very best. And then to Percy, to I want to know if he's going to be sitting back in. Having a go with that? Yeah. Oh. Oh. Okay. Well, I want to hear about it when you come to the microphone. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Kennish. Thank you very much, Madam President. I haven't worked with Dale as long as some of my colleagues have. But I know you through sending developers your way to think about public spaces and how we can make public spaces more accessible and think beyond just minimum ADA recommendations, which is how architects think and think more about serving people , which is how you think and you think on behalf of the city. So I appreciate those folks that you've met with on those issues. And also, I just wanted to thank your your partner behind every great woman. It's a support network and so really appreciate that you've you've had such a supportive family and hope that you get to enjoy them in your retirement. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Dale, I've known you a very, very long time. Back to when you were a Denver police officer. And I just want to say thank you for all your years of service to the citizens of the city of Denver, both as a police officer and in your work at the Commission on Disabilities. I think lots of lives have benefited from your hard work, and I wish you Godspeed in your retirement. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. And it looks like we're ready for roll call, Madam Secretary. Fox. Hi, Herndon. I can eat Lemon Lopez. ALL Monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Rob Shepherd Brown, I. Madam President. I. And we have Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Carlos, close the voting. Announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The proclamation is adopted. Councilwoman Fox. Is there somebody you'd like to ask up to the podium? I would very much like to hear from Dale Kosky. We've got a portable microphone here. And they are some might not have been able to hear about Kokomo. So if you'd also introduce Kokomo. Okay. This is Kokomo. She's my fourth dog. They don't live as long as I do. So but and all of them have just been so valuable to me. First of all, I want to thank career service for 29 years that they took a risk on me. I really didn't know what I was doing when I was coming into human rights community partnership. And they they dared to go and take that risk with me. And I couldn't do this all alone. I just had great support. My partners in human rights, community partnerships, my church community, all the coworkers that have dealt with me and with the departments that I work with, and that's traffic engineering right away, enforcement and the court system. They've been great. And I want to give thanks to the legislation, the state legislators, for going in the service dog bill. And that's where I first met Councilwoman Robb, Councilwoman Ford is that I'm sitting at the head of that that committee and I didn't even know that she was my city council or my state legislature then and then later became my city councilwoman. I'd give her a hard time because I tell her I'm her something Democrat. And. So and then I've got to give recognition to the organizations that go and train people that train puppies and then get advanced training for the service dogs, because they've really been a lifeline to me and to so many other people . You know, in when I was first injured about 31 years ago, it'll be 31 years in September. I really lost a lot and I didn't know the amount that I lost. But the first time that I ever cried was when the police department came and forced me to retire. And it wasn't from losing a leg. It wasn't from losing independence. It was from losing that. And. Since that time. I'll tell you, God and I have gotten into it. I mean, we've gone round and round and and with the whys and everything else, and we've gotten in wrestling matches. And, you know, sometimes God, even you think I win on the whole thing. And sometimes we're on we're not on speaking terms. And and, you know, I think the things that I think that's okay. But the one thing that I have never stopped talking to God about or never stopped thanking God and thanking God and thanking God , and that has been for the public support. I mean, it is just I've seen a side of the public that a lot of police don't see, and that was just people coming out of the woodwork and they still do. And that support has meant everything. And I have been extremely lucky to have worked with the public, to have worked for the public, and that has been an extreme blessing to me. And is it awesome, right. And responsibility. And it's one that all of us have everybody on council gets to do it and to to great public, to everybody here, to the police here, that they get to work for the public. And I feel truly blessed. And like I said, I continuously thank God for that and I thank you for allowing me to work with the city that way. Thank you. Thank you very much. Very moving. We have another proclamation, and I'd like to call on Councilwoman Shepard to read proclamation number 527.

A RESOLUTION relating to the City Light Department; acknowledging and approving the City Light Department’s adoption of a biennial energy conservation target for 2022-2023 and ten-year conservation potential.

SeattleCityCouncil_12062021_Res 32030

Thank you. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature legislation on my behalf? Moving on to item number seven, will the clerk either read item seven into the record? Agenda item seven Resolution 32030. A resolution relating to the City Light Department acknowledging and approving the City Life Department's adoption of a biennial energy conservation target for 2022 through 2023 and ten year conservation potential. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted. Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You are recognized in order to provide committee report. Thank you. Colleagues, this resolution approves Seattle City Lights Biennial Energy Conservation Targets State Initiative 1937, adopted in 2006, requires City Light to establish renewable energy conservation targets that are cost effective and reliable. Utility must report the conservation targets by annually to the State Department of Commerce. Resolution 32030 approves these new targets both over the next couple of years and through the next ten years. The target was prepared, using methodologies consistent with those used by the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council. The committee unanimously recommended approval of this resolution. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gibson, any final comment on that, which is the. And he's called the war resolution. Whereas I. Louis, I. Mascara. I. Paterson I. So want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Council President pro tempore vote yes. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you so much. The resolution is adopted and I will sign it. The clerk is affixed. I signature the legislation on my behalf. Moving on the agenda on the items eight and nine is read items eight and nine record.

Recommendation to: 1. Receive and file a Medical Marijuana Initiative-Analysis report from City Manager regarding the proposed initiative petition entitled Regulation of Medical Marijuana Businesses; 2. Adopt resolution calling for the placement of a voter-petition initiative measure on the ballot for the November 8, 2016 special election to repeal the City's ban on medical marijuana businesses; adopt new regulations to permit and regulate medical marijuana businesses; to repeal the City's current recreational marijuana business license tax; and to reduce the City's current rate of medical marijuana business license taxes;

LongBeachCC_08022016_16-0701

Motion carries. Thank you. We're going to go and take item 24, please. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation two one received and filed a report from the City Manager regarding the potential impacts of the voter petition measure to adopt a resolution calling for the placement of the Voter Petition Initiative measure on the ballot. Three Adopt a resolution providing for the filing of primary and rebuttal arguments relating to the voter petition measure. Four Adopt a resolution calling for the placement of a tax measure on the ballot to amend and update the city's existing marijuana taxes. This will require a unanimous vote of the City Council pursuant to Proposition to 18. Five. Adopt a resolution providing for the filing of primary and rebuttal arguments relating to the city tax measure on the ballot to amend and update the city's existing marijuana taxes. Six. Adopt a resolution requesting the consolidation of a citywide special municipal election with a statewide general election on November 8th, 2016 and seven. Adopt a resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles provide specified services to the City of Long Beach relating to the November 8th, 2016 election. Thank you. And I know, Vice Mayor, before I call you up, I think there's going to be a staff presentation by Mr. Parkin who's going to kind of go over some some of the items here and we'll turn it over to to Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council before you this evening are a number of article, a number of items that we are going to be asking or were asked to prepare and bring back to you for your consideration. The first is is a report, and obviously the staff could city management could give a report on the proposed impacts of the Citizen Voter Initiative. The second item calls for and places the Voter Initiative on the ballot for November 8th of 2016. The third item requests argument ballot argument writers for and against the Citizen Initiative. The fourth item was requested by the City Council for the City Attorney to return with a placement of a tax measure on the ballot. The fifth item would call for the valid argument writers for and against that tax measure. The sixth asks the County Board of Supervisors to consolidate our election, our special municipal election with the statewide general election, and the seventh item request that the County Board of Supervisors provide specific services and includes our reimbursement to the county for those services for that election item. At that time, that concludes my report and staff is available to talk about the first item, which is the initiative petition if there's a desire by the body. Thank you. Before I turn this over to Vice Mayor Richardson, just as a as a reminder, I know that we we discussed this last week, and we have a series of motions to make. We'll take public comment as one which the city attorney said we're able to do. But then we've got to go through a series of motions, one of which is to actually needs a unanimous vote of the council to put the tax measure on the on the ballot. So we want to make sure that that's very clear. Thank you. She's correct, Mayor. That is the third item. And I would point out that the third item that the mayor just mentioned did have a revision that was just emailed to you. It was a change to the language of the actual ballot question that will be placed on the ballot. The fourth item was also I'm sorry. The third item was a call that was a change for the citizens initiative. We had a typo on there where we called it the City Initiative and it was the citizens, the Kelton measure. So we corrected that. The fourth item was an oversight, or we had a change in the what was presented to you as one of the drafts of the questions, and we corrected that. So that's the final question. And the fifth is that same correction in the call for ballot arguments. So the motion would amend those three resolutions to make those particular changes. And I'm available to discuss those or to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And first, I just want to thank staff we it was a big ask that we made when we leveled this this motion. And there was a very stiff timeline. But it's been tremendous work and a lot has taken place. So I do want to acknowledge that. So we did ask for a lot and you delivered a lot. Secondly, I just want to remind the public that this is this measure is intended to ensure that we ensure a public benefit for our city, as well as recover the cost that we, you know, that we believe may be associated with, you know, any any ballot measure that might be adopted. So I want to move forward right now, and I move to adopt the resume, the recommendations that stated in the council letter, including a few slight amendments or revisions to the following resolution. So number one. Resolution number three, correcting the reference to the voter petition. As the city attorney just stated. Number two, resolution number four, which amended the ballot question for the city's tax measure. And resolution number five, amending the ballot question in the call for ballot argument writers. In addition, there's been a lot of discussion on how we can make investments should this tax measure pass. So I would like to request that the city attorney work with the city manager to prepare a non-binding resolution indicating the Council's intent to use tax revenues for public safety, public health, homelessness, and general services for regular for regulation and enforcement. And that is my motion. Thank you. Thank you. And just to clarify to vice mayor's motion, motion was essentially Mr. Parkin's motion. He just clarified those points. So there was no change there with the with the addition of the of the resolution, which will come back to council on a separate date. And so that we're not voting on tonight, we're voting on the attorney to prepare it, and then we'll actually have a discussion when that comes back. The second to that was Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I want to appreciate the staff for the amount of hard work it took to get us to this point. I think it's really important that as we see this. Ballot initiative through on two November that we have the city resources to ensure the health and safety of the community through whatever the new regulations may or may not bring. It's a very uncertain time, and I think that the way that we can provide that certainty is to make sure that we are able to fund public safety and homelessness and the other components that have been connected to public safety. So thank you for your hard work on this. I think it was remarkable. I know a lot of analysis was done. Thank you. And then we have Councilman Price. We'll go to the public and they will take a vote. Councilman Price. Thank you. I, too, want to thank staff. You've done a lot of work on this issue over a long period of time, and most recently, as a result of our action, after we voted to put the initiative on the ballot, we asked that you prepare a fiscal and basically citywide impact report and you did that. And I wanted to get a brief presentation from staff regarding what that impact would be, because I think that's relevant to the discussion on taxes. Absolutely. Can we please. Mr. West? Can you. Yes. Our budget manager, Lia Eriksen, will provide that response. Good evening, Mayor, and members of City Council. On July 12, City Council approved a motion requesting an impact report for the ballot measure that will appear on the November 8th election. If the ballot measure is approved by voters, it will require substantial city resources and staffing related to approving and regulating of the station businesses closing or moving into compliance, any unsanctioned businesses and dealing with the expected increase in public health and public safety service demands. If approved, staff members will need to immediately begin working on implementation of the ordinance as it goes into effect ten days after the results are certified by City Council, as detailed in the report. Staff expects 32 dispensaries. Our analysis includes a range of possible cultivation, manufacturing and other non-retail marijuana businesses, as the ordinance allows for an unlimited number of these business types. It is anticipated that city staff will use a team model for administration and enforcement. The initial licensing process does have tight timeframes and will require significant diversion of city staff and other one time cost. However, after that period, we do not envision there to be any major problems with enforcement of the sanctioned businesses. We do anticipate, however, a significant number of unsanctioned businesses. The actual number is unclear, so we included a range in our analysis. It is anticipated that it will take a long time and a team based approach to shut down the unsanctioned businesses or move them into compliance. On the revenue side, we estimate revenues from the ballot measure in a range, but the middle estimate is about 7.1 million. This includes gross receipts for dispensaries and a per square foot tax for cultivation, as well as sales taxes for retail sales. The measure has minimal taxes for the other medical marijuana business types and eliminates the recreational marijuana tax rates. It also prohibits the city from charging a regulatory fee to cover the cost to administer the sanctioned marijuana businesses. On the expense side, we estimate both the direct cost of administration and enforcement, along with potential related public health and public safety impacts. We have a range for that as well, with the midpoint being about 12.2 million. Based on those numbers, the net ongoing cost, which is expense minus related revenues, it's expected to be about 5.1 million. In addition, there are some onetime costs related to the startup, which at the midpoint is about 2.4 million. The actual cost and revenues to implement and enforce the the ballot measure, the Kelton measure, will vary from our analysis as our estimates are based on a set of assumptions that could and will likely change. Staff will be working with City Council if this is approved to fund any expected short falls, and it is noted that this could mean that we have to redirect funds for other purposes or potentially use the city's operating reserves. The Fiscal Impact Report contains more details on our analysis. This concludes the staff report and department representatives and I are available for any questions you may have. Okay. So just a couple of questions. The the impact to the departments. Was that figure derived from the department head making an estimate based on, you know, prior experience with this industry, these types of businesses and studying other cities? Or is that is it an arbitrary number? Councilwoman Price Using the set of assumptions that had a low number of both sanctioned and unsanctioned businesses, a medium number and then a high number and past experiences. Departments did do their best to to develop these revenue or cost estimates. And it included, as I mentioned, both the administration and enforcement and potential health and public safety impacts. And but for the tax measure, what would the funding source be to fund that gap in terms of our ability to meet the ongoing demands of this new business? So that and I should note the analysis I just said was the original Kelton measure before you today is a competing tax measure that would generate additional revenues, $2 million additional revenues for medical marijuana only at the middle middle point of the range, an additional 4 million at the max. And then if there was recreation, an additional 6 million at the midpoint and an $11 million increase at the max. So those those resources would be able to cover these costs, these estimated cost, if not for that competing tax measure, we would need to come to city council with some other options to fund the cost in 17 . And then we would have to build the shortfall directly into the 18 budget. And so it would be competing with other cost of general city services. So without the tax measure, what is our anticipated shortfall, the first year of operation? So for our first full year of operation, it's 5.1 million, plus an additional 2.4 million of one time costs. Okay. So we're looking at about a $7 million shortfall for the first year without the tax measure. That's correct. And that money would have to come from cutting from other departments and other services that we provide to our residents. That is correct. I have a question for the city attorney. Perhaps it's the city attorney. What is the feasibility? Or is it even feasible to have some sort of a call for service fee? So similar to, for example, people who have a home alarms. If the alarm goes off a certain number of times beyond what's allotted, then there may be an administrative fee that's put for cost recovery in terms of, you know, the fire department having to respond to your home, could there be something like that in regards to calls for service? So after ten calls for service, let's say there would be an additional that there would. Be a fee. A significant fee. Councilmember I'm shooting from the hip here a little bit, but the the initiative itself prohibits certain fees and it limits the ability to for the city to collect fees. But, you know, I don't think that it eliminates, you know, all fees or regulatory fees. But in this particular case, we'd want to take a look at that scenario. But as I read the Citizens Initiative, it prohibits those type of fees. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further at this time. I'd like to hear from the public. Thank you. Council Member Pearce. Thank you. Thank you, staff, for putting together a dense and exciting report to read. I just wanted to clarify this and I think you guys just said it. This is a competing measure to the Kelton measure. It is qualify that as a competing measure. It conflicts only in the area of taxation. Both measures discuss and set taxes at different rates. The city has no regulatory portion to our ballot measure, so there is no competition or it does not compete in the area of the regulatory ordinance. So we have looked at this and believe that they would coexist and in the area in which it competes, the if the cities measure were to receive more valid votes than the Kelton Citizen Initiative, then the city's tax regulations would go into effect. And their regulatory ordinance, if it passes, is going to go into effect. Great. Thank you. And my second question is, in regards to coming back for a nonbinding resolution on the plans for spending the funds, what's that timeline to come back? That we could probably come back in a couple of weeks or so to come back with. It'll be a range or options, and I think what I'll be looking for is some direction from the council to see if those are the specific items that you would like to identify and then take your input. And if it's acceptable, they could move forward that night or if not, we would take it back and refine it until we have the what the council would look for. Great. So it's not a quick short timeline. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Public comment on this item. Please come forward. Please come forward. Everybody, if you can, just please line up. We're trying to be expeditious tonight. Just give your name for the record and begin. A good career as it is adamantly opposed to the concept of marijuana on its very face. And as a as everybody knows, a medical marijuana card is as easy to obtain as a political promise from a political pipsqueak during an election period. I was just informed that Washington, D.C. has something that. Might help. Prevent the disaster that would befall us if we move forward with this motion as it is that they have. There are only two to. Doctors. Which can issue the prescriptions and the medical marijuana. That is something we should follow. Absent that absent that, I would figure out whatever. The direction we need to go or whatever method to place a tax. On if it's measured in terms of grams or ounces. I do not know. But $500 a gram, $500 a year out, period. The. Criminal element, the cost in terms of enforcement and the crime that will ensue. Well, this city will not be able to absorb. So I think every single ounce of effort should be used to forestall saddling us with this disaster in the making. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Take your place. Stephanie Dawson, so a resident of Second District, previous to working in the marijuana industry, I actually was a legislative director for the First District, and as a result, I kind of gained an M, if you will, in looking through patois. Usual method of destroying legislation and programs in which he did not like. One of the main examples of which he would do this would be not providing comparable data from cities that would be more relevant to the piece of legislation in which he was actually being asked to discuss. In our particular situation, from the marijuana perspective, looking at other cities in California and Oregon who have property tax deregulated, this particular commodity would be far more relevant to Colorado, which as I see the sale older style of regulation, which was not going to apply inside this inside of the state. We have a healthy new supply chain that's going to be going that's going to be going throughout the entire state. Thus we're not going to be relying entirely on an indoor grows, especially from a local area. The other method that he would be using that uses frequently to destroy pieces of legislation he doesn't like would be adding maximum costs without any citations. An example of this can be found in the way that he basically glommed on nine state costs under the universal pre-K initiative, as well as a no no kill shelter initiative from 2015, which he somehow was able to price out beyond any sort of recognition it when it comes down to it. 20 additional code enforcement officers would actually be great for controlling the slumlord problem that we have inside of the city. But is a long term strategy or necessity for regulating the marijuana industry? This wreaks absolutely no sense and has no basis in reality. The reason that I bring this attention to you and frankly, you know, is because you you as legislators, regardless of where you stand on this issue, need objective information from a nonpartizan source. With no pit, with no reason to stand for it has an established record of of destroying targeting of this industry and lying to you, the legislators, about this specific issue. And it goes back to when Robert was on the council. The reason that the last ordinance failed was not because of the legislators on the dais, and it was because of a city bureaucracy that took it upon themselves with no direction from the city to be able to attack this industry at every single, every single part. That will cost the city billions in litigation fees that are unnecessary and puts patients in danger. Be careful about weed taxes before you before you know all the regulations. Say, for example, medical growers are going to be based in the city, of inner city, are going to be highly regulated from the state and federal authorities. The county recently withdrew their their their 10%, their homeless tax, which is going to be assisting us. But at the same time, we are still looking at businesses that with iris to 80 are going to be taxed in an effective rate from 50 to 80%. While I'm running out of time here, the issue of unsanctioned businesses, look at that data from L.A. and Santa Ana. Those are created by incomplete legislation where secondary were illegal. Secondary markets for manufacturing or growth were created simply because they were not included in the original legislation and there were not enough dispensaries meet adequate demand. Thank you and have a good day. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Evening, Mayor City Council. My name is Gary Hetrick. I reside in the fourth district. I want to speak just briefly to the nonbinding resolution. I want to put something on the table so that as we come back to this, I think this is an important issue. And I think the previous speakers sort of raised this. And this is building in a process of community engagement so that the residents of Long Beach themselves can can weigh in on in a decision making process in terms of how this this this new revenue is going to be spent. Rather than having that come from the council, I would like to see, for instance, participatory budgeting process, which we already use in Long Beach as a as a way to engage residents, assuming this goes forward in how they want to see this money spent, it may be spent along the lines that we're already thinking. It may not. But I think this is a way to really engage residents in a meaningful way around money that's going to be coming from the residents. And so I want to put this on the table. When we come back to the non-binding resolution, I would like to see some form of community engagement built into this. And participatory budgeting is something that's already been used. It's something that's sanctioned by or not even sanctioned, but identified as a best practice by the White House for HUD Community Development BLOCK Grant Program. So it's got a fantastic track record and creating a mechanism for residents to have meaningful decision making power over taxpayer money. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes, sir. Mayor and City Council. My name is Steve Updike. I was a drug addict. Marijuana was my gateway drug. And thank God to the Church of Scientology. They got me off dope. That's the only reason I'm here. I'm not dead. It's a true story. Go ahead and laugh. But it's true. Anyway, the truth of the matter is, you will never be able to get enough tax money or money for this problem of dope in our society. You're going to kill our people. You're going to be responsible for the deaths of people. You know, I know people laugh. I finally came out of the closet and said, hey, dope is for dope. Okay. And you're talking to a guy who was on dope, almost died from dope and got off dope, thank God. And the truth of the matter is, it's poison. A poison that screws up your mind. And that's the God honest truth. And you know it deep down. I know you like to get high people. I know you like to feel good. Sure. Have a drink, smoke some pot, do some dope. But you know what? It's temporary. It's not going to solve your problems. I know you're doing dope to solve your problems. It's not going to do it. What you're doing is you're killing yourself. And now we're going to. And you'll never make eye with the chief. You're never going to make enough money to fix the society when it goes into shambles. You think it's bad now? It's going to be a lot worse. And, you know, it really does kill people. I know I grew up at a time when my friends, the famous and others were dying as a result of dope, all kinds of dope. And so, you know, I was there. I did that. I know for a fact because I was there. I was one of those people who had a needle in his arm. It's not the way out, people. It's not going to help you. Dope is not the solution to your problems. You can sit there in your high and mighty positions and you can make your billions of dollars. And I know you're greedy and you want it, but it's going to cost you more than you can afford. And another lifetime from now, you're going to if you survive, you're going to find out the cost in public lives, the destruction of the minds of our children and our people and our our future. It's going to be a major problem. And you know that somewhere deep down in your soul, you know that drugs are a poison. I'm talking dope. I'm talking heroin, marijuana, anything that leads to getting high like that. People don't need it. They don't have to have it to survive. And it's poison. And this game you're playing with, Oh, we're going to make all this money. You're going to spend every penny you have and more than you can afford. And the lives are going to be ruined as a result of this dope is going to be you're not you have no idea what you're doing. You're like, it's a big mistake and you have a chance to turn it around before our society goes down the tubes. And that's exactly where it's going. Thank you, Mr. Next Speaker, please. Tough act to. Follow. My name's Larry King, the seventh District. I served on the Medical Cannabis Task Force. I helped on the Kelton initiative, and I was chosen by Mayor Foster to work with former Councilperson Chips Key to write the argument against in the 2014 tax measure in the election. I'm for taxing. I'm for regulation. I've worked as a consultant in other states. I was a legitimate operator here. There is no place in this country that does not bring in a good a lot more revenue than than the costs in medical marijuana. I mean. If this is going to be the same fiscal report that we're going to read that we received on the task force, it's a joke. It's based on the only thing accurate in it is that they say it's based on guesswork and it's based on bureaucrats who don't know anything about this business or this industry. And they don't have to look too far to see that it's worked in other places. So I'm looking for that report. But again, it's going to be more of the same. They hired a shadowy figure named The Revenue Whisperer to to base all their facts on. And we pretty much shot it down in a task force, but nobody was listening then. And I'm sure nobody is going to listen now. So this is going to be on the backs of the patients and the sick and the people who have been deserving and waiting for the last seven years to get this in our town . Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. You queued up and looked at the queue versus the next speaker, sir. Hi. Dave is Keith. I'm a resident here in Long Beach. And I just want to say that I oppose to this medical marijuana, let's call it for what it is is drugs, is dope pot. It is not good for our community. That's what it all boils down to. I work with kids and I and I work with high school kids, too. And it breaks my heart to have my kids come to my classroom and they're high as a kite. In much of it that they get is from the so-called medical marijuana, from their parents or whoever the situation is that they get access to it. It's no good for us. Just like the gentleman said back here in regards to. This drug ruining community and its pot. And the thing is, is that people are able to get access to it and there is nothing wrong with them. I'm not saying not all of them, but there are some people who get access to it and they go to the doctors, so-called doctors, and they get the prescriptions written up and then they're able to get access to it. I know of a person who was Muslim. Absolutely nothing wrong with them. But he smokes weed every day. He had a problem getting it. He was buying it on the streets. Well, he figured out that he was able to go to a doctor and get a prescription. And he did. And now he smokes weed every day and he gets it legally. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. And I told him, I said, Man, you're Muslim. You're breaking all the rules. So I'm just going to advise you guys to think of this long and hard. Where I live in Long Beach, Oliver Chestnut on the third floor, I look over my balcony and I see some of the people because I'm right next to an alley. Hiding in a corner. Getting high. Doing drugs. And that happens maybe about once a week. Just footsteps away from the police department. Think about it. It gets into the hands of the kids. Even if the the dispensary is miles away from the schools and the parks, trust me, it doesn't mean that it can't travel back to the neighborhood to where the children are. If any of you guys have children, think about it. Because your child can be a victim. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers, please? Looks like it's our last speaker. Last one. Okay, I'm closing the speaker's list, then back to the council. Please. Good evening. Diana la genes. I would like to answer just a couple of things. I noticed the last gentleman was talking about the access that people have to it now. Well, yeah, because it's a black market. It's easy for kids to have access now, but it is much more difficult for them to have access when it's regulated . Take a look at alcohol. Same kind of thing. It is harder for them to get alcohol than it is for them to get marijuana because it's regulated because nobody wants to lose their license over selling to a minor. So I'm just saying. And in the states where it's been decriminalized or legalized, teen use goes down. It is a fact. The irony and that's the irony of it. The other gentleman that was talking about his addictions thing is. I'm I'm sorry if he has an addictive being. But people that are going to be addicted to something are going to find something, whether it be opiates. In fact, opiates right now are the biggest are the most abused drug in the nation. Now, do we stop our prescription drugs because prescription drugs are the most abused drugs? No, of course we don't. And if we want to talk about that and saving money, we could talk about the alcohol in Long Beach. We have almost 900 liquor outlets in Long Beach. And yet I know just about every I've seen every single person on this council drinking liquid drugs. So if we're going to stop something, let's stop that. Okay. So I did pass out something regarding children and that is really important to me. And do I have children? Yes, I have three children. I have five grandchildren and I have five great grandchildren. Do I care about children? You bet I do. And I'll tell you what. I passed out something to you. It talks about a child who uses it to control her epilepsy. It has saved her life. And there have been many, many children who have died waiting in their state for it to become legal in their states. So if we're worried about the children. Let's make sure it's available. And to tax medical, I think is pretty sad. If you want to tax recreational, I don't have a problem with that. But to add to the burden to people who are sick, who really need it, who cannot go to their insurance companies and ask for their to be reimbursed, it it's really very greedy. And I hope, you know, again, recreational fine. But if you're taxing it where it becomes a burden on people who are truly sick and really need it, I think you better rethink it. Just remember, if Jesus was standing here, what would you really tell him and how do you think he would react? You're welcome. Thank you very much. That closes public comment will now go back to the counsel counsel woman price. Thank you. So I want to make a couple of comments to clarify a few things. First of all, I want to thank our speakers, especially those who spoke against the marijuana initiative. And the reason for that is sometimes it's very difficult to come in and speak, especially when I mean, I've been on this council for two years now, over two years now, and there are very few groups that actually will come in and heckle when they don't like what they're hearing. And unfortunately, this is one of those groups we have, you know, legitimate business leaders who will heckle because they don't like what they're hearing, which is a really unique way of fostering a long term relationship with the city entity. So I it's a strategy I've never really understood and calling out the, the city manager and everybody is as being, you know, crooked and, you know, not doing their work is just in my opinion, that's not really a spirit of let's do business together for the next few generations. The bottom line is that we as a so I appreciate the people who came forward and spoke tonight because I know that's very difficult to do. I will also say, however, that it is not this council that is initiating marijuana dispensaries in the city of Long Beach. This has come to us by way of a petition that was circulated, and they have earned the right to be on the ballot, and that is a right that they have earned. And that's a right that I respect. And we have voted to put the initiative on the ballot because we are in a democratic process and they have done the work to earn their spot on the ballot. And that is something absolutely I respect. It's part of our system. So when people come and, you know, I appreciate people coming and telling us the harms that this is going to cause on the city, I would say to them, watch the council meetings where this has been on the agenda for the last two years. And you will find very quickly that your concerns have been shared by some on this council. The concerns that I have is based on talking with the police department when we did have sanctioned marijuana dispensaries in the city and illegal operations showed up, some of my colleagues, some of whom are on this council, some of whom are no longer on this council, but were at that time were some of the most vocal demands of service by our police department, requiring them to do everything that they could to shut down those illegal dispensaries because they were having such a negative impact on the quality of life of the residents. And that's just the reality. I mean, you can heckle if you want, especially if you don't live in the city, especially if you don't take hundreds. Of calls and emails from residents every day you can roll your eyes and say it's stupid. But at the end of the day, when there's a medical marijuana dispensary that's not supposed to be there and it's impacting residents lives in a negative way, that's a real issue we have to deal with. It's not an issue that we can ignore. It's not an issue that we can say is silly. It's a real issue for our residents. And we, every single one of us is required to do everything we can to protect the quality of life of our residents, the children who are trying to sleep with the lines outside the door, the people who hear noises from the nearby businesses, whatever the business is, we have a duty and a responsibility to respond to the residents. So you can heckle all day long. You can be unhappy with the decisions that impact your interests in a negative way. But the bottom line is we have a duty to make decisions that are in the best interests of our residents. The medical marijuana industry is an uncertain industry everywhere. When people say, look to the you don't have to look far to find this and that, there are all sorts of statistics and data. I was recently at a nit's a study, I nit's a conference in D.C.. I sat next to the chief of police from a jurisdiction in Colorado. Trust me, you can find data everywhere that supports whatever you're trying to to convey. The bottom line is it is a drain on resources. And I want to give kudos to our city staff for doing their best to come up with the estimates. We can sit here and criticize it all day long. But you know what? They're not investors in this industry. They are not investors in this industry. So, yes, they don't have intimate familiarity with the inner workings of the industry, but they are looking around and and doing the research. And let's not forget, they're comparing the data to to what we experienced here in the city of Long Beach. It's not operating out of a vacuum. And their analysis shows very negative impacts, impacts of this measure. If it were passed, if the if the measure passes, it will be a substantial increase to our responsibilities and result in large decreases in our ability to function efficiently, effectively and safely. It's going to place an undue and unsustainable burden on countless city departments, from business licensing to code enforcement to the city attorney, the prosecutor's office to police to fire to our health department, and yes to our school district, because our school district unfortunately does not agree with Miss. Our last speaker in regards to the positive impact that this is going to have on our youth. In fact, they they conclude to the contrary. All of this means we're going to have less police response, a lower of quality, lower quality of life for our residents who may call and get a response from the police department that this is a low priority call and long processing periods for non marijuana related businesses. We are trying to be a business friendly city. The report explains in great detail the significant financial costs that the measure is going to cause and for both short and long term analysis. Although the goal that I'm sorry, although the stated goal of the measure is to allow patients with serious health issues easy access to medical marijuana, the effects of the measure go well beyond the issue of patient access. I think even patients undergoing cancer treatment would agree the multimillion dollar net losses the city is projected to sustain are bad for everyone. The increased demand for police response due to the huge number of illegal businesses and statistically likely crime that are associated with legal and illegal marijuana. Businesses are bad for our residents. Extended approval and permitting times for businesses and licensing is bad for our residents. And extending by weeks the ability of code enforcement to investigate code and safety violations is bad for residents. And when we say you don't have to look too far. The city of L.A. has 135 legalized medical marijuana dispensaries. They currently have over 1000 dispensaries operating in their city. That's not too far. And we're looking there. The measure provides for between 26 and 32 dispensaries to be open citywide. However, the measure goes much farther than just allowing for dispensaries, which would benefit patient access and includes allowing all marijuana related business types to operate in Long Beach with no limit cultivators. Testing manufacturing, distribution and transportation all have no limits on how many can be in the city. Additionally, the measure was poorly written with some ambiguous language that could result in legal challenges, which would place another burden on our city city attorney's office. This information is not based on some political ideology. I know it's easy to blow it off and roll your eyes and think that's what it is. But we have a thorough report that is provided to us as a decision making body by department heads who have come to the city through extensive searches with extensive backgrounds and resumes . These are respectable, educated people who have been tasked with the purpose of trying to decide what resources they're going to need to live in this new reality. This is a cost benefit analysis that's put together by the city managers and department managers assessing the rational and likely result the measure is going to have by requiring more city resources and staff, time and energy and increased demands on our already stretched thin emergency response units. This assessment puts in clear numeric values the severe effect this measure would have on some of our most important city departments. Financial losses are one thing for a city to sustain, but a virtual guarantee that this will create an unmanageable burden on emergency response units that are already hugely understaffed. It is unrealistic to think that the city can shoulder the increased burden. This measure places on numerous departments and staff members without there being significant decrease decreases to responsiveness and quality of service at every level of the city of Long Beach. In terms of what we're able to provide, this is, in my opinion, a very detrimental measure because of the fiscal impact. That is why tonight, however, the measure has every right to be on the ballot. The voters have every right to to make that choice. The initiatives the authors of this initiative have earned that right. And I respect. That. But our voters need to have some options. This is why, from day one, I've been saying I want a competing initiative to give our voters options. I would have liked an initiative that allowed for patient access and didn't have all the other components that go well beyond access. But I did not prevail in that argument with my colleagues, and I appreciate that it's a democratic process. But at this juncture, we have the opportunity to recoup some of the costs associated with this industry. So I am in favor and I will be voting in favor of a tax measure tonight. However, I want to make it abundantly clear with my colleagues, in terms of my intent, our number one priority in any tax revenue generated should be cost recovery. Our police departments, our business licensing, our health department, our fire department. They need our city attorney's office. They need to recoup the money that they are going to be using from their departments to help fund this industry if it passes. Beyond that, I think we need to think about public safety as the number one and business licensing as the two big hits that we're going to be taking as a result of the analysis that was performed by our city staff. So so my position is this isn't this like slush fund? This money needs to be used specifically for cost recovery. And we need to ensure and make a commitment to our residents that that is what the money will be used for. And if if we have that kind of commitment as a council, then I am going to be voting for this tax measure. Thank you. Thank you. With that, we now have a motion and a second on the floor. We're going to take separate votes. We've done public comment for all of them. We're going to take separate votes. Again, let me just reiterate some of what was said. It's incredibly important for the city to have the the necessary revenue to be able to deal with both the public safety and the public health needs, particularly on the cost recovery of general services side for this measure. And so it's important that this moves forward. It's important that voters have a choice to be able to pass the city, at least the city piece of this, which is going to be one of the measures on the ballot on this item. And so I strongly recommend that. And with that, I support the vice mayor's motion. It's on the floor. Members, please cast your vote. First, going to take the first part of it, which is receive and file the medical marijuana initiative analysis. Please cast your vote.

A proclamation in recognition of Detective Richard Schneider, DPD Badge 85024, upon the occasion of his retirement. A proclamation in recognition of Detective Rick Schneider on the occasion of his retirement.

DenverCityCouncil_08112014_14-0649

Madam Secretary, please close the voting and now the results. 11 eyes 11 I proclamation 648 has been adopted. And you said, Councilman Lopez, you did not have anyone to accept the podium today. As president. All right. We will move on to our second proclamation, proclamation 649. Councilwoman Monteiro, will you please read? Oh six 2649 Correct. Corrected. Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 649 is being read tonight in recognition of Detective Richard Snyder. Deputy Badge 85024. Upon the occasion of his retirement. And it reads as follows. Whereas Richard Snyder was hired by the Denver Police Department as a patrol officer on August 1st, 1985. And. Whereas, Ric was promoted to the rank of detective on October 16th, 1992 and earned his tenure Gold Detective Badge on October 9th, 2002, while serving in a variety of assignments to include the Vice and Drug Control Bureau and the Crimes Against Persons Bureau as a domestic as a domestic violence and homicide detective. And. WHEREAS, Detective Snyder began to specialize in the management of sex offenders in 2001 while assigned to the Sex Crimes Unit, and in 2005 was one of the founding members of the Sex Offender Registration and Compliance Unit, an assignment he served until his retirement. And. WHEREAS, Detective Snyder's expertize in the field of sex offender management is widely recognized by the Denver the Denver Police Department and his partner agencies. And. WHEREAS, Detective Snyder's contributions to the management of sex offenders include holding the first community notification meeting regarding the release of a sexually violent predator on February 26, 2014. His appointment to the sex manage his his appointment to the Sex Offender Management Board Community Notification Technical Assistance Team in August 2005, the procurement of a grant from the Adam Walsh Foundation in 2007 that allowed for tracking and monitoring of transient sex offenders and his appointment to the Governor's Task Force on Sex Offender Registration, which resulted in legislation establishing self verification of offenders who lack a fixed address. And. Whereas, on August 15th, 2014, Detective Snyder will retire as a Denver police officer, fulfilling 29 years of dedicated service to the city and county of Denver. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council recognizes Rick Schneider's contributions to keep Denver's communities safe, and for his personal and professional dedication to his work and to Denver's residents over the years. And the city and county wishes him well in his retirement. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest, and to fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Detective Richard Snyder and his family. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation. 623 be adopted. It's been moved and seconded. Comments from members of the Council. Councilwoman Montero. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm so glad to be able to sponsor, along with our other co-sponsors, this proclamation recognizing Detective Rick Snyder and I welcome you and your family here tonight to our chambers. You've done so much work quietly in the background for our community to keep us safe. And you and I have worked so much in the neighborhoods that I represent in Council District nine, and I believe you are a constituent of Council District Line. I just wanted to put that in there, but I just want to, with all my heart, let you know that your commitment to the difficult criminal and social issues that we've dealt with in District nine have never been ignored or unappreciated. And working with you, I've just learned what a challenging job you had and some of the work that you've done, especially the work that you're doing up until now. But the other thing is, I've always wondered how. Individuals are able to sort of balance out when they have very difficult and stressful lives. And for Detective Snyder, it was his partnership with Dr. Jack Moss from Pacific Dental Services. And what they've been able to do in the last year is to provide free dental services and have a mobile outreach team that's come in to my district and I understand other districts in the city as well. We've been able to elegantly work on this on this project together, and by that I mean we're all the tables , they're the chairs. There are the tents there with the too hot, with their water, with their Band-Aids, you know, all of those little things that can impact a person's strength already around, wanting to go see a dentist and being able to help it be as stress free as possible. To date, with the two dental clinics, there was one on Saturday, August 9th, but to date, 180 people in areas once a year have received dental care. And I very much appreciate that many were children that are going to be ready to go to school. And good dental caries and hygiene is so important because of all of the other indirect things that dental care, poor dental care can have, but poor dental hygiene. So that was your secret to the always being happy and always being upbeat. It was always giving back to the community. So with that, I they take a lot of value and understanding. That's how you balance this with something positive. So I would like to I would like to extend you the best the best retirement that that you deserve. I was kidding. And I told him the other day and just now that I was going to rescind his retirement, and he said, nope, nope, nope. So I would ask that my colleagues please join me in supporting and supporting my constituent and my friend, Detective Snyder, this proclamation. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro for recognizing Detective Snyder. You know, I've been thinking a lot about some of the unsung heroes in our city. And this is so great that this detective gets a chance to, after all the years of service in this city, gets a chance to be honored in this way. I feel it's it's really amazing. I want to point out, I was six years old when you became a detective in the city. And and I was I was in Los Angeles. And I just think it's beautiful that you are making this city the best city in America while I was growing up. And I just want to thank you for your investment into this city. And, yeah, it's just it's it's a beautiful tribute. And I can see that you're moved and it's just it's just really sweet. And I just think the family as well for allowing all these years of service and the things that you had to endure. I appreciate it. And I hope today is just a little bit of of joy that can bring to the satisfaction of this life. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm honored to be a co-sponsor of this proclamation. Councilwoman Montero, thank you for bringing bringing it forward. I've known Detective Schneider for I can't even remember how many years. A very long time. I had the pleasure, pleasure and opportunity working with him over the years. And clearly, he is an example of the many police officers, men and women that are part of our police force, who are so dedicated and committed to this city. And I just want to thank you for your 29 years of service. I want to thank your family for having lent him to all of us and shared him with us for the last 29 years. I wish you the best of luck in your retirement and Godspeed. Ortega Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I'm not going to say how old I was when you began in this city, but I will say that I looked at that and I said, 1985. That's not that long ago. He hasn't been here that long. And then I started doing my math. I actually got to know Detective Snyder, working on an intense case in my district concerning a sex offender. And I tell you, his depth of knowledge, his understanding of the state legislation, of the regional nature of this of the committee meetings, this JCC. I could. Keep all of that straight. And then his ability and willingness to come out and talk to the neighborhood and to talk to the offender on quite a regular basis and to keep following up with me. As my colleagues have said in the previous comments, it really was exemplary city service and what you would expect out of the best in detectives. So I am sorry to see you go, but I hope you enjoy your retirement. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. We have many other comments from members of council. I would just like to add this as well. We wish you the very best. And you know our public servants. I'll use a football analogy since we're getting ready, a football season, you know, typically Denver police and other entities, they're very similar to offensive linemen and not because of your size. That's not what I'm talking about. But when you when you we only hear about offensive linemen when there's a holding penalty or there's a false start. But when Peyton Manning drives 70 yards down the field for a touchdown, credit goes to the quarterback, the running back, and we never hear about those in the trenches doing the hard work each and every play. And I'm very thankful that Councilwoman Monteiro brought this forward that we know from the great work that you did. She spoke about the dental clinic that helped in the her district. It also came to Marbella as well, where we had, I believe it was over 40 people got dental services. And I want to thank you for being a part of that, making that a reality as well, because that that was, well, a great the community the community really appreciated that. So thank you and best of luck. So seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Monteiro I never I Ortega Rob Shepherd, Brooks Brown, I but. I. Can eat. Lehman Hi. Lopez Hi. Mr. President. Hi. Councilwoman. Moran. Oh. There you go. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and mouth the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Proclamation. 649 has been adopted. Councilwoman Monteiro, is there anyone you want to call to the podium? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call up Commander Sonnier here. I could barely see you. There you are. And also and also our honoree this evening, Detective Rick Schneider. What would you like to go first? I think you kind of covered it. I've known Rick. Come on up. You're not going to get too hard. That is, you're never shot anyway. So, so, so congratulations. I just echo what you said. Rick has done a phenomenal job for us. His knowledge of the sex offender population out there, the sex offender management board. I first got to know Rick when I was a lieutenant in Patton Crimes and had sex offender management back when we only had about 1200 in the year or 1200 in the city. We're up over 2000. What's the last number? 2194. Yeah, so we're almost 2200. So within that short amount of time, we've gone. But he is the legislative expert. He has done a lot of testifying at the state capitol, getting ordinances passed to help us manage our board. And the whole unit really has done a phenomenal job. And, you know, kudos goes out to the whole unit. But congratulations, Rick. I appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. President. Council members. Thank you. When Councilwoman Montero called the other day and said, we're going to do this, I was a little taken aback and obviously still Im almost at a loss for words that night, but I said almost. Those of you who know me know that's not going to happen, but that I really do appreciate everything that everybody said tonight. The kudos, accolades, prizes, gifts. I know now, right now how Kim Kardashian feels every day. That. I didn't do anything any different than the other 1300 men and women across the street who work hard every day. But it's truly been an honor to do this for the last 30 years, and I appreciate it. Would you like to introduce your family to really be in trouble? You'll be one with that. Yeah. You saved my life right here. And my son in law, Nick or Cory, my daughter Lindsey, my wife Carol, Dr. Jack Moss, that we spoke about the dental thing and his wife Theresa. And you guys know Lieutenant Davis and I really am taken aback by this. And I truly appreciate it's been an honor to work with you all. Thank you.

Recommendation to Consider Options for the Alameda Police Department's Emergency Response Vehicle. (Police) [Not heard on March 2, 2021; continued from March 16 to March 30, 2021]

AlamedaCC_03302021_2021-8247

So we are continuing this. We're moving now to hear this regular agenda item that has been continued twice. And this is item six be. And Madam Clerk, would you please introduce that item? Recommendation to consider options for the Alameda Police Department's emergency response vehicle. Thank you. And who is presenting this staff report this evening? We are bringing in the interim police chief right now and his support staff. All right. So we are anticipating the imminent arrival of interim police chief Randy Phan. And Rafi, who else is joining us? There is chieftain. Good evening, Chief. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And I see we have Captain Jeff Emmett. And is there one more we've got? Lieutenant Claus should all be. Eric, class is here. Okay. So it's the three of you? Yes, ma'am. All right. Well, good evening. Hi. We are ready when you are. So please begin. Very good. Thank you again. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Randy Phan, your interim police chief. In 2012, the City Council approved the purchase of an emergency response vehicle that replaced a 1997 GMC Armored vehicle that the city owned from 1998 to 2011. In 2013, the city took delivery of a ballistic armored tactical transport vehicle. The acronym of that is a Ford F5 50 truck chassis that is covered with ballistic panels designed to withstand gunfire and fragmentation, including rifle rounds such as those fired by assault weapons. The vehicles used to transport police officers and tactical medics from the fire department to crime scenes where there is an objective risk to the safety of civilians or officers from a person who is armed or as reasonably believed to be armed with a firearm. Is also used to rescue civilians or employees from active shooter situation, acts of terrorism or mass casualty incidents involving acts of violence in places where civilians or officers may be in the line of fire of a suspect. The emergency response vehicle is not used for peaceful protests or demonstrations. Period. The emergency response vehicle is armored, not armed. It is a defensive tool, a de-escalation tool to protect life. It is not an offensive weapon. It does not have its own weapon system like a military tank. These types of vehicles have been used in civilian law enforcement in the US for decades. In our area alone, they are owned and utilized by the cities of Oakland. Berkeley. San Leandro. Hayward. Union City. Fremont. And Livermore. Pleasanton. Much of the criticism of these vehicles comes from seeing them used in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. Most police professionals in the Bay Area like me could not believe the images from those protests. Using armored vehicles with tactical teams on overwatch during protests is inappropriate. It is not a tactic used by the Alameda Police Department. The discussion about militarization and American policing is an important one and one I frequently engage in as a police chief. It is critical that police officers understand our role as guardians in our communities. We are never to be seen as an occupying force. We are part of the community. It is our duty and our honor to protect it. To ignore, however, the realities of our society and its many guns and the threat that some with those guns pose would be derelict, especially for government which is charged with protecting its citizens. To believe that those things can never happen here is unfortunately wishful thinking. Are we under constant threat? Thankfully, that is a resounding no. We are not immune. Crime and violence on our island. We expect that our police stand ready when the community calls. This vehicle has been safely and appropriately used for almost eight years, and armored vehicles have been used here in Alameda safely for almost 23 years. Reviewing the use of this vehicle and ensuring it's used with care and consistent with community standards is a worthy and important endeavor. There is no reason to believe it won't continue to be used in a responsible manner manner in the future and strictly as a tool for civilian and officer safety. I urge the Council to approve keeping the emergency response vehicle as a safety tool for your community and for your employees. Thank you. And obviously, I'm here for any questions you may have. Thank you, Chief. And when Captain Emmett in lieutenant class, did you want to add anything? Okay. So, Counsel and Madam Clerk, I would imagine we have some public figures. Do we? So far, just one. All right. Perhaps there will be more. Perhaps. Okay. So before we go to our public speaker or speakers, does anyone on the council have a clarifying question for the chief? Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Thank you. Thank you for your report. I have several questions. First of all, in regards to if we if the city were to borrow an armored vehicle from one of those other cities that you visited, what is your estimate of what's a reasonable estimate or probable estimate in your professional opinion of how how long it would take or if we're even confident that one would arrive? Yes. Thank you for the question. In our estimation, the soonest we could get a vehicle here under ideal circumstances would be probably 20 minutes from the city of Oakland. Now, obviously, it doesn't take 20 minutes to drive from Oakland to Alameda. However, we have to consider the amount of time it takes to make the request. There is no central system for making a mutual aid request like this. We have to individually call cities and ask if the vehicle is available, not only if the vehicle's available, but do they have operators who can get in and get it going and then come to Alameda for it to be used. So we believe that the under, again, ideal circumstances are about 20 minutes. And then, of course, you know, from these other cities and Bay Area traffic being what it is, the number only grows from there. Has the city of Alameda borrowed one of these armored vehicles from another city? I am going to defer to Captain Emmett or Lieutenant Claus that they have institutional knowledge on that. Yes. So. First of all, can everyone hear me okay? I've been having. Yeah, it's. It's good, Captain. So, yes, we have borrowed them in the past. Prior to happening to our own, those were. Preplanned events where. We had ample time to reach out to local agencies to ask for their assistance. So does that mean then that the city of Alameda has not borrowed one on an emergency basis? Correct? Well, at least during my time, we have not had to make an emergency request to ask an outside agency for assistance with an armored vehicle. They've all been preplanned events. All right. Thank you. Captain Emmitt, what is it? What is a pre-planned event mean? All right. So what were they? Sure. So a pre-planned event would be a police incident that we have, you know, maybe five, six or 14 days to plan and prepare for, which most of the time those would end up being what we would consider a high risk. Search warrant, high risk arrest warrant. Something where we have more control over. Dictating when we can actually serve the and handle the incident. Thank you. Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you. Attached to their were as a council member, a correspondence, if you will. The mayor submitted a policy from Berkeley City in regards to their policy for their armored vehicle. And I'm wondering, in our staff's professional opinion, what they think of that policy compared to the city's policy. And also, in regards to the alternative one, it's offered in the agenda item. I have reviewed. I was going to say we would probably want to first establish that they've had an opportunity to review that she found. I think you have. Yes, go ahead. You can. I'm sorry. Them. Yes. I have reviewed the policy as have key staff here. And we do believe it's consistent with how we have used our vehicle. And we would have no problem with expanding our policy to cover the items that are within the Berkeley policy and have that in force here in Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. Any further clarifying questions, counsel? Okay. I'm not seeing any. So, Madam Clerk, let's take our public speakers, please. Okay. Currently we have four, so they do get 3 minutes. The first is Zack Bowling. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Bowling. I either cancel. I just sent you guys an email, so I'll keep it brief. In 20 or June 2020, we ask staff to start investigating the cell. And so I was a little surprised to see this item come up that nine months later we're still talking about it. When I originally read this agenda item, I was a little surprised. It it listed just 30 times that it was used with case numbers and it made kind of a good case for why we should keep it and why the investment was worth it. But it wasn't until later the agenda item is updated and it listed the at the actual uses of it. 27 of those times were for mutual aid. They weren't even in Alameda and it's only been used three times in eight years in Alameda. And it seems like two of those times were just as a loudspeaker. So really only once for. The tactical purpose of of the the. Tanker, the bad or whatever you want to call it. So it seems like the other cities are making far more use of it than we are. I didn't want to say that this item is brought forward, was intentionally trying to be deceptive, but it kind of read that way a little bit with the later update to it that it wasn't very open about the fact that it wasn't used here, and that kind of caught me off guard. It's also interesting to discover that this vehicle was also Berkeley had denied their city from buying one of the or their department from buying one of these in 2012. Instead, they because they didn't want to militarize their police at the time, but instead, in 2016, they bought them instead a bulletproof van, which offered all the defensive capabilities without the offensive platform that the bat has. And I kind of agree with that sentiment, and I will just leave it at that. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you, Mr. BOLLING. Our next speaker. Janice Anderson. Good evening, Ms.. Anderson. Hello. Good evening. It's clear why some of this information wasn't. Originally included in API's presentation. As Zack mentioned, it details 33 uses, but only three in Alameda. In our eight years of ownership. Those uses were all for protection or cover instances where it wasn't known if a suspect had a gun or ended without incident. None of these were an active shooter situation, and I'm sure HPD would categorize these as successful uses of the armored vehicle. And they even tonight called it a method of de-escalation. But I personally do not see how arriving with an armored vehicle can be considered de-escalation. Do we have witness accounts of what it's like to have this thing roll into your neighborhood to serve a warrant? I'd also like to note that the records. APD provided don't even match with one another. Two incidents from 2016 are missing from the more detailed report. It would be nice to know what those actions were and where they took place. Was it for a protest? Eviction? We don't now. What is clear is this vehicle has been overwhelmingly used in other cities. In their presentation, there was mention of tactical medics and APD documents and I. Wonder what training those medics undergo and what that costs the city to maintain their certification. And if we have medics training to respond. To actively dangerous situations, we should definitely have medics trained to and able to respond to mental health situations as a police reform recommendations outline. One of these situations is much more common than the other. The only way I can advocate keeping. This vehicle is if it was transitioned to be used in. That manner. Lastly, I know some in our community will use recent events. Such as the. Shooting in Boulder as an example of why we. Should have this vehicle on constant standby. It should be noted that their SWAT team didn't. Arrive with. An armored vehicle for 17 minutes, 10 minutes after an officer had already been killed. Colorado has some of the most militarized departments because of their frequent mass shootings and open carry laws. And even that didn't prevent what happened that day. You would think with all of this possible danger, more cops. Would be advocating for better gun control instead. We spend most of our budget on increasing their power. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Our next speaker Michael as. Good evening, Mr.. Of this one. Can you hear me? Yeah, just fine. Welcome. Thank you. 31 years ago in 31 years ago today and basically September, nearly every available officer was called in to work the shooting at Henry's Pub. I was a Berkeley police reserve officer then, and my assignment was to monitor communications in the mobile command center. The shooter had already killed one victim and was holed up in the bar with 33 other hostages. One of our sergeants was at the hospital with a head wound. I felt there was never a more dedicated and concerned group of uniformed men and women working hard to save those lives at the risk of their own. The seven hour effort to peacefully end the siege failed. The shooter was killed and the hostages freed. The following decades of law enforcement tactics had to adjust to the lessons learned from several mass shootings. Don't wait for overwhelming force before acting, immediately engage the shooter and prevent the wanton shooting of more innocent victims. Timing is everything. This means that if there was a report of an active shooter with an assault rifle in perhaps one of our stores schools with a theater, our patrol officers would have to go and engage. What happens if they fail? And now both the police and we are trapped with the shooter? You will immediately deploy the SWAT team and the bat so that it can be used to get in close to end the shooting and rescue the living. I have seen the activity report concerning the bat. Its limited use here seemed necessary and not frivolous, but it does see more action outside of Alameda than in. And as some suggest, why don't we just sell it and call another department that has one? If we absolutely need the support? Well, first, because our own response is the fastest, which is important if you the one trapped and bleeding out or you're hiding and waiting to be shot. And second, we don't give up losing local control of how this type of equipment and tactics with it are used. Finally, taking away the one piece of equipment that provides reliable protection in the most dangerous of encounters, sending the wrong message to those who have sworn to serve and protect us with their lives. Tighten up the use policy. Hire a new chief who will conform to our community interest and keep the bear out. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Wong. Our next speaker. Ryan Fraser. Good evening, Mr. Fraser. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. On June 14, 2020, the Alameda City Council unanimously voted to sell the ballistic armored vehicle as a measure of racial equity. It was an intentional act made with knowledge of all the relevant facts and after an outpouring of public comments. But now that measure of racial equity has been tested first by the city manager who failed to sell the vehicle, then by the LAPD, who defended the vehicle's continued use. And now the matter comes to you council. Let me be clear. There is no policy that will cleanse the long gun forts or snipers step from the vehicle. So will you have the integrity to do what is right? Will you stand up for racial justice, even in the face of opposition by the police and city manager? Or will you knowingly and intentionally perpetuate the systemic racism of militarized policing against Alameda communities of color? The facts are known. APD has used vehicles three times in eight years, eight and a half years, and two of those incidents were serving warrants. That is situations where the police had time and opportunity to take a less aggressive course of action. In the third incident, the APD used the vehicle to approach the scene of a crime. But there's no evidence to suggest that APD was actually under threat. There was the possibility of a threat, but there was, in fact, no threat because the suspect had fled the scene. So on the one hand, we have a violences symbol of militarized policing and racial injustice. On the other hand, we have three uses in Alameda where the police felt unsafe but in fact did not come under fire or require the use of an armored vehicle. Symbol of injustice versus unfounded fear. To me, the choice is clear which of these competing interests should prevail? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fraser. Do we have further speakers? Madam Clerk. One more Alexia approach. Good evening, Mr. Archer. Good evening, everyone. Last summer, the council voted to sell the armored vehicle and I'm confused. Why it's still here. And further surprise to see why alameda police are able to keep their push to keep it. Why is our. City harboring a vehicle that is entirely unnecessary, a waste of taxpayer. Dollars. And it isn't even used here as intended? The incident reports are clear, though they were questionable. Upon first released, as folks have expressed. Out of 33 times. It's been used only three. Times in Alameda, three, not 33, but three. We are essentially loaning out this vehicle to other cities. And for what? If they need an armored vehicle, they should buy ours. But Alameda doesn't need this. The arguments to keep it are irrelevant at this point. Since there was already discussion and debate and a vote. Beyond that. Where was this supposedly essential vehicle. When a white man was waving a gun at peaceful protesters recently? Clearly, it's very subjectively used and it's not necessary. Despite the scare. Tactics some supporters like to implore. Please keep your word and ensure that this will be sought. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rich. And I believe we have one more speaker. Now we have two. So these next two speakers, it's now reached the seven limit and they will get 2 minutes. So the first is Laura Katrina. Good evening, Ms.. Katrina. Good evening, counsel. Madam Mayor, I'm urging you to follow through on the recommendation, unanimous recommendation from June of last year to sell the armored vehicle. Know, I think, as other callers have mentioned, it's it's a symbol and it's a promise to follow through on acts of racial justice. So I think there's a symbolic piece, but there's also the piece that is just not being. Used. Often. And as Mr. Rosa had previously mentioned, you know, we had an incident that could have ended very tragically happening over the MLK weekend when there was a peaceful protest going on. But that vehicle was nowhere to be found. And so I would implore the city to have actions speak louder than words and to follow. Through on this promise when there was so much momentum last summer instead. Of kind of bringing it up all these months later. So thank you for your time. Thank you, Miss Katrina. Next speaker. Ernie Mathews. Good evening. Mr. MATTHEWS. Former Chief MATTHEWS. You just need to end user. Chief Mathias, can you unmute? Madam Kirk. Anything you can do on your end? There we go. Here we go. How many buttons? I apologize. Yeah. I got that. Good evening. Madame Mayor. Members of the City Council. I strongly urge you not to sell, but retain the police department's aircraft tactical vehicle, which I understand is being considered put up for sale. Simply stated, the lives of officers and citizens can be saved under extraordinary situations and conditions. For example, should an officer or a citizen be shot and bleeding out during an active shooter situation, this vehicle. Is the only and safest way to attempt rescuing injured victims. Is it often used? No. However, neither are fire home insurance, fire insurance for her homes or fire trucks, for that matter. But they sure are handy when tragedy occurs. This fully this vehicle is fully paid for. Thus, the maintenance costs are minimal. This vehicle is not military surplus equipment and is not indicative of militarization of the Alameda Police Department is simply a tool to be used in violent confrontations to help maximize officer safety as well as our citizens safety. As your former chief of police, with nearly 40 years of law enforcement deportment experience, I beg you to retain this infrequently used but terribly important piece of equipment. Our officers certainly do deserve it. Thank you. Thank you, Chief MATTHEWS. And we have one more speaker. Eileen Enrich. Good evening. This hour, enrich. That evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Just fine. Yes. I would like to encourage the council to keep the vehicle. I believe that when you were first discussing, selling this crime wasn't as out of control as it currently is. We have seen a number of shootings. We have seen members of our community being held at gunpoint. I believe there were four just in the last week. We've seen what's happened in Colorado and in Georgia. Our police department needs to understand that we back them 100%. We need them to understand that we want to keep them safe. Selling this vehicle sends a message. It sends a message that we do not care about our police department. We do not care about their safety. I encourage you to keep that vehicle and send another message to our police department and to the community around us that we do care. We are having a difficult time right now recruiting people for a police department because of the message that several members of this council has sent out with the whole defund idea. Well, let's now send a new message showing our police department that we do indeed care about them. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Ana. I believe we have one more speaker f Kenny. Good evening, Miss Kenny. Good. Good evening. I just wanted to say that one of the things I read in the city staff report is that there is training involved for the operators of this vehicle. And when we had our discussions about police reform, I was repeatedly told that it was too there was not money in the budget to do training when it came to people with disabilities or other types of services that keep our community safe. And so I think. Where we do have issues with people. Experiencing. Mental health crisis is much more frequently than we do require a tank to respond. It's a matter of putting our priorities and our funding where it's best. It will be best served to serve to keep. Our entire population. Safe. So I ask that you please. Sell the vehicle, put the training and funding for maintenance. In ways that can truly, truly serve. Our entire community. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kenney. Madam Clerk, do we have any further public comments? We do not. All right, then I am going to close public comment on this item at this time, and I am going to open council discussion. And normally the mayor as mayor, I go last, but this time I'm leading the discussion and I will call on the rest of the council after this. So we've heard public speakers, we've gotten lots of correspondence from residents on this item, and we have an important decision to make this evening. As the city council, we always want to make sure that we are making well-reasoned, well-thought out, rational decisions. We don't do things for simply for symbolism. We base our decisions on facts and data. And I do want to speak to something that several speakers raised, that the staff report was modified from the first version to the next with additional information about uses. I had inquired of the city manager wanting additional information, and that additional information was incorporated into subsequent staff reports because this item was continued from the first time it was agenda ized. And so the decision before us tonight is whether the city council should direct the city manager to sell the emergency response vehicle. I want the public to know that there have been no allegations of misuse of the city of Alameda Police Department's emergency use vehicle in all the years that it has been used. We recently heard recommendations and read a very lengthy report from our Police Reform and Racial Justice subcommittees. None of them recommended selling or getting rid of the emergency response vehicle. Every other Bay Area city's police department has an emergency response vehicle, and I won't read the list of them because Chief Phan did so when he gave his staff report as as mayor of this city, I take very seriously the health and safety of our residents, of our people who work in Alameda, who come to visit. And I also pay special heed to the head of the Department of Homeland Security, who has outlined, especially since the January six insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the heightened risk of domestic terror to our cities. Do we know when and where the next incident will happen? We do not. But we can look around to incidents that have happened in other cities. Several. Several emails that we got from residents. Use the analogy of an insurance policy that you hope you never need to use it. But you're sure glad you have it when you do need to use it. And I think that's a that's an apt analogy. And one of the things that I enjoy about my job as mayor is I have a good working relationship and friendships with certainly all 14 other the other 13 mayors in Alameda County. So I reached out to my friend and fellow Mayor Jessie Aragon, who's the mayor of the city of Berkeley, a very progressive city not far from here. And I said, Jesse Gee, does Berkeley have an emergency response vehicle policy? And he said, We sure do. And I helped write it. And I said, Oh, would you share it with me? And he did. And I was very impressed with it. And I asked to have it attached to the staff report. Its attached, as Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted as a council communication. I strongly urge the Council to move forward with retaining this vehicle, but to require the implementation of a use policy just like the city of Berkeley has implemented. Because it it starts out and I won't read the whole thing to you. It's attached. I hope you've read it. But the purpose of the policy is to provide direction for the usage, the training and storage of the Berkeley Police Department Emergency Response Vehicle. And the goal is to safely resolve incidents where there exists an objective risk to the safety of civilians and our officers from person or person or persons who may be considered armed and dangerous. But the use of this vehicle will only be authorized by the Special Response Team or commander or the team leader unless exigent circumstances exist . And there's protocol for that, and it will only anyway. This policy outlines when it should be used, under what circumstances and when it shall not be used. And the. And also it. Requires a vehicle, uses usage log, which may be provided to the Council City Council on an annual basis or any time the City Council requests. There's provisions for operator training and consideration for deployment. And one of the things that I think is very important when selecting a rescue team, the supervisors should consider the special response team members, hostage negotiators, a medic or a tactical emergency medical support personnel. And there's a protocol for when it is to be used by an outside agency. Always must have an operator and someone from Berkeley Police Department to go with the vehicle and then there's storage and maintenance criteria. So I look forward to a robust conversation with the council, but I don't what I want the council to consider is what makes us different from every other Bay Area city that we should not have this tool, not for militaristic use and certainly not for the use of peaceful protest, but in the instance where lives could be saved if we had it. So with that, I will open the floor. I see. Councilmember Harry Spencer has had her hand up. Please. Thank you and I appreciate your comments, Mayor. I have additional clarifying questions after listening to the public speakers. First of all, the issue of and I was not on council when this is voted on or direction was given. Is there someone from staff that can speak to that issue in regards to there was a direction and now it's like a do over or something like that. Someone can explain that to the public. What's happening here. At City Manager? Eric I, I can begin and then captain may be able to add on because he's the one that brought it forward to me after the council, the city council was approving the budget. There was different considerations at the time, including maybe reductions in police department budget, because that was right after many protests that occurred right after Memorial Day or in early June, I guess early to mid June. And so this became a component of the motion in passing the budget. The motion was to pass budget. This was one of the direct or one of the items that was included in that budget motion. The police department. Believing that this is my interpretation. I can be corrected by the police department, believing that not all information had been talked about or considered during this because really the budget was the main focus at that time. I wanted to come back and have the council review this item by itself. The timing of the delay partially was mine and partially was others, but it had to do with timing of agenda items. But I can tell you, Captain, you can add if you would like or Mayor, as the Ashcraft, if I don't know if Captain Nemeth has anything to add to the discussion. Captain Emmett. Anything you'd like to add? If it's okay with Chief and I have a little bit that. I could add to that. Okay with you, Chief. Thumbs up. Yes, go ahead, please. So when it was initially brought to my attention in mid August when I was the acting chief, I felt that I owed it to the employees of APD to do what I could to present the other side. And that was the decision. To. To draft the council report was to explain how important we believe this piece of equipment is not only to our department, but more importantly to the citizens of Alameda, so that we are fully prepared to handle any incident as quickly as we can and as safely. As we can for everyone involved. Thank you. Councilmember Harry Spencer thank you. There was also a comment in regards to public comment in regards to 33 instances of use, 30 being mutual aid and three apparently here in the city of Alameda. Does any can someone give a professional opinion in regards to then does that have any impact on the recommendation to retain? So I'm asking about if the number of times it was used out of town is okay. Who wants to take that? Okay. Captain. Chief? Yeah. So it's like a lot of our equipment. It's very similar to the fire department. We need one another. We need the other cities. And to be able to supply them with, whether it be a K-9 that happens to be working or a motorcycle officer with training in an accident investigation or a piece of equipment such as the ERP. That exchange of equipment and personnel between the cities not only has goodwill between the communities, but as it's how we are, it's a force multiplier. It's how we're able to do some of the things we need to do, especially in an emergency situation when we may not have the adequate number of people or the right equipment . So being able to loan this vehicle out, for instance, building that goodwill and knowing that we can call on them if need be, I think is a very important part of how the mutual aid system works, not just here, but in all in all of California. And I'm thankful we don't have to use it very often within the city of Alameda, quite frankly. She fan I think my colleague may also want to know if the fact that it hasn't been used the majority of times that the vehicle was used was outside of the city. Does that in any way impact your recommendation about retaining it? It doesn't correct, councilmember. It does. It doesn't because, again, in terms of the emergency nature of being here, if we have to deploy it and it's an emergency situation, and again, being in Ireland where it's difficult to get here as it is, literally seconds will count. So our ability to deploy in a hurry, as I've mentioned before, using the metaphor of an insurance policy, especially since it's already paid for, I think is very apt. Kelly. Thank you. Okay. And then there were multiple comments in regards to racial equity being subjectively used, racial justice that it is militaristic with could anyone with a law enforcement background speak to that response? Even. Yes, I. I would absolutely not. This does not get used based on race or anything of that nature. And I know the MLK incident, MLK Day incident was brought up, and I'll be quite frank that when I was called at home because it was a holiday, I was not working. The first question I had was, did we deploy the emergency response vehicle? Sounds like the right circumstance to deploy it. And, you know, the incident had have evolved so rapidly that it was not deployed, but it absolutely was a consideration. So we do not use this vehicle based on just like any of our tactics should not be based at all on race or any other protected class, but on the need to provide public safety. Thank you. All for offer you counsel over her, Spencer. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Next step. Well. Are we ready for a motion? No one wants to say anything. Councilmember Desai I saw a councilmember. Not quite, actually. I'm going to say it. As he that I'm. Happy to wait for Councilmember Desai. I just thought, I just want to make a couple comments. Okay. Councilmember Knox. Wait. Sorry. There were if. I heard the comment that that the the police inequity committee made no comment on this vehicle. And I think the fact that the council had already unanimously given direction to sell it, it would be an odd place for them to give a recommendation to sell it. So I want to be careful that we don't put too much stock in that specific issue. And I respect the positions that that folks on our council will take tonight. I think if we're going to move forward with maintaining this, I think the compelling argument that we continue to hear is that in the case of an active shooter, that this vehicle may be the the point between life and death. And I think that we should make sure that our policy really limits this to times when there are active shooters and if there are times in which there's the possibility that active shooting could be used. I see that Berkeley has for various time tests staging offsite for quick deployment. I think that that's you know, that could be something that we're talking about. But I think that there's a reason also that this vehicle does not have the city is not painted in the city colors. And we can talk about whether or not it is an actual military vehicle or whether it's just dressed up to look like something that drives through the streets of Fallujah. At the end of the day, it is a very intimidating vehicle that does not look like any other vehicle that the city has. The city of Emeryville has has a Ford Transit vehicle that is armored. It looks like something that a parent would take to the hardware store to get some tools to help work on the deck so that over the weekend, this vehicle is designed to intimidate and scare people. And so I think we need to understand there is an impact of this vehicle as it drives through, through and into and into our communities and into other communities as well. The moms for housing were evicted from the house, their house in West Oakland. The sheriff's department brought one of these vehicles and parked it out in front to evict four moms who were just being evicted. We can't there are impacts. And so I would like to see if we're going to move forward with keeping this vehicle. I would like to see us limit it so that we are actually addressing the specific issues that people say are the concern that we have and not continuing to just loan it out for backup on pre-planned events in other cities that don't necessarily meet the the goals that I think we're hearing are our community outlines. I also just wanted to take one instance. So in at least one of the reported uses, we actually did deploy this vehicle to direct traffic for a parade and a demonstration. And so I want to be I think we need to be clear. We have used this in places where there wasn't the threat of shooting breaking out at any given moment. And I know that our former chief did talk about sending it out for protecting and for engaging in a number of the Oakland protests. And I don't see it on this list, but I do know that that was where that talking point came from, because a former chief, Larry, mentioned multiple times and that was really the only time we ever used the vehicle was when Oakland was having protests and and whatnot. Maybe we didn't. Maybe he was confused. But I did want to just reflect that. So those are my comments. I hope we can narrow the scope and meet with what I hear our community, the former police chief, etc., saying we need for this vehicle. Thank you. I thank you. Councilmember Knox White Councilmember de. Well, thank you very much. I'll be brief. I think the staff report really says it all in the executive summary. I think this sentence really says it all. And I think it's fair. It bears worth repeating. The emergency response vehicle is a critical tool to assist the police department in keeping the citizens of Alameda safe and end sentence. I think that sentence says it all. Let us hope that we never here in Alameda have a tragic situation that requires the use of such and such a tool. But but if there is a tragic situation unfolding, let us make sure to use the tool in order to safeguard our residents and our police force and anyone involved in that kind of situation. You just never know. It can happen here in Alameda, too. So so I do think we have to reconsider the June vote. I do think we have to keep. I do think we have to keep this vehicle. And I will say, though, in terms of policy, you know, in the fog of of a crisis, you just never know what's going to happen. And and the ability to act swiftly is is absolutely imperative in a fog of a crisis situation. And what I worry is having these policies that amount to basically checklists that might require our police force to wait some moments, minutes, tens of minutes, I don't know, to satisfy their review of the checklists. And I just don't think that that is how it is. You know, I like the way that the current policy reads, and I'll read the portion of the current policy that I find satisfactory. The current policy reads in the paragraph that's labeled one dot Special Response Rescue Vehicle Bat. The second sentence to that paragraph reads It's on page six of 11 reads. The vehicle is. Oh, it's a second paragraph. Permission to utilize a vehicle will come from the commander during SWAT operations or a supervisor in high risk incidents falling outside of the scope of the search operations. So we're really depending on the professional judgment of the staff to interpret what's going on in the fog of a tragic situation. And I think we need to give them that discretion to act quickly. You know what? If we send out the vehicle and we end up not having to use the vehicle? To that, I say. So what? You know, we made into an assessment that it might have been needed and hey, thank God it wasn't needed, but at least we had the vehicles to send out. So I really worry about having this checklist of, well, we got to do this. We've got to make sure is it an active shooter? I mean, you know, if you know that something is going on at Incidental High School or at Alameda High School, if, you know, it's a football game and suddenly all these people are running, scurrying about, you know, maybe someone first had a knife and next thing you know , the night fell 5 minutes later. Turns out to be a gun. You don't want to wait. So I really worry about having this kind of checklist approach. I think the way that the policy currently reads in terms of leaving it to the professional judgment of our police force and particular individuals in it, I think that's the way that we should go. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Councilmember Dysart, I'm just going to respond that I hope you'll have a chance to read the Berkeley policy. It's just three pages long, but it it's not so much a checklist, but it's it is definitely, you know, the kinds of situations criteria it's based on where there is an objective risk and that's discussed how to assess the situation. I, I think it definitely leaves the use to professionals vetted, but I do think that there needs to be a, a policy a little more spelled out policy. And we heard the acting chief say that he thought that this could easily be implemented in Alameda. Councilmember Vela, vice mayor, L.A., sorry, we haven't heard from you. Yeah, I think I mean, I share Councilmember Knox White's concerns. I think, you know. Yes, I think we voted on this. So I. I understand where there's some confusion by the public about when issues come back to council, when there were unanimous votes, and what would trigger that. But I don't think we should be so cavalier with where we deployed it, but we didn't have to use it, because I think that there are it sends a message to have this vehicle deployed in any neighborhood. I think it sends a message to to see this vehicle driving around town. We got that. I'm sure other council members got emails as well when Oakland's tactical vehicle was parked on Park Street getting coffee for a coffee run. Right. So I think we do have to be careful because there is symbolism. This is not a normal vehicle. This is not the ram van that other cities have that's armored, but that is inconspicuous. This is a very different type of vehicle. And I want to be thoughtful about that. I also think that discretion is a tricky thing. It's it's nice to have discretion. It gives people a number of different options. But it also means that there are going to be times where there could be a disagreement about whether or not the vehicle should have been deployed. And I think if this council wants to reverse course of where of what the direction was that, one of the biggest issues in our existing with is with our existing policy. It is with the fact that there is a lot of discretion there. And I think when you're deploying something that is this different, we need to curtail that the amount of discretion available. This council, it's a this council should be very clear about when it should be deployed. And we need to limit it, because I think that there's a lot I'm getting concerned because it seems like there's a bit of fearmongering going on, like there could be any incident when you go out and you're in a crowd, there could be somebody there and all of a sudden now we want to be able to deploy this vehicle. I don't think that that's the intent from the majority of the council. I'm not hearing that. I think that we want to be very critical about when it's deployed and we want to make sure that it's not being deployed for crowd control measures or intimidation of free speech. And that is something, frankly, I think we should all be concerned about because it's part of our code of conduct. We don't want to curtail free speech as a council, and I would hope that we don't want any vehicle. Or being deployed to do. To do the same. So, you know, I just I hope that that were thoughtful and that my colleagues are thoughtful, which I think will be about putting some checks on the use of this . Thank you. Thank you. Vice mayor of L.A. And I will just read to to your point, which I agree with you completely about when the vehicle should not be deployed in the Berkeley Emergency Response Vehicle policy, it says the RV shall not be deployed during nonviolent demonstrations, including for crowd control and crowd management. Absent the specific, articulable objective facts demonstrating a risk of injury or death to police officers and or the public. And so I do think that we need to limit the discretion. But I think that it was well spelled out in the Berkeley policy. I think we could agree that Berkeley City Council is certainly one of the more progressive ones around. And they, you know, they adopted this and and the mayor helped draft it. And anyway, I, I so what, what I would like to add. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Yes. Well, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Okay, so let me finish my sentence and then we'll go to you. What I would like to propose is that well and I want to ask another question of Council member Knox White. And actually, of all of you, you mentioned that this isn't you know, it doesn't look like some of the other vehicles. It's true, Berkeley actually bought a mercedes. Their van is a pretty slick looking, high profile Mercedes. And, you know, maybe when this one comes to the end of its shelf, life will buy a mercedes, too. But you did mention councilmember in Knox White consideration that it looks rather, you know, with the camo or whatever the the paint is, it's could be intimidating. Do you want to paint it? I don't really personally want to spend a lot of time in that question. To me, I don't want to spend a lot of money on this vehicle. Further, if we're going to keep it, I would rather just keep it not not out inactive and then that the impact is reduced. Personally, if it needs to be repainted, that's great. But I don't want to spend $50,000 painting it blue. Okay, fair point. Okay. So I would like to suggest suggest a motion. Councilmember Herrera Spencer, did you want to suggest a motion? And I will. And honestly, I wasn't on council back then, so I'm happy to hear from you or someone else first. Okay. I would like to move that we retain the vehicle, but that we adopt an emergency response vehicle policy similar to or identical to the Berkeley City Council policy. Councilmember de or anyone. I would second that, but I would strip any reference to similar to Berkeley City Council, a man at the time and which we adopted. It might be it might be similar to Berkeley City Council, but. I'm sorry, I meant to say that the Berkeley Police Department policy that's attached to this. This report. Is. The same thing. I mean, I would second it, but I leave out the part about, you know, making it similar to Berkeley's. I'm not saying that Berkeley's per say upsets me. I'm just saying that, you know, I don't see any at the point in time if if city staff comes back in and it happens to be similar to Berkeley's fine great but but for as part of the motion you know I think reverse a reversing the decision is important to having some kind of policy is fine but but you know you know some people might think that the policy that we have right now is fine. Some people might think that that there should be greater detail to it. I don't know. But I'm not saying I'm not going to buy off on city Berkeley's right now. Okay. I am going to need to ask for a motion to extend my speaking time. I would ask for 2 minutes. 3 minutes at most. I guess that would go for everybody. Yeah, I would. Okay. I'll move it for everybody. Okay. 3 minutes for everyone. Two or 3 minutes. 2 minutes. 2 minutes. Okay. We have a motion. A second. It's not. Our second. We have a roll call vote, please. No invitation for Spencer. No. Not quite so, Bella. No mayor as Ashcroft. I have 2 to 3. I'll make a motion to give the mayor 2 minutes. I think that's what he just. I just. Did. I thought it was for everybody. Oh, you're saying just the mayor because I ran out of time. Okay, second. Time. Thank you. Roll call. Vote, please. It's never daytime. That's fine. Yeah. First answer. No. All right. But the. High. Mayor is the Ashcroft. High. That carries for tomorrow. Okay. Thank you. Okay, I. I want a policy the same or similar to the current Berkeley Police Department policy, but I'm not hearing a second for that. So would someone else like to make a motion? Councilor Brady I'd. Like to move that. We reverse our decision of June two, 2020 regarding selling of the armored vehicle. Okay. So a second. On Second Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconds. Any further declines I'd like to speak to if I just want to say that second so I can continue talking and I have plenty of time. So yeah. So discussion. Go ahead. Thank you. I do want to come back to the paint issue and intimidation issue of the vehicle. I agree with the public and members of the council that have expressed concerns in regards to that. And I did request pictures and I don't know if it's possible to ask staff to put up some of the pictures of the vehicle next to the other city vehicles. I can't put them up. It'll just take me a minute. I've just got to get them ready to go. So while I'm waiting for that real quickly, I just want to say so I do think that's an issue. The vehicle, when I tried to figure out the dimensions compared to other vehicles that the city owns, it's actually, I think, smaller than some of the fire department vehicles. I think the paint the green has and I'm happy to actually, I should ask. I'm sorry. Let me ask one of our law enforcement people here. Why is it that color? Why hasn't it been painted? Are you all agreeable to painting it? What suggestion do you have in regards to addressing that issue? The issue of it actually doesn't appear to match any of our vehicles. If you had your hand up. Thank you. I am happy to direct the painting of this vehicle. I don't think it needs to be green. I don't think the color from our standpoint is is important. And I understand the concerns of the community. Thank you. And I appreciate the clerk showing the pictures. Councilor Fraser. Thank you. Just quickly after this motion off, come up with a follow up motion about coming back with policies. Okay. But it's separate. Okay. So right now, your motion is simply to reverse the decision to sell with no conditions. Mm hmm. Okay. Maybe n no further discussion. CNN. May we have a roll call vote, please? Seven days ago. I. Have a. I knocked right over. Well, I know, Mayor, as the Ashcraft know, that motion fails. 2 to 3. Okay. Excuse me while I pick up a dropped cell phone. Councilmember decided you have another motion? No. It was based upon the first motion passing. Okay. Anyone else want to try a motion? Councilmember Harry Spencer. So I would like to propose and this would be my motion then that we do. Retain the vehicle but that in regards to and keep the current policy. Temporarily until a staff comes back with its recommendations in regards to looking at both Berkeley policy, our policy, and then a proposal that we can focus on that issue alone separate from whether or not we're going to retain. I'll cancel every day, so I'll second that. Okay. Hi, madam. Claire. Could you read the motion back? I'm not sure I understand it completely. It's to retain the vehicle and keep the current policy. And so staff comes back looking at Alameda and Berkeley's policy to decide at that time if the vehicle will be retained. Councilmember. I think you're shaking your head. And I appreciate you having to read it back, because what I meant to say, and I think I said, was that at that time, we can all focus in on the policy, because at this point, honestly, I haven't had the opportunity to, with a fine tooth comb to go remember Mayor Ashcroft's proposal and then De Sox and then finally to hear from our chief announced, you think our public at this point hasn't really zoned in as much as I'd like on the policy? So that time then I and honestly, just as we're doing now, I think at any time council can decide to reverse the decision and not to retain it. But I would like to dispense with this and then come back separately and look at the policies. And that can be other cities too. And other council members can come up with proposals, and so can community members of different policies that other places have. And then we can have that discussion focusing on the policy. Second. Oh, Councilman, outside. Did you have your hand up? Yeah, just quickly. So I can't support this because we have enough council, unanimous council direction for policies to come back that have been sitting out for up to 18 months. And to me, this is a recipe for basically never seeing the policy again. So I think, you know, we've had nine months. I'm not quite sure why we didn't actually, if there was the idea that we were going to have a policy, you know, propose some policies for doing this, why they're not before us tonight. But quite honestly, I think we've had nine months to think about this. And tonight, if we're going to approve, if we're going to reverse the council's last June direction, then I think we should give clarity as to what our intentions are, even if it is to give guidance for what the policy should come back with and a date for when that policy should return. So Councilmember Herrera Spence, are you. Okay in that respect? And an attorney may need to weigh in. There have been a motion that I have voted against and I supported from the mayor. And what I'm hearing now is that we can staff can come back if I'm if I'm hearing from member knocks correctly. I don't think. The staff can come back with that proposal and then at that time we can pencil out or whatever and as a community. But then but you want at least something currently. And so if I'm understanding then yes. And I would make a motion that we. Amend your motion. Sorry. Thank you for the amendment of my motion of amendment. That's what I think is proposing. And then what Mayor Ashcraft has already suggested of starting the next starting point, and that would be workplace policy, but that we retain the vehicle, come back and then we're nice. You feel free to help me on this whenever you want. That I think is I think you're asking that we use the Berkeley policy. You want something in place currently and then it will come back. But so we would not be keeping the city's current policy in place. But when it comes back, then we can have a discussion if we wanted to make any changes. And I think perhaps a date certain for it to come back, which would be. I would say council member Herb Spencer actually came up with something even cleaner, which is just Dr. Berkeley's policy tonight. And if there are changes that going to be made, it can come back. I. How does that sound? Councilmember Her answer is that. My preference would be to have it come back in a couple of meetings or something. So honestly, at that point, the public and all of us can focus more clearly on what's in workdays. So I would prefer. So yeah. So I think what maybe is the best of both worlds for the two of you is to move forward with training the vehicle, adopting the Berkeley policy. But having this the policy come back in, I don't know, a month or whatever for further review and any. Modifications or refinements. Yes. So that could be my emotion. Is it? Yes. All right. And Councilmember decide, do you still second that? I don't agree with the phrase adopting the Berkeley policy. I. It's what it is. Okay. It's policy. 706 Berkeley Police Department. I'm hearing all my council members. There are not three votes to keep the current policy in place from based on that motion failing. So I'm saying, you know, I'm trying to accommodate all the comments I'm hearing. Right. Okay. So if conservative side doesn't want to second, let's see, what's anybody wanting to do? I have one of the accounts, but redux. I'll get changes made. But if one of the city attorneys want to chime in, councilmember talks let you go ahead. And so I would be willing to second the motion if we could add direction to come back with some form of active shooter. But I don't think we have three votes. It doesn't sound like we have three votes for the Berkeley four for Berkeley tonight. But some sort of focusing in on the active shooter aspect of this. I think to me, we've heard from our community. That is what everybody is concerned about. Well, I'd like to have that more and more. I don't see that Berkeley's I don't think Berkeley's policy really changes how we've been using this vehicle very much. A little bit. We won't be doing warrior sprints with Newmark, but they have to win again for that to happen anyway. Okay. So but the reference to the Berkeley policy still remains correct. And you want to make sure that they're back. I would like them to come back with some proposed language for for for narrowing down to active shooter. With with specific reference adding specific reference to active shooter incident. We can adopt or not adopt that at that time, but I would like it at least available for discussion. Okay. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. So Councilwoman, actually, first we have to make sure that the maker of the motion agrees to that further modification. And I just want clarification that that would be in addition to the proposed language of Berkeley police policy. 706. Yeah, I mean, it might, it might modify it when it comes back, but that would be for discussion at that time, not tonight. Okay. So I'm I am agreeable to accepting that friendly amendment. Okay. And then Councilman outside, will you second? I will. I will also point out I saw chief friends. Oh, I'm so sorry. Thank you. You're. He's my utilized to defend. I would just like to submit from a staff perspective. I have looked at it again with my staff, the Berkeley policy, and we are very comfortable with this being the policy of the Alameda Police Department. There's a couple of references to things that are specific to where they store the vehicle that obviously doesn't fly to us, but everything else. We want stored historically. So other than that, where we are, we are fine with it as it is written. Okay. And then, of course, with the additional information from Councilman Knox White and I saw Councilmember de SACS hands out and I saw Councilmember Harry Spencer's hand go up. So council would decide first. Well, I think it's important that if the police chief the acting police chief feels that he, in his professional judgment, is satisfied with the Berkeley police policy, you know, I'm not going to second guess the professionals. I mean, he's going to put the life of his men and women on the line. My only my biggest concern, frankly, it boils down to this. I think in a time of of grave crisis, you know, I don't want the police force bogged down in some kind of process questions when they need to get out the vehicle. But if if the if the police force is satisfied that the that the Berkeley policy, if adopted here in Alameda, isn't going to do that, then I'm not going to second guess that the men and women who are going to put their life on the line for us. Thank you. Councilmember Garza, Councilmember Harry Spencer. And I just want to clarify that I accepted the friendly amendments. But part of it, why would you want it to come back is to give the public an opportunity to look at other policies and say and there could be other language out there that the public wants to suggest. I want to make sure they have that opportunity. Thank you. Okay. See no further handset. Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call vote, please. From member station. I. Have Spencer Knox. Right, fella? No. And who seconded? Mayor as the Ashcraft High that carries 3 to 2. All right. Thank you, everyone. And thank you. Members of the police department, city staff, city attorney's office who were here for this item council. We're going to take a ten minute break and then we're going to come back and start in on our council referrals. So I'll see you at 655, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. These people. No. To. Well. What? Let's. It. It's. Oh. Okay, everybody, I see that it is. Excuse me. 655 Oh, we've got to do those captions again. Okay. So let's see who we've got. We've got Vice Mayor Vella Knox. Right. There's a we got a full house. City manager, city attorney. Laura, are you ready to go as your crew? Larry, your muted. We are ready. Okay, if you're ready, we're ready. Everybody. Yes. All right, let's do it. Okay. Welcome back, everyone. We have just finished our regular agenda item and now we are moving to item seven, which is City Manager Communications, Mr. Leavitt.

A RESOLUTION relating to the acknowledgment of the various harms and ongoing historical and inter-generational traumas impacting American Indian, First Nations, and Alaskan Natives for the forcible removal of Indian children and subsequent abuse and neglect resulting from the United States’ American Indian Boarding School Policy during the 19th & 20th Centuries; supporting American Indian and Alaskan Native communities’ efforts in calling on the United States Congress to commission a study and report on the United States’ responsibility and role in adopting and implementing an American Indian Boarding School Policy; and committing to work with the local American Indian and Alaskan Natives in efforts of reconciliation in addressing the impacts of historical trauma, language and cultural loss, and alleged genocide.

SeattleCityCouncil_10122015_Res 31621

Item one agenda item one resolution 31621. Relating to the acknowledgment of the various harms and ongoing historical and intergenerational traumas impacting American Indian First Nations and Alaska Natives for the forcible removal of Indian children and subsequent abuse and neglect resulting from the United States American Indian boarding school policy during the 19th and 20th centuries, supporting American Indian and Alaska Native Communities efforts and calling on the United States Congress to commission a study and report on the United States responsibility and role in adopting and implementing an American Indian boarding school policy and committing to work with the local American Indian and Alaska Natives in efforts of reconciliation, in addressing the impacts of historical trauma, language and cultural loss and alleged genocide. Introduced October 5th, 2015. Thank you. Council Member So on. Thank you, Brian Burgess. I wanted to begin by thanking everybody in the Seattle Indigenous community for their activism, starting with the Indigenous Peoples Day resolution that we were able to pass unanimously last year. I wanted to call out my family specifically for his unflagging enthusiasm, for his community and for all of us who are fighting for social justice. I also wanted to especially thank Chris Jones as well for presiding over the celebration that we had at Burton Islanders. This resolution acknowledges the traumas and horrors of the U.S.. American Indian boarding school policy. For those who do not know throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th century, which was not that long ago, and you heard testimonies of people who here who have had relatives who went through this. The federal government had a policy that continued the genocide of the indigenous peoples of this continent. Over a hundred thousand Native American children were taken from their homes and families, often forcefully. As was said before, these children were not allowed to speak their own languages or practice their own religions. They were subjected to abuses including child labor and sexual abuse. Genocide. As the Seattle Human Rights Commission confirms, is not only the mass killing of a people, it is also the erasing of their culture, their language, their religion. And that is precisely what the US American Indian boarding school policy was designed to do. It was not accidental. This resolution demands that U.S. Congress acknowledge and take steps to correct the damage done by this policy. This resolution was initially drafted, as I said, by Madam Lee and has been supported by a long list of community organization , the Seattle Human Rights Commission. Also Idle No More. Their speakers were here El Centro de la Raza and the Northwest to Spirit Society. All these activists are part of a growing movement for justice in Seattle against racism, against violence, and for housing and income justice. And I must mention the Black Lives Matter movement organizations are also in solidarity with this resolution. And just like the Indigenous Peoples Day resolution we passed last year, this resolution is so powerful because it is groundbreaking. The federal government has never even acknowledged this history, never mind taking steps to correct the harm done or offer any sort of justice or restitution. And this resolution demands that the US Congress do that. The timing of the resolution is also not an accident. We are voting on this today. On Indigenous Peoples Day 2015, because Indigenous People's Day is about celebrating Indigenous peoples, but also about using the symbolic importance of this day to continue the struggle against ongoing marginalization and oppression of these communities and indeed all communities. Please support this resolution. And to everyone in the community, let's start preparing for the next steps of our struggle. Councilmember Rasmussen Well, I strongly support this resolution. I think that what is more powerful than the resolution, though, is hearing from the people themselves who suffered in the boarding school experience. And several years ago, I attended an elementary school classroom of fifth graders, and a Native American elder came and spoke to them about his experience of being taken away from his family at about the same age as those young students at the elementary school I attended were, and they were shocked to hear that something like that had happened to him, and he was barely able to speak about his experience 60, 60, 70 years ago. He actually broke down into tears talking about that experience that still traumatizes him today to talk about that. And I think that it is important, as this resolution says, that our public schools do teach that history because the people who have experienced that history are here today. And nothing is more powerful than hearing from the people who have suffered that experience and know that experience. And they can convey that to the students of today more powerfully than any of us can and far more powerfully than this resolution. So I'm hoping that the school district listens to us and they invite people in to teach the young people of the experiences of this history and to. Thank you, President Burgess. It's I'm speechless that this has come before us. And it's long overdue. It's something that should have been said long ago when I was a child. My family would go out to near Bay and we would fish. And I found myself invited into Native families to play and eat. And it wasn't until later in my adult life that I began to understand the injustices and the harm caused by the country. I live in the country that I'm a citizen to the native peoples, just unspeakable harm that to this day continues on. My family suffered some hardships during World War Two, were imprisoned in prison camps, and the trauma that it caused my family was widespread. It wasn't until my father was an adult that I heard the stories of being imprisoned and the emotional harm that that caused. I support this resolution. It's a beautiful thing to hear your young speak, your native language that despite the injustices caused by our country to you, that you're recapturing the heart of who you are. So with that, I support this resolution and will continue to support the causes of sovereign nations in our country. Thank you. I moved to adopt resolution 31621. It's moved in second and the resolution be adopted. Are there any further comments? Councilmember So on. Just wanted to say in closing that we've come a long way since Minneapolis and Seattle declared Indigenous Peoples Day last year. Many other cities are on the way and our hope is and we will keep fighting for this, that by next year the federal government will have abolished Columbus Day nationally. And did I hear correctly that the governor of Alaska declared today as indigenous peoples day? That's that's a huge step forward. We should make sure that happens at Washington State as well. And just very quickly, I also wanted to add that we should take all the energy that has been generated from what we've been able to achieve last year and this year to make sure that we win victories on affordable housing, racial equity in schools, and especially that we demand our elected officials support the educators who are pushing for the pushing to include the real history of America in the text books. I think that is all that is really necessary. And and last but not least, we've all also been together in fighting against Cherry Point Coal Terminal. And I really congratulate the Idle No More movement on that. And we've been in the canoes in front of the polar pioneer to fight against Shell's attempts to drill in the Arctic . So the fight goes on. Can actually. Those in favor of adopting Resolution 31621 vote I II oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will support. Thank you very much for coming down and come back any time you want. We'd love to have you. Please read items two through five.

AN ORDINANCE relating to community involvement in the oversight of the Equitable Development Initiative; establishing a permanent Equitable Development Initiative Advisory Board; and adding new Sections 3.14.994, 3.14.995, 3.14.996, 3.14.997, and 3.14.998 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_CB 119887

There is part of the Community Economic Development Committee Agenda five Capital 119887 relating to community involvement and the oversight of the Equitable Development Initiative, establishing a permanent Equitable Development Initiative that I support. And adding new section 3.14 point 94.9 5.98. 6.987.98876. The committee recommends the bill as amended. Thank you, Councilmember Morales. As chair of the committee, you're recognized in order to provide the committee's report. Council President colleagues. Council Bill 119887 is to establish a permanent portable development initiative advisory board. This legislation implements the directive from council from a few years ago. Asking the Office of Planning and Community Development to recommend a permanent structure. The Advisory Board. The legislation creates a permanent board with 13 members. We did amend it in committee so that the appointments reflect community's input and request. There are three positions that would be appointed by the mayor be positions appointed by the council, and seven would be appointed by the Equitable Development Initiative as report. All appointments would be confirmed by council. The legislation has been requested by organizations that represent communities of color and includes language requiring board members to be drawn from communities that are most impacted by displacement and by systemic racism. The board's duties include elevating the voices and the needs of historically marginalized communities. I'm really excited about this. This work speaks directly to the larger conversation that we're having right now about how to improve community safety. We do that by investing in healthy communities and vibrant neighborhood commercial districts in housing that's affordable to families, by building affordable spaces for important community services like childcare facilities, cultural spaces, employment centers, locally owned retailers. And this idea advisory board will help make these kinds of decisions about future investments, can really build community health, wellness and community wealth. And that's how we improve community safety. When I think of each action coalition, city, collective, Africa, Town, Multicultural Community Coalition and all of the Interim Advisory Board members for their contribution to this work and for helping advance the creation of this permanent advisory board. And I urge passage by my colleagues today. Thank you, Councilmember Morales, for that report. Are there any comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Lewis. It was on me. Yes. Morales. Mesquita. Yes. Peterson Yes. So what? Yes. Strauss Yes. Both Yes. Juarez Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor. None opposed. The bill passes and they sure will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda item six will occur. Please read item six into the record. Agenda Item six appointments 1615 Appointment at the Anti Danforth LGBTQ Commission for Timetable 30th 2021. The committee recommended the appointment be confirmed.

A resolution approving a proposed Professional Services Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Nelson-Nygaard Consulting Associates for professional transit and city planning services. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a three-year $700,000 contract with Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates for transit and city planning services to development a City transit master plan (Denver Moves: Transit) (201627471). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-20-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 4-20-16.

DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0270

And. So this is one of a series that I think we're going to be seeing, and I think it will be helpful for council as a whole to see the total amount of spend and what those deliverables are going to be for the entire planning process that we're going to be undertaking. I know that we're going to have consultants for each of the four plans that will be brought forward. And this is the first, I think, of of the others to follow. But having that information available to us will be extremely helpful to know. And I know that staff is doing their rounds with all of council and trying to walk us through and help us understand the broad breadth of of what these plans will entail, but really understanding the total amount of spend. So my question for you is. The 2016 budget. Was this money factored into the 2016 budget, or will we at some point have to do a supplemental to cover the costs of these contracts that will be brought forward for these poor planning efforts? Good evening. Thank you for the question. My name is Christina. ARONOFF and I'm the project manager for the Denver Mass Transit. It's one of the four plans that's under this famous Denver, right, that you'll start hearing about more. In regards to the budget. This, if I recall, is a 2015 CIP ask. It was a combination. Of blueprint, Denver Transit and some other planning. Efforts that was asked back in. 2015. So that's the money that we're using now. We are having discussions about other budget needs. It depends where these plans go because of implementation going forward. So okay, so the request to have the comprehensive budget, the expectation of what the city will spend for consultants to do this. Can that be provided to all of council so that we have a clearer understanding of what the total amount is that's expected to be spent? Yes, that's correct. Blueprint Denver has already come through council. They were at 700,000, I believe. Denver Transit is coming through. Council right now is 700,000. The budgets I think are around 350. I'll let the other project managers speak to for those budgets for Denver, most pedestrian. Trails and. The game plan update those are a little smaller budget so those didn't come directly to. Council for approval. Okay, so those are under 500,000, but I'm happy to provide. The totals. For you after. And is that expected to be the total amount or do we anticipate having additional dollars put into those budgets? Those are the total amounts that will get us through. The end of the planning process as. Scoped additional amounts to be determined as we get through the process, especially with transit. This is our first transit plan will be interesting where the implementation. Strategies take us beyond. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Actually. Well, maybe this is a question for Gabby. I meant to ask this of the mayor, but I just haven't put myself in that position yet. So I've asked from the floor. It's not lost on me that I was at the Mayor's Housing Affordable Housing Summit with OED talking about Blueprint Denver at the exact time when there is a launch by CPD of Denver. Right. And Blueprint Denver. And to me that's a sort of coordination fiasco. Like we should not have two agencies competing and discussing the same thing at the exact same time. So who is responsible for all the coordination of all these plans simultaneously? Do we have some sort of czar or head that is bringing all this stuff together? I'll say, Kelly, lead it. And DCC. Is there somebody that's in charge of all these agencies that are sort of working on this sort of grand unified plan that is the person that is in charge of coordination, the Denver. Right. Specifically? Yeah. Yes. We have a combination that we have a big team. I think you heard about it a couple of times at committee presentations. We have a multi plan coordination team. We meet bi weekly and there are some directors from each of the departments to sit on that. We also have executive leadership team meetings such as Jose and Happy and others and Brad from CPD. That meet regularly to. Coordinate this effort. And because we're just now starting, we're now just starting to outline the other outreach activities of other major things such as DCC. So we make sure that we coordinate with their efforts because we see that there's a good chance of an overlap of duplication, of outreach that will be valuable. Actually, that may be Denver, right? Is that ED and DCC event or vice versa? So it's. Really important to coordinate not only with these four plans, but also with. The. So there's some pretty high dollar big cheese with lots of obligations. Is there somebody who's who basically. I know it's the mayor, but is there somebody with some real time that can focus on this that can actually make sure that all those guys are in in in congruent? We actually hired a consultant team of some budgets out of each of our planning budgets, some who's helped us brand the Denver right. And they are on task to help us coordinate some of these efforts of going out to the different areas and identifying and I know we're also talking about internal staff to help us organize and be dedicated to help us outline where we need to be, because this is a lot for the public to take in and to coordinate that. It's very. Important. Yeah, so it is it's already concerning to me that I don't know how I missed the fact that we were branding this Denver. Right. I do didn't know about the multi plan coordination and I mean attempt to coordinate all these in the 18 month effort. But I'm over at this other thing and all of a sudden Denver right. Gets launched and it seems like it's anything but Denver. Right. You know, when we're when we're already discombobulated on day one. So it's concerning to me how we're going to go do this forward. So I appreciate my colleague Debbie asking me Councilwoman Ortega, sorry, asking for that sort of full outline of all of the consulting fees, because we are paying a healthy amount for public outreach. And I don't want it to just be branding. I want engagement and I want it coordinated. So I think everybody else here expects that as well. And I'll gather up a summary and provide it for you on the budget and also the outreach going forward. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, the. Last question on this today, follow up on Councilman Ortega's and Rafael's comments about the budget, the sort of parks priorities for 2017, about $200,000 listed for outreach for the planning process, which they need. The outreach price for parks especially is so critical, and obviously I don't have any objection to that. But as you're accounting for the funds there, I'm sure there's going to be 2017 items in there related to the planning process, and I'm sure they'll be needed, but it would be nice to get a full accounting of that. So we are all excited about the planning processes that have begun and hope they'll get going very quickly and look forward to a final product on this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, councilman. You and the questions and comments to seven zero. All right scene none will thank you will go to the next one bills for introduction 375 I believe. Madam Secretary. Councilman Black, would you like for us to do with this? Just to comment, please. Go right ahead. Tonight, we are hopefully going to pass these six ordinances that are designating nearly six acres to our Denver parks. And I just wanted to thank Scott Gilmore and your staff for prioritizing this. Councilman Clark mentioned it in a committee meeting the other day.

Recommendation to request an update from Parks, Recreation and Marine regarding the success of their 107th season and their fundraising efforts this year.

LongBeachCC_09062016_16-0835

Thank you. Of course, it's every item with any public comment on the appointments. Casey. No public comment on the appointments members. Joaquin Castro votes motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Congratulations, everyone. Madam Clerk, we will now hear the municipal band item. Adam 13. Yes. Item 13, please. Communication from Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Muranga and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request an update from Parks, Recreation and Marine regarding the success of their 107th season and their fundraising efforts this year. Thank you. I'm going to first begin by turning this over to Councilman Price will open up the motion and we'll go from there. Thank you. Many of us are fortunate to have had the opportunity to hear the municipal band, and we know that they are a major part of the Long Beach history and the Long Beach culture. And this year, the friends of the municipal band group that formulated this year has been incredibly successful in reviving the energy for the municipal band and getting the group the neighborhoods very excited about what the municipal band does and all the great positive benefit that they bring to our community. I'm incredibly proud to support this organization and are very, very proud of their fundraising efforts this year. Now, they were able to raise a great deal of money in light of the fact that there was a different fundraising structure that started this year in terms of the support we had placed on them, the burden of raising $30,000 towards a sixth week. And they met that fundraising goal. And although fundraising effort overall wasn't as good as we would have liked it to be, I think the fact that we had two different fundraising operations going on and definitely not always coordinated may have contributed to some of that. And I'm hoping that moving forward, we take advantage of the momentum that this group has started and work very closely with our Parks Rec and Marine Department to continue to grow this really this piece of Long Beach history that's so vital to so many, so many of our communities. And I'm not sure if Parks Rec and Marine has a report. Okay. So I think they do. But as they make their way up and the friends group makes their way up, I also want to thank them for including a new district as the six week this year. I think that was an incredible addition. And although we hope that the audience participation continues to grow every year, I think the the ability or the willingness to accommodate and try different venues says a lot for for the band as we take a piece of Long Beach history into the future. So with that, if we have a report, I'd love to hear it. I'd like to introduce Marie Knight, the director of our Parks, Recreation and Marine Department, and her number two, Steven Scott, who will give a report. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the council. It's my pleasure to give an update on the 2016 Municipal Band concert season. The long running. Tradition of the band continued. This year with its 107th summer concert series for residents and visitors. Over the years, the length of the concert season has expanded and contracted from a maximum of ten weeks to a minimum of five weeks, as was the case for last year and the 2015 season. Four concerts are offered each week during the season, and each week of concerts cost approximately $60,000 or 15,000 per concert. In recent years. The funding from the concerts comes from three sources. Sponsorships, such as our Long Beach Gas and Oil Department, Environmental Services, Division of the Public Works Department and the Port of Long Beach. City budgeted funds in the Tidelands. Funds and donations received through the very popular Passing the Bucket, as well as other fundraising endeavors by our partners of Parks. And those are intended to make up the fundraising shortfall between expenses and the funds raised through the sponsorships and city funds. It is important to note that there are no general fund resources budgeted to structurally support the band's activities. Funding for a five week season was proposed for 2016, but a six week was added during the last year's budget process. The funding for that sixth week was to be provided via $30,000 in additional fundraising by the Friends of the Long Beach Municipal Band and remaining 30,000 from one time resources in the General Fund provided as a match. The pass the bucket receipts and other fundraising conducted by the Partners of Parks and Friends of the Municipal Band were still needed for the structural deficit of the program. The Friends were very successful in their fundraising for the six week and are here, I believe tonight to provide one of those nice big checks for $30,000. Accordingly, the six week program of four concerts per week was provided this summer, and the concerts were performed at the following locations . On. Tuesdays. They were at Bluff Park, Whaley Park and Drake Park. Wednesdays was Low Cerritos Park, Thursdays, Marine Stadium and Fridays. El Dorado West. With the addition of the six week, we were able to. Expand the program to a new location this year, which was Drake Park. And it's important. To note that new locations often need time to grow in popularity, which is usually assisted by word of mouth from the community. Fundraising efforts are still ongoing, and some final donations are still coming in this year. The funds that were raised was $147,000 through sponsorships from Long Beach gas and oil, port of Long Beach and the Environmental Services Division. $65,000 from Tidelands Operation Funds. Just under $60,000 for our Pass the Bucket and Partners of Parks efforts. And then the. Money that the Friends of the Municipal van is bringing tonight. There was an overall funding shortfall of just over $27,000, but we have already started discussions with the friends and how to make that different next year and do more robust fundraising and do some different things with Pass the Bucket to hopefully fill that gap. So we appreciate the services of our conductor, Larry Curtis, and his great team and the friends of the municipal band, the musicians for a great summer and the community for their support. And that ends my report. Well, thank you. Thanks again, Ms.. Knight, for the report. I may turn this back over first to Councilwoman Pryce and go from there. Thank you. And I believe the Friends of Municipal Band Group is here. And would you do you have anything to say or you'd like to talk a little bit? Okay. Hi there. My name is Laura Espino and. I'm here with two. Others of our five team of five from the. Friends of Long Beach Municipal Band. And we are happy to report, as you know, that we. Did raise the $30,000 that we were asked to provide. And I'm also very proud that we were able to raise that between. February and June of this year and were able to actually. Secure the funds before the season. Started. So we felt very confident in in what we did. We are here tonight with our big giant check for. You and also donated. To the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine in support of that six week. And we want to thank the city council, all of you, for your support in helping us also with with achieving the six week and. Partnering with us. And we also appreciate Mayor Garcia's proposal to continue the six week, hopefully for a next season as well. And so with that, I'd like to turn it over to Kay. Cofield, one of my colleagues. Good evening, friends of you of the municipal band. Also thanks the Long Beach Community Foundation for their support. By investing our funds with the Community Foundation, this partnership allowed us to promise our donors an efficient means to donate online and to receive prompt acknowledgment of their tax deductible donations. With the Community Foundation charging only one and one quarter percent in fees and paying interest annually on invested funds in their trust. This means that almost 100% of the funds donated support nothing but our municipal band. I'm Bill Thomas. I'd also like to add my thanks to all the donors and note that we got a slow start because of some confusion at the beginning. But from February, middle February to just before the band began, we managed to raise our $30,000. The majority of that was from new business donors that we. Were able to bring in. And we were also successful in bringing in quite a few new family and individual donors that, according to the records that were available to us, had not made any donation for quite some time. So I want to. Appreciate or thank the mayor for recommending support of additional 70,000 to include the sixth week and want to say that we appreciate everything that everybody has done from the city council to all the participants in. Assisting us in this. And we look forward and commit to. Continuing this. Process so that we can continue to support the band. Thank you. Bill, I think that was a little sneaky there at 60,000, not 70. I would have sworn I heard seven. And we'd love to take a picture and invite Marcel. Eppley. From the Community Foundation and our conductor, Larry Curtis, to come on down for a photo. Also. Oh, good. But. Thank you. Let me let me just say to to to Larry and of course, to the friends and to everyone involved. We have a we have a few folks are going to say a few things here from the council, and there's a lot of interest in support. I just wanted to let you all know that. And I think it's more for the community to know that Long Beach has a lot of arts groups. There's a lot of museums, a lot of organizations. But there are only two municipally funded organizations separate of the Arts Council that are actually performing groups that are actually performing or have some kind of art. It's the Beach Museum of Art, which is our municipal museum, and then it's the municipal band, which is our city band. Those are the two city arts organizations that are that are performing or doing shows within the city. And so a lot of you don't know that that the city has to. And of course, we also have the Arts Council, which is a little bit different of a role, but it's a big deal. The museum has been around for over 100 years. You guys provide incredible music and fun for a lot of people, and we're really proud to support all the work you guys do every year. So thank you to Larry and the team and the friends. Fantastic work. And so and I want to thank Councilman Price and the coauthors for bringing this forward as well. Councilman Price, did you have anything else, sir? No, thank you. Okay. Let me turn to the second of the motion, which was Councilman Mongo. Thank you. Many of you saw me out at Municipal Band this summer. It's a great asset in our community. I think that the structure of the program and their ability to bring costs down over the years has been significant in the city's ability to maintain the funds. It's definitely hard. When the city went through the downturn, the economy and to still have been able to fund arts is a remarkable thing for our city. And I think that their component of the 100 days of summer really are a city wide asset that we're able to advertise. I think that in our side of town for the first time, the council office worked hard to ensure that community members knew about 100 days of summer, and specifically the municipal band concerts. We used over $3,000 of district funds to send out a mailer to our residents to let them know about the municipal band and their playing in the community. Because when I knocked on doors throughout the district, many people didn't know about the amazing asset of concerts every Friday in Eldorado Park. And so this year I felt as though the community had grown, and I think that more were engaged in knowing of the opportunities. And I think that's a big part of the ability for the friends of the municipal band to continue to be successful. I want to thank the police department who stepped up the presence this summer at our concerts in the park. The larger our crowds go grow, the more important it is that we really protect public safety. I want to thank Marie for your diligent work with relation to growing a partnership directly with the Friends of the Municipal Band. I know that there's been changes through the years in that fundraising structure and whether it was through partners of Parks or the other organizations, I think that donors, knowing that 99.7 or 94, 98.75% of every donation goes directly to fund the municipal band is a big step in the right direction with all the accountability that we look at in our nonprofits these days and making sure admit as well. That being said, I appreciate that the friends are already working with Parks and Rec and looking at how to fill that $27,000 shortfall. I think it's important that we continue to work towards figuring out a long term strategy of filling that every year, because it's important that as we grow other types of concerts to fill in the gap, whether it's the community band or symphonic winds or other groups that come to us as a council and ask for funding, that we also realize that a lot of their ability to play in the parks is based on the generation of activity and support that starts with the launch of the municipal band there where where the crowds start. And then they continue that tradition throughout the summer, no matter who picks up those additional weeks. So thank you for what you do and thank you for the other arts programs that really get to take advantage of the work in publicity and marketing and partnership that you do. I know that my neighbor is 94 years old and she used to be a bucket collector for the municipal band and she still talks about that. And it's a good sense of pride for her. And she did it every single concert for years. And so I hope that we can get that structure back in place. She knew the people. She knew who to go to. She made sure that at the end of the summer they had a little receipt that said that they donated for their their tax I.D. purposes, even though they gave cash. And so I appreciate the work that's been done to really further that effort. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. I just wanted to thank the municipal band for being at Drake Park. I think that was such a although we were here at council, I remember a lot of our residents had just really been very thrilled to have the municipal band there. And it was just a different mood and it was just a. Beautiful night from what all the pictures showed me and from all of their emails and just contact with us. So thank you very much for all your work and we look forward to many wonderful events coming up. Councilmember Everingham. Thank you, Mayor. I do want to express my congratulations to them, this woman, for another wonderful season. I share Lost Eurydice Park with District eight, my colleague. And it was always a wonderful time to to see you on Wednesday nights playing at the concerts. But most importantly, it was a great night out for me and my wife to enjoy your music. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councilmember Superman. Thank you. I just have a question for staff, and it's kind of a follow up to what my colleague from the first District said. We have two concerts a year in Whaley Park. We're not getting any additional. And they are on Tuesday night. So one is a council meeting night and the other is our dark night. But that's when I hold my community meeting. It wasn't a problem this past year because my residents preferred going to the concert than my community meeting. But I would just like to ask staff if we can have an adjusted adjustment to that moving forward. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. Thank you. And I want to thank the friends. I want to thank Marcel and the the foundation for your your assistance in making this tradition ongoing. Obviously, in the Los Cerritos Park, we enjoy the municipal band. It signifies the fact that we are the summer season has has is upon us when when whenever two minute municipal band is playing on Wednesday nights, it draws several hundred or even probably a couple thousand people every every Wednesday night. And the community has in kind of supported that with additional concerts with the live bands. There's nothing that can replace our municipal band and the great professionalism and the sweet sounds that come from that. But also, I think more importantly, as my my colleague Ms.. Mongeau mentioned, when you knock on doors, people are connected to you that if they live in a in a community that actually is fortunate enough to have the municipal band in, and I know there are other areas of the city that don't have that. And I would like to see that happen so that everybody actually feels that that essence of Long Beach. And so, you know, there's a there's a song This is Summertime in the LBC, the middle. Also, the municipal band signifies summertime in LBC in a big way. And so thank you for all you doing. We'll continue to support you. Councilman Mongo to follow up to Councilmember Supernovas question. Marie, would you know what the collections are like from night to night? What our strongest nights are for the bucket collection and what hour are more weeknights are end? And does that correlate with crowd size? I mean, is it that so many people are watching council meetings on Tuesdays that they just can't make it to the municipal event? Yes, as you said earlier, I'm all about the data. And the data would suggest that more people are watching your meetings. On Tuesday nights. I'm just kidding. Actually, traditionally, our Tuesday night attendance. As well as our obviously then bucket collections are the lowest evening. Tuesday nights are about or the Wednesday Thursday concerts are running about three times the attendance as our Tuesday nights. Would there be a possibility if we are able to fund the six week through the Budget Oversight Committee as a recommendation to this full body? Instead of six weeks that four nights a week, which would be 24 concerts, we would be able to do three nights a week at eight, eight weeks that we would be able to go to a full eight weeks of a summer again. Is that a possibility that could be explored? It's certainly something we can explore. We can talk with the band to see how logistically that would work and we would have to work out. Somewhat of a schedule to bring back then to the council. Because when you take the Tuesday nights away, do we, Adam, at the end. Of the first six weeks at those locations. So we would come back with some options. So coming from the regiment of a high school where music is expensive and those kinds of things, one of the things we'd have to consider are of course working in so that the Drake Park, the Whaley Park, the Bluff Park would actually get a Friday night. And so there wouldn't be any additional music costs. It would just be really a shift so that the whole city would have the access and opportunity and then hopefully that would be able to fill the gap of that $27,000 shortfall. If there was significantly higher attendance, maybe that would be an option. But of course, again, this body can only think of things. And again, our two council members weren't able to attend those. But I hope that we can find a way where structurally the donations and the attendance. I think that the number one priority is that more people get to experience the municipal band. And so in no way would I ever expect all eight weeks of Friday nights to be in Eldorado Park. I don't I think that'll be very selfish, but that we would hope that the other side of town I know David mentioned to me sixth district still doesn't have a concert. What does that look like? And I think that that would be helpful. I know a week is a short turnaround, but we are going to talk about Parks and Rec at Budget Oversight next week and would love some input because I think that at least from the colleagues, the comments I've heard from my colleagues were very supportive of the mayor's recommendation to ensure that an additional 60,000 is put in that direction. Or, as Bill said, maybe we'll make a mistake and do 70,000. We'll see. We will come back with something for next week. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. And I would just say I agree wholeheartedly with those points. Looking forward to seeing ways that we can, you know, make sure that everyone can experience our official city municipal band. Councilman Andrews. Thank you, Mrs. Mongo, for speaking up on me. But maybe that 10,000 that we made a mistake on, we could probably use that, and we could get one in 63. So we're going to get it. It's coming. Thank you. I need 19. You got nine to put up. We'll discuss next week. I'm pretty sure we do. Okay. Take all my one time. Spending money for a concert in the park. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Let's go ahead and take public comment on this item. Do we already have that? Let's take public comment on this item. Hi Karen. Reside. I'm speaking tonight as a resident of this city and someone who went to my first municipal band concert when they played on Sundays and Bixby Park, Bandshell when I was a child, my grandmother lived on first and Gaby Ohta. My family was a musical family. My dad, my uncles and my grandfather were in a municipal band in Chicago. I have great love for the municipal band. I've also volunteered at most of the concerts and a couple of things that haven't been mentioned. This is the oldest operating continuously band in the United States, and I know it's been under threat a number of times, and it warms my heart to see the support tonight for this institution within our city. That really is the cultural piece and the 107 years that they've been in operation. They've always service the community as a child. There was music everywhere and I just love going. It helped develop my love of music. The other thing that's really a benefit from the concerts that I've seen by attending so many is the community feeling that. It creates. And all the people that end up talking to each other and the connections that have been made. You just can't know how much that impacts our community. So thank you all for supporting the municipal band. Thank you. Next speaker, please. John Dietz. Good evening. Vice Mayor and council members want to thank you for the additional concerts that we got this year, the welcome addition. But above me on that, I want to thank the friendly municipal band Bill Thomas, whose acquaintance I only made a couple of years ago. But most importantly, Laura Espino, who has been at the concerts at Los Rios Park for just about as long as I can remember. She has really done yeoman's work in doing a lot of coordination there and fundraising, and I took direction for her this year with where I directed my personal donations because she did not want to see the partners of Parks collections diminished. In favor of the friends of the missile band, so I want the writing to check. The bigger one went to Partners of Parks, which made sense to me, but Laura said it was the right thing to do. And I don't think anybody in this room can thank Laura enough for what she's done for all those years. Thank you, Laura. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Carolyn Burns. I'd like to thank my fellow citizens, Kay Caufield and Bill Thomas and his wife Shirley, for being such adamant supporters of the municipal ban. I think music is really important, and I echo the words of a woman who just spoke with regards to the sense of community. There are so many bad things happening around us and around the entire United States with neighbors and violence. But I think this is an incredibly positive thing that we need to strongly foster and grow. The mention earlier of when going door to door knocking that people aren't aware of the municipal band and its activities. I think that this is an opportunity to grow that awareness and I know that one of the most potent tools in my neighborhood and I know the city utilizes it is next door. And this is a wonderful organ from which to project information about activities in the community. And I would strongly encourage the city to allow access for the people from the municipal band to announce their performances in advance and to make a written statement in their announcement that there is a contribution that is optional such that this contribution level can increase to continue to support the band. Thank you for all of your support. Thank you. Final speaker, please. Very good. One of the ideas I've always toyed around with and that what might help the financial situation but also bring the band to more people. And these next two or three years are going to be an excellent opportunity to try. This is put the band on a barge in the Marine Stadium, which we could pack on both sides with spectators. Now, because of the work that's being done around our waterfronts in various parts, we will have a number of those barges that I think we can negotiate with the owners to for the day of the park, day of the band, put that puppy, put the band on that puppy. And it can slowly move up and down the northern half of the stadium with people on both sides. Thank you. So let's go ahead and say no more no further public comment. Let's go ahead and ballot. And I mean. Yes. It's the same thing. Motion carries. Thank you. Let's go ahead and take our public comment for the night. I have eight speakers here speak. Steve Updike. Diana Liggins. John Dietz. Larry Goodhue. Linda montgomery, Malcolm Bennett. Keith Kennedy. Alex Belanger. And we'll begin with let's have the first three up.

A bill for an ordinance approving the Game Plan for a Healthy City 2019, which plan shall supplement the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the City and County of Denver. Adopts Game Plan for a Healthy City, as part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-30-19.

DenverCityCouncil_05202019_19-0424

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 4 to 4 on the floor? Yes, I move that council bill 4 to 4 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. And second in the courtesy public hearing for council bill 44 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. I'm Kathleen Leveque, assistant director of Parks Planning. Kathy Haines would like to be here tonight, but she has a graduation that she needs to attend. Tonight, we're presenting to you the game plan for a healthy city, which is the long term strategic plan to guide the Parks and Recreation Department. The game plan has been part of the Denver art process, which is a suite of plans coordinated from departments across the city, including community planning and development, public works and Parks and Recreation. And the plan also aligns with the new Denver comprehensive plan elements. This is provides a highlight and overview of our system. We have our mountain parks system, which has over 14,000 acres. And then in our urban parks, we have over 6000 acres. These include ten regional parks, 45 community and special use parks, as well as 137 neighborhood and pocket parks. We also have rec centers, indoor and outdoor pools, over 80 miles of trails and athletic complexes and golf courses. The game plan process began nearly three years ago, starting in summer 2016. This included robust engagement, many meetings and public review drafts of the plan. We're very excited to present the final plan here tonight for your consideration. Throughout the process. At each stage of the plan, Parks and Recreation conducted outreach and engagement through meetings, surveys, workshops, events and task force meetings. We received thousands of points of impact of feedback, and at each stage of the plan and with each public draft, we were able to incorporate and dress and address most of the comments, concerns and questions that we received. Our vision is a game plan for a healthy city. A healthy city includes healthy residents, and this means providing access and opportunities for healthy lifestyles, access to the parks so that everyone is within a ten minute walk to a park , providing something for all ages and abilities, and making sure that our our programs and the places that we create connect with people of diverse backgrounds and interests. It also includes a resilient city, which means a city that's ready for climate change adaptation, enhancing biodiversity, particularly along our waterways and our forests, and making sure that we have strong stewardship of our resources. From this vision for a healthy city, the input that we received developed into four guiding principles. Those are every drop, every person, every dollar. And uniquely Denver. And these led into our implementation pillars. This is really our call to action, how we translate a strategic plan into actions that we can carry out to make a difference in the community. Every drop translates into adapting to our changing climate and limited resources. This means water conservation, making sure that our waterways and lakes are healthy, maintaining our tree canopy and reducing our energy usage. Every person is about diversity with enhancing our programing to connect with different ages, cultures and abilities, and improving outreach and community engagement. And it's also about growing our system, including access to the parks and expanding the system. Every dollar is about reinvesting. This includes strategies that address equity. Leveraging partnerships and our funding and operations. And then, uniquely, Denver is about connecting with what makes Denver so special and unique. This includes enhancing our parkways, our tree line, streets and trails. Continuing to innovate across our system. And also providing access to nature, outdoor recreation and arts and culture. From these specific strategies, actions and recommendations follow. An important thing to note about the game plan is that it ends with a three year action plan that's very specific about what our department can do in the next three years. It also provides some metrics, and then that allows us that over time we can evaluate our progress and then plan for the following three years after that and so on. And finally, I'm available and as well as some of my other colleagues from Parks and Recreation, if you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have eight individuals signed up to speak this evening, so I'll call the first five up if you could come up to the front bench so that we can get through everyone in a timely manner here. The first five are Florence Navarro, Chairman Sekou Jesse Pierce, Joel Noble and David Richter. If you want to come up to the front bench, that would be appreciate it. And first of all, you're up first. Good evening. Let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to speak in support of the game plan. My name is Florence Navarro, third generation resident of North Denver. Tim attended Columbia and Skinner North School's North High School, graduated from the University of Northern Colorado and have been a member of the Denver Parks Recreation Advisory Board for many years. As a resident of Denver. I went to the recreation centers to hang out with my friends and play foosball. I also remember going to Berkeley Park to watch the fireworks from Lakeside. All our friends were there, a meeting place, great memories, a place to hang out was a good thing. But more importantly, I played organized sports and learned the importance of team and healthy life activities. I still go to Ashland and Iceland on a regular basis. My participation in the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was a way to ensure that our youth of today have the same opportunities to learn those life skills and be able to go in there to their neighborhood centers and parks as I did. That's why I'm excited about the future of Denver Parks, and I'm asking you to support the game plan for a healthy city that is in front of you tonight. As a tenured member of Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, I had the opportunity to participate in the development of the first game plan and recently participated as one of the co-chairs of the task force, along with Darrell Watson in the three year process to develop this plan. In this process, we were thoughtful and deliberate in the discussion of the role our city parks and recreation system can have in the health of all Denver residents. Excuse me, I'll get to the second page here. Discussions to develop the vision and guiding principles were also deliberate and robust. Another key factor was equity was naturally integrated throughout the game plan. The Voices of Denver residents helped share game plan help shared in the game plan. The process included extensive outreach in the collection of input and in comments that ultimately led to the game plan as we know it today. The timing of having completed the game plan for a healthy city and the implementation measure of two was incredible and something that could not have been orchestrated any better. The game plan is what supports and is the foundation for two way. My fellow Park and Recreation Advisory Board members voted to support the game plan as I encourage you to do the same this evening. Again, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on behalf in support of the game plan. Thank you. Next up, Chairman CQ. Good evening. My name is German Siku. Organizer, founder of the Black Star Action Movement. And. Successful candidate. For Mayor of the city, Kermit Denver. Adolf Hitler made a statement just. That if you want. Allowed to be believable. Make it big. Make it huge. And then organize the people around the lie because they're never going to look at who's going to implement it. So you say one thing over here, but in the deep background, you have people who are going to do something totally opposite. So let's talk about who is going to do this beautiful presentation and this wonderful vision. In this current election. I was arrested three times for defending it. Keep your comments on the subject at hand, which is the game's. Subject, because we're talking about the background. So I'd appreciate if you would allow me to speak without interrupting me. I'll be happy to not interrupt you if you. Thank you very much, because we're going to form the decorum, which means that there's a decorum that you have to do to allow the people freedom of speech. Do you have something to add on this issue? I have. To say, if you stop talking. I talk? You listen when you talk. I'll listen. That's cool. The core. So who's going to do this? When you defend the right of people to participate in this process equally with equity, who don't do this to you because you are silent on the issue of free and fair elections. You said nothing. And then you come here and I come in. You try to shut down the conversation. Where's the fear at? Where's the integrity at? Yeah. Hypocrisy. No democracy. Hypocrisy. So as we do this thing. Poor people have nothing to do with this because we are not organized in our plight and know we're on there because there's no process of building us up and lifting us up. So we say one thing. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up, Jesse Pearce. Jesse Perez, representative for Denver Homicide Law. Black Starts a movement for self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I was on top of the ballot for our large almost 15,000 votes with no money. We are neither for or against this for the reasons that were already previously stated for people who are not on the table for any of this. You want to beautify the city for who? Who is this benefiting? The transplants that just moved in yesterday or actual natives that helped built this city? You did a proclamation earlier for public works. So, oh, we commend you for building the city. We can't even afford to live in this city. So really, who is this benefiting? And you keep preaching this equality equity madness. And it's not true. It's a lie. And like I said, who said, you keep telling a lie long enough, people start believing it, but it's clearly a lie. There's nothing inclusive about this plan, and this is why I spoke against this plan in the first place, because there's not nothing inclusive about the 2040 plan. And you rushed it through without giving people enough time to actually read through to what it actually is. So, yeah, we're neither for or against this, but I want the voters to know that this is not benefiting poor people at all, especially when you have an urban camper van that's criminalizing people just for surviving on the streets. You can't occupy any of these parks. So really, who is this benefiting? So in closing, we're neither for or against, but we actually do not vote yes on this because. We will show you we'll show everybody who this truly is for, and it's not for poor people. And this whole campaign, we made everything about poor people. We put us at the forefront when y'all turned a blind eye. You're going to continue to turn a blind eye because the city is not for poor people. It's more exclusively rich white folks. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Chernobyl. Good evening, counsel. My name is Joel Noble. I live at 2705 Stout Street, speaking on my own behalf. I'm here to speak in support of adoption. Of the game plan for a Healthy City as a supplement to the. Comprehensive plan. The Plan for Parks and Recreation in front of you was developed along with the Comprehensive Plan Blueprint. Denver and the new Denver Moves. Plans as part of the umbrella of Denver. Right plans. As with Blueprint Denver, this plan has specific strategies to achieve the goals of the plan with 25 priority strategies identified and as with Blueprint Denver. The Game Plan concert includes a series of metrics which also deeply incorporate the comprehensive plan's focus on equity with all applicable applicable metrics. Having an equity overlay to focus attention on equity during implementation. As with Blueprint Denver, this plan updates a plan from the early 2000s. That plan looked out about 20 years and we're just about to the end of that horizon. This plan looks out the next 20 years. Most plans have one key goal. That if the public's heard about it, they could tell you, oh, I know that plan that has the one key goal and the one key goal from this plan that I expect the public is going to remember. Even though there's so much more to the plan. Is everyone, no matter where they live in the city, having access to a park with an easy ten minute walk, that's a goal to be proud of. And the way the plan's written, that goal was informed by equity and implementation and informed by the Blueprint Denver Growth Strategy to make wise decisions about investment in the park and make wise use of the money that the voters have recently voted on to increase our parks capacity. I ask for your support in adopting a game plan for a healthy city. Thank you. Next up is David Richter and I'll invite Darryl Watson, Leslie, Tory Gorski and Andrew to come up to the front bench. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. Demons. David Richter. I reside in the Sphere neighborhood. I'm Councilman Clark's rep on the Parks and Rec Advisory Board. I just want to speak for a couple of minutes about my own personal observations and involvement with the development of game plan. I guess I'd say over the last several years at least, I've kind of observed the process. I've participated in it. I've gotten updates from both the department as well as the co-chairs, Darrell and Florence, who have or will speak. I think they've done a great job from the public sector to support and to steer to the best of their ability on the outside. And I really would like to thank them for their work on this project. Personally, I've participated in online surveys, community presentations, had direct correspondence with a number of members within the department. I've always felt like my issues have been listened to, addressed. I've given them lots of suggestions and I see continually that they at least appear to accept that and to really create a healthy dialog in terms of trying to assimilate comments from the public. In addition to the myriad of other. Plans throughout the other Denver write programs to integrate all this together. I think the process in general has been very open, responsive, objective, inclusive, and I'm very much in favor of the current version of game plan and I hope you will support it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Darrell Watson. Good evening, members of Council. Council President John Clarke. My name is Darryl Watson. I'm a 23 year resident of District nine. I'm honored to co-chair the game plan for a healthy city with Florence Navarro. Thank you to council President Clark and Councilwoman Debbie Ortega for your leadership within the task force. Thank you to each of the members of the task force that are here tonight and that have participated for almost three years on this process. I'd like to thank the Parks Recreation Employee Ambassadors. This was a unique process that included employees, too, and throughout the process. And then manager Haynes and her leadership team, specifically Dodie Erickson and Mark Taber, who managed the process for almost these three years. We ask for your approval tonight for the 20 year Parks, Recreation and Mountain Parks 2019 game plan for a Healthy City. Based on the three criteria developed by Denver City Council to consider for adoption. They are an inclusive community. Process was used and developed the second. The plan is consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of comprehensive plan 2040 and a third. The plan demonstrates a long term view. First, equity was the capstone on which our almost three year community process is built on received almost 6000 unique user inputs into this process, hosting three public forums in 11 separate locations throughout the city. This plan through the Denver AI process was co-developed with Blueprint Denver. We coordinated our efforts ensuring that we were placed appropriate focus on how growth as described within Blueprint Denver could impact our four guiding principles. Every drop, every person, every dollar. And uniquely Denver. The co-development allowed our planning process to remain consistent with a vision. Elements within comprehensive plan 2040 while building on both game plan 2003 and Blueprint 2002. Finally, this plan has a 20 year planning horizon with a clear milestones review process called the three year Action Plan. The game plan for a Healthy City has already inspired a community driven ballot initiative to finally develop a dedicated funding source for our park system. As of this moment, DPR is acquiring land to build two new parks with more to come. Thank you to Councilman Price, our president for our city council and many folks in this room for leading that charge. Manager Haines rightfully states that parks are important pieces of our city infrastructure, and we believe that this plan would lead us to a process that will ensure that this occurs. In my closing, this may be my last public hearing that I speak to, that I address two council persons that are currently on council, and Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Lopez, I wanted to thank you so much for your leadership throughout these years. I know that you've dedicated your life and your family's lives. That is great work. So thank you for all that you do and God bless you and God bless the next stage of your journey. Thank you. Next up, Leslie Tarkowski. Hi. My name is Leslie Torrey Gorski. I've served as president of the Denver Parks and Recreation Advisory Board since 2013. We've been working hard on this game plan since November 2016. And first, I need to start by thanking you sincerely, Councilman Clark, because when we first started working on this project, we had a wish list of projects that had been identified through the bond process. And frankly, it was very depressing because we knew that our game plan at that time didn't have anywhere near enough money to address our needs. So, again, thank you and Councilman Clark for leading the charge on Tuesday. And thank you to all the Denver voters who agreed to create a dedicated funding source for our parks. Now we have a plan, a great plan, and we have the funding to make our plans a reality. I respectfully request that you pass this game plan without delay. I want to thank Darryl Watts and Florence Navarro and others for spending countless hours working on this plan, including Denver Park staff, specifically Dodie Erickson, Laura morales, Yoli Quezada, Mark Tabor, Kathy Levesque and director Happy Haines for their strong commitment to the future of Denver City and mountain parks. Finally again, I urge you to pass this wonderful plan so we can get to work without delay. Thank you very. Much. Thank you. Next up, Andrew since. But thanks. I don't have a lot to add. I think everybody said a lot of great things. I just wanted to be here to voice my support for this plan. I also wanted to say thank you for adopting the Blueprint Denver plan a couple of weeks ago. I couldn't be here for that. I was a member of that task force, and I'm grateful that you were able to move that forward. So thank you for that. I just wanted to also speak to the fact that I do believe this was all the plan's blueprint and the game plan were focused on equity first. That was my perception. I think the public process could not have been better, and I really want to commend the city staff for that. I think every time I had a chance to interact with them and to see the process that they set up, I could not have been more impressed and I cannot imagine a better process . I think if I could maybe air a little grievance here briefly, it's been frustrating in this election cycle to see some candidates asking for you to delay this until after the election. It seems like that's a I remember I think four years ago I was here talking about a zoo thing or something like that. And Charlie Brown took particular issue at some of the folks who were asking for the same thing. So I think this is just sort of a right of every four year passage or something. I thank you for overcoming those appeals and I thank you for your adoption of these plans. Thank you. Thank you. Could you just state your name officially? Because my name is Andy, since I live at 1554 Forest Street in Park Hill. Thank you very much. All right. That concludes our speakers this evening. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Espinosa. I have a question for. Staff, I think, and I apologize. I was just trying to look research and this is related to a conversation I was having earlier today. What is the game plan talk about with respect to maintenance facilities and in in our open spaces going forward? Sure. Just to clarify, the question is at about both maintenance facilities and open spaces. Maintenance facilities located within open spaces or within parks, I should say dedicated parks. Sure. Our game plan does acknowledge that we need to keep up on our maintenance facilities and certainly we are also looking at opportunities to expand maintenance facilities. For instance, in northeast Denver, we have one maintenance shop and we have crews that have to drive tractors and other equipment on street for several miles, which is a safety concern . So we are looking at opportunities to create another maintenance shop where strategically needed so that we can best serve the parks and the residents that benefit from them. And potentially, for instance, at 47th and Walden, which is a master plan that will be coming up soon, that is an opportunity where we're looking at the possibility of a maintenance shop in that within that park space. So is there any talk in the plan language about sort of efficiency of space? You know, and granted to a wasn't known at the time the planning effort was was happening that it would be successful. Where I'm going is that, you know, we could do acquisition with the to a funds at some point does it you know is there anything in the plan language that sort of talks about looking at the facilities that are located on parks and open space and or dedicated parks? Let's talk about that and and going well, do we need all this dedicated parkland to to have these functions storing trash, storing materials, storing large vehicles and fuel tanks? Or does it actually make sense to use to a money to acquire sort of industrial lower cost industrial land to maybe offload some of those facilities? I mean, some of those those space needs and reactivate existing parkland for park pulp mill. Granted maintenance is part purpose but but actual amenity space as opposed to park, I mean, as opposed to storage and other things. So does it speak to to that notion or does parks in general, are they having this this conversation strategically? Because some of our leased most expensive parkland would actually be something that we actually already own, just recapturing it and maybe turning building a to a facility that sort of both houses, some function of maintenance and some new amenity. Sorry. Sure. So the the game plan doesn't speak specifically about any certain maintenance shops or maintenance yards to convert, but it does certainly talk about where we have undeveloped parkland or underutilized parkland that we already own to to make it usable space. And also currently or as you know, we have an a commitment that all residents should be within a ten minute walk to a park. So, for instance, if if a DPR owned property is a maintenance facility, that would not count as that ten minute walk access. We want to make sure that residents have true access to a real park amenity that serves recreational purposes. Does that answer it or. Yeah, I mean, this is something going forward as you're starting to think about this and how we do acquisition and what sort of land is available is that not all recreation facilities are open space. And so if you're looking at something that is that is is more of a hardscrabble space for a maintenance facility like that, is there is there other recreation functions that we could co-locate in that that would create, you know, growing opportunities, health opportunities in those communities sort of where we never would have expected. So yeah. And I think as a department, we are definitely looking at opportunities, certainly where we already own land and we don't have to acquire it, that we could provide more there for residents to enjoy and use if possible. So thank you. I just literally that was a conversation I was having earlier today with a constituent. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Excuse me. I just wanted to ask. I'm not sure if, Tony, you might be the right person. Maybe. Skye, if you can tell us how many people within Parks and Rec have actually been through the recent equity training that a number of our city employees have gone through, so that when we talk about really applying the equity piece, that we actually have people that understand how to do that. So I'm not sure which of the two of you might be able to. Sort of give us a. But if you could come up to the microphone to answer it because everybody watching can't hear you. Sorry to put you on the spot. Oh, that's okay. I don't have that answer, but we could certainly get. That for you. Okay. I think that would be helpful to know so that as we move the plan forward, we have a clear understanding of how many of our especially upper management people who will be sent in the direction and in moving the projects forward. Understand the. Impact to the adjacent neighborhoods, the importance of including them in the conversation. You know, all of that that is covered in the training that is done. Right. Okay. Could you could you introduce yourself for the people. Watching you to. ERICKSEN Denver Parks and Recreation Special Projects Director. Thank you very much. And sorry to put you on the spot again. Anything else. Councilman? That's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Yeah. Cathleen, when we passed a blueprint in the comp plan, we passed an amendment that included a paragraph saying that policies and processes should be designed to reduce Denver's carbon footprint, to eliminate our contribution to the climate crisis. Staff assured me it would be added to this plan as well. Can you confirm that it has been? Yes. That is part of the final plan. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council 4 to 4 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to thank Jack Patterson for my office, who sat in on meetings that I was not able to attend. I want to thank our two co-chairs, Florence Navarro and Darrell Watson, as well as our city staff, our team of staff, people who were at all of our meetings. Tony, Yolanda. I don't know why I'm forgetting your first name, but. We had an incredible amount of people who stuck through the process for the full three year time frame that came and gave their input that were in attendance at many of the public meetings to, you know, just kind of ensure that not only the word was getting out, but that people were actually showing up to the public hearings across the city. And, you know, I think the the recommendations that are in the plan clearly reflect that broad input. And there were a lot of low income people from neighborhoods across the city. It was not, you know, something that just targeted certain neighborhoods to get people out. We were all utilizing social media to share with the public, to encourage them to come to the meetings and give their input about what they wanted to see in this game plan document. And the document actually reflects that input. So I just want to say hats off to everyone who was involved in helping to move this forward and to reflect that genuine input from the public. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez. I wanted to thank all of you for your hard work, to see this thing actually be actualized. And when we talk about equity and we talk about Healthy City and looking at the entire city, and when you're talking about that, that's that's that's what gives me some confidence that this is going to actually have be a plan that doesn't just sit on the shelf. Right. It actually has legs. That's usually me, by the way. So with a different song, right? Elvis. Oh. That's so. So I, you know, I'm very happy about it. Hopefully the plan can be amended to include the Westwood Rec Center and its utilization and how we go about, you know, programing and the work that's been done on the West Side and just just connecting it to the park system and parks. Attention to the west side has been amazing in the last in the last 12 years. Right. And I think every single one of you for believing in that vision and for really working to achieve that. Right. You both have been working so hard out there, so I really appreciate that. Leslie, Daryl, everybody, you know, I just hats off to you. The crab is a. Parab is a non-paid board. It's completely volunteer, right? It's completely volunteer. You catch a lot of help and you have something that's so precious to us as as residents of Denver. And that's our parks, our parks systems, our recreational facilities. They are amazing. So hats off to you. Thank you. Thank you all for. Bringing this up. I'm sorry, Mr. President. It's like I will say, it's like I'm Sam by every time. I just. I'm just happy to see this come forward and pass. All right. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, I think you broke broke some hearts when you announced the probe was not paid. I think we have a few people who have put in decades of work hoping a paycheck was coming at some point. Councilman Brooks. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody for being a part of such an important process and and really shaping our future in the city of Denver and shaping our future for progress. You know, all the other major players in in northeast Denver are in the room speaking with John Noble and their Watson and Leslie, Tara Gorski and Andy. And so I've got to vote for this and I'm just joking. But, you know, I think about District nine, I think about what the Parks Department has done in District nine, in every park in District nine has been redone. And because of that, there's revitalization and connectivity. And for you know, one of our folks up here was saying, if people can't connect to the parks, you know, what good is it? You know, it's not diverse. I challenge anyone in this room to come and see our parks in District nine as some of the most diverse, vibrant parks in the city. You can't get backyard barbecues, you can't all quinceaneras. You're going to get all kinds of stuff because it is about the inclusivity. And that's what I love about our park system is everyone matters and everyone makes a difference. And so thank everyone for for for being a part of this. You're really changing the perspective of what we look like as a city. And so I just want to thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. I will just add my thank you's to staff to our task force members. I mean, look at it. Look at this back row here and the number of decades of service and dedication to this cause. What a great process. It was awesome to be a part of the task force and work with all of you and the broad community. I mean, we had some of those meetings where we, you know, there were 40 stakeholders and it was it really was all the people have been working on parks and in parks and on these issues for so long. And to see, you know, the final draft of this coming forward and know not only can we adopt this and not only is this aspirational, but now we're going to start implementing and we have the money to do that. So this is an implementable plan that is going to shape parks right away. And so it's so exciting. So thank you all for all of your time, for your effort, for taking time to be here and speak once again about the importance of this. We are lucky to have all of you. And with that, let's vote. Madam Secretary, rock on. Black eye. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I Gillmor I. Cashman Lopez. I knew Ortega I assessment. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 1010 eyes counts. Bill 4 to 4 has passed. All right. On Monday since. On Monday, June 17, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 407, changing the zoning classification for 7698 Jewell Avenue and 1901 South Ulster Street in Indian Creek on Monday, June 24th.

A proclamation welcoming the 110th National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show to Denver.

DenverCityCouncil_01112016_16-0013

Councilman Brooks. Katherine Brooks, would you please read the proclamation? 13. Thank you, Mr. President. I certainly will. Now, this isn't just an irregular discharge. This is Proclamation 13, welcoming the 110th National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show to Denver. Whereas the annual National Western Stock Show Rodeo and Horse Show opens in Denver for the 110th time on January 9th, 2016. I just want to say we would have done this last Monday, but we didn't have council, so that's why we're a little late. Whereas the National Western Stock Show is a storied treasure of Denver's past with a unique and colored history dating all the way back to 1906. And. Whereas, Mayor Robert W Spear declared Wednesday, January 31st, 1906, Denver Stock Show Day an official holiday in the city of Denver so everyone could partake in the first ever stock show. It was on this day that banks, department stores and other businesses and every corner of Denver shut their doors at noon while streetcars bustle and hustled from the 15th street loop every 3 minutes to the stockyards and the Burlington Railroad rush. Special trains from Denver use Union Depot from the round trip charge of $0.25. Wouldn't it be nice to live here that day? And whereas, today, the primary mission of the National Western Stock Show is to educate urban and suburban citizens about the importance of understanding and preserving Colorado's Western heritage and agriculture, providing city kids hands on experience with farm animals, and to host one of the largest professional rodeo horse shows. And. WHEREAS, The National Western annually attracts more than 600,000 visitors from all 50 states and 40 foreign countries and contributes approximately $100 million to Denver's economy. And. Whereas, activities during the 15 day event include Wild West shows, horse shows, dancing horses, super dogs, a myriad of types of livestock, our expert expedition and also Colorado's largest trade show. And. WHEREAS, the voters of the city and county of Denver generously supported funding, the new vision of the National Western Center that sets in motion a new year round, a new year round destination of gold, promoting new out-of-state tourism that would generate job growth for generations to come and plan that will position Denver as a global player in the 21st century agriculture that were vanced. The knowledge of healthy food production and and safety at an international scale. Now therefore be a proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, section one that the Council hereby enthusiastically you can see by our dress welcomes the 110th Annual National Western Stock Show Rodeo Horse Show to Denver extends its best wishes and other exciting, exciting and successful year and encourages Denver residents to saddle up and enjoy the show. Section two that the clerk in the city of the county of Denver shall attest, in effect, a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that the copy be transmitted to the National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I make a motion that we adopt Council Bill 13. A proclamation. Proclamation 1326. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. This is one of one of our most exciting proclamations, because I think the National Western stock shall just have such a storied history. It's who we are in Denver. And I think that's why you have so much buy in of so many councilmembers up here and why you have 650,000 people, the number of citizens in Denver that go to the stock show facilities within a 15 day period. It is incredible. And I also want to say that the stock show broke a record on their opening day that 47,000 people was the normal record. But just this Saturday, 50,000 people descended upon that facility, that aging facility, and had a great time. It was incredible and we are so excited to be a part of this. But what makes this special this year? Is Denver. Just approve one of the largest bonds in Denver's history, the largest bond to Denver history, over billion dollars to see the whole facility transformed so that we can take this vision of the stock show to the next level from the communities of global response here to the rest of the world, so that we can really take this agriculture and this urban ag experience to the rest of the world so we can understand what it means to feed the rest of the world. And so we're really excited about this. And I think what I'm most excited about, number one, every precinct in Denver voted in favor of to see. So we're so grateful for Denver voters. And the neighborhoods that were closest to the stock show voted the highest percentages, a 73%. So that says a lot about the outreach that was done and that says a lot about what the neighbors believe and see and believe what that area can be. And so in an age where I think there's a lot of controversy between development and neighbors, this is one example of a development that came together and saw that the community is just as important as the facility. I'm so, so excited to be a part of that in my last little piece because I see we got some folks who want to say a couple words is I just love them. My kids love this. And Kelly, if you can just put that on the screen, this this young lady right here is an urban chick, okay? She lives in a concrete jungle, jungle of coal neighborhood, but she loves animals and she wants to be a veterinarian one day. And her favorite thing to go to is rodeos. And when we get these kind of urban kids excited about agriculture and the agrarian lifestyle, I think that's the connection that is priceless that we're making around the stock show. And that's what the National Western Stock Show has been about for the last hundred ten years. So I'm happy to support this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks, thank you for bringing this forward. Excuse me. I had the benefit of representing this area of town for 16 years when I served on the council my first time around and had the benefit of working directly with National Western in their many requests to ask the city to help them to grow in a bigger way . And it was in this most recent conversation, an effort with the Hancock administration that the package was able to be put together that went before the voters and approved the $800 million, complemented with the 200 million that the CSU was able to get for this incredible vision for this site. It will certainly transform this area. There will be additional acreage added on to the site of full buildout, 170 acres compared to its 90 acres today. The. Future opportunities with the new partners. As Councilman Brooks alluded to, I think pose some just incredible, an incredible future for the city of Denver, not only looking at how we address food sustainability and the work that CSU does and working with our agricultural community, the opportunities for young kids to be able to go to the site and learn about, you know, the. The life of people who raise cattle for for beef that we consume. You name it. The opportunities are just incredible for those of you who are consumers. I want to encourage you all to go and take a look at the exhibits that they have. There are some incredible exhibitors that have jewelry and Western apparel for both men and women, as well as, you know, equipment that you can buy for the livestock industry. But the economic surge that we see in January is not only a result of attendees showing up and paying the ticket price, but it's a lot of those purchases that we see from many of the products that are on display at the event. I just want to congratulate National Western on 110 years of commitment to this city as well as congratulate them in the recent success of the ballot initiative that passed that will allow us the opportunity to ensure that they're here for another hundred years. Thank you. Thank you. Governor Ortega, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. It's always been a a very good thing to see this proclamation every year, every year that I've been on council. And that's eight years already. This is now. I've been able to see this proclamation of different people come up in front of it, from Pat Grant to Paul Andrews and now the Honorable Terrance Carroll, who come to receive this little later. But and then to see different iterations of of of cowboy hats and and shirts and just to be part of this to see the parade come through downtown Denver is awesome. To see the Longhorns come through, to watch the Mexican rodeo extravaganza that happens as part of the heritage of the western part, a big part of of of the identity and the culture. The word rodeos as a Spanish word, the lucky arrows where it all originates. And just to be part of it, you know, if you're not from Denver and you haven't done it yet, go to the stock show. It is, there's much more than meets the eye. And, you know, you walk around those grounds and you see the Denver Coliseum to think of the different things that have happened through the Coliseum , the Western Stock Show, the event center, the exhibition hall, even the old 1900s building that still stands. And thank God we're going to preserve it. This is. The stock show is to Denver what the orange is to the Broncos. It's the identity. It's our identity. Before there was the Broncos, before there was Mile High Stadium, before there was Coors Field, before there was even Bear Stadium or Mike Nichols Arena or the Pepsi Center. There was the National Western Show. Before there was a Super Bowl, there was the National Western Stock Show. That's how important this is and this part of our heritage. Let's go check it out. And those of you who are from Denver for some reason have not visited it. Go see it. Go see it now, because you're going to experience what the change will be. Go walk along that area along the Platte River. That's going to be turned into thriving parkland. A mile of it, right? And it won't just be something that happens in November. I mean, not November, but January. It'll be year round. There'll be outdoor amphitheaters. There'll be connections and infrastructure. Right. That connected a neighbor that will reconnect the neighborhood to the rest of the grid. It'll help. It'll help do things that we just haven't done right all these years. I remember during the tour of the stock show almost nine years ago and looking at the infrastructure and looking at the needs. And it was leaky. It was rickety. Was historic buildings that were just falling apart before our very, very eyes with no mechanism and nothing to help preserve it. And now that we do go visit it now so you can be part of that change, go experience touching those austere. And they're so beautiful. You walk in there and it's like, man, these guys look like they made it out of velvet. Who do think this makes such a tasty burger? I'm just kidding. Just don't name them. Don't make the mistake that I go in and I say, Hey, what's up? And I make a name for the cow or the sheep. And I realize, man, I shouldn't have done that. I feel guilty later, but it's just such an amazing, amazing experience. Amazing for the kids. It's amazing for everybody. Just enjoy it. Anyway, I just wanted to share that little piece and congratulations to the stock show. Congratulations to Denver once again, the Mile High City. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I would like the secretary to make note of which members have the black hats and which have the white gray. Secondarily, though, and seriously, I wanted to echo Councilman Brooks in his remarks about the voters of Denver overwhelmingly approving something that is going to make a vast difference to this city, not just to Elyria, Swansea, but to this whole city. And we often have talked about a stock, at least I recall when I was at the newspaper covering stock shows. In fact, I recover that. I remember the media parties, which were quite eventful, but we talked about it in terms of reflecting Denver's heritage and its history and how it made us look back to our past. But I want to tell you that this year, again, to echo Councilman Lopez, that I think this year we should look forward to the future and say that what we see there at the stock show is not a reminder of our past. It's a harbinger of our future. And so I, too, look forward to coming back down the road and seeing the changes and the improvements that will be made in those communities because of the thanks to the voters of Denver. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I grew up in Rush, Colorado, and so I was that for each kid who during the summers was washing steers and using a whole bunch of aqua net to make sure that, you know, I'll just leave it at that. If you don't know what Aqua Net is used for with steers and when you're showing them, I'll leave that to the Internet for you to research. But, you know, I moved up here to Denver to go to school when I was 18. And it's just a great reminder of, you know, agriculture, the West, the northeastern plains. And, you know, I'm proud to say that my mom was a barrel racer and my dad was a brand inspector. And so those agricultural roots go very deep and I'm never too far from home. I thought moving to Denver, you know, the agriculture and the West and the traditions, you know, I was in the city now, but it's really nice to come full circle and the resurgence of, you know, concentrating on where our food comes from, how we manage natural resources and conservation. I think it's going to be very wonderful for not only the city but the entire state. And I predict that we're going to have tourists from all over the world coming and seeing the innovative things that we're doing here in Denver. And so I just wanted to congratulate the folks again and proud to be a fourth generation Coloradan. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa. You know, probably the only place more rural than brush is where I spent my teen years, which is rural Sublette County, Wyoming. That is county number 23. If you're looking at the plates, which means it's the least populated in the state of Wyoming, which is saying not very much. That said, I do encourage everyone to go there because if you put I mean, go to well, not to I'll go to Sublette County because it's actually some beautiful, mostly unspoiled land. But that's a whole different story. I'm encouraging everyone to go to the stock show. And the reason is, is because if you type in raise cattle in your app store, there is no app for that. There's a different sense of time. It's life spans, it's generations. And it's whenever, whenever the calf in the barn makes some noise, you've got to respond. There's seasonal things where you're moving cattle, you're switching fields. And in branding season, I don't know if they still brand. That's how long it's been since I've been that guy. Yeah, but learning about rustlers and being a puncher and. And B, being a wrestler in junior high and being a puncher in high school, those are terms that still mean something in the ranch land. And so go there, understand that this has this has real world impact on how we move forward with the project that we just funded. Because what you're going to find, it's people out there with a with a not a work ethic that we don't have, but a real solid work ethic that is enviable. And because when they start something, they started to finish it. And when you do something, you do it right. And so we remember what we're doing and who we're doing it for throughout this this project at the stock show, we will have great outcomes. So go there, experience it, meet the people, see what they've done because they're going to be out there doing it tomorrow like they did yesterday and generations from now, like they did generations before. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I forgot to say a few things, but it is interesting that Councilman Espinosa said the word puncher. I think I was a punchy in high school anyway. Oh, no, I. I wanted to really hone in on a few things. And as we look to our future and say, you know, there's a lot of the some of the things that we just didn't do right that we have the opportunity to do again. And I think, you know, when we tour that stock, shall we find out? Not very many people from the neighborhood were working there. And that's important. From laying concrete to erecting structures and building a new and doing the landscaping and even the sails and and from every aspect of the labor force. We have to do a better job in creating those opportunities all throughout Denver, but especially for those neighborhoods surrounding this dog show. Right. And it's those jobs. It's their future. It's a sustainability, but it's also that sense of ownership. Right. We can put on a cowboy hat and a cowboy shirt and say, oh, we're part of the stock show or cowboys, but and we're part of the West. But truly, truly, the hands that are building this new center, the hands that will lay those bricks, the hands that will shake you and we shake your hand when you walk in there and greet folks in the stockroom. We have to make sure that we participate at a local level as much as possible. And here's the other thing, too. For decades that that stock show has been so close to the neighborhoods in the north. Right. You think that all the ag all the education about food and so many people still living in a food desert. We have to fix that. And we have to fix it in a way that that that when you when you go when you go to that area, you will never hear anybody say anymore. There's no grocery store out here. We don't have access to fresh food. Right. We have to fix that with all that acreage, whether it's a market like they were talking about. Great. That's absolutely great. Let's make sure that there's access and make sure that the owner snap. Let's make sure that we are creating that opportunity for the whole area of Denver in spans council districts that even spans counties. Right. Let's go in there and it's create a great opportunity. Let's bring the AG back into households, even if has to be with refrigerator to start. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Any other comments? Proclamation 13. I just I second all the comments from the council members. I was there on Saturday, Colorado versus the world. It was a great event to be there with my family. I am really excited and looking forward to my seven month old. Not only seven months, but participating in the mutton busting though with the death grip that he has on his mother's hair. Sometimes when she's feeding him, I think he could do he could be very successful right now. But it is exciting to see the future of the stock show and what is about to be what is going to become of that. So, so thankful to be a part of it. So, you know the comments, Madam Secretary, call Brooks. Clark. I. Espinosa. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew. Ortega I. Black tie. Sussman Hi. Mr. President. Hi. Council woman can each. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please cast a vote now for the results. 3939 Proclamation 13 has been adopted. Councilman Brooks, is there somebody in the audience you'd like to invite us to the podium to receive the proclamation? Let me look around. Yes, I'd like to call up our first, the honorable Terrance Carroll, first African-American speaker of the House in the state legislature, and also a board member of the National Western Stock Show. Glad to see you. Have a nice hat on. I couldn't done a better job if I picked it myself. Oh, wait, I did. You're the one to fix this girl. First, I'd like to thank the members of the City Council for this proclamation. But I would be remiss if, on behalf of our President, our chairman, and my fellow board members and the entire national Western family that didn't think the residents of the city and county of Denver for showing their great faith in us by overwhelmingly passing to see it ensures that the National Western will be in this great city for another 110 years and beyond, well beyond. Any of us will be here, but our children and our grandchildren and great grandchildren will be able to see this great institution continue, hopefully in perpetuity, but definitely for a long, long time that the rest of us can even contemplate. And so it's actually a great thing for Denver, a great thing for Colorado, and it's a great thing for the entire nation. So I definitely want to thank you for that. And I want to also say that we had a record day on Sunday as well, and we broke another record. And I think the only thing that keeps us from breaking more records is that we're running out of the space at the national western complex and thanks to to see will go from having on average 650,000 folks who show up at the National Western every year to closer to 1 million folks who show up at the National Western during those 16 days in January hopefully will expand beyond that. So once again, thank you very much and extend the personal invitation for you all to come out to my ranch if you want to do some branding, because if there's no branding, that's a possibility of having Rocky Mountain oysters because the two go hand in hand . Councilman Kennish, you'll enjoy it there. Deep fried man. And deep fried. Do we even have tofu oysters. If that to make you feel better? Again, thank you very much. And thank you for your support of the National Western and the Western Stock Association and everything that we do. And I look forward to seeing you all out at the grounds over the next 16 days or so as we have a good time down there. And and I know you'll spend money, but I just want to encourage you to spend even more money when you go down there. Some good stuff down there. Thank you. Thank you to the honorable Terrance Carroll. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, for that as well. We're going to get that frog. It's fitting to have the former speaker when the session starts on Wednesday, find that you're not going to be there. He does not miss it. Best of luck to the two as the session does begin on Wednesday. All right. That was the only proclamation. We're on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, would you please read the resolutions. From business development 982 resolution and oppose Fourth Amendment to agree between Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. and City and County of Denver related to terminal and landslide area redevelopment at Denver International Airport 1989, a resolution approving a purchase order between City and county.

On the message and order, referred on September 29, 2021, Docket #1010 an order authorizing the City of Boston to apply for, and to accept and expend, the Federal Fiscal Year 2021 Continuum of Care grant funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in the amount not to exceed Forty Five Million Dollars ($45,000,000.00). These funds will be used to support programs that provide services and housing to persons experiencing homelessness, the committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass. The report was accepted; the order was passed.

BostonCC_10272021_2021-1010

Certainly. Docket 1010. The Committee on Housing and Community Development, to which is referred on September 29, 2021, docket number 1010 in order authorizing City of Boston to apply for and to accept and expand the federal fiscal year 2021 Continuum of care grant funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in the amount not to exceed $45 million. These funds will be used to support programs to provide services and housing to persons experiencing homelessness. Submits a report recommending the order to pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The chair now recognizes Chair Lydia Edwards, chair of the Committee on Housing and Community Development. Councilor Edwards, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. I just wanted to first thank my, uh, my, um, vice chair of the, of the committee, Councilor Bach, who helped to hold this hold the ultimate hearing on this money that we've had many years and coming forward. And what the folks who attended included accounts not only Councilor Bach, but also Councilor Flynn, councilor here, and Councilor Braden. Leila Bernstein is a former colleague of mine who also works at the end in support of Housing Division and her work on homelessness and helping to eradicate veteran veterans homelessness. And also making sure that we have a comprehensive plan that is not only regional has been, I think, of an actual lead in the region for how to deal with homelessness. So her coming to testify, I know, was really important for us to hear how the money would be used, especially as we're getting additional funds in ARPA . Ultimately, this is a grant again that we've received before and I just would love to. Ah, excuse me, I am recommending that this ought to pass, but I would prefer that my. Vice chair also added. Any additional details and and notes from the hearing. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The Chair now recognizes the Vice Chair of the Committee on Housing Community Development. Vice Chair. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. President. And Madam Chair, we did have a great hearing, and I would just say. For the Council to understand. If you want any further details, there is a three page fact sheet on this continuum of care programs in the packet. As Councilor Edwards said, it's mainly a continuation of programs that we do right now, although within that 45, there is about $4 million worth of new funding, about half for domestic violence focused housing programs and and half for folks who are homeless. But I just really want to stress for people, because it's come up a lot in our public conversation, that these really are housing first. These are dollars from the federal government that are very focused on actually providing more housing opportunities to people. And they do come with a supportive service component of the funding, which is critical. We found a lot of times that what people need that low barrier housing first, they don't need housing only. Right? They need to get in and then they need the support. And I just would echo the chair's comments about how much work our our partner neighborhood development, that portion that well runs does on all of this. So I would just say, you know, we asked lots of questions. Councilor here, you know, raised some great points about the sort of people who don't get counted as officially homeless. Under HUD's definition, we're not really able to use these funds for. So, for instance, our young people who might be doubled up, but I think we've got some city focused funds focused on that and that. And I would just say that while it was very open to all the work that needs to be done ahead in this space. So it's a it's an important grant for us to authorize, even though there's lots more work needed and ongoing. So I would join the chair in a recommendation that we pass it today. Thank you very much. Chair Lydia Edwards and Vice Chair Kenzie Bach, Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee on Housing Community Development, seek acceptance of the Committee report and passage of Docket 1010. All those in favor please indicate by saying I am opposed. Nay, the ayes have it. The docket has passed. Moving right along, Madam Clerk, two matters recently heard for possible action. Docket number 0734 councilor councilors Mejia and Balk offer the following order for a hearing regarding reparations and their impact on the civil rights of black Bostonians.

Recommendation to receive the application of Smart & Final Stores, LLC, dba Smart & Final 745, for a premise-to-premise transfer of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at the southeast corner of Atlantic Avenue and 45th Street, 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_11172015_15-1188

Report from police recommendation to receive the application of Smart and final for a premise. Two Premise Transfer of Navy ABC license at the southeast corner of Atlantic Avenue and 45th Street determined 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 copy is granted. District eight. Councilman Austin. So moved those that support this obviously this is the smart and final will go into an empty space and will be a source for for economic development in the big three those area. Now, we're very we're actually very excited about this. So it's going to be very, very needed. There's a motion in a second. Councilman Gonzalez, any public comment on the item saying non Castros, please. Councilman Andrews. Motion carries. Item 24 Report from Police Recommendation to award a contract to Dell Marketing to provide body worn camera equipment. I'm sorry. It was withdrawn. Thank you. 25, please. You all are so impatient. You want to go. Home at 12:00. Report? It's only 915. It's very early for us. Report from Public Works recommendation to increase interim blanket purchase order with united stormwater by $350,000 citywide may have.

A resolution levying taxes for the year 2015 upon all taxable property within special districts within the City and County of Denver for purposes authorized by law for special districts (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the 2016 Special Districts mill levy levying taxes for the year 2015 upon all taxable property within Special Districts within the City for purposes authorized by law for Special Districts. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 12-3-15.

DenverCityCouncil_12212015_15-0924

Thank you. This is the. Thank you, Mr. President. This is the the resolution that sets the DPS meal levy for this year, for taxes for next year. And I didn't want the occasion to go by without letting people know that when they get their tax bill next year, that they should be prepared for these new mill levies and the new reassessments. It will be more than it was last year. You will be paying more in most cases because of the reassessment citywide. And I ran the numbers just on my own property. And and between the the the mill levy that we set for the city and for DPS and the special districts. My property tax bill will be going up about 27%. It's going to vary, of course, across the city. I do want to make note, though, that the mill levy is decreasing from last from the current as well as the city's mill levy that we adopted last year. We were we did mitigate for some of the increase in the assessed value, and you will see those results next year. I just wanted to make note of that. So it didn't go by on a block vote. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. Now I'm secretary. Next one. Now we're at 948. Great. Councilwoman Gilmore. Would you like for us to do with this? Thank you, Mr. President. I'm calling out this resolution for a separate vote. I used to work for this organization, and I will be abstaining. Thank you for that. Well, Councilwoman Gelman, will you please put Resolution 948 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council resolution 948 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Any additional comments? Incomes will get more. Where you good? Just want to make sure. Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, welcome. Gillmor. Epstein Cashman. I. Lopez All right. New. Ortega All right. Black Brooks. Clarke. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please. Those are very nice results. Tonight's one abstention denies one abstention, 948 has been adopted. Next one, Madam Secretary, I believe 942 councilman was 40 and I'm out of the tonight. 940 Councilwoman Ortega okay, come one Ortega 940. What would you like for us to do with this question? Go right ahead. Is there anybody here from our H.R. department? Can you come forward, please? So this is our second year utilizing this new company, correct? Correct. Can you tell me if we have done any surveys or assessments of employees who have utilized these services? And do we have that data that you can share with me? All I'm aware of is that we have reporting data based on the utilization of the plan. So we haven't asked the employees how it's working for them. I can find out if coms, like, has done that. Okay. I'm just curious because I know when this came forward, I had a lot of questions and concerns because one of the programs that we used to have was our cancer buddy program. And I know this, you know, covers a lot of different elements. It replaced our Office of Employee Assistance, which covered, you know, a lot of confidential issues that employees might have. But I just and they're not physically here. So I just want to know how it's working. So if we have not done a survey of the employees who have utilized it, I think it would be invaluable to us to know how is this working to be, you know, dealing with somebody confidentially that is remote and they don't get to really sit face to face and talk to somebody as they're trying to deal with any of these multitude of issues that people may be calling in about. So can you follow up on that and get back to me, please? Absolutely. And could you introduce yourself for the record, please? Yes. I'm Jennifer Cahoon with the Office of Human Resources. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Captain Ortega. Next on Madam Secretary. 942. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like for us to do with this? I just had a comment. Go right ahead. I just wanted to I had a hard time when I was reading this, putting it all together. So I just wanted to clarify that this bill request not only dedicates land as public alley, but it also rededicate a portion of Main Street, which was vacated in 1989.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and approve an amendment to the conditions of the Entertainment without Dancing Permit issued to Relevant, Inc., dba Marina Wine, at 194 Marina Drive, Suite 101. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_11052019_19-1093

Okay. Please cast your votes. And then we have now we're moving on to the hearing and then we'll go right into public comment. And so I'm going to turn the hearing, if we can. Please have. Mr. Modica. And then the clerk, please begin the hearing. Yes. Report from Financial Management recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and approve an amendment to the conditions of the entertainment without dancing permit issued to Marina Wine at 194 Marina Drive, Suite 101 District three. Oh. There is an oath. Please stand and raise your right hand. 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. Brett Jaquez and Emily Armstrong from Financial Management will be presenting the staff report. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you have before you an amendment to the conditions of the entertainment without dancing permit issued to relevant ink doing business as marina wine located at 194 Marina Drive, Suite 101, operating as a restaurant with alcohol in Council District three. At its meeting on October 15, 2019. The City Council granted an entertainment without dancing permit subject to approved permit conditions. The permit conditions approved on October 15th require that all doors and windows must remain closed during the hours of entertainment at the establishment. Furthermore, all authorized entertainment activities must be restricted from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Mondays through Thursdays, 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays. After approval of the entertainment permit, it was discovered that the conditions were not approved as intended in the entertainment permit. As a result, staff recommends amending the permit with the 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. Finds anybody coming inside. Who? Mr. Good, you know. Councilman Price Thank you. Vice Mayor So I want to thank staff for bringing this item back because as it was approved last time was not what I had intended. So I appreciate you bringing it back and I appreciate the call out for the two additional conditions, specifically the amendments in condition one and the amendments and conditions six . I want to confirm that the the entertainment permit is with no dancing. Correct. That is correct. So the expectation would be that there would not be any dancing on the premises or within close proximity to the premises as a result of this business. Yes, there. Is no dancing allowed. And then also, I want to confirm that alcohol cannot be carried into the courtyard or other areas of Alamitos Bay Center pursuant to the conditions of this permit. Is that correct? So the conditions of the entertainment permit rely on their ABC conditions that's related to their alcohol license. So those ABC conditions trump the entertainment permit. Okay, great. And then one other thing that I have. It's not a condition, really, but I want to just share that. I have talked with the business owner who is here today, and I want to thank him for being here. And I want to thank him for being engaged and for being, you know, a tremendous partner thus far. I have no doubt this is going to be a very smooth transition with this permit. But one of the things we talked about is I know that he's going to be updating his speaker system so that it is more conducive to this particular area in terms of where the sound is amplified. And I know that he expects to do that within the next three months or so. So although it's not a condition, I know that this entertainment permit is going to come back in about a year, I believe, for us to review or not come back , but it will be evaluated by staff in a year. And so I want us to be mindful of of that as being one of the. Agreements that the business owner has made in regards to working collaboratively and in partnership with the surrounding businesses. So with that, I'd ask my colleagues to support granting this permit as amended. And I wish our business owner the best of luck and marina wine. So everyone please go out and visit them and help them help support the business so that they continue to grow. Fine, Councilwoman Parrish. Oh, and thank you. Could you please cast your vote or. Motion carries. When you move to a. And in 20. Item 20 Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilmember Pearce, Councilmember Urunga. I believe that some of the time certain. For. You and going to public comment there. Okay with that, we're move to public comment then we have a. Eight individuals have to speak with inside with the first three in this room. Could you please come up to the podium when I call your name?

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Human Rights code; extending the amount of time available to a person to file a charge with the Office for Civil Rights regarding unfair employment, public accommodations, and contracting processes; specifying that discrimination includes harassment; and amending Sections 14.04.030, 14.04.090, 14.06.020, 14.06.050, 14.08.020, 14.10.020, and 14.10.060 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_05072018_CB 119240

Report of the full council agenda item one Council Bill 119240. An ordinance relating to the Human Rights Code extending the amount of time available to a person to file a charge with the Office for Civil Rights regarding unfair employment, public accommodations and contracting processes. Special assignment specifying that discrimination includes harassment and amending sections 14.0 4.030. And others of the Seattle Mass will code introduced April 16th, 2018. Councilmember Herbold, thank you so much. This bill extends the statute of limitations on sexual harassment claims governed under Chapter 14 of the Seattle Code. This is the chapter related to human rights, as discussed in council briefings this morning. The content of this bill was discussed in my committee both on February 27th and March 27th, and the reintroduced bill before us today includes a title change based on that committee work. The question of Sexual Harassment Statutes of Limitation for the Office of Civil Rights claims brought before the up to the Office of Civil Rights was first brought to my attention by a constituent who reached out because she was experiencing sexual harassment on her campus. She had been bounced around from place to place. And when she was finally referred to the Office of Civil Rights, the current 180 day statute of limitations had already expired. She reached out to my office not to ask for help for herself, but to ask for help in changing the conditions that would make it harder for other people in her situation in the future. The bill itself includes three changes to the Seattle Municipal Code. It extends or maintains in some instances, the statute of limitation for administrative charges enforced by the Office of Civil Rights in the areas of employment contracting, public accommodation and housing discrimination. The extension is to ensure that people can have have the time to file a claim. That is half the time that one also has the right to file a private right of action. So specifically, this legislation extends the statute of limitation from the existing 180 days to a year and a half for areas of employment and contracting . It extends the statute of limitations for 180 days to one year. In the area of public accommodation and it maintains the current one year statute of limitations in the area of housing discrimination. Again, in each instance, the period that is the statute of limitations is one half the time that an individual has has a right to file a private right of action. The bill itself includes the term sexual harassment as a named form of discrimination that has OCR investigates. And I think this is really important because though sexual harassment is a form of discrimination, many people without the word sexual harassment being included in the code are unaware of that. The initial bill discussed at our February 27th briefing also included a definition of sexual harassment because of concerns about potential on an unintended consequences by actually adding a definition of sexual harassment into the law. I offered an amendment to the bill that removes that definition, and the reason being that often definitions change from time to time. And we don't want to be in a situation where we're unnecessarily limiting by our by our definitions in the civil code. Ultimately, my hope is that this bill will help provide an additional tool to people in our city who are experiencing all forms of harassment and sexual harassment in particular. We know that one of the reasons people don't come forward is they may not know that the experiences they're having are sexual harassment. And when even when people are aware that they're experiencing sexual harassment, they often don't know what avenues of recourse are available to them. And there are lots of good reasons why people don't come forward right away by clarifying that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination, that the Office of Civil Rights is authorized to investigate and providing a clear definition for discrimination. I hope that we can provide further clarity to people who are experiencing harassment and discrimination. Thank you very much. Any further comments? Okay. So I will move to pass counts bill 119240. Is there a second? Second. Okay, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Rosetta I. O'Brien. I. So want I Bextra Gonzalez. I Herbold I Johnson. Whereas I President Harrell all right. I'm in favor and unopposed. Bill passed chair assignment. Chair. Yes. I'm sorry. Council President I just wanted to also before we moved on move on. Thank each the members of the Seattle Women's Commission, the LGBTQ Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the People with Disabilities Commission, as well as the staff from the Office of Civil Rights. And the folks who are with us today representing the Seattle Science Breakers, that their involvement, engagement was critical in moving this forward. Well noted. Well, no. Thank you for presenting that legislation. Please read the next agenda item. The Report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee. Agenda Item two Appointment 10053. Appointment of Vernita J. Barton as members Seattle Public Library Board of Trustees for Term two April 1st, 2023. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Group in the City Manager Department by $25,000, offset by Eighth Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a contribution to the Partners of Parks to support the Summer’s End Community Jazz Celebration; and Decrease appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $25,000 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_08172021_21-0814

Thank you. We're going to go and do all the transfer items that item 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22. Madam Court. An important communication from Councilwoman Allen recommendation to increase appropriations by $500, to provide a contribution to California families in focus to support their I Matter to Youth Fashion Show and music concert. Item 17 is a communication from Councilwoman Zendejas recommendation to increase appropriations by $689 to provide a donation to Partners of Parks to support the AOC seven Neighborhood Group. Item 18 is a communication from Councilwoman Zendaya's recommendation to increase appropriations by $1,000 to provide a donation to the California families in focus to support the I Matter to Youth Fashion Show and Music Concert. Item 19 Communication from Councilwoman Zendejas Councilmember Your UNGA recommendation to increase appropriations by $800 to provide a contribution to Wild West women to support the Long Beach Suffrage Women's Equality Day event. Item 20 A Communication from Councilwoman Zinder House recommendation to increase appropriations by $5,000 to provide a donation to the Wilmore City Heritage Association. And Item 22 communication from Councilman Austin. Recommendation to increase appropriations by 25,000. To provide a contribution to the Partners of Parks to support the Summers and community jazz celebration. Thank you. There's one public comment, please. Item for 20. Leslie, Miss Leslie Holmes. Public comment. Please come forward. I just I'm speaking from the behalf of what. I and I just want to say thank you. And it will be well used. Thank you. Thank you very much. There's a motion and the second members. Please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. I've had. One, two, three, four, five. David seven items have been requested to be moved up before the time certain at six I think to the two members that requested these. I may have a obligations as soon as possible. So let's please try to get to these next items. It's seven items we're to try to do them as many we can before six the time certain and it's for two members that will have to leave after these items have been requested. So we'll go through these seven items, hopefully expeditiously. Item 27, please.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to proceed with the design and bidding phase for the proposed Pedestrian Path Project Proposal, and consider Categorical Exemption 12-044. (Districts 2,3)

LongBeachCC_02182014_14-0138

I am 15. Excommunication from the Office of the City Manager Parks at Parks and the Parks Recreation Department with the recommendation to authorize city manager to proceed with the design and building phase of the proposed pedestrian bike path proposal and consider categorical exemption 12 dash zero four for this is in districts two and three. Ms.. Frick Mr. Mayor, Council Members. Before I turn it over. To our assistant city. Manager, I just want to highlight that. The city has been working for years to address conflicts on our beach bike path. Those conflicts exist between runners and joggers versus cyclists and rollerblades. We've been reaching out for the past couple of years to the high school track. Coaches are running clubs are walking clubs, the Long Beach Marathon Group, cycling clubs and Beach Neighborhood Associations. Tonight, we're pleased to present a plan that was vetted and approved. By both the California Coastal Commission members and their staff. This will ultimately allow us to provide more access and availability to our city beaches. The Long Beach City Council has adopted the moniker of healthy and living a healthy and livable community for our city. We promote healthy choices in both nutrition and exercises, exercise and mobility. We have a huge aquatics community. We're billed as the aquatics capital of America. As you know, we've just completed one brand new 50 meter pool and we have two more 50 meter pools scheduled for our aquatics community. We also have a huge cycling community. Our nickname is the most bicycle friendly city in America. We've added hundreds of new bicycle. Lanes in our city. We've added SROs. Protected lanes, bike boulevards. We have school education programs and bike. Roundabouts in addition to aquatics and cycling. We also have a huge running jockey jogging and walking community. Tonight, we have the opportunity to eliminate the conflict between. Cyclists and runners on a new bike bike path. We have the ability to add a new 3.1 mile path. This is not a concrete path. It'll be a knee friendly path. Safer for the. It'll have a safer membrane for runners and walkers alike. This also will allow us to add three acres of new sandy beach to our city beaches. It'll also add one third of an acre of grassy parkland area. It's in the budget. It's fully funded through Tidelands. And with this, I'm going to turn it over to our assistant city. Manager, Suzanne Frick, to walk us through the item. Suzanne. Good evening. Mayor, members of the council and the public, we're here tonight to present the redesigned pedestrian path. And really the purpose is to get direction from the city council as to whether or not you want to move forward with the project. So the the project purpose initially was. As City Manager West said, to increase the beach access and coastal recreation by creating really a separate walking path that will be exclusively for pedestrians. It will improve the safety by relieving congestion and separating the two user groups that currently share the path. We believe it will encourage greater use of our beach. We have an absolutely wonderful beach, but admittedly it is underutilized and we are hoping to bring more people down into the beach area so that they can access the beach and use the path. It will promote a more active and healthy lifestyle, improve the mobility for all users, and also the supporting of the pedestrian activity by installing a more flexible, resilient surface. Let me talk a little bit about the background in history. The idea of a separate pedestrian path was first floated in the local coastal plan in 1980, and that was to ensure that there was a separation between the two user groups. Again, it was considered in the 23 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan in the 2008 Beach Master Plan. And then as we started moving forward with the concepts, it was included as part of the capital improvement budget and funded through City Council adoption. Let's talk about the existing conditions. The existing bike path was designed in 1986. It's primarily a bike path with about a five foot pedestrian designation that's on the seaward side. It is again in our local coastal plan and it isn't the most conducive environment for the public. You can see here that the existing path is extremely popular recreational amenity for a variety of vehicles that may use the path. It is also used by pedestrians, but our statistics show that in fact it is highly utilized by bicycles. In fact, when you look at our bike counts it this path consistently shows that it is highly used and it gets the highest use among the surveyed areas of the city. However, that's not the case for the pedestrian count. The pedestrian counts are taken at the same time, we take the bicycle counts. And in fact, our pedestrian path ranks right now around eight for utilization in the city. So there's a significant area for improvement in what we've heard from the user groups is that there are conflicts between the bicyclists and the pedestrians and not everybody feels that it is a conducive area to walk. The next slide, we also show that the path traverses or crosses over a number of outfalls, and one of the benefits in the new path that we're going to create is improving those outfalls and using best practices so that in fact , we're catching the trash before it goes out and also using our sponges so that we're really cleaning up the outfalls. So to improve that water quality there. There has been I think we have local outreach efforts. We have the city manager indicated we've gone out to the residents associations, the Parks and Rec Commission. We've talked with the Surfrider Foundation, the Long Beach Marathon Expo. We've intended to have a significant amount of outreach to get public comments and review of the proposed path. So now let's talk about that path. It really will extend from Shoreline Drive to 54 place it goes really the entire length of the shoreline from where the existing path is. The proposed configuration will consist primarily of a 11 foot wide pedestrian pathway that will be on the land side of the existing bike path. And it would be separated. The two paths would be separated by a six foot sand break. And the reason for that is so that we clearly would have that separation between the pedestrians and the bicyclists. We are proposing that six feet separation so that we can get equipment in there to actually comb the sand of debris and trash anything narrower than that distance. We would be unable to have mechanical equipment to be able to clean the sand. We've also initially we proposed that the path be on the water side and at the request of a number of people who spoke before the Coastal Commission, Surfrider, members of the public, the Coastal Commission determined that in fact the path should be on the land side and not on the water side. So we have redesigned that path so that it is now on the land side to the point where it is in some areas almost immediately adjacent to the Bluff area. And it has also resulted in us moving, in fact, the existing path, the bike path closer to the bluff area, so that we can in fact restore some of the the beach area where we are right now. The path that we're proposing will be used exclusively for pedestrians, and we will be proposing to the city council that the restrictions about dog walking be lifted so that in fact, somebody could walk their dog along the new path. This is a rendering of what the new path would look like in some areas because of us moving the path closer to the land side or to the bluff and moving then the bike path closer. We will have a contiguous path. In other words, we won't be able to have that separation in those cases. As you see here, we will likely have a race curb that would be separating the two paths so that the bicyclists do not enter or go on that new path. The new material is going to be a resin based material, which is much easier to walk on and a better running surface as opposed to concrete. And it's more sustainable than asphalt or other oil based materials. One of the areas that is under consideration and of concern to the Coastal Commission and also members of the public is the area around the Belmont Pier. Currently, the existing path at the pier area is significantly closer to the water. And there is a 90 degree angle that occurs where the path meets the pier. That 90 degree angle has created a number of safety issues for us because of the inability of that bicyclist to actually see the pedestrian in the pier area. So we are proposing that, in fact, we improve that visibility and in fact relocate both the bicycle path and the pedestrian path closer to the landside so that we improve the visibility and also restore some of the sand area and move the paths away from the water. Because currently we have during the the major high tides, we have water intrusion. And so in order to eliminate that, we have proposed to move it closer to the landside. The result of that is we lose some parking spaces in that parking lot. Initially, we were estimating that we'd lose about 32 parking places. That was not acceptable to the Coastal Commission. They, in fact, ask us to go back and take a look and redesign and see if we could reduce the number of spaces that were going to be eliminated. And we have done that to the point where now there's approximately 20 spaces that will be eliminated. That number is acceptable to the Coastal Commission and they have in fact approved that reconfiguration. So we will again take all best efforts to try to minimize that. But at this point in time, in order to ensure that there's a there safety and good visibility and to minimize the water intrusion, we do need to move the path more inland. So this path, one of the questions that has been raised is, well, we're paving over the beach and that what is the net loss of sandy area? And the reality is there's actually a gain of usable beach area because we are moving the path more, both the bike, the existing path and the new path more towards the land side. We in fact, gain about three acres of usable beach area that can now be used for other recreation activities. So when you look at how much we're paving versus how much we're restoring, there's a net gain of about three acres. So our next steps, as we've indicated, that this project has received all of the approvals through the Coastal Commission and now we're at the point where the City Council should decide whether or not you want to proceed with the detailed drawings to go out to bid and construct the project. So that's the place where we are today and we're seeking city council direction as to how you would like to proceed with that. That concludes the staff report. And we're open to any questions. Questions from councilmembers. Mr. Don. Then with regard to the parking. There's a number of businesses over there. There's Belmont Brewing Company. There's a few other along that line of individuals who go out to the pier to fish or I think they still catch boats out there and then also use the pool facilities there. There's no other way but to eliminate those two parking spaces. Those are pretty precious parking spaces. I have trouble supporting that concept. Yeah, there actually there is no other way. If we want to eliminate the the water intrusion and improve the site visibility for that 90 degree angle, we've looked at the different configurations and we've reduced the loss of parking from the 32 through the 20. But at this point, that's the proposed design. Could you put the picture back up? Yeah. You can see that the blue line towards the water is where the existing path is today and the proposed path, that is the checkered line. Okay. I know Councilmember DeLong has a question about that. That concerns me. You know, when I was you know, we weren't brought in on this in the start. This was something that was in a large budget document and buried in a large budget document. The council really never had input on this project as it went forward. You may have had public meetings, but I think in the future we need to have a little bit more oversight of how our tidelands funds are spent and the projects are developed and brought forward. And again, it's oversight. But we probably need a master plan. I know some other council members may have an opinion on that as well, but I think we need to kind of put all the parts together in a bigger piece of paper so we see what's going on on our beaches and we can be briefed on it occasionally because the beach is everybody's. And I know Gary wouldn't say this, but it's not one councilmembers like the airport. Everybody needs to have a say. Everybody's a user of the beach. Certainly I am. And I was always a fan of widening the existing bike path first building a second bike path. So there's a six foot six foot buffer between the two bike paths. There is a pedestrian path and then there's the bike path. So the existing bike path in fact will remain. And in some areas we're moving it closer towards the landside. The new pedestrian path that is being constructed is actually on the land side of the bike path. Mm hmm. Okay. And as one who spent a few years down there working for the Marina Trump familiar with the brakes and so forth, that could go back and forth on the beach. How wide is a surf break? Because that's what they would do to clean the sand between the two paths, which is what they do. Right. They go up and just about every morning they're out there cleaning the beach with a surf rig. That's something they tell behind a large caterpillar, typically. And they go up and down the beach and in areas where it's it's you know, there's there's debris. Right. We are going to have to purchase special equipment to groom the sand in between those two paths. So, in essence, we will be able to have that equipment. It won't be the same as the the rake that you see grooming all of the other sand. That's a much larger rake. But we're going to find a smaller one and we've actually identified it that can, in fact, groom the sand in between the two paths. So so you're still not supportive of combining the two or just widening the existing bike path? That's where I struggle with this whole project. I don't know how we got into two bike paths. There are a number of areas where in fact the paths will be joined together and separated by a curb. That's not the ideal situation from a safety standpoint. There are there's that condition up and down the coast there. A good prominent example is in Santa monica, where the bike path and the pedestrian path are adjacent to one another and they're separated by a curb. What happens in that situation is a lot of the pedestrians will just kind of step over that curb and be walking on the bike path. And so it doesn't provide you the level of separation that we would like to ensure that their safety for both user groups. I don't know. I don't know if I'm there with you on that one, but either way, let's move forward. So with regard to the oversight and a master plan, how would something like that come forward? Do you have any feedback on that? I think it depends. On the. Oversight speaks to the funding. Right. Right. And what you're planning now, because I don't know. I hear drones. I hear a lot of things that have never been discussed up here. So give me your feedback. Well. Any project that we're proposing in the Tidelands actually gets approved by the city council as part of the budget adoption, either through the capital improvement. But for example, in the first quarter adjustment, there were about $13 million worth of projects that the City Council reviewed and approved. All of those projects are presented to the Council, probably not at this level of detail, but they're presented. Now, what we can certainly do is, as part of the budgetary process, provide a more detailed presentation on projects that are being proposed in the Tidelands area. Mm hmm. I mean, this is going to be a this is going to cost several million dollars, I suspect you. Do you have a general ballpark figure what this will cost? Initially, we budgeted about $5 million. But with the revisions that are requested by the Coastal Commission, it is likely we're estimating it to be about a seven and a half to $8 million project. It's a lot of money. Again, I just still fall back to why wouldn't you just wait and maybe even replace the existing bike path and just make it a bit wider? That to me seems like common sense, but that's just my perception. So with that, I turn it back to you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. O'Neill. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of questions. Fruit. In regard to the survey that you mentioned, where it was stated that the usage of the other pedestrian path at the beach was eight. Did we drill down on any of those questions to find out why it it ranked so low? No, we did not. Anecdotally, from people who have used it, it is only about a five foot walking area and it is not the most conducive area for people to walk, particularly when it is a busy bike path. So that's the issue. Another reason why a lot of people do like to walk their dogs, and this is an area where presently dogs are not allowed to be walked on the path. And so that's another factor that we would like the council to reconsider with a separate bike path, a separate pedestrian path. And then I want to make sure I understand you right. The recommendation to to put the new proposed bike path closer to the bluff came from the Coastal Commission. Yes. Initially, we proposed that the new pedestrian path be on the waterside. That would give us more flexibility for it to meander and to for configuration purposes. But the Coastal Commission, at the request of a number of people who testified, said, no, it shouldn't be on the waterside, in fact it should be on the landside because we shouldn't be taking up any more beach area and paving that beach area. So instead we moved it so that it will now be totally on the landside. Thank you. It's very. Mr. Dillon. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I also have concerns about the loss of the parking spaces. I, I recognize the benefit by taking out the 90 degree turn. However, for me, I would keep the 90, 90 degree turn if I could maintain the additional 20 parking spaces or most of them. And I think I'm going to come back to this maybe after public comment when we get into making motions and and there's more dialog and we hear what people have to say. So I guess I would just kind of give you a little notice that we may come back at that point and ask you, you know, perhaps to amend it. Because if I look at the map, it seems to me we could keep the 90 degree turn and then come across the bottom of the parking lot. We can still recapture that sand area, which I do agree is a worthy goal. But let's see if we can't protect more, if not all of those parking spaces. I think we might come back with that specific recommendation in the form of a motion. So if you could give that some thought. And then the second question I have now is what consideration? And I'm sure you have it, but you could just educate the Council. What consideration have you given to sea level rise in the bike path? Any project that is approved by the Coastal Commission, in fact has to address the issue of sea level rise. That is a major component that the Coastal Commission asks us to review. You will see and in fact this is a great location that in fact the current tides in fact impact the the path. So what we look at is where the mean high tide line is, where the king tide typically occurs, and then do some rough calculations about what the potential could be for increased sea level rise. And you will see that, in fact, we have pulled the path back closer to the landside to address those inundation events and occurrences . So we believe I mean, there's no failsafe solution for a beach bike path that we've taken into account sea level rise by, in fact putting this path on the landside as opposed to on the water side. And so we believe that we've addressed it to the best of our ability at this point in time. Thank you. Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to first say, I know that you've been working with council staff often on this issue, and I do think that the changes that we were able to make at Coastal Commission with regards to moving the path over to the landside was ultimately the right thing to do. I know there's obviously a cost issue there. I have a question about I know we've heard on a few occasions that that isn't the joining the two paths or I know that in parts of the path there joins other adjacent to each other. And I know it's been said that that's not ideal for for safety reasons. Is it the obvious ones that are that are are you saying because of possible accidents or. I'm just wondering a little bit more on that. And and I only ask because to me, it would seem that the more that we can have them adjacent to each other, the better. That's without maybe knowing the science or the data behind accidents. But that that's what would appear to me to be the best solution. In addition to that, that's the case. And I think in much of Europe, if you go around and look at bike paths, which are certainly more prevalent throughout most European cities are almost always just adjacent to the pedestrian path or the sidewalk. We we took a look at a number of paths that, in fact, were adjacent to one another and basically separated, sometimes by a curb, sometimes not. And one of the key things that we're trying to address is safety and preventing those pedestrians from moving over onto the bike path and the bicyclist moving on to the pedestrian path , having a curb. Yes, it prevents those pedestrians or certainly the bicyclists from going onto the pedestrian path, but it is not a good solution for pedestrians. When you look at the path up and down the Southern California area, there is a significant amount of pedestrians that just step right over that curb and are walking on the bike path. And that we have found that, in fact, if there is a clear separation between the two, you have improved safety dramatically. And that is one of our key purposes is to improve and enhance that safety. And one last question. And the the other issue is one of the key things we want to be able to allow here are the dogs to be able to walk on this path, because that is a activity that we've heard resoundingly. Our our residents would like to have the ability to walk their dogs. Again, having a separated path between the two is critical for that function so that the dogs just aren't walking over that path. And we believe it is a much safer environment to have that separation. Even so, you're saying essentially, even with a curb, you don't find that to be the most. You find it to be very safe, because we. Know in the case in point is the city of Santa monica, if you've ever walk that path, they're immediately adjacent with a curb. And in talking to the staff there, they said there's incredible what they call migration between the two user groups where you'll get pedestrians walking on the bike path because there isn't that separation. Okay. My last question was, and I know we haven't revisited this since this was back at council in our last discussion, and I'm wondering what where we left off. There was a discussion, and I think at the commission, what we did was we reduced the the the amount of space between the paths, correct. Yes. And so we reduced it for remind me. We reduced it from what to what. It was approximately ten feet before and we've reduced it to about six feet. And the six feet is the minimum in order to get equipment to groom the sand. And so six feet is the minimum. The minimum. And in talking with coastal staff, that was acceptable to the coastal staff. And it's the minimum because of the type of equipment we have. Exactly. Is there equipment that that could do it in three. I'm just curious. In a smaller amount of of width. We. Yeah. I'm looking at our, our consultant and know there isn't equipment that in fact is off the shelf equipment. What we haven't looked at is whether or not we would be able to get customized equipment. But I don't think we wanted to go down that that path, so to speak, because having custom designed equipment is much more costly for the city. Okay. And I only ask because obviously I think it's everyone's goal to obviously preserve as much as much beach as possible. And so, you know, the more we can limit that space, that the more access there is to to the to the public beach. Council membership scheme. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the items in the the staff memo that and I guess we've had a response given to all of us is the public garden and beach master planning efforts. Can staff briefly go over what you're presenting to us and then give the the people in the audience an opportunity to respond to it because it seems like they're not the same planet here. When we look at what it's being told to us and what the response has been from those that were engaged by the city of Long Beach to come up with the the art plan that they did. It is our understanding back in 2002 that the the Public Corporation for Arts PCH, which is is kind of now the Arts Council, engaged some artists to prepare a plan. A significant amount of time has passed since that period. And what is occurred to date is that we are now moving ahead with some of the projects that, in fact were in that original Parks master plan. And that original Parks master plan indicated that, yep, there there should be an art component. But the attorney's office was pretty clear to us that in fact we would need to go for a bid so no single artist would have a lock on that particular art piece, that if we are going to incorporate art into projects that would need to go out for a competitive bid. We are incorporating art in some of the major projects, for example, the Belmont Pool. When that project went out for a proposal, we asked that the team, in fact include an artist as part of the project development team. So there are strategically we are including artists in the projects that have a a major financial commitment and smaller projects such as the pedestrian path. Initially, we had some art component that we wanted to include, but there was opposition both from the Coastal Commission in the community about paving additional area so that we withdrew that particular component so that we would really minimize the amount of beach area that we were paving over. So I guess the answer to your question is, is that we are still incorporating art. It is on a project by project basis and it will depend really upon the scope and the scale of the project. I think my concern is that apparently the city spent $200,000 on this and that the according to the response that we got, that the Department of Parks and Recreation contracted with the artist to develop an art master plan for the beach, which was reviewed and approved by the Marine Advisory Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Once approved, the artist collaborated with landscape architects, designers, planners and engineers as subcontractors to Tetra Tech, which I know the city was using for quite a bit, which are architects and engineering firm. And again, it cost the city in excess of 200,000. So I'm a little puzzled why the city would have gone through this extensive process, put a a bid out for a competitive bidding, which was, by the way, done. And then the responses now and I think the reason quite claims for the reason that nothing's been done with it since is because there's been no focused attention up until now about the path and this is how this got revisited. So I'm just why would why did the city go through the process and spend $200,000 if it really didn't want to art master plan for the beach? I think there's some confusion about the plans. The $200,000 was, in fact, for the the beach parks master plan that was prepared. And that master plan, in fact, it had. That's our industry. There may be a difference of opinion about this, but we've gone back into the records and talked to the Parks and Recreation staff, and their recollection is there was never a separate arts master plan. There, in fact was a beach master plan that was done that included some amphitheaters and skate parks and a significant amount of development along the coastal area. It was about $100 million capital improvement project that included some ideas about how the art could be incorporated as part of that overall master plan. That was never pursued because of the cost associated with it. The artists, I believe, were part of the overall design team that were. Working on all of the concepts related to that particular project. So that is our understanding of the information as gleaned from the staff reports and also from the Parks and Rec staff. Well, hopefully they get an opportunity, Mr. Mayor, if they can respond, since they there's some information in the memo, the public memo that I think questions their. They're working with the appropriate professionals on this. So what happened with this? So we spent all this money or we're not using any of the. Plan that they brought back? Yes. What was determined is that this was a extensive plan that was done with new handball courts and volleyball courts and things like that, paving over the sand and creating major recreation areas. Twofold, the community started to object to it because it was such a extensive and comprehensive revision to the coastline. Number one. Number two, there was not the funding to actually support that level of development in the coastal area. So instead, what we've been doing is picking and choosing some of those projects. For example, the pedestrian path that was one of the projects that was identified, a connection from the parking lot to the top of the bluff . That was another project that was identified. We're moving forward with that. So we're taking a number of the projects that, in fact, are feasible, don't have significant impacts to the residential community or to the environment. We're moving forward with those projects. Well, you know, when I brought this to your office's attention, because the two artists that participated in this process brought their plan and said, this is what we produced. I know that your office indicated never heard that this had happened. So perhaps maybe we can dig a little bit deeper and find out why these people and they're going to talk about it tonight, I'm sure. But, you know, to go through the process and, you know, to the design and things like that and to spend that kind of money and then for us really as a city, not to know that they did it as we are approaching this particular area, that that's what they were asked to design on. I would I'd hope we can somehow use some of their their work and effort otherwise we've spent a lot of money for not so. Yeah. Okay. In the comments. I'll entertain a motion. You have motion on the floor before you hear anything goes, even if it's for discussion purposes. So I'm not one. I need a second, second movement. Second. Although public comment, please, if you're going to come forward now, listen carefully. I want to see how many people here will try to get everybody. 3 minutes. When you see, you'll have a green light. When you see the yellow light, that means you have 30 seconds left. Please try to be as efficient with your time as possible and give us your name and be mindful of the time. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jim Corbett. I live in Belmont Shore and I originally came here after talking to Eric Lopez against this proposal of the pedestrian path. And I have now heard tonight from Ms.. Frick that it's going to be dog friendly and I own three dogs. And I now come and say, I would. Like to have. This path on the beach and I support it. Thank you. That was very efficient. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next week. Larry gives you clear as the address. First of all, I'd like to thank Eric Lopez for all the time that he's put him with on this project. Let me deal, first of all, with the one aspect that is intelligent and that is the aspect of eliminating the at the blind angle around Belmont Pier. Beyond that, the majority of this project is thoroughly divorced from intelligence and a lack of understanding of human use, patterns and human nature. There is no power on earth that is going to stop the people from merging into where they want to go, period. It's unenforceable. You'd have to put police on the bike path or on the sidewalk up above. Period. It almost is. It is almost on par with the rear with the head up their rear bike path that goes down on third street or where the concrete separation. It just doesn't work. It defies human nature. There is a case if there is if around where the outflows are going, if that needs to be corrected. Yes, but just leave the existing path there. People ask questions. The question was raised, well, not enough people are going there. The fact is, there's nothing to go to over the vast expanse, a vast expanse of the area. You've got three and a half miles of something that's essentially as exciting as coming to a council meeting. There's nothing there. Up around Belmont Pier. Yes. At the other end shoreline. Yes. But there's no draw. You've got up on the bay, up on the bluff. You've got some green, you've got a nice vista. If somebody is going to come and want to go to the water, they're going to come down to where the parking is. They're not going to travel for two and a half miles on a concrete, concrete walkway or the new the new type of surface you're going to create, which is really not all that exciting and all that practical. I've seen it. We've got it down around the Marine Stadium at the closed end and in the Dunster path and some other period. And that's not a panacea that all this is is a boondoggle to funnel out money to contractors and to consultants who hopefully it'll kick it back into people's campaign coffers. Keep what you've got now. Fix it or fix that right angle there and do what needs to be done to save the parking. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Well, I don't know. I mean, the fish. But I like to make it about six points as to how the bike path and pedestrian walk on the beach could be improved. First, I would suggest you have pyramids. My small pyramids marking the miles that the bike pedestrian goes three miles. One, two, three have a marked out. So they have a sense of progress. The second thing I would take note of is that the view is the seen as a first seems to be. You really can't see the ocean when you see the ocean and not the waves, which is really the majestic part of the ocean. You can see the waves from the pedestrian bike walk. So I would suggest you put up at least three, three billboards along the way that very artfully that are health oriented suggesting suggestions which shot would you should watch out for in the sun and and possibly the daytime swimming facility to advertise that maybe about three billboards health oriented I think would be very distracting really, and will communicate revenue. The third thing I like to say is that maybe it would be a good idea because you're sweating under the hot sun, exerting yourself that they have at least two or one water station along the way. A machine not necessarily out. That would be expense not needed, but a water machine for the people that don't have that facility on their bikes or for the walkers, for that matter. I would also like to point out an emergency phone might treat me along the way because you're you're straining and your heart has got to be conditions for this kind of exercise frequently that you have an emergency phone along the way so they can call in if somebody is in fear of getting hurt. Now, the other thing is, and this is no suggestion, so much as a critical comment, I don't see why you have to worry about bicycle and pedestrian dangers. Since when is a bike really being a danger to a pedestrian? They go slow and they can stop very easily and they have a clear view to be no big landmarks blocking it. So this bit about this is overdoing it, and I may sound like I'm overdoing it, but I think you're overdoing it a bit much. Probably a million bucks more wasted again frequently. Yeah, but it's just that it's not necessary to go to the expense of having a bike. And. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Dunne. Your time. Time is up. And Second Street. They drive a bicycle to drive right into traffic. Thank you. Thank you so much. You're either. Thank you. Before I take the next speaker, I just want to note, if I if everyone uses up to 3 minutes, we're going to we've got about an hour and 6 minutes of public comment. So the more efficient we can, the better. Please, sir. My name is Chris Ruggles, resident of Long Beach. I want to say that this idea of having a separate walking path and a bike path is excellent. I use the bike path a lot. I love it. It's a great part of Long Beach. It makes living here nice. And if you've ever been on the bike path, you know that. People saunter around in the bike lane. If you ring your little bell to go around them, that give you a look of a lot of attitude. And to Councilman O'Donnell, suggestion, councilman, I truly believe you can make it as wide as the four or five freeway and people would still criss cross. So I think widening the path is not a good suggestion. Having to pass will at least orient the people that, hey, everybody's walking on that path or riding on this path. Maybe I should walk over here. It will make riding a bike safer, more pleasurable. It'll make walking on the beach safer and more pleasurable. I support it. Absolutely. And if we want to save some money, let's take any art out of it, because I don't think anybody in the past looking at art. Thank you. Thank you. You just we've got about 20 some odd people in line. So if you could try to reduce your time, it'd be efficient because otherwise we'll be here for an hour and a half. Thank you. Good. Okay. Yeah. Mayor Foster, members of the council. My name is Bob Seeger, and I'm also a resident of Long Beach, and I'm the CEO of a company called Run Racing. And we are the ones that organized the annual marathon in October. I am here to speak on behalf of the the widening of the bike path. In 13 years, we have taken the marathon from 4500 people to almost 25,000 participants this past year. This is our 30th anniversary, 2014. And one of the bestselling parts that we have for selling the marathon to people all across the country is this 3.1 miles of run along the beach. It's a great selling point for us. And I think the running path with a a runner friendly surface would be a great asset. We want to continue to grow the marathon, and this is an important fact for us, too, to be able to continue to grow the event as years go by, the economic impact. And to that, in 2009, we did an economic impact report. The marathon was had about $27 million direct impact for Long Beach in the surrounding area. This is our 30th anniversary. We plan to do another economic impact. And and I think it's going to surprise everybody that it's growth. So we're definitely in support of it. And I know a lot of people would like to see it and it is a safety issue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Seagram. Yes. Hello. My name is Kelly Edwards. I've been a resident of Long Beach for nine years, four in Belmont Shores and now five in downtown area. I must say that I am a competitive athlete, so I like to train a lot and run down on the path. I really don't. I have, you know, I am good at following the law. I don't run into bikes, so I'm very good on keeping clear of those. There are people that don't follow the law. For instance, the bike paths that we have now, I still see people that actually will bike on the sidewalk next to the path . So, you know, for me, I just think that I agree with Councilman O'Donnell with widening it and maybe not just a little curb. Make it make it a little bit higher because with that, if we're doing that six feet in between, we're taking away from the volleyball, we're taking away from the soccer, the football that happens. The only thing that I do agree with is I would like to run with my chocolate lab on the bike path. And I don't have that option right now, but I understand that safety's an issue. But we also have to be responsible people and ourselves and, you know, know not to run into into traffic. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate that. Next. Hi. My name is Evan Kelly. I'm a been a resident of downtown for six years and I'm an avid cyclist. I ride the the path weekly, if not daily. I'm going to cut to the point here. There's a five foot walking path, and I hear that people can follow the rules. But the big issue is people with children and that child takes one step over into the bike lane and the vehicle hit them. A six foot path will keep running children out of the bike lane. Currently you have enough space for one bike going one way, one bike going another way, and maybe one pedestrian. But the best chance usually don't walk one on one. They're usually holding hands, and now everybody's looking at the beach. The cyclists are looking at the water, the walkers are looking at the water. And that meandering happens no matter how much you want to stay within the rules. So I believe that the separated paths, the two paths, is the safest way to go. And I believe that the city has gone back several times and made revisions and taken community input. And of course the commission recommendations have made the best possible plan. So I support it and I hope you do, too. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next week. My name is Mike Culligan. And I live in the fourth District Los Altos area. Recently retired from Tidelands Oil Production Company for 30 years service middle management. And I'm here in support of the the widening of the bike path, the separation. It all really all comes down to public safety when it comes to the marathon. Over the past several years, I've been involved in the SAG Wagons support vehicle where I work, picking up the tired runners that are disabled or whatever, as well as working with the Long Beach Police Department to reopen the streets. In a safe and timely manner. And it really comes down to public safety in this issue and that. Plus the inherent liability of the accidents that I've witnessed out. There by just riding my bike. Out there from time to time. It's the you've got to have this separation between between the the pedestrians and these bikes. That are going really too fast. You should be getting tickets out there sometimes. Otherwise, you know, you're going to just keep having a safety issue out there. And it really comes down to safety and. Liability for the runners. So I would I would urge you to, without further delay. To proceed with this fully funded project. And I thank. You, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. You guys are doing great. Thank you very much. Good evening, everyone. My name is Terri Bronstein, and I'm an artist. I live at 262 Belmont Avenue, Long Beach. I'm here to strongly recommend that you vote against the proposed pedestrian path that has been referred to by the press as a two lane highway. Is this the image that we want to present for our city? We are against approving this path because it does nothing to make the beach more attractive and is based upon the uninspired 25 year old bike path. When we talk about a new pedestrian path, we should be talking about added adding value, making our beach as attractive and enjoyable as possible. We should be talking about a design process that resulted in the outstanding beaches of Santa monica and Huntington Beach. We should be talking about approaching all development on the beach so that the planning includes input from the community from the beginning. The Arts Council, the Sierra Club, Surfrider and all other critical stakeholders. The Parks and Recreation Plan path was designed to add value, the opposite of being seen as a simplistic highway. And I want to mention here that we are really not talking about art here at all. This has been something that's been confused from the beginning. We're not proposing our plan with all of the art elements in it. We're talking about the shape of a pedestrian path and where it goes. That's what the issue is tonight. And all of these other issues about that seem to have clouded the eye. What we're what we're really concerned about, the design of the Parks and Recreation Plan path creates a poetic connection between the real beach walkway and the imagined coast of Southern California. We recognize, however, that the Parks and Recreation Plan is only one example of what could be done on our beach over the past three months. We have had discussions with many neighborhood groups and important stakeholders, including the Belmont Shore, Belmont Heights Bluff Park and North Alamitos Residents Association, the Sierra Club, the Surf Riders, the Arts Council of Long Beach. The Historical Society of Long Beach. Long Beach Heritage. The Long Beach Museum of Art and the Belmont Brewing Company. They all indicated that they liked this design approach better than the highway on the beach path shown to them by city staff. What we took away from all of these meetings was a loud plea for the city to show a vision that truly recognizes the beach as its major asset. All groups felt that any pedestrian path that is built should be based upon an integrated plan that includes artistic values along with landscaping, engineering and design. And this is another thing to then say We're planning to put art on the beach as we get to each section. We were talking about the restrooms and these other amenities that would go in later. What we're saying is that we need a plan. That's an overall plan. That's not one where you call in artists to do each section. That will come later. But you have to start with some kind of vision, some kind of idea, some kind of over riding idea. Okay, I'd just like a few more minutes. That you do not have a few more minutes you need to conclude. Okay. Frankly, everyone. I'm sorry, ma'am. You've had over 3 minutes. Everybody gets 3 minutes. You know it's done. Thank you. Next, please. Hi. My name is Craig. Stone and I have been a resident, the city of Long Beach since 1976. I live at three four, four nine Lees Avenue. I have taught at Cal State Long Beach for the last 34 years. I'm a tenured professor and what I teach is public art and public space development, and about the value of having artist design engaged in the design of a project from the onset. So I applaud that you're starting to do that on these next projects. And I also really there's been a lot of thought that's gone into this process. But what I want to talk to you about is just maybe a little better process. I've known about the subject of this public art simply because I designed the very first course on it in public art for artists in the United States. It was many years ago. I'm also a public artist, so I've also produced public art that you might be familiar with The Shadows and Bill or the type of Signal Hill And the last one was with the prominent. So. So this is. Background. I'm here to speak about a way of designing public spaces that can provide value, often for less money than these conventional design processes. During the recession of 1990, there was an article in the National Journal for Public Art, which is called Public Art Review, about the design of a lobby where rather than purchasing an artwork from an artist to put in the lobby, the artist was hired to collaborate with the architect developer and to design an entire lobby as a work of art. The cost to create the lobby as a work of art was exactly the same as the building of a conventional lobby and putting a piece of artwork in there. But the value is much, much, much greater. There were no additional cost to maintain the artwork because the floor, the ceiling, the walls, the lobby that comprised the artwork was the very surfaces that the artworks made out of the contractors thought they were building a lobby so they didn't understand they were building an artwork until they were done. They were completely surprised and would probably have charged more. They thought it was art. When the owner went to rent the offices in the building, all the tenants indicated that the lobby design that convinced them to lease convinced them to rent their offices, to lease their offices. The project was the first conceptual collaboration between an artist and an architect and the developer in this particular city. And it demonstrated a way to create value with very little extra cost because the artist was brought in at the beginning of the design stage and not after the lobby had been designed and built. What city did this take place in? Know this was the city of Long Beach. The lobby as an artwork is located. It's the Krinsky building on Third and Pine Street Avenue. There's an idea that's called artist added value that grows out of this. And basically when you have an artist come in on the initial aspect of the project, then it changes the context in which things are done, right? Just what we have now is a line, and the line is. You need to conclude, I'm sorry, I can't do this. I people behind you. I appreciate that. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. I think we got the point. Thank you. Good evening. My name is David Lott, one of the owners of Belmont Brewing Company. We've been down there over 23 years, and I'd like to address the issue of the 90 degree turn. We have a confluence of walkers, pedestrians and bikers, people going down the path from 39th place to the parking lot. They're going north. South bikers are going east west. In my humble opinion, the last thing you want to do is eliminate that 90 degree turn to allow those bikers to go faster, which is what will happen. What you need to do, in my humble opinion, is put a solar powered, flashing sign to say, slow down or walk your bike. This will improve safety. It will eliminate cost and hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs and retain those parking spaces. And if I could quote the certified postal plan that I'd revised in 2006 that no, there would be no reduction in parking spaces. Councilor Long has that letter that we sent to him. So. And it will also reducing parking spaces from 32 to 20 is, from what I understand, just a matter of re striping, which is, is what it is, is still reducing access. Eliminating that that 92 return is going to make it much more dangerous. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate that. Next, please. Good evening. My name is Evan Baroudi. I am wife. My wedding dress is on file, I'm sure. Former Councilperson and currently the president of the Historical Society of Long Beach. Just some history because I was here in 86 briefly and I was the one who spoke in front of the Coastal Conservancy to get the matching funds for our bicycle, for our path. Now, it was not very inspired. We wanted to have basically we just wanted to have some way to get people down the path, enjoy our beach as best they could. And that was one way to do it. And we did it with both the bicycles as well as with pedestrian. It's clear to me over the years that I've been living here that there's a better way to do that. And I think that the concept of having two different paths is the right way to go. I do, however, and I believe Mr. Bernstein brought it up and others that we should be more inspired with the path that we put in for the pedestrians, the bicycles. They go by really quick, but the walkers they want, they walk. And if we want them to come down and enjoy it and be more than more than just a place to walk and look at the ocean, which is a beautiful place to be, is maybe, you know, give us some whether it's art or history lessons or whatever along the path. And that's what was designed in the early designs that they came back for. They came to us at the Historical Society. We all thought this was a very interesting concept. And to rush, rush it too. And I realize you may not say it's been rushed because it started back in 2003, but it was dead for many, many years. And the reality is we need to try to find a way to make it more interesting, invigorating for people who are walking and something that would we would be proud of as the city of Long Beach to present to the rest of the country, the community and the area. I think it's a it's something we should be doing and we shouldn't be just. Quickly having a path that's exactly next to it, and it should have a lot more to it than this. Anyway, I don't want to go anything further. I'll be short and thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Appreciate it. Next week. Good evening. My name is Marcus Schindler, and I'm president of the Arts Council for the City of Long Beach. I live on Ocean Boulevard. I had a three minute speech prepared. It was timed, but a lot has been said. So it's sitting on my seat still, so I'm going to keep it real short. Esthetic considerations. Are super. Important in our society when all intrinsic values are the same. Whether we're choosing shoes, a car, a home or a city to visit or live in, it's the esthetic consideration that tips the ballot, tips the balance. We choose the more attractive pair of shoes, the more attractive city, the more attractive house. So this is something very important to keep in mind when we're designing something for the community to enjoy because we want something that attracts the community as well as people from other communities because that helps drive the economy as well. And also another thing to consider is the integrity of the process itself. This was a process. That was started. It was vetted to a certain extent. And the idea, the aim of this process was to make sure there weren't any rushed expenditures, so the aims were foresighted. So I think that's something to keep in mind because, you know, we're coming out of a period of crisis where there was a lot of fast tracking and that was due to a lopsided sense of values. And I think one thing that's important is that our. Teachers values and that a city that cherishes art. Cherishes its citizens as well. And if we don't, we become victim to lopsided values. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Segal. Appreciate it. Good evening. City Council Mayor Foster, my name is Gordon and Cager. I live at 235 Loma Avenue and I first want to start with a huge thank you to those of you who were willing to speak with me in the last few weeks regarding the process for the speech path and the consideration of the use of Tidelands funds for a project when this is definitely has been demonstrated this evening, a piecemeal project, there are elements of what is an over ten year old plan, maybe closer to 15 year old plan, now being brought forward in a piecemeal process, which I have tried to demonstrate to. Those of you willing to listen is not the process that these people here want to hear from you. We have an obligation to involve the community. We have an obligation to involve the public in these kinds of projects. That has not been demonstrated. Is anyone here proud of the process that's coming forward on this beach path? These are the people who should have been listened to three years ago, five years ago. These are the people who now, now today have an opportunity to speak. Mayor Foster. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of time for them. They only get 3 minutes. This is a process that we know how to do. We know how to involve the public. We know how to do it with CDP. We know how to do it with a breakwater reconfiguration. We know how to do it in lots of other elements of our community, and this has not been demonstrated. I'd also like to say that there is a trouble with Tidelands here in Long Beach. We have a lot of money coming forward. This project may not be the priority that we need right now. Tidelands money should be addressed and the use of that money and a masterplan be developed with community input, with public participation that allows people to give their opinion and help guide the city as we move forward. I'd ask that you stop this project this evening, reconsider the process, reconsider the folks that want to participate and haven't been given an opportunity. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms.. Gauger. Next, please. My name is Vernon Wright. I live at 513 West Ward log out in the vaguely area of Long Beach and I and I'm the fitness coach for yes we serve who we train second and 3/5 grade children traveling. I'm a training coach for the big league river runners who prepare the minors for the Wrigley River event. Five and ten k run. I am also the coach for a coach for Back on my Feet, which has two running groups here in Long Beach. And needless to say, I'm an avid long distance runner. Some of the benefits of running, it's a top calorie burner. It's inexpensive, great for your social life, great for a long time, lifts your mood, increases the self esteem. A great reason to get outside and appreciate nature, reduces stress, lengthens your life span, gives you goals to work towards, boosts created creativity. And the only thing that it doesn't do is enhance one's public speaking skills. The the widening of the current bike path is a make sense proposal for more reasons than one. One is the economic impact this unique running path will give to the city of Long Beach. We have four major running clubs, clubs here in Long Beach, and they all train on this here bike path. We we use the bike path to train for various races, including the Long Beach Marathon, the Long Beach, Turkey Trot, the vaguely river run. And as major races get closer, like the L.A. Marathon or the Surf City Marathon, the bike path fills up. A wider path will allow for more room for cyclists plus some of them and this is the public speaking part the a wider path will allow more room for cyclists and thus pull some of them off of the road and will bring more people to our beaches to enjoy the outdoors, to eat and to take advantage of our blue skies. What stands out most for me is the family structure. I use this pathway to push my grandson in a jogging stroller and there is not much more that warms my heart than watching parents do the same with their children. A wider pathway is safer and will create a family friendly environment. Currently, the path can be dangerous when cyclists, runners, walkers and children share the same space. So I respectfully ask that this project be moved forward for the health and the well-being of the users of this pathway. Thank you. Thank you. Pretty good words. Next. My name's Joe Gaber. I live in Belmont Heights. I want to make a couple of observations. One, I think that this. Exercise of designing the path from. The podium tonight really kind of illustrates the total inadequacy of public notice and comment prior to getting this point in the process. You know, we should have had this long before staff got this far down the road. Chacon I want to clarify that the Coastal Commission special condition was pretty clear and unambiguous. That the path needs to be inland from the existing path. There are segments. Of the design that don't meet that condition. But more importantly than all that. I agree with this notion of getting a master plan for our beach. It has multiple benefits. You know what the vision is? You know what you're going to end up with at the end of the process. It gives you it gives. You an opportunity to make sure that multiple. Projects that are going. On at that beach don't conflict with each other. And it gives you an opportunity to prioritize which of those projects come first. Can't build things that are unimportant, but at the exclusion of those that are important. Just for a couple. I mean, there's a I can come up with a laundry list of examples, but a couple of examples of the potential conflicts. We're talking about improving the Belmont Pier and improving this bike path, pedestrian path. At the same time, it's my understanding that most of the accidents happen at that intersection on the pier. Is it really going to be safer if you if you encourage that cross traffic, you got more people coming on the pier and more people on the bike path. Are you improving safety or are you exacerbating the hazard? I also hear plans for dunes construction on the beach. Look, that's an admirable thing. But if you're doing dunes creation on the beach for habitat values and you're putting a, you know, heavily traveled path right next to those dunes, they're not consistent. You need a master plan to put all these pieces of the puzzle together before you go spending any money on any one piece. Anyway, I encourage you to fall back. Save your money. Make sure you got a plan in place before you start putting these pieces together. Thanks very much. Thank you. Mayor Bill Davis, president of Belmont Heights. I used a bike path frequently. Three days a week, three days a week on a bike, one day a week on a long walk, including a bike trip to the aquarium for my volunteer duties commuting. I strongly suggested the bike path be improved. It does need to be improved and safety needs to be enhanced. However, I'm probably one of the few people who's actually seen the conceptual drawings and renderings that Terri and David produced as part of the masterplan. And quite frankly, those renderings and drawings were stunning, absolutely stunning. And to me, it just is a tragedy that they were kind of lost in the bureaucratic shuffle and does not speak well, I think, to the way that the city is doing this business. I strongly urge the Council to move this item back to staff with instructions to include all stakeholders, to include esthetic and cultural elements into the plan, and perhaps even to include the larger master plan. Thank you very much. Mr. Davis. Next. Hello. My name is Seamus Innes. I'm a live in Long Beach, 3951 door in the fourth District. I'm a licensed civil engineer and a practicing coastal engineer in California for 20 years. And the vice chairman of Long Beach chapter of the Surf Foundation. We've been working on the plan with the city for a couple of years, and at the beginning it was a very bad plan and it's much better than it was, but it still has a long ways to go. And the surf right at position on it the whole time has been we're not sure if a whole new path is necessary, but if one is, it should be on the language side and the amount of new pavement should be minimized. The key reasons for this, for these conditions were are that sea level rise is coming and we're going to lose our beach to sea level rise. Whether we believe it or not, it's going to happen. And if there's one thing we learned from Superstorm Sandy is that wide stable sandy beaches protect structures, bluffs, homes, neighborhoods a lot better than beaches that are paved over with ferris wheels or pedestrian paths or bathrooms or other stuff like that. So in order to incorporate these coastal engineering features like sea level rise and sandy stable beaches, the city should make an effort to have those things into a master plan. The master plan. The same one that could incorporate. Static features and we need to really improve the process because you know, us, like a lot of other people, feel that we've been not really taken seriously and we shouldn't have 20 people, all those people here talking to you guys, this should all be taken care of ahead of time. Please find a way to get the process improved. Also, this is a good practice session because when the breakwater comes, that line is going to be four times as long. So please find a way to improve the process. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Bill Shin. I'm a 32 year resident of Belmont. Sure, some people flat out don't want a pedestrian path. Others want to create one with cluttered up with extra elements. I think the current plan strikes the balance between those opposing sides and the City Council would be wise to approve it. I have attended three of the 14 presentations by Tidelands manager Eric Lopez and have watched the process play out over the past two years. The best thing about Mr. Lopez, his plan is that it minimizes the loss of open space by having the two paths parallel in close proximity. It never ceases to amaze me that people will see an open space and come up with schemes to pave over it. There is no reason to add anything other than a pedestrian path. It's a beach created by Mother Nature. Why mess with it? And the talk of having a meandering pedestrian path is impractical. The only room for it would be on the ocean side of the current path. And we've learned from the Coastal Commission and interest groups that they don't want any permanent structure on that side. On the inland side, at least, for example, from the Belmont Pool down to Granada, there are like 12 volleyball courts. And then if you go farther east, you've got people playing ultimate Frisbee. You've got youth soccer leagues, adult soccer leagues, adult football leagues. It's it's gets very wide. It's used a lot. And it needs to remain an open space. The last thing I'd like to say is regarding the dogs. I frequently see people illegally walking their dogs on the current path, and a lot of times the dogs can't make it in time to get to the dog beach. So they'll just put their dog out on the beach and either pick a pick up after it or they'll just cover sand over it. I don't think beachgoers should be subjected to have to walk through that. So if you do. Allow dogs. On the bike, on the pedestrian path, they should curb it on the path itself and not despoil the beach. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Next. Hi. My name's Jason Dunham. Back and here, representing. Volunteers for an. Adventure club we organize of the beach football, beach soccer, beach volleyball, beach tennis, the adult sports crowd. And we're going into youth league soon, primarily near the corner. Of Granada Avenue and Ocean. Um, we have over 350 plus participants a Saturday and Sunday weekend basis. Have a growing footprint. Every year we bring the community out there to have. A good time, get involved with sports, meet new. People, make new friends, and it's a great experience. So we like to see the path kept closer to the inland area. So that way we have more space available to. Expand. Our area and our setup and our events on the beach. And to get more people out there playing. Um, so we're not against any, any design. Or artwork that's not going to take away. Beach space, but we want to keep that area open for the. Community to use. So thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mike Filippo, born and raised in Long Beach all my life. I am currently at Poly High School. I've been there 25 years. I teach science and I am the cross-country coach and the distance track coach. So we need this path on the beach. I run 150 kids in the area and we're surrounded by a concrete jungle. In this day of childhood obesity and kids getting carpal tunnel syndrome from texting too much. We need to keep our kids active and we need. Areas where they can be. Active. A bike path, a pedestrian path on the beach would be a huge, huge bonus for our youth runners as we're down there once or twice a week already, but very limited on our options. What we can do. The idea of running surfaces has been documented would be beneficial to all of our youth runners. Every year, when we come back to school from a summer. Of training by three weeks and. Kids have shin splints because sidewalks around the area. This would give another opportunity. Of the proper running service surface for. Our youth athletes. I highly recommend that you approve this project. Which has been in the planning stages for a long. Time, to help our kids in the city continue to be active. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, I'm Wesley Park. I'm a runner over Polly, so our whole team is pretty much in on the support of this. We're down there once a week, and we run on that. That concrete, pat and concrete really sucks for your knees. And just like for runners. So, like, that path would be, like, awesome to have to run on and stuff. And when we're on that path, when you've like 90 guys on that path. That really narrow bike path, and then there's like a caravan of like cyclists, it's, it gets like it's chaos. So it'd be nice to have like a separate lane and. Yeah. That's it. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Clark. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. And Council. My name's Andy Kerr, and I live in the eighth District and have been a lifetime resident of the city. I just want to reiterate what the young man said. I've been running on that path since 1986 when I was in high school, and I have the joints and the ligaments now to prove it. And so is a lifelong runner. I just want to reemphasize all the points that have already been made by the previous runners and especially Coach Mike Filipov, who's a wonderful asset to the Long Beach Poly and the high school community here in Long Beach. And just as an amazing job with our young runners and and I had that type of coach in high school here in Long Beach that gave me a lifelong love of running. And we are surrounded in a concrete jungle. Just a couple other quick points I think is an amazing environmentalist. And I think as an environmentalist, this strikes a good balance. I think the National Park Service presents a good model when they have an opportunity with a natural resource to create it more, to be more accessible to the community and to provide better access to the community. They do that. They move forward with that. So I think that's a good point. As far as the 20 parking spaces and creating a more you losing those spaces and creating a more safe running a bicycle path. I grew up in Long Beach. I get cars. King were a car culture, but I think we need to get beyond that and realize that we do have this health issue in our community. We need to get kids more active. We need to get us older people more active. And 20 parking spaces is not a really big cost. And I think the improvement to the beaches as a result of doing this plan, I think the businesses in the community are going to benefit far more than 20 parking spaces. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Alan Crawford, a Long Beach resident executive director for Bikeable Communities and former bike person for the city of Long Beach. I'd just like to address Patrick O'Donnell's culture on O'Donnell's issues, on safety. And I'd like to make two points. One, that the separated facility really is much more important to illustrate that in just a moment. And to the curb doesn't solve your problem. As a matter of fact, if you go to the FAA air manual, you will see that they expressly say, no, don't do that for a very simple reason. Cyclists coming along. Think of a small child. They hit the curb. They go over, they hit their head. They're in trouble. So that's you that's. That's not a solution. Santa monica has done it for very short distances and they've accepted the liability for doing that. I don't think we want to accept that liability. Under the second point on the separated path, as illustrated by a story from Washington, D.C., area gentleman, 66 years old, riding a bike, $88 huffy, not exactly a lycra clad individual comes up behind an older woman, rings his bell. She does not hear him. She steps in front of the bike. She is hit. She falls, she cracks her head and dies. That's the problem. It's very, very simple. Bikes and pads don't mix very well. There's a very strong reason. We have a strong ordinance in Long Beach that says bikes are not permitted on sidewalks in residential and commercial areas. The same should apply for our beaches. Thank you. Thank you. They gave their council members first two items to do with their proposal. I don't think that they need to take away the parking spaces at the pier. I agree with the gentleman from the Belmont Brewing Company. It's much safer the way it is because I'm a 30 year resident. I cycle and I walk on the beach regularly and the only thing that slows down the bike riders is the fact that they have a turn to make. They're not shooting straight over the pier and there's nothing to stop them. So I think it's safer if they know that that's there, which they do now, and if they need to make the turn, I believe you can widen that ramp that goes down to the beach and you'd have room for both pedestrians and bicyclists and would be safer. On the issue of dogs on the beach, I can understand people love to take their dogs to the beach, but they don't keep them on a three foot leash and they don't keep them by their side. They like to turn them loose or they have these long cords and they let them loose and then people follow them . I live in the shore. I walk Second Street all the time and constantly am having to stop almost being tripped by a dog people. And there's the issue of the what do they do when they go to the bathroom? So I hope you'll consider that there's a very danger there. And thirdly, the problem that you have with all of these people here is there was not a proper public process. This should have gone to something like the Planning Commission. I'm not sure why Tidelands funds tens of millions of dollars are spent without going through a proper planning process. A master plan would be good and then open public hearings where people can know precisely what's happening. Mr. Lopez came to the BSR three times. He didn't tell us where the path was going to be. It was only when I ask that I learned it was going to be on the ocean side. And after that, we repeatedly asked it to be put in Lent. It was not. It was sent to Coastal Commission after they had spent half a million dollars on elaborate demolition, construction plant landscape plants. We only found about it by seeing a little tiny notice like this on the beach. The Sierra Club had never been notified, so if riders did not know it had been sent to Coastal. We had to get everybody together to understand what was happening and then make a major effort at Coastal Commission. It should not have happened that way. It should have gone through a planning commission and a proper process. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. An expert. Good evening, mayor and members of the council. I'm Jeff Miller, a 30 year resident of Long Beach and secretary of the Belmont Shore Residents Association. The bar. Sorry. I want to remind you that sorry. After hearing the presentation by Mr. Lopez about this path and after lengthy discussion, we endorsed a new path for pedestrians, a separation of the bicycles and the pedestrians, and supported that for many of the reasons that have already been discussed. And I won't repeat all of that. We did say, though, that it should be on the inland side only and with numerous discussion and reasons for that as well. And as you know, the Coastal Commission agreed with us. So it's too bad we couldn't have done all of that upfront rather than backwards like this. But I do want to speak to one point, and that is the parking lot and the loss of parking spaces at the pier. It doesn't have to be. There is another way which no one has mentioned this evening. If you take a look at that parking lot and the adjacent pier, what an engineering term is called ground truth. Get out there and take a look. I speak with some knowledge of this because I'm a user of the path, both walking and on bicycle. And I've taken a look at this over and over. Every time I go by the existing path, which goes along the south side of the parking lot and then along the west side up the ramp to the pier is fine and that can serve as is for the bicycle segment of the path inland where the pedestrian path needs to be. There is already a very wide sidewalk and path on the north side of that parking lot and on the west excuse me, the east side of that parking lot. There's no reason that that can't be marked as the pedestrian segment of that path. And there's your solution. And you don't have to pour any new concrete. The unless remember. Please, this is. Referred to as a bicycle path. It's not a raceway. It shouldn't be. So having a 90 degree turn at the pier is just fine. In fact, it's a good thing. Bicyclists need to slow down, maybe even stop, because there is a constant stream of pedestrians going to and from the pier. And in straightening that path so that the bicycles can go faster is a bad idea. So consider that and save those parking spaces. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we. Hello. I'm asking that hill and I ever live down in the shire forever. And I remember when there were surf down in Belmont Shore. And of course, that would be the most terrific thing to bring back to Long Beach is to bring back some surf. I also have walked run the bike. The path of everyone has said many things about it. I don't need to add anything more other than to confirm what they've said. And I think with Long Beach growing forever and they have the the marathon, which also is a great, great thing to do. We need more space. We need it for the bikers. And also on Sundays when young children are down there in strollers with dogs and everything. It's too dangerous, particularly if the bikers are going really fast. I don't really have anything more to add, but thank you for listening to my little speech. Long Beach is great and let's get that surf back. Thank you. I'm Nancy Buchanan. And I did send an email to all of you, but I know it was this morning. I support the new pedestrian path because it will increase the safety and enjoyment to cyclists, runners, walkers and families with kids in strollers, internet. And I walk weekly on the path and five feet definitely is not enough. I also bike weekly on the path. The 3.1 mile beach path brings together East Long Beach, which is Belmont Shore, Naples and the Bay to Within connects it with downtown, which has the hotels and convention center. Now what an excellent connection to showcase our city. The beach path provides an opportunity for groups such as 5013 C's and other groups to raise money for charities. And it brings in thousands and thousands of visitors for people to learn about our city. I am a resident. I am proud to be a volunteer with a Long Beach marathon and also with the Community Action Group with the bike event that's on on the 4th of July, and then also with the turkey trot. Both those events, all those events need more room. Okay. So I'm requesting that you do approved tonight, the pedestrian path. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mrs. Buchanan. Next to me. Hi. My name is Sasha Witty. I live at 3 to 140 second Street, and I'm the president of the Bluff Park Neighborhood Association. Our neighborhood association got a presentation a while back about the second bike path, and overall the support was for a separation of pedestrians and bicyclists. And then more recently, it was brought to our attention of the plan that had been created with Parks and Rec, Terry and David sometime back. The more meandering path, it just seemed like a more comprehensively well-thought out concept. So the neighborhood was very much in support of that. So I'm here on behalf of the Bluff Park Neighborhood Association to say, we'd love you guys, to take a look at it, come up with a more comprehensive plan, go back to some of the things that were already created and take a second look. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Next for Wendy Hahn Bluff Park. And I'm speaking on behalf of Long Beach Heritage Advocacy. I, too, first of all, I really would like to thank Ms.. Braunstein. She has made a. Significant outreach effort to. Inform and. Educate various stakeholders and community groups in the area about this wonderful plan that was developed in 2004. It's absolutely phenomenal. If you had an opportunity to see it, great. If you haven't, I urge you to perhaps have a. Special session where. Planning could present this work. It's really, really delightful to. See, and we would very much support the second path with adherence to or consideration of conformance or incorporating some of those wonderful design elements. Because then I. Think you're going to put Long Beach truly on the map of having a unique resource, an attribute that would be attractive. For many, many. Years to come. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Raven Adder, and I'm a resident of First Street in Long Beach. I'm also a member of the Bluff Park Neighborhood Association, and I sit on that board. As such, I support what our president just said, the position that we have for the board to put it off at this point. But as a private citizen, I would also like to reiterate that point. I think we have the opportunity to make something great at the beach, make it more of a Destin. Nation. And I think today we should just pause to step back and look at the plans that are out there, what's available, and see where we can come up with something a little bit better for all. I thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Miss Spinner. Appreciate. Hello. My name is Mike Ilitch. I'm a five year resident of Long Beach, also one of the owners of Ball to Sport Adventure Club. I've also lived in Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Redondo Beach, and I think there's possibly another feasible approach to this in what I would propose as merely widening the path in consideration of implementing signage that would support the safety of our pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition to that, some responsibility of the city to help police that environment and provide that safer, secure environment for the people who are active at the beach. With that being said, we're at the beach every weekend. We see everything out there. We understand why there's a concern. I see just as much of a problem with people crossing across the bike path to get to the water as people walking down the path itself. So I think there's a lot of things being addressed here and outside of what our club does. It worked with Susan Smith for a few years trying to grow activity here at the beach and now taking it over with our club on behalf of people that aren't here, that play volleyball closer down by this other parking lot, it looks like this proposed plan would actually be removing four courts from that location that are used at least five times a week. So let's just just have that in consideration when you're making your decision. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Mayor Kristof, just quickly comment on that. I wasn't aware of any courts being removed. Or maybe maybe. Because that proposal. Was before the courts right there. He'll be there and they will say yes. All of the existing courts will remain. We're not removing or affecting any of the existing courts. Okay. Thank you. So that's correct. Those are those will stay. For the. Volleyball. Volleyball do cross next week. I am Casey Hunt and don't need to know my whole life story, but I run for poly track and cross-country and we always run down to the beach. And it's kind of fun to run down there, but it kind of sucks running on the bike path because it's like we had to, like, alert each other for bikes because the bikes fly by and you need to like really get over and get onto the sand. So I go around the bikes and so they don't hit you. So I'm thinking that the bet that the. I suck at this that the new pedestrian path would be a good idea because now I know we can all run on the on our own side and the bikers can go on their own side and it be like separate. And also that people will cross over and they're going to say passing on like a highway, a one lane highway. You're going to go around some people, but you'll get back over. And, you know, but I think that the the strip of sand will be a good idea because then you'll want to run through the sand and go, oh, well, too much work and go across it. So I think it's a good idea to separate it and that keeping the 90 degree turn, I mean, I don't I'm just going to say this, that I think it was kind of a good idea because like, it slows people down and like, you know, so people bikes have to go slow because bikers, are they legal fast and they like they they try to hit you so and that seems like a game to them. So I think that's a good 90 degree turns good. The bike path is good and that sounds good. Yeah. Oh, good. All good. I'm good. So thank you. Thank you. Well said. Hi, my name is David Bronstein. And as you can imagine, I've been an active listener of this. And frankly, you know, I'm bothered by the process. Like many of the other people. And I think in the end. I'm going to make this short. But in the end, there are two. Basic questions I. Think you should all consider. First is the community engagement process that reviewed the proposed staff plan complete and satisfactory? And I think you've heard from a lot of people that it isn't. And you have a broken. Process. I sat through several of the association meetings and the participants were quite vocal in their preference for a more interesting path, the one proposed by Terry Braunstein. And and they, they were really wowed by the plan that was put together by Park and Rec. They were and frankly, they were incredibly annoyed. They were not given this option when asked to vote. So all the participation you heard about, I think, has been quite. Biased because they had no option. People favor. Two paths. That's a given. But what they wanted was something more inspired and something more artful. Second, the proposal presented. By staff. Is not consistent with the 210 Long Beach Strategic Plan. On page four, the fourth go states support neighborhood efforts to. Create beauty and pride. I think that what has been described as a two lane highway fare falls very short of that goal. Whereas the Park and Recreation Plan is aimed squarely at meeting that goal. And I think you should think about that. We're talking about creating pride. We're talking about creating beauty. As everyone points out, that makes the beach very attractive. And that's one of the goals you want to have. By the way. When the local council commission was asked how long it might take to review a new plan, they said 8 to 10 weeks. So it's not a long time. And I think we. Should take that time to consider a new path. It seems to me to me the bottom line is that the decisions concerning the beach need to be made with the goal of making it a truly a big asset. This is a significant opportunity to make our beach more desirable. So while we're all. Four to a pedestrian path, no one's arguing about that because there's a lot of evidence for it. It should be thought through. Should be part of a master plan, and frankly, it should be one that's a lot. More interesting than a. Two lane highway. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grassley. Next. Hi, my name is Kristen Kerr. I also run for I also run for coach Phillip Hill, Long Beach Poly. And I just want to offer my support for this path. As someone who goes to a high school like this where it's landlocked, we don't have a lot of places to run. One of the few places that we have that's within a reasonable distance from our school is the beach. So someone who's going to be running on this path tomorrow and many more times for the foreseeable future, I'd really like to offer my support for this path. Thank you very much. The game is curved. Hello. Hello. My name is Derek Matos. I also run for Long Beach Poly and I'd like to point out that every single day when we run, we like to go to the beach because it's better than running like 30 something laps on a track. So when we go there, we get told like almost every other day to run the right pace with the right people. So technically, when we're on the bike path, we're not going to be running by ourselves. We're going to be running next to people who are about our same speed. And generally, we take up more space than the like five foot area allowed to us on the bike path. And when we're running, like people said before, the bikes come whizzing past. So we, like, yell at each other when everyone shows up. And so but when that happens, we still almost get hit. My friend got hit by a bike during the summer and it knocked both of them off, both of them onto the ground. And the biker got hurt. And then so, yeah, so I support this new bike path, and it would help a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Thank. Hi. I'm Cassidy, and I also ran for a Long Beach poly. I we run there at least once a week and we're always on the path. And I know when we're running there's a lot of us group together and we always have each other. Bike, bike, watch out, you know, on your left. And it's the we actually had a couple accidents with the bikes, like you said, and it's just not safe for us all to be running there with on the same in the same areas, the bikes. So I support the bike path. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Cadillac Reed. I live on 809 Miramar. And I wanted to thank everyone for considering separating the bike path, for separating them for cyclists and pedestrians. I am part of the pedestrian community and the current design is not sufficient. We generally don't work walk alone. We do generally walk side by side to enjoy a chat and that often puts us in the way of the bikers. So I am very pleased that a separation is being considered. I just wanted to emphasize some of the things that Councilwoman Gypsy said earlier this evening about taking the original plans that I believe were from 2002 into consideration. And these plans are on Long Beach, California, Facebook page. And they really are very delightful. And they include spots where that were called mini parks, where there's indigenous landscaping and lots of places to put your eyes and are much more esthetically pleasing than a two lane highway. And I just wanted to I just wanted to express my concern that they were not taken into consideration and appeared to be lost. And I hope that the council will take them into consideration and that they're not lost in the Office of Circumlocution. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. My name is Melinda Roney and I live in Bluff Park. I'm also the president of Long Beach Heritage. I very much support two paths, one for bikes. And one for pedestrians. But I do not support what they're calling a highway. I would call. It a ribbon of cement. I believe there are alternatives to this, and I. Don't think that we've had time to look at them. I very much support the plan from Jerry Bernstein. And Mike Craig excuse me. Craig Stone called Coastal Illusions. It makes something very nice. Of our pathway. It also. Since it's extending from downtown, I believe it gives Long Beach. More of an esthetic appeal. People will be able to walk from the convention center and be able to see things that are attractive. Long Beach is very big on bikes and this has been good, but we've got to be bigger on the esthetics and I think that we're selling ourselves short. If we go ahead and approve, approve this as is, I think more time has to be taken to look at this plan. And also, I. Would like to see the Bernstein and Stone plan incorporated into it. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for. Hi, my name is Olivia Gleason and I also run with pie crust country. And I just wanted to mention that I don't think a lot of people realize how many injuries people get from running on hard surfaces like cement. I myself received an injury as stress fracture with some reason of it being from running on the hard surfaces. And also I live on the peninsula and we have two dogs and when we try to walk to the dog beach, we can't walk on the bike path and we have to go on the cement around the bike path and it's kind of a hassle to get back on there. So I think the alternative path would be really good. And with the six foot margin between where the bikers would go and where the walkers and runners would go, and it would make a lot of sense because when the dogs walk, the have plenty of room and even if they did have a long leash or a long line, they wouldn't run into the bikers. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Jeff Jones, 3850 East Ocean Boulevard. And I'm a regular user of the bike path, have been since it's been built both on bicycle and on inline skates and definitely agree it does need expansion to accommodate the increased usage. My concerns. The reason for me to be here today is the. Interchange planned over. The parking lot at the Belmont Pier. It's it's way over the top. The parking spaces are extremely valuable there, and there are all the other alternatives. One, keep it the same as it is. Put a stop at the top and the bottom and slow down the bikes, as many have suggested. But what I haven't heard suggested as simply line up the bike paths and have the bicycle section of the path crossed the pier where the Deadman's Curve is now. That would be a spot on the pier where there's very light traffic. Only the people going in and out of the pier, they're coming in one direction instead of the six directions they're coming from at the current level. That's a real heavy, pedestrian intensive spot. Now, where the bike path crosses appear, because some people are going to the restaurants and the businesses, some are going to the pier, some are going to the path, some are going to the condos. So you have no one knows who is going what direction. But by removing the bike traffic and making it cross there, you eliminate the Deadman's Curve. It would be a straight approach over an unused section of the beach because that's where. The wastewater from the street. Runoff all settles. So nobody goes on the beach there. And it would allow the existing ramp that the city built a few years ago that has Deadman's Curve to be the existing walking path. It would save a lot of money and the construction cost would be simpler and it would save the parking places. The local coastal plan says the number of parking spaces on the beach parking shall be retained. This plan doesn't follow that. In the packet there with this with this item on the agenda, there was a questionnaire from the Coastal. Commission about the parking and instructed the city to retain the. Parking unless it's not. Feasible. Well, I think it is feasible and there are other ways that that can be addressed without building a that major construction and losing that parking, because that parking is used for access to the beach, the local businesses at the nighttime for the residents in a parking impacted area. So those cars are going to be displaced and pushed onto already impacted street parking. So I think we need to take another look at that part. And I support most of the positive suggestions I've heard here tonight from the other speakers. Thank you. Thank you. Next week. I believe I'm the man you've been waiting for. I'm Charlie Gandy. I'm a resident at 38 Orange. And I will take less than a minute to share with you that I support this plan. But we can do better. The synthetic surface that we're planning to put down on this is actually harder than asphalt. And so while now it flunks as concrete, it's an F rating. This new surface. Will be about a D rating. Asphalt would be a C. If you really want to create an inspired project, let's go with what other great cities do and that is take it. Not using that plastic since. Synthetic surface. Let's put down a surface of. Dirt of. Dig. Hard pack between those curves that we're going to put down. It'll work very well. I've applied that surface in other cities and as a runner, as a guy that's down there three days a week running my four miles. I want to be able to brag about that facility. If we put the plastic down, we won't. Be able to do that. It'll be okay. It'll be better than what it is now. But it won't be inspired. And I'll help with the staff to make that happen. Thank you. Thank you. Hey. We'll take it back to the council. Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank everyone who came out and from all perspectives. Certainly, we take that very seriously, all the input here. Ms.. Fricke One thing that came up here was a discussion of the old Parks and Rec plan, and it said that there are a lot of elements to that. And one question came to my mind is even if we had the money and even if there were community consensus and I'm not saying there is, wouldn't Coastal Commission have significant concerns about new facilities and new elements or or would that not be a problem? Council Member I think this is an issue of kind of the clash between conceptual and practical. Initially when we were designing this plan, in fact we had more creative elements as part of it. The the path was on the water side, had a little more creativity to it. We had some nodes that we were proposing that would kind of connect the two paths in locations and have some elements, creative artist elements between those two nodes as we were moving through the approval process. It became painfully apparent that those elements were not going to be supported by the Coastal Commission, that they were pretty adamant that we needed to significantly minimize the amount of paving that was going to occur on the beach and that we needed to flip the path from the water side to the landside, which admittedly made it a much more straight and narrow type of path than we initially were proposing. So conceptually, we can always talk about these great ideas and working it through and having these new elements. But from the practical standpoint, it is ultimately the Coastal Commission who must approve these projects. And they sent us a clear message that we needed to minimize the impact on the beach area. So what is being discussed is likely never going to receive the approval of the Coastal Commission. Okay. Thank you. And one other thing that came up from some of the input here tonight was the discussion of the loss of parking and whether or not changing that night of return actually would make it more safer or less safe. So I guess I'm quite interested in your professional opinion of the public works folks. What about this opinion that perhaps by making it straighter, the bikes may go faster and actually create more hazard, particularly for the crossing at the pier? Is that is that accurate or is that inaccurate? We believe that the safety component that we're trying to improve is the visibility, the visibility between the bicyclist and the pedestrian. Right now, as they come around that 90 degree angle, neither the pedestrian nor the bicyclist really has sufficient time to react when they see one another. So by changing the design, you can see that there is a greater visibility so that in fact a bicyclist can see that a pedestrian is trying to cross that that path. So we believe that the configuration that's being proposed, in fact, is better from a safety perspective because it gives both the pedestrian and the bicyclist adequate time to react when they see one another. Okay. And if if for some reason, if the council wanted to change the configuration or keeps the parking, some might that I assume they would have to go back to coastal and have we do we have any feedback and I guess without you know knowing I mean is that something they have a concern about or were the chances of approval if we made a design change like that. We would have to to look at what the design would be. Again, we've got to ensure that we're providing kind of adequate safety to to some degree, because we are making improvements to the path. So both to the to the bicycle and the pedestrian paths. So we need to account for safety. We would take whatever direction the council gives us and then of course we would go back and talk to the Coastal Commission staff and determine what would be the approval process. Okay, thank you. Bye bye. I wanna hear from my colleagues, but I do think that the loss of parking, you know, is a concern. But there are tradeoffs. I do think we made as safe as possible. So thank you for your input. Mr. Del. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just quickly, what I think I heard tonight was the process wasn't perfect. So we need to look at a master plan and how that is developed or comes forward. I don't know. I don't know if the council would have to put an item on the agenda or not. Maybe your staff can weigh in on that and a majority want to split path so O'Donnell loses on his lighter single path. I listen. I listen, but also the parking spaces. I think Mr. DeLong has some thoughts he's going to bring forward on the parking spaces, but I think that's a very important component. I actually side with those who say maybe keeping it a little bit the way it is and slowing down the bike traffic might be a net positive in the end as well. So at that, I turn it back to you. Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I think what I'd like to see us through is amend the motion and direct staff to pursue making those changes to maintain the parking spaces. I want to say, if feasible, so the direction would be for you to go back to council commission staff and go for a diplomat. Now, for some reason they reject it. Then we can go forward with the plan as outlined. But. But I would like you to go back to Coastal and gain their support as quickly as you could. Additionally, not as part of this project, but certainly we've heard a lot that people would like to see some kind of art plan out there on the beach. I guess what I'd like you to do is come back with a recommendation of the council of what that might look like. And again, I don't think you necessarily have to tie it to the bike path project, but come back in a reasonable amount of time and tell us why this is a recommended path that we could take and get some more public comment and some councilmember comment and see what the appropriate steps are to move forward with that. And I'd also like you to, if you could comment a little bit on the material and the issues that Mr. Gandy brought forward. So, yes, we have a little bit of a difference of opinion with Mr. Gandy that we believe the material is equivalent to running on asphalt. So we believe it is an acceptable surface. We did look at doing a decomposed granite or a dig path, but you have to remember we are in a beach environment where the wind blows, the sand blows and it would be next to impossible to maintain a decomposed granite path. It would be immediately covered by sand in the first windstorm. And so in order to maintain a surface that people in fact can walk and run on, it is important to have some level of hardness. And the surface that we're proposing has been used throughout the country. We've observed it and we believe in talking with the runner community that in effect it is an acceptable surface. So and I'm sure it is acceptable, but to follow question one is why is sand problematic on DG? But sand isn't problematic on the surface that we're planning on using. Because we can easily sweep the hard surface. You cannot sweep granite. So that's the distinction. Okay. And are there any other services that are more compatible with running and walking materials that we could look at? We looked at a variety of surfaces and talked kind of with the running community about those surfaces. And the surface that we're proposing is really the compromise surface that we feel, in fact, is the best surface for this environment. Okay. Thank you. So I guess, Mr. Andrews, you made the original motion or there's a modifications acceptable to you. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Longo. Mr. DeLong, did you did your modifications for Councilmember Andrews include an incorporation or a discussion of what sort of art components can come back? Well, I think what it is, it directed staff to come back with some recommendations, but I wasn't more specific. Recommendations based on, well, what we've. I think certainly what we've heard and the plans that have in place. But then, you know, any any additions or changes or modifications and maybe give us a little bit of what would be a good public process to take that on. And that includes the outreach process as well. Haywood. Thank you. Any other comment? We have a motion in a second. I just want to clarify. Certain. With Mr. DeLong with regard to going back to the Coastal Commission. You're okay with this, going back to the Coastal Commission level, or are you just talking at the staff level? No, just to. But to save those 20 spaces, would you be open to it going back to the commission level if that had to be done? It had to go back to the commission for an amendment of some sort. Would you be open to that. If coastal staff response to the city was that they fully support what we're trying to do, but they didn't have the authority and they would need to run it through the commission? Yes, I would support that. But there's no reason to take it to the commission if he the staff says absolutely not. And here's all the reasons why we wouldn't be if they. Object to it. Yeah. They're supposed to can't accommodate it, even at the commission level. Exactly. Okay. All right, members, we have a motion. The original motion as amended. It's seconded. Cast your votes. Motion carries seven votes. One vote. No. Thank you. I want to thank everybody who testified there was a long, bitter testimony, but you did a great job. Thank you. Now move to item 18. Read.

Adopt resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit the amendment to Title 21 (Zoning) of the Long Beach Municipal Code related to transitional and supportive housing to the California Coastal Commission for their review and certification; and Accept the Categorical Exemption (CE 14-135). (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06092015_15-0506

Motion carries. Are we on to conserve? I'm sorry. We're in stone. Hearing item number one Adopt resolution to submit the amendment to Title 21 to the California Coastal Commission for their review and certification and accept the categorical exemption. S.E. 14 DASH 135 citywide. There's been a motion and a second. So any member of the public that wished to address councilmember your anger. Just inside, I'm sure that we'll get a positive vote. And, of course, the commission. We hope so. So any member of the public that wishes to address council on hearing this this motion on hearing item one seeing nonmembers cast your vote. Motion carries nine zero. Okay. Thank you very much. We did the hearing. Now we're moving on to public comment. So we all know public comment is limited to 3 minutes. A speaker. I have five members of the public. I'm going to call the first three to the podium.

Consider Reviewing and Updating the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings. (Councilmember Matarrese) [Not heard on April 18, 2017]

AlamedaCC_05022017_2017-4103

Right. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. And I really appreciate the community's efforts and staffs to continue this massive project and policy. All right. Next nine e. Consider reviewing and updating the rules of order for city council agendas and meetings. It was placed on the agenda of council member. Okay. As as with head to toe in a role. I want to finish this one quickly. Actually, this came to my mind after having gone through the two meetings that are referenced in the referral, the referral list request that we consider appointing a subcommittee of our members or tasking the Open Government Committee to review the rules of order. Of the city council. And the reason I think this is important is because we had a couple of meetings, the workshop on the 17th and then the meeting of March 7th, where there was confusion over. How people should be allowed to speak and what were what are basically what are the rules of addressing the council and even among the council themselves? And I received from the city clerk on request the resolutions that pertain to rules of order. And there are some very interesting items in these referrals. I mean, in these resolutions, including. For example, the power of the council to either allow speakers to address the council or anyone else other than the council to address the council during deliberations. That's a council decision according to one of these resolutions. There's also a three minute limit on council members in the deliberations. So it's there are some interesting things, and I think there's also interesting rules around. The limitations of a speaker to address the council and items four and eight. According to the way I read this, it could be read that they could speak on anything they want, including an item that's further agenda. I think it's good to review these and to see if they need to be updated, but just for public awareness . Additionally, there seems to be a gap in and this comes up periodically when there's a very contentious issue is how the agenda is put together and who has responsibility for it. It's really not defined anywhere, clearly, either in the charter or in the rules of order. So I think those are important enough to do whether they're to this, I don't think this is a high priority. I definitely think we should have it looked at and I think a disinterest as I read reread my referral, which was written in March. I think it would be a good task for our Open Government Committee to do as a as a as a, I could say, disinterested party, but a party that's interested in making sure that government is is clear and understandable to to us as well as the public. Let's go next to Russia. I think you raised some good points. Council member matter. I, I would want the both the city attorney's office and the city clerk's office involved in. Any review because I want to make sure that we are I mean, at some point, it might be appropriate to have the Open Government Committee take a look at this. But I want to make sure that we are up to date on all the applicable laws and rules. And I think that the city attorney's office in the city clerk's office are a great place to start, unless they are the last stop before it comes back to us. But in any event, I do think I would want to hear. From. Both of those departments. Me too. And Brody. I mean, again, I thank you for for doing this. I think this is something that's sorely needed for the reasons you mentioned Councilmember Meter, S.C. But also, I think, you know, the public seems to be more cognizant of the length of our meeting times and maybe the quality of our interactions, which with each other. So, I mean, I think if if we could find a way to improve that, I think that would that would be helpful. I mean, I think we all, myself included, we need to look in the mirror on a lot of those things. So and I wonder if maybe having a subcommittee of the council might be more fruitful than having the Sunshine Committee look at it. But I do agree with my other colleagues comments at the city clerk and city attorney should be involved and they don't seem to have a lot of things on this list. So I'd be I would be happy to, you know, participate with any one of the four of you on the subcommittee. I would be happy to participate with you. Councilmember Brody. My preference is to go to vice mayor. Sorry. You know, one thing I do want to be cognizant of. Why do you think it's important that we get updates if there's any other laws or potential conflicts? I would want to be cognizant to make sure that we're not trying to censor or, you know, kind of sway the Open Government Committee in terms of making a decision. So while I would like to hear from our city attorney and our city clerk on that process or if there's any potential conflicts or issues in conflicts, I just I think we just need to be very cognizant of that because we are talking about, you know, the public's ability to communicate with the council and also are making sure that we're as transparent as possible. Not that I think that our city attorney or city clerk would intentionally do either of those things. I just think we need to be cognizant in terms of how we set that up so that there isn't a perception of that. The other thing is, you know, there isn't really a limit for staff time in terms of presentations. And while I think it's really helpful to have the presentations that we get, some of them have been incredibly long, especially when we have very heavy agendas. And so I don't know if that's something else that can be considered or looked at in terms of are we really allocating the correct amount of time for the presentations? And is, you know, you know, have we been consistent when we say something is 30 minutes or 90 minutes? Have we really been hitting those marks with regards to different agenda items? Because I think part of it is also having the public be able to plan for when different items are going to be heard so that they can look at the agenda and make a time estimate for what time they think the item is going to actually be heard. But I think looking into this is a good idea. We're Ashcroft. Thank you, Mayor. So censorship was certainly nothing the farthest thing from my mind. I want to make sure that applicable laws are brought to bear. We have heard suggestions in the not too distant past about the Brown Act. Perhaps doesn't need to apply at city council meetings. And that's that's California law. So that's that's where I was going with that. I would like to piggyback on the vice mayor's comment about the length of staff reports. And I don't so much fault staff, but I think we could give it direction maybe through our city manager that obviously the council comes to the council meetings prepared. We read our materials we have through the Sunshine Ordinance, the requirement that packets go out 12 days in advance. So members of the public who are interested are going to get that material too. So nobody needs to be spoon fed. And on balance, I think the public and you're right, Mr. City, we've heard from the public that they don't like being out until one or two in the morning and actually either do we. And so that we could like tonight, I thought was an excellent example. We had the two Business Improvement Association presentations. They went quickly staff. I mean, council asked their questions. We had a little discussion and we voted and we should be able to do that every time. I think that's something to also be cognizant of. But and I would just reiterate that I would be happy to work with my colleague, council member OTI, if the council, whoever else. Yeah, I'd like to work with you. Vice Mayor. And I. While I appreciate my colleague's desire to have a subcommittee, I think my preference would be to have it go to the Open Government Committee just so that we have that kind of independent check and we can have have them have a hearing on it and get the public input. That's just that would be my preference. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. I am not supportive of a subcommittee. I think that we have commissions and one of them is our open government and I think this is appropriately theirs to lead. And then it goes through them. They have meetings and then it comes to us eventually. So I would be supportive of going utilizing that commission. And and one issue that has come up is the order of items on the agenda, for instance, referrals. And I would entertain looking at the order and possibly moving them to the front. But looking at the order of the agenda items and, you know, I think that should be something that the Open Government Committee looks at first. So we have. Did someone want to make a motion of how they like to handle this? I wonder if and again, feel free to disagree. I mean, some of these items, you know, the Brown Act, the way the agenda is written, who gets to talk where? I mean, I think that was all I recall correctly, part of the Sunshine Ordinance. So that may be well within their purview. But I think the way that the council conducts meetings and the suggestion by Councilmember Ashcraft about, you know, staff presentation time, I mean, I do think. We as a council would benefit from some introspection on our own on how we could make our meetings move a little more effectively and more efficiently. So, I mean, maybe there's a way to split the baby and, you know, send some stuff to the to the Open Government Commission and maybe have a different a smaller subset of those items, you know, kind of talked about in council because ultimately, you know, the things that control our behavior I think are best generated from from ourselves. But that's just my thought. So I'd like to hear from staff. Sir, do you have any suggestions of how you think it should be handled? Well, from the staff perspective, we are already talking internally about how to streamline our staff reports and presentations and making that assumption, as Councilmember Ashcroft said about every council member will read the staff reports and the presentations, and it's a longer time than most other cities. So it will be. Shorter than, or at least we're working on making it shorter. But there are some very meaty things that require the transparency, like the budget coming up. The council asked for a special meeting on the budget. That will be detailed because even if you look at the numbers on the page, you're the story behind the numbers is two volumes to just put in writing and so that kind of stuff. I hope the Council will allow for a more detailed conversation as far as why, whether it goes to the Sunshine Committee or not. I think. Dividing that up since we have a new grandfather on the. Sorry. I was going to say we were only giggling because that analogy about splitting the baby to a brand new grandfather. So. Granddaughter but. Tied up a task to have the subcommittee and. But I still want to support his subcommittee because I think that it's like, okay, who's going to want to be on it? If you want to have issues, come back to the council, then my preference would be to have it come to council the items and then we can all weigh in if because if we're really looking for it, say this to a member already, if we're really looking for a discussion of how we want to what we think is appropriate behavior, how we, you know, our input and I think it's appropriate to have that come so we could hear from all of us. I don't have to be on the committee. So I mean, I just volunteered, but. Go to the city manager's point. I mean, I appreciate that contribution, you know, to the staff side. And there is items like the, you know, the different rent things we had to go through in the budget. That will take a lot of detailed time. And I think the public and the council understands that. But, you know, there's there's a side that this council, I think, needs to take a look at. And, you know, you can't prescribe that. I don't think the Sunshine Committee can prescribe that. I don't think any of the staff members can prescribe it. And I think that has to come, you know, organically from us. And, you know, I'll step aside from volunteering if others want to do it. But, you know, I, I do think that it requires some in-depth analysis and introspection, you know, whoever the members of the committee are. So I'm actually supportive of the committee. I want the introspection of all of this, if that's what the concern is. So as mayor. So perhaps we could have some sort of report back about how our meetings have been, you know, how many meetings have gone past 11:00? How many items are, you know, running over in terms of the time estimates that, you know, efforts that are being made to kind of streamline different things if we could perhaps maybe agenda is that is something when we come back in September or something like that to hear and get feedback. That way, because I think there's people point to specific meetings anecdotally about will this happened at that meeting or I went to this one council meeting and this this happened, I think kind of just doing a quick review of what's gone on perhaps in the past year or so. And if, you know, if there were meetings that went over, what happened where we. Was it just a busy meeting with a lot of heavy topics that needed that level of transparency? I think perhaps, you know, having some review of of that might be helpful. I remember. When I was just going to suggest that since it was Councilmember Mattresses Council referral, perhaps he should have the last thing on the motion. He was going to be. Born after. But we're not the last thing. So I don't need to say. But I do want to say that I see no reason why we can't have a subcommittee and have the Open Government Committee both look at it because the subcommittee is on our time and. They're whoever it is, I don't need to do it. This perfectly capable of reporting back, just like the open government. And I do want to go Open Government Committee to look at it as well. So I'd say do both and and move on. I like that idea. And then my concern would be in regards to any staff time where it is in regards to the priority on this because I personally. So staff, how much time do you think this would take? Everything takes time and we have priorities for council. What's the priority on staff time? You want us? Well, the way I think the motion is, is or at least the proposed motion is not staff intensive because it has the subcommittee working on some of it and also the Open Government Committee working on it. I don't want to speak for the attorney's office or the clerk's office, but they I'm thinking that they will be resources through the Open Government Committee and respond as information is requested from that committee. So I don't think it's like the climate local climate action plan, intense work. It's more responsive to the committee, but. Well. I can just respond that the clerk and the city attorney's office both do staff the Open Government Commission. So, Madam Mayor, I would like to see this go forward in the timeframe that because like I prefaced before, this is not. High priority. I think the best thing that could happen between now and the time that the Open Government Committee gets to meet on this is that our subcommittee meets because it's on our time and that we all read these things because you'll find out some interesting stuff in here. For example, I think the council had to. We're deliberating on an open motion. Is there motion yet? I take that back. Okay. Well. Normally they're right. There's a three minute. There's a three minute. I mean. So I don't think that's the most important thing that can happen. I mean, in Oakland, they have a time limit that you're allowed as a council member for questions and deliberation. So that might be something we might want to think about. So I've said my say. You've made your motion. Oh, I'll move that we. I'm. Direct the council to appoint a subcommittee and ask the Open Government Committee to review the rules of order for government that are captured in these resolutions. And that the timing for the meeting of the Open Government Committee is scheduled within the workload of the city clerk and the city attorney. Second. All those in favor I motion carries unanimously. Who's our committee. If you decide that at this time. Let's do we do that? So did you want to leave this? He wants to be on it. I don't I don't care to be on it. I heard two people volunteer. I'm still willing to work. With you or the mayor or anyone or not. Were you were you meeting one of. Well, you said that already. So sorry. Well, some I'm hearing. So. So I don't support this part of it. Member already a member Ashcraft. Is that okay with its final menu? Yeah. Okay, then. So. So I would actually propose that the vice mayor and I do this. But you're the one who objects to this process to begin with. Because so to me, it should. My preference would be that we always include the vice mayor and the mayor and something like this. And I've actually proposed that my preference is to include all council members. However, if we're going to limit the two of us, then I then my preference would be the vice mayor and myself. But just a point of clarification, Mayor. We can't. It wouldn't be a subcommittee because we would have a problem if there were more than two. I appreciate that. So my preference would be then that it's the vice mayor and myself that if we're going to have a subcommittee. Make a motion, I. Move. Council member owning. Council member. Second. All those in favor. I. Host I oppose. And Vice mayor is abstaining. The motion. Carries a311. Council communications.

AN ORDINANCE relating to low-income housing; requesting that a special election be held concurrent with the August 2, 2016 primary election for submission to the qualified electors of the City of a proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under chapter 84.55 RCW in order to authorize the City to levy additional taxes for low-income housing for up to seven years; providing for interim financing pending tax receipts; creating a levy oversight committee; requiring annual progress reports; providing for implementation of programs with funds derived from the taxes authorized; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_05022016_CB 118656

Bill passes and chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Select Committee on the 2016 Seattle Housing Levy. Three per the Select Committee on the 2016 Seattle Housing Levy Council 4118656 relating to low income housing, requesting that a special election be held concurrent with the August 2nd, 2016 primary election for submission to the qualified electors of the city. Every proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under Chapter 84.55 S.W. in order to authorize the city to levy additional taxes for low income housing for up to seven years, providing for interim financing pending tax receipts. Creating a levy oversight committee requiring annual progress reports. Providing for implementation of programs with funds derived from the taxes, authorized and ratifying. Confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. And will you please read the accompanying resolution as well? Item 11 Resolution 31664 relating to low income housing, accompanying an ordinance requesting the 2016 housing levy renewal and providing further direction regarding implementation of the program to be funded by such levy introduced May 2nd, 2016. Councilmember Burgess. Thank you very much. Since 1981, the voters of Seattle have chosen to tax themselves in order to build or maintain affordable housing for our neighbors most in need. The first was passed in 1981. It was the first housing that was a bond measure. The first housing levy was passed in 1986, and we've done that every seven years since Seattle led the nation. We were the first city in the United States to adopt this form of tax to help our most vulnerable residents. Over the years, the Seattle housing levies have created or preserved 13,000 units of affordable housing. The proposal before us today and what we will adopt in this ordinance calls for a $290 million collected over seven years, if approved by the voters in August. It would be the single largest investment in affordable housing that we have ever made as a city. If you own a home in Seattle that has a median assessed value of $480,000, this levy will cost you $122 per year. That's an increase of $61 over the housing levy that will expire at the end of this year. As we learned in our committee, work, property taxes and assessed values in Seattle are in the middle of the pack, if you will, compared to other cities in King County. Here's a quick recap of what this levy will accomplish in the rental production and preservation program. We will produce or preserve 2500 units of affordable housing. In the operating and maintenance program, we will operate support for levy funded buildings and supplement rents for those earning 30% of media in median income or less, including formerly homeless residents and supportive services. If you're a single person, 30% of median income is $19,000 a year. If you're in a family of three, that's just $24,400 a year. The Homeless Prevention and Housing Stability Services that go with this levy will offer rental assistance and homeless prevention services to 4500 households. The home ownership program, which we heard testimony about today, will provide emergency home repair grants. First time homebuyer and foreclosure and foreclosure prevention assistance to 280 households. And the Acquisition and Preservation Fund will dedicate up to $30 million in short term acquisition loans for purchase and preservation of existing affordable buildings. This measure, when it passes in a couple of minutes, will place this measure on the August 2nd primary election ballot. It's a worthy investment. And we also have an accompanying resolution which calls for a variety of policy research work to be completed and presented to the council this fall if the levy is approved as part of the administration and finance plan. Thank you, Councilmember Burgess. Are there any further comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I just wanted to say a couple words thanking the council for working with myself and Councilmember O'Brien on developing a new anti displacement housing preservation strategy. Housing preservation is important to us because it's important to the community of Seattle. Prior to the Hallow recommendations, focus groups in the South End identified the displacement impacts associated with with development as one of their highest priorities. And you know, the other the other really important thing to think of moving forward is working on the housing lobby is a is a good start to address those those impacts associated with development . But we have other tools that we need to look at moving forward through the ballot process. When we're looking at up zones, we also have to look at the the displacement impacts associated with us up zones. And then finally, I just want to say a word about the fact that this displacement strategy will help renters stay in their homes, but it will also assist organizations like Home Security, Land Trust in identifying potential new home ownership opportunities for potential homeowners. Thank you. Thank you. Herbold. Are there any further comments seen senior Hans Robin? Was it he was drinking? Katherine Johnson. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, you have a nice halo over you, as you said, all those remarks. You know, I just wanted to add my $0.02. And I think the important vote that we're going to take today, I see affordable housing in the city as having a multitude of different resources that we need in order to accomplish our goals. And this is a very critical one to make sure that those folks at the 0 to 30% of area median income have the resources they need to continue to live in the city. There are a lot of other strategies that we really need to pursue, both on the market rate side as well as what we can do to promote workforce housing. Those are big issues that are going to be coming up in front of us over the next year or two that I want to continue to work on. I wanted to highlight a couple of things I'm particularly proud of about this loving. One of the issues that was brought before our committee was around, in some cases increasing the eligibility framework up to 40%. We're seeing some really good data. That's from the $15 minimum wage that's allowing us to really see the benefits of raising our wage and allowing for people to be able to earn more. Yet as a result, that's pricing some of those folks out potentially of the housing that we're trying to build with all of us. I think in this case, in certain instances, approving for higher eligibility framework makes a lot of sense. And then I also want to thank my colleagues for working on the issue around healthy housing, how we find resources to provide mold abatement, asbestos abatement and other sort of unhealthy elements inside single family homes and multi-family homes is critically important to making sure that we've got health in the community and healthy housing for our community members . I know many of my other colleagues are going to talk about other elements of the plan, including family size, housing and a lot of other issues that I think are really critical. But I just want to add my my words of support for the actions we're going to take today. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. I'm I am thrilled to be voting yes for the housing levy. I think it's an amazing it reflects on Seattle's the voters of Seattle's generosity and commitment to providing affordable housing. And no time has it been more evident that we face a housing crisis than we're facing right today and the ability to to double the size of the housing levy, well, certainly not enough to relieve the crisis. And we'll take great steps in the right direction. I want to speak specifically, as Councilmember Herbold did, to the anti displacement work that I'm really excited that we'll be exploring in this housing levy. We talk often about the number of units that are produced, and that is critically important. We also talk about the affordability levels at which those are being produced, also critically important and the doubling this housing levy will show a significant amount of units produced. But in addition to just producing affordable units, it's important to understand the dynamics that are actually happening in our neighborhoods today and what happens when someone is displaced from their housing, in addition to them having a housing challenge that they now need to find new housing. The connections that have existed in that neighborhood and the connections of those people to that neighborhood are broken and often can't be rebuilt. And so by looking at anti displacement, we're going to be working on finding some new tools to keep people who have been in their community, in their neighborhood, in their housing, often for decades, to find tools to allow them to continue to stay there as a community, as the city grows, as it becomes more expensive, there's an opportunity in this levy with using the. The timing of the funds as they come in to help acquire properties, land or properties that might prevent displacement. There's ability, as Councilmember Herbold mentioned, with homeownership, to possibly work with partners to buy existing rental units that aren't protected for income income qualification, to convert that to homeownership and also opportunities, as we've done in the past, to find opportunities where people are living in existing rental units that are not protected and bring those into the fold of a nonprofit provider or others to make those income protected. This is a great step forward. It's great to work with so many folks on the council and in the city who care so passionately about affordable housing. And we look forward to what the next number of years bring forward once this passes. Thank you, Councilmember Brian, any further comments from any of my colleagues? I'll just say briefly that I want to thank the Select Committee for doing this great work. I'm very confident that we're trying to target the right investment strategies for someone that's been in this city a long time. It pains me when my friends say very simply, I can't afford to live in the city anymore, or when their children say, There's no way, I just can't afford to live in the city anymore. And this is a resounding message that we hear repeatedly. So this is an investment to ask the voters to recognize that we want to keep the diversity in this city as much as we can. And so this is a great investment strategy. And so, Councilmember Burgess, I'd like you to close this and take us home. Thank you. I just want to point out that each time this levy has been adopted by Seattle voters, we have set specific targets. And those targets for a number of new units constructed or a number of units preserved or a number of families helped. All of those targets have been met in all of the previous levies, and we're on course to meet them. And this levy, which expires at the end of of this year. I want to thank our Office of Housing for the good work that they did on preparing the recommendations. Thank you to our central staff for their help, to Sara Day in my office and to my colleagues who were engaged over the last several months. We had seven meetings in committee and we asked great questions. We made some refinements. We targeted where we wanted this money to go to do the most good. And who knows, maybe in the future the people living in these houses will be able to come down and go to a Sonics game. I won't touch that one. Yeah. Okay. Please call the roll. Please call the roll. On the passage of Bill 118656. Just. Hi, Gonzalez, I herbold. Hi. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Sergeant Major. President Harrell. I. Nine in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I'd like to move the accompanying resolution 316664. So it's been moved in second. Any more comments on the resolution? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Thank you. Report of the full Council. Please report the full council agenda item to Resolution 316 59 revising certain general rules and procedures of the Seattle City Council. Amending Chapter one a Resolution 316 39, Section 11 point D.

A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to Swedish Health Services to construct and maintain a pedestrian tunnel under and across Minor Avenue, south of Columbia Street and north of Cherry Street.

SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_Res 31700

Thank you, Councilmember Brian. Any further comments on this legislation saying that those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution is adopted. The chair sign it. Please read agenda item number 20 into the record. Agenda item 20 Resolution three one 700 Granting conceptual approval to Swedish health services to construct and maintain a pedestrian tunnel under and across Motor Avenue, south of Columbia Street and north of Cherry Street. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Councilmember O'Brien This item is from the same project that we talked about, an item 15. This is resolutions for conceptual approval. So what we do is we say, yes, conceptually this tunnel, the pedestrian tunnel under, under and across minor, we approve. They have some work to do to come back and be more specific. And at that point we'd have an ordinance to approve it similar to the other project. They've worked closely with community members on this and the investments they're going to make for public benefit are well supported and I think justify support of this resolution. Thank you. Councilman Bryan, are there any comments, all those in favor of the resolution vote? I, i those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. Agenda item number 21. Agenda item 21 Resolution 31706 approving the Seattle Freight Master Plan. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Technology Matching Fund Program; making allocations and authorizing implementation of certain Technology Matching Fund projects in 2018; providing that 2018 appropriations for the Technology Matching Fund from the Cable TV Franchise Fund and from the Information Technology Fund shall automatically carry forward into the 2019 fiscal year; allowing that any unspent funds from an individual project may be applied to another project that meets the goals of the Digital Equity Initiative; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_08132018_CB 119328

Bill passed chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item. Part of the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee. Jan Item seven Council Bill 119 328 Relating to the Technology and Matching Fund, the committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you very much. So this year, the Technology Matching Fund celebrates 21 years of supporting digital equity in Seattle. Our goal is very clear as a city, to invest in communities that may not have access to technology, may now have access to some of the goods and services associate with technology. And since 1997, we've actually awarded 4.6 million to over 300 projects. So this particular legislation for this year awards approximately $400,000 of city funding to 12 new projects throughout the city. There are over 8000 residents, over 4600 immigrants and refugees, over 1000 youth, and approximately a thousand seniors and 1000 people with disabilities. And so I'll just describe a few of the projects. I may omit one or two, but just to give you a flavor for the kinds of investments we are making, but most importantly, the kind of investments that the community themselves are bringing as matching funds. So in District one is literary source. They actually in five, two and one, and they're going to expand basic digital literacy classes to serve more than to serve more adults with low literacy or low levels of English proficiency. Also, there's the Somali Family Task Safety Task Force, which will expand their current digital literacy program in Newhall to offer training for East African women living in West Seattle. So here we have sort of a cross city kind of expansion that works out very well. In District two, you have community passageways, which is established as a computer lab and Rainier Beach. You also have the East African Community Services Organization that will expand STEM and a STEM enrichment program to engage in Empower for the East African Young Ladies. Helping Link is also an organization. They're going to upgrade their aging computer lab lab in Little Saigon and they'll serve the Vietnamese community. And seed Southeast Effective Southeast Affective Development will implement a computer center at the Dakota Family Apartments for approximately 500 low income seniors and children. Again, Youth Care in District four will replace end of life hardware and install additional equipment at their youth cares. Five residential sites prevail in District five will establish an assisted assistive technology lab, especially designed to meet the needs of children and youth with disabilities in the age of 21. And again, I'll just mention one more where they give their civil organization to Millionaire Club charity. They'll expand an updated, heavily used computer lab. And I want to mention one other one in District seven, which is an update of the technology infrastructure from the the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation. And this will be at the center to improve Internet access and delivery, the delivery of a series of digital literacy programs. So again, there many other organizations, but just to name a few. But we're very proud to present this to the Council for your consideration. Any questions or comments on this particular legislation? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill. Whereas I. Mosquera i. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez Herbold. II President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the part of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.

A bill for an ordinance placing a moratorium on the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for developments using side-by-side dwelling units with certain building forms in the Denver Zoning Code for a period of approximately two months. Places a moratorium on certain site development plans. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-6-18.

DenverCityCouncil_03122018_18-0129

All right, 12 eyes. 94 has passed. Congratulations. Okay. Um, Councilwoman Kinch, will you please put 129 on the floor? Yes, Council President. I move that council bill 18 dash 0129 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. It has been moved. And second it a public hearing for 1 to 9 is open. We have the staff report council. Do I have my presentation? Counseling. Counseling? Sorry. I'm looking for Amanda. Where is she? There she is. Sorry, guys. We'll get started here in a second. Yeah. Load up. You want to do an intro for us? This is the slot home moratorium. The Council bill 129. Am I just there? Oh, sorry. I know what I'm supposed to do. What? I was floundering. Okay, let me do this officially the. Way I see it. You don't have to do that. Council can do it that you can just. Yeah, you can go right into the bill. All right. I wanted to just go through the presentation. This is slightly abbreviated for some of you who have been part of Rudy committee. This is going to be a little bit redundant. So before I get started, I just want to acknowledge the importance of Councilman Wayne New, whose building form development is on your desk. Councilman, news efforts on the misuse of the garden court, much like what we were just talking about, resulted in the moratorium that we're about to consider coming forth, because his work and the collective actions of this Council have advanced the creation and work of the slot Home Task Force, which is a group of very capable individuals from all sort of walks of Denver that have tried to tackle the difficulty, difficult challenges that slot home to present. Anyway, the task force has made many recommendations that this Council will consider for adoption later this spring. But is the task force last recommendation that is before you tonight? That recommendation called for a faster end to the use of existing form standards used to create slot homes while a solution is advanced. The slot home moratorium is a means to an end in preparation for potential changes that the task force believes will greatly improve the detrimental aspects of side by side attached dwelling units. The purpose of the proposed bill is to place a moratorium on the approved the approval of site development plans, otherwise called steps for side by side attached dwelling unit projects. Formal SDP applications that are eligible for approval once the moratorium is active have until 4:30 p.m. on November 10th of 2018 to be approved using the existing zoning standards. The moratorium shall expire upon the adoption. Next slide, please. The moratorium shall expire upon the adoption of the slot Home Text Amendment or June 4th, 2018, whichever occurs earlier. As you know, slot homes are derivatives of many different building forms in Denver's form based zoning code. The forms that are used to create smart homes today include Row, House, Townhouse, Apartment General and Shop One Shopfront Building Form Standards. And fortunately, through a combination of previously adopted text amendments and the current garden court moratorium, the use of the duplex and garden court forms to achieve unintended developments have has already been ended. The proposed site Home Moratorium specifically addresses the remaining building form standards so you can go to the next slide. So highlighted in yellow are the remaining building form standards where projects characterize this lot of homes can be built. The building forms that the moratorium addresses specifically are the townhouse row house, apartment general and shopfront building forms. In part due to concerns expressed by this committee during its November or not. This Committee, the committee during its November slot, Home Task Force Braking Briefing. The task force in January reconsidered its implementation recommendations. The task force voted unanimously, unanimously to put forward the following recommendation. The task force chose to keep. And I apologize for the slide. Hopefully the task force chose to keep its prior recommendation that was presented at that ludi meeting for a November 10th approval deadline. Cognizant of the expressed desires to have both additional STP approval time and earlier in an earlier end to the creation of slot homes, the task force agreed to recommend a proposed earlier stop date to the acceptance of the steps at the time in mid-January. It was unclear how soon that could occur, but the intent was as soon as possible. Working with staff, we determined that the moratorium is the appropriate means to achieve the task force recommendation, and that is what's up for consideration tonight. So. So as of right now and as of the last week in January, early first week of February, CPD has and will review and provide comment based on the new on the proposed urban townhouse standards, which is going to be what's used going forward. If sorry. However, completed reviews will not be approved until the urban townhouse form is adopted, which is anticipated in May. The approach of allowing developers to begin reviewing under proposed standards is similar to what we had done for the for 38th in Blake when it was being proposed for the incentive and design overlays currently. So at some projects may be submitted right now and could have for the last month and a half using the new standards even though they're not able to be approved. So during this moratorium, the Slide Home Text Amendment will follow. The normal adoption sequence has shown in normal adoption sequence and schedule mean. Planned for a council hearing as soon as May 7th. It is that May 7th date that then establishes the the end of the. In the end date of November 10th of 2018. On when. Well, actually, you know that that establishes the end date of November 10th on when the approval process. I may have gotten that. Eligible projects mean. Sorry, I'm confused by my own language. The last day for. Uh. Scratch that. So. So I just. For those that are paying attention. I'm talking about two different things. So the slot home moratorium is effective as soon as it's executed upon to the council tonight and the slot home test text amendment which will result in that urban townhouse standard which you can submit and review under. Won't be available until council for actual approval. Until Council adopted in May. Things. Sorry. Okay. We have no speakers signed up for this, so I'm going to go into questions. Members of council, um, and actually councilman new do you want to chime in here as a kind of co-sponsor on this? Yeah, it was, it was a very collaborative process, really appreciate and at least the leadership in committees leadership on this and the attorneys recommending the moratorium for us for this two month until the new criteria is developed and finished and approved. So we're we were real pleased. It was it was like Councilman Espinosa said, we had a well-rounded committee and we went through a lot of discussion and it was a very collaborative process. And so it was very interesting to hear all the different perspectives and and through the real deals and after we came up with some actual criteria. So I really appreciate all the work that we did and I think we've got something very good in there will be coming forward in the next cycle. Planning Board should have CRC and Planning Board and so it'll coming up to Louie again and then the approval process coming in May. So we're looking forward to it. I think you'll be pleased when you see the new criteria. Thank you. Mr.. All right. Thank you, Councilman. New members of Council. Question. And I'll just just start off off for the edification of folks who were not able to tune into the committee meeting and ask maybe and a Elise to come up to the podium real quick. And just Councilman, you just talked about the collaboration with CPD on on this effort. Obviously, this is an effort put forth, you know, by the councilman. Just want to make sure from Speedy's perspective, it was unanimous. I heard from my constituent, Maggie Miller, that it was unanimous to move this forward. But from Cbd's perspective, you all are supportive, etc.. Yeah, and I spoke with Community Planning and Development, senior city planner leading this Home Tax Amendment and evaluation project. Historically, CBD has not taken a position on moratoriums, but we're willing to provide the technical support to ensure that the task force recommendation does move forward with support of the council members. Okay. So you're not opposing it? That is correct. All right. The other question is, you know, there's been a lot of question of who in the pipeline gets to get their project done. And so I know there are several individuals who are in the pipeline. So can you just explain that again? And I know Councilman talked about it just for a second, but if you can explain it, I'd be great. Absolutely. So what this moratorium aims to do is to allow for projects that were submitted prior to the 14th of this month to continue under the existing regulations. That is what is currently adopted under the Denver zoning code, which does allow for a slight outcome. And those projects will have until November ten to complete and gain approval under those existing regulations. So in that pipeline, there's approximately 30, maybe a little bit more projects we can expect to see be approved in that pipeline project. And kind of that was an important compromise that I think we heard in Ludy as well as from the task force, is that we stopped this as soon as possible. But people who have already made significant investment and invested into the formal process, it was important that they were allowed to continue forward. Okay. So these 30 projects that are in that formal step will not be a part of the new design standards and guidelines that will be coming through planning board. When will it become into the planning? Yeah. So they'll be going to planning board on May 21st and then becoming the City Council for full consideration on May 7th. They absolutely have the opportunity to adhere to the new standards, but they are not required to do so. Okay. Thank you. Very helpful. All right. Seeing no other questions by members of council. We're going to. No. Yep. We're going to close the public hearing 129 and go to comments by members of Council. Councilman Espinosa, you want to make a comment? Yeah, I just wanted to explain. Was flustered and I had to look at my own bill to understand it. So I got when the task force made its recommendation in November, we ended up circling around November 10th. That was based on six months from a, you know, projected adoption date. And I, I got confused myself that, yes, it is, in fact, hardcoded in this moratorium that these existing SDP approved steps have to be done by November 10th, even if council doesn't adopt the if even if the urban townhouse text, it means thought home text amendment, urban townhouse form gets at all delayed. So it's a bit of a detailed nuance, but it is hardcoded in this moratorium that the existing city approved steps have until. Um, formal steps not approved. Sorry. I should have looked at Annalise. I think we got it. She explained it. Is that it, Councilman? Yeah. I shouldn't play CPD planner on TV. Thanks. Oh, actually, but I do want to comment. I just on Elise's has been you know, she actually wasn't the the leader of the task force at the time it started, but took it over quickly thereafter and has run with it and just done an incredible job leading that group to two solutions and compromises. And we'll talk more about that. You know, as the as the Urban Townhouse Forum comes to council, but even on this thing, this was this was, you know, the conversation that council had at LUDI was an interesting one. And it presented some challenges that she led that discussion and navigated it so well that the developer, a developer from the development side, is the one that actually proposed this idea that we're of this early in date and it won unanimous support in the end, which I don't think was an outcome that anyone would have necessarily predicted when we entered the room. So it's been great. Thanks. Okay. Oh, Councilman. No, go. Ahead. One last thing. And it also we really emphasized to the developers with these 30 projects, if they could use the new criteria, we should really, really encourage them to do that is it's going to be an excellent improvement to that building form. And we just really want to just encourage them to use the new criteria. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, Rocco Espinosa. Flynn are Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman Canete. Lopez. All right. New Ortega assessment. Hi. Clark. Hi, Mr. President. I please the voting announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. Proclamation 129 has passed. Congratulations, everyone.

Recommendation to approve the expenditure of $20,000 as a reward for information helping to solve the murder of Carina Mancera and Jennabel Anaya on August 6, 2016.

LongBeachCC_08162016_16-0773

Great. Thank you. Also, we have a continued public budget hearing tonight for health parks and public works and we're going to take item 28 and 20 to start and then we'll go right into the budget hearing. So, Madam Clerk, if we can start with item 28, please. Report from Mayor Garcia and Councilwoman Gonzalez recommendation to approve the expenditure of $20,000 as reward for information helping to solve the murder of Karina Mansehra and Jenna Bell Aniya on August 6th, 2016. Thank you, Madam Cook. My computer is not working, by the way, so someone can. Can I get a motion in a second? Just. I'll just say briefly. We know that we had an incredible tragedy not that long ago with these two members of our community that were very tragically shot, particularly the little girl, four years old, and her mother as well. This is this $20,000 reward matches the county's reward, which also passed today. And it's what we've been discussing with the police department. So I might turn this over to Councilman Gonzales. Yes, I, too, just want to say I extend my gratitude to our Long Beach police officers. I know they're working very hard to ensure that we bring this person to justice. I also would like to thank our Board of Supervisors, specifically Supervisor Don Carnaby. I know his work in this was very helpful in allowing us to obtain this reward. So thank you very much. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any public comment on this item? Seeing none. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an Agreement with KPMG Corporate Finance, LLC, to assist the City in the evaluation and selection process for the operator of the Grand Prix of Long Beach, in an amount not to exceed $150,000 over a one-year term. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_04182017_17-0289

Motion carries. Okay, let's go back to number seven now. This year. Item seven is a report from Economic and Property Development recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an agreement with KPMG Corporate Finance to assist city in evaluation and selection process for the operator of the Grand Prix in an amount not to exceed 50,000. District two. Hi. Thank you. I wanted to thank everybody that's worked on this and ensuring that, you know, we are doing our best research to choose the best operator for this event. And I wanted to just clarify that this study will also include outreach to other cities and financial impacts that have been positive and or neutral or negative in those cities. Could you answer that for me, please? So we now have John Keisler, the director of Economic Development and property management. Honorable mayor and city councilmembers. So the consultant that's been selected for this study is KPMG. And what they will do with regard to outreach, to the references that were contained within their proposal, is that they'll both review those references and reach out to contacts familiar with the projects and other cities that are similar to the Grand Prix . They will structure. The review to get information to support the city in evaluation against the criteria noted in the RFQ and. Help the city identify other cities that are not included in the proposal. But the responses are still of relevance. And so essentially they will conduct outreach of of places that both the Formula One and the IndyCar race operators have have previously run races and work with those. Organizations to both review technically what what was accomplished there and ultimately what the financial impacts and results were of. Those those events. Great. Thank you. I just wanted to, you know, state that I think, you know, making sure that we're activating the space in downtown is so important. And the fact that we're taking the time out to really look at the best financial impact for the city is a great opportunity. And so I just wanted to make sure that this did include that research. So thank you. Thank you. I have Councilmember Austin. Somebody rang. I'm sorry. Thank you. Yeah, I suppose. Support this, this motion. But I also want to keep in mind that we did get I'm wearing my other hat as a member of the Coastal Commission that we did get a four year permit for the current operator. So I hope that when the study is completed that that is taken into consideration as well. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. With that that actually thank you, Councilmember. That that actually begs another question that I guess should be studied here is in terms of any any other applicants to to to run this race. Would they have to go through other agencies for approval? And and what would that look like in terms of timeline? What will be in terms of the US looking at the study, what will be the and this is first of questions will be the and have we considered the financial impact to the applicants in terms of prolonging this this process? I'm a little concerned about that piece of it. And then lastly, I do appreciate staff and the opportunity to have this this conversation behind the rail. It was on consent college calendar. But just some clarification, Mr. City Manager, could you tell us what is the policy for for contracts? Because I think this this falls underneath the threshold. This was a sole source. So this would fall within the policy that we've had in the past. And the other questions. I'd be happy to entertain. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was incorrect. I'm going to let John and I'm sorry. Council member. My apologies. I didn't jump on the button. Yes. So we did issue an RFP and received two proposals for the evaluation of the responses we got from the operators. What we have in terms of policy is that anything that is competitively bid and we receive, you know, three or more proposals under $200,000 we would not . Have to bring to City Council per the purchasing policy. However, there are two stages to this review. In the first stages, as it indicates in the staff letter, there was a $50,000 effort to help in the preparation. Of the original RFP, which was awarded to a separate consulting firm. Mr. Schaefer And then this $150,000 proposal, which took us to the $200,000 amount and triggered the need to come to council was the technical and financial review of the proposals that we received after the RFP had closed. So there were two phases. To this review and per conversations with the city attorney and with with purchasing, it was determined that was the same project. And so even though they're different operators, same project, we reached the amount that we should bring this before the city council. Okay. And then my other question was in terms of the financial impact to the bidders. Absolutely. And so so we're very cognizant of the the timeline, given that 2018 the Grand Prix is coming soon and the current operator has obligations as well as commitments from sponsors and others. So we've committed to the council and KPMG, the consultant here, has committed to returning this review within a 60 to 90 day period so that we have time to. To bring back the recommendations to council this summer, hopefully early this summer, and provide a sufficient timeline for the existing operator to. Make make plans and make those commitments. Thank you so much. Do you count to membership or not? Thank you. I just want to follow up on that 60 to 90 day window. Believe me, I'm the last man in the world who wants to bring this up. But we had a study done by someone on the international terminal. That original timeframe just got expanded so much and we were criticized for that. Is there any type of just absolute number they can plug in here not to exceed? I'm thinking 60 days. And then after that fact, we don't take it to other commissions or whatnot, but it's a hard and fast time. Also, I don't want to speak for the current operator, but I'll just tell you my personal experience and anyone within the sound of my voice can go to Joe Joe's Facebook page. And what the association did was they loaned us a two seater street legal Indy car the week before the the race. We drove it over to Jojo and took a picture in front of that establishment. They put it on their Facebook page, and as of right now, it has 925 likes and 99 shares. That kind of energy, I think, is diminished as time goes on. I think you strike while the iron is hot, you reel in these sponsors and boy, if this drags out too long, I just think it it really destroys the energy from the race. Thank you. Thank you. Is your public comment on this item? Please come forward. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. Councilmember Suber, now thank you very much for your kind comments. My name is Mike Murchison. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Grand Prix Association of Long Beach. I think we all agree it was a successful event. It was a terrific opportunity for the city to be showcased. What we're asking for tonight is basically what Mr. Keisler referenced in Darryl, what you reference, which was basically a timeline to get this back a time certain we can ill afford as a city to have this extend out towards the end of the year. And if you looked at the staff letter that was written in the agenda item, it mentioned the third quarter of 17. It didn't say that there was going to be a vote at that time period. It just mentioned that the eye would come back from KPMG. My concern on behalf of the association is if you watched the city process, the city process would then take that back to management. Management would review it, put it on the closed session calendar, and you're now looking at towards the end of 17. That's a big concern for the sponsors of the Grand Prix. Those are existing, those that are considering. So we're asking much like what Councilman Super and I mentioned that you have a time certain of 60 days, then plenty of time. We've had this RFP sitting out there now. It was quiet from December to March. The RFP was out. The two teams responded. They were submitted back in November. It's time to move this forward so we can get forward with a great race for 18. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any of the public comment, please come forward. CNN. And I think, obviously, Mr. West, I think what you're obviously hearing from from the Council on Folks is want to make sure that this is done. Obviously, we have to we have to go through the process, but that was done expeditiously and that we're not lag in this at all because I think clarity for, you know, for our our current partner and other possible folks who are interested I think is really important. And so I know that I and others will be kind of ensuring that we stay on track and get this done as soon as possible. Okay. There's a motion on a second. We're going to take a vote. Voice vote again. Councilman Austin. I. I. I. I. I. Okay. Unanimous again. Thank you. I just did the consent calendar and the item that was pulled off consent. We're going to go on with this yet, right. So let me do some some of the public comment that we didn't get to Summer Hanson, then Sherry Martinez than Dan O'Leary.

Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports. [City Council/SACIC] (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC_04162019_2019-6736

Thank you. I just have to. Basic questions and that has to do with the the exhibit seven which which was the memorandum of internal controls. And within that memorandum, there is a section called 2018 Dash three Purchasing Policy Compliance. And in that section, there are two sentence, two paragraphs. One, which went one payment was comprised of three vendor invoices totaling 1700 dollars that were individually below the threshold requiring a contract. But the city used the vendor throughout the fiscal year for various repairs. And cumulatively, those small contracts cumulatively totaled $129,800. And in a separate item, there was something similar where a vendor did work for 1300 dollars. But cumulatively, when you add it up, all the different contracts, cumulatively the amount of money spent on the second vendor was roughly to $296,000. So the basic question is, oh, by the way, for for purposes of background, for for the public. In these situations are called out within the memorandum of internal control because the city has a policy that requires the city as a council to sign off on certain contracts. And the the sign off occurs when a certain threshold occurs. But a dollar threshold, when that dollar threshold is exceeded, the council has to approve it. But in these instances, the memorandum is pointing out just two instances where someone has these very, very small contracts that if you look at it individually, you know, it doesn't surpass the threshold. But when you add them all together, suddenly it's a lot of money. So the question I have is, uh. Are we implementing fixes so that something like this doesn't happen again? And is that in place now? Elena Darrah, finance director for the City. So, yes, we are attempting to fix it. There's a number of issues. At hand here. One, we have quite a few brand new personnel which we need to train them the new on existing policies. We also are aware that our current purchasing policy is not exactly up. To up to par and we do need to revise it. Unfortunately, even though we do know it, we have had other projects in place that take higher priority and that has not happened. The third item I would say currently there is nothing in the city right. Now that we can use in terms of technology without manual work from staff to track each individual vendors as to how we. How much we actually pay in total. Nor is there a policy. Or practice to determine, well, is it a rolling 12. Months? Rolling five. Years? Is it one fiscal year at the time? So that's part of the items that we would be looking at. And when you look at the purchasing policy revisions, so there's a multitude of things that need to be looked at and determine how we want. To proceed with. That. But that's. On our list. To do. With the implementation of the ERP, because I understand sometimes ERP help, it's not just human resources management but also contract management with the implementation of the ERP. Help in this regard. We are all and I think I can speak for just about every single person in the city are looking. Forward to a new ERP and contract management is one of the provisions to include one of the modules for the new system. And we. Are all hoping that that's going to. Be part of our solution. It won't be the only solution, obviously, but yes, we're all looking forward to using that component of it. Great. Well, thank you very much. With that, I'm satisfied with the staff presentation and the information. Put that in the report. And if no one, I would move. I am. I mean, to add a comment, I just want to note that in the in this document, the report on that very same page that Councilmember De so was referencing, just for the public to know that management's response was included at the bottom of the page. And it's pretty much what Ms.. Elaina, Ms.. Header just told us, that city staff is aware of current purchasing policy deficiencies and have completed an assessment of citywide procurement processes and review of procedures. The next plan step or to redesign current process to provide for greater efficiencies. This purchasing policy and related city ordinance will be reviewed and proposed changes will be presented to the City Council for approval. So I have no doubt that once we get past the budget, some of those items will be coming to the council. Councilmember Desai Yeah, who. Who are the entities that received these cumulative amounts that exceed the threshold significantly? Actually I do have or ed here in the audience. So I'm going to ask her specifically to see if she's aware. Okay. Okay. So if you just give us off at the end of that. Of course, yes. Okay. All right. Okay. Okay. So we have a motion for approval of and this is the consent calendar, the minutes and the recommendation to accept the audited financial position. We have a motion in second on favor. I oppose abstain and the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Right now we move to a regular city council meeting. Roll Call has been noted. Five present. Thank you. And before we get to the rest of the agenda, I just want to make an announcement that we have our new city manager, Eric Leavitt, here with us. This is his first council meeting and we're thrilled to have him on board. So please welcome Eric Levitt. All right. With that, do we have any did you want to say something? Do you want. To? By the time. I thought. We were getting out. Oh, no, we're. I said, would you like to just say hello or whatever? I want to thank the City Council for providing this opportunity. I'm excited. I've been here. Coming on. This will be the end about a week, week and a half, depending on your your your calculations. And I'm very excited. This is a very engaged community, very engaged city. And I think this is a great opportunity. I want to thank you very much. I'm excited to be all working in partnership with you and the community. Thank you. And I will just note that Mr. Levitt's a really good sport, because on his very first day on the job, he went with me to the Alameda County Conference of Mayors meeting in Union City. And when I got in, he said, Do you want me to drive? Do you want to drive? And I said, I thought we'd take public transit. And I slapped him. And we walked across the street and we took AC Transit to the Fruitvale Station and we hopped on a BART train to Union City. That was a brand new BART stay, a BART train. And are they slick and quiet and smooth and have electronic screen that shows the map? On the way back, we got the old one that bounced in, you know, like a stagecoach. But he's, you know, saw the gamut. But anyway, I thought that was that was admirable. But we're looking forward to having you as our manager. So agenda changes. Oh, yes. Let's start with the city clerk. My five d has been withdrawn and is going to come back at the next meeting. And unfortunately, now five P is also going to be brought back at the next meeting instead due to a wrong ordinance being posted and the RFP is still going to be issued next week. So do you want to explain in a little more detail what those numbers the last five. Legislative agenda is, D, and then the cannabis item is five. P. And so the RFP for potential businesses will still go ahead and be issued, but the vote on the ordinances themselves has to come back because we always have to comply with the proper noticing.

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Garage Door Specialties, Inc., concerning perimeter security gate maintenance and repair services at Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with Garage Door Specialties, Inc. for $1 million and for 2 years, with the option for three (3) 1-year extensions, to perform maintenance, repair, and emergency response services of Denver International Airport’s (DEN) electric security perimeter vehicle gates in Council District 11 (202159110-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-6-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-4-22.

DenverCityCouncil_05162022_22-0479

Council members say two Barca and Flynn have called out Bill 401 for a vote under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? Thank you. Councilmember Hines, will you please put resolution four, seven, nine on the floor for adoption? I move that resolution 20 20479 be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved. Can we get a second? Thank you. Comments by members of council. I'll go ahead and make my comment. This resolution, I will be abstaining tonight because my brother in law's company, Gilmore Construction, is a subcontractor on this. Madam Secretary, roll call on resolution 22, dash four, seven, nine. Torres. I. Black. I see. Tobacco. Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Haines. Hi. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. I swear, I. Madam President. I'm staying. And then, secretary, close the voting and announce the results. One abstention. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes. Resolution 22, Dash 479 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Resolution 120 on the floor for adoption.

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget, including the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); revising project allocations for the Madison BRT - RapidRide G Line project and certain other projects in Ordinance 126000 into the 2020-2025 Adopted CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_CB 119883

To be part of the transportation to a region that I'm 21 capital 11983 amending ordinance 26, which is up the 2020 budget and 2025, 2023, 2025 CAP Improvement Programs Revising project allocations for the Madison BRT, Ragland Project and certain other projects important at 20 6000. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You're recognized in order to provide the committee's report. Thank you. Council President Gonzalez, this is Council Bill 119883. It's legislation from our Seattle Department of Transportation and will allocate more city tax dollars for the Madison Street Rapid Ride Bus Project, serving city councils, districts or city council districts three and seven to qualify the project for a relatively large grant from the Federal Transit Administration. The FTA required to provide a longer schedule and to fund a larger contingency. So the budget here is increasing from 121 million to 134 million. 5 million of that increase is coming from city tax dollars. I want to thank DOD and the City Budget Office for honoring my request to beef up their fiscal note that accompanied this Council bill to show the public the all the sources and uses of funds so we know where the money's coming from and how it's being spent. More clearly, the sources and uses, they illuminate several points. First, the good news. Only about 17% of this funding for this project is from city tax dollars. The purpose of the legislation, however, is to increase the amount coming from the city and to update the budget in general. This does have an impact to two projects and this fiscal helps to explain that. I want to make sure we keep a close eye on this project going forward. As with all big ticket projects, we want to make sure it's managed effectively. I do have confidence in our state's ability to complete the project and in supporting this bill today. I will be cautious in the future about diverting additional flexible city dollars toward big ticket projects like this during an era of budget deficits. We know the city has a lot of pressing maintenance needs, such as repairing our old bridges through our throughout our city. As we heard last week with the city auditor's report on bridges, at the same time, the climate notes that we just passed would probably point out that the net benefits of this project by reducing carbon emissions, by getting people out of their single occupancy gasoline powered vehicles. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any comments on this bill? Councilman Strauss. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Chair Peterson for bringing this for the Madison Bus Rapid Transit Project is very high priority for me. We know that the rapid rides in Seattle and King County are not quite bus rapid transit. Bus Rapid Transit has its own lanes level. Boarding. All door boarding. And when bus rapid transit is able to be successful with all of its its implements, then it can meet the similar reliability as light rail, plus or minus about 3 minutes. We know that people will be more able to use and rely on transit when transit has a reliable travel time from its from when you pick it up to where you're going, if you know how long it's going to take, every time you ride the bus, you're more likely to take it. Also, we need to be able to have reliability within our city to have busses arrive every 10 to 15 minutes on corridors such as the Madison BRT. We know that in places like, again, Eugene, Oregon, who has true bus rapid transit, they are able to meet these frequency levels of service that our city so, so desperately needs . And so by creating on what transit only lanes throughout the city is going to be one way of doing that. And overall, we need to have more projects like Madison be BRT. And so this ranks very high on my priority list. I'm happy to support it today and I look forward to supporting it more in the future. Thank you, Council President. Thank you. Chair Peterson. Are there any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. So I, I really, I understand the importance of the medicine BRT Rapid Ride Line Project, and I appreciate that it's been in the works for many years. I was glad to see 7.3 million additional funding available from Sound Transit and 4 million in savings was available from the Lander Street Overpass project. And I start gets the credit for managing the Lander Street over project over street project in a way that allows this fund to be funds to be relocated. I do have concerns about the smaller funding source for another project that's been in the works for many, many years. The Fauntleroy Boulevard Project, namely $918,000 previously allocated to that project, is included in this reallocation. One constituent when we actually voted on this reallocation in the 2020 rebalancing package and this is a separate vote to to align the CIP with for 2020 with that vote. But when we took that that vote earlier, a constituent reminded me that planning work for this project goes back over 20 years. The project originated with Community, which is on a pedestrian unfriendly city and a very, very dense and increasingly dense area in an urban village. Last week, during Transportation and Utilities Committee, I had to leave for another meeting and I wasn't able to bring this up during committee. Thank you to Chair Peterson for doing so. You know, it's again important to realize that 100% designed for the project was reached in fall of 2017. I supported the delay of that project in January 2018 because the project overlaps with one of the options under consideration for Sound Transit's Light Rail project. Consequently, implementation was delayed until completion of the EIA process. But I only supported the the delay of the project because we also received a very strong commitment from DOT about the funds that had been allocated for the project and as Dots Fauntleroy Project website notes, Sound Transit's decision on light rail alignment is the next step. And they go on to say, and I quote, We remain committed to the goals of the Boulevard Project. If Sound Transit's light rail design for West Seattle does not impact Fauntleroy way, we will move forward with the full project as design. If Sound Transit's design impacts on the right way, we will work with Sound Transit to implement streetscape improvements on Fauntleroy way that align with the goals of the Fauntleroy Boulevard project. Now it appears that Eastport is planning to propose redirecting not only these funds in 2020, which I agreed to in principle, but a significant amount of the 13 million enlisted in the city for the project in the proposed we. I believe they are going to make this proposal in the 2021 budget. Essential staff estimates involve a $9 million redirection. So Sound Transit's draft year is scheduled for early next year and the final year for 2022. It seems very premature to reallocate funding for the project in advance of that decision. I definitely appreciate that I did some short term improvements with the over $13 million allocated for for this area, for transportation improvements in this area. And they did so a couple summers ago. But those were definitely intended as temporary improvements and not a substitute for the project. I recognize that this issue is tangential to funding for the Madison Street Rapid Ride. It only affects a small portion of the new project funding. I want to make sure that I state my concerns in advance of the 2021 budget. I let Eastport know after the committee vote last week that my support for the Madison BRT funds is strong, but that I was seeking a commitment from start to reconsider this plan to divert between 9 to $13 million from the Fauntleroy project in 2021. I believe they're doing so is a real mistake and the community would feel and I would as well, that a promise was broken. If it moves forward with what I understand is a 2021 decision to divert the rest of those funds. Thank you. Are there any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Peterson, please. Just I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for bringing up that issue that, you know, I know we don't want to. Live an austerity budget scenario. And and yet there is a budget deficit. And during the 2021 budget, we'll have lots of, we'll say, robust discussions about how to allocate funding. And Councilmember Herbold, I'd be happy to work with you if that budget comes down and that project is negatively impacted, we can, you know, happy to happy to be an ally as we try to find funding from other projects that may not be as much of a priority as Fauntleroy, just. Thank you for that. Are there any other comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Lewis. I. Morales. I must get to. My. Petersen. I the what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD Yes. SUAREZ Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will a quirk please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 22 Will the clerk read the short title of item 22 into the record?

Recommendation to receive and file the presentation about Share Your Heart...Share Your Home to raise awareness about the need for foster and adoptive parents and weekend hosts, and recognize local foster parents who are providing stable homes to children in Long Beach.

LongBeachCC_05242016_16-0497

And so we're actually moving this up. We have a large group here for that. And so Councilman Austin is has moved that up. So we're going to hear that item. It's actually item, I believe, to actually be I'm 36, but we're moving that up. So, Madam Cook, do you want to read the item? But we're going to do it as a presentation. Item 36 is communication from Councilman Austin. Recommendation is to receive and file the presentation about share your heart. Share your home to raise awareness about the need for foster and adoptive parents. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And we just want to make everybody aware that May is National Foster Care Month. And it's time to recognize that we each can play a part in enhancing the lives of children and youth in foster care. Each month, DCFS investigates nearly 10,000 reports of child abuse and neglect in L.A. County. Here in the South County, which covers the city of Long Beach, they investigate an average of 900 referrals each month. Currently, there are over 500 children waiting to be adopted and waiting for a loving foster home. If you're interested in learning more about becoming a foster or an adoptive parent, please attend our third annual Foster Care and Adoption Expo on June. 11th Saturday at Columbia City College from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.. And this is our third annual event. We've done it in conjunction with Supervisor Duncan Nobby's office. Long Beach City College. Obviously, kids save and extraordinary families. Today, we actually have a couple of families here, local families who have gone through the adoption and foster process. And we want to make sure that we recognize them here this evening. We have Scott Parks I'm sorry, Scott Park, Sparks and Wilbur Rubio, who set out to adopt in 2013. If you guys stand. Thinking they would adopt a boy and a girl. They ended up falling in love with a trio of two boys and a girl. Giovanni, Genesis and Angel are now members of their family. Let's give them a round of applause and welcome. We also have this evening with us this evening, the Churchill family, Eric Churchill and his wife, Amy. They have fostered a total of 17 kids over five years. They ended up fostering and then adopting and adopting Ariel standup, Ariel Wave, Ariel, Esmé, Samantha and Tabitha just last year. They are residents of the eighth District and neighbors of mind. And if we could ask the family to please stand as well. And we are this event that we do every year focuses on on families, allows them to tell their stories, but also allows individuals who have a loving heart and who have great homes to the opportunity to learn more about how they can be a part of this. This really turning lives around of young people, for young people. I want to thank Yvonne Christiano from L.A. County, DCFS, who is also here with us and who will be partnering with us on June the 11th. So if I could get the families to come up and join me, I want to give you a certificate and actually have the mayor come up and take a picture as well. Thank you. Council members. If you want to join us, it would be great to. Oh. Okay. The reason. Are you thinking? Okay. This is. Mayor. Can we have the kids in front step forward to the front? All right. Here we go. All right, everybody, get around the mayor, please. Yeah. Well, these are not healthy for your heart. You don't get far from the other side. Okay, well, we. Yeah. Oh, okay. Here we go. Know. Yes. Now I see. Wow. Everybody, look up here, please. Right up here. But. We need to think. I think it goes. You guys, I don't know how. To make it easy. But it's hard. Okay. That's item 25 as a public comment on this item, which was the foster item? KC None. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote on the item, please. Bush and Kerry. Great. Thank you. Next. Next, we're going to have the next presentation, which, again, it goes back to Councilwoman Gonzalez. And this presentation has a companion agenda item, which is 25. And so we'll do the presentation with the companion agenda item, because I know that our seniors are here with four on behalf of the commission as well.

Recommendation to Consider an Informational Report on City’s Facility Condition Assessments. (Public Works 310) (30 minutes)

AlamedaCC_05172016_2016-2720

Recommendation to consider an infinite information report on the city's facility condition assessment. And we have a staff report. Do we have any speakers on this item? All right. Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Liam Garland with the Public Works Department. Here in Public Works, we have a little bit of a chip on our shoulder about not having the most exciting items to present. Tonight, we're going to be talking with you about our facilities, condition assessment and also some changes to our municipal code regarding construction contracting may be in order to get this get our creative juices flowing. We've got a quiz to start off tonight. This is not a quiz that is public. Well, in a sense, we're being watched. So it's a pop quiz. If I had to. Have the audience participate and we have a lifeline. Is the smiley face significant? I apologize. You take it away. And if I had the Jeopardy! Theme music, I would be playing it right now. But I do not have. So tonight we're going to talk a little bit about facilities management and we're going to walk through three questions that test your knowledge of good practices in facilities management and a little bit about what our existing inventory of facilities, what the scope of visit it is. So here's our first question. City buildings cover 500,000 square feet. That's roughly the size of a the Golden Gate Bridge. Yes. There we go. That is the answer. That is pretty amazing, isn't it? It's not what I would have guessed. It's also three times the size of Oracle Arena. Now let's contrast that with the number of public works staff funded for city building. Maintenance is the answer 13.58.25 or 20. And I always wonder who those haves and quarters are. That's what I was going to ask. Yes. The answer is be. So it's a nice contrast. Isn't a lot of building to maintain, along with not a lot of people to maintain it. And one way to think about this is what if you were told that the Golden Gate Bridge only had three and a half people maintaining it? How safe would you feel going across that bridge now? These three and a half people, they actually they maintain a lot more than that in the sense that they're dealing with daily toilet toilets, overflowing, leaky faucets, all the sort of day to day maintenance work of facilities. Finally, and this one's a little bit of a giveaway. When in doubt, always go. Which of the following are best practices in facilities management? Well, we've got the condition assessment, which we're going to hit in a couple of minutes. Maintenance, management systems. I've been in front of this body before talking about our computerized maintenance management system, LUSARDI, that we're rolling out through all of our different assets groups while facilities maintenance becomes a part of that computerized maintenance management system. And then also long term capital plans. You might remember our capital budget from 2015 where we talked quite a bit about the facilities and deferred maintenance there and some of the long term plant plans we're developing. And so that's why for three, the answer is D. So I hope that got a little bit of the the neurons flowing. Now we're going to transition into our formal facility condition assessment presentation. Before we do that. I want to introduce Abdullah Ahmed, who's going to be supporting tonight. He is one of our newest project managers. He comes to us from Southern California with a tons of facilities management and project management experience, literally has taught the class on project management. So he is or has been instrumental in terms of getting these two items in front of us tonight. So thank you, Abdullah and Laura, we okay with the next presentation? Oh, yes. Yes, thank you. Maybe. All right. So this is actually pretty rewarding to be up here discussing this because back in 2014, if you would have asked us about how the the condition of our facilities and where the information for that condition assessment was can be contained, the answer would have been not in my brain, but in a lot of our staff's brains and in paper in quite a few different places. And so I just want to show you a little bit of a visual demonstrating that. Take a look at those systems. It doesn't strike you as a super reliable system for facilities, condition information. And here's where we're pretty excited about the new maintenance management system, because all of the information that we've gleaned through these condition assessments, which we're going to talk about, is now in our maintenance management system. So it's in one place for our staff to access, access, rather than all of these different places in paper or in people's brains. We think that's a a big step forward for for our department. Now, back in 2014, we and the City Council agreed to bring in a third party facilities condition assessment expert Notts Faithful and Gold. They looked at our 38 facilities, essentially identifying where corrective actions need to be taken and also importantly what the cost estimates for those corrective actions were. Here is a list of the 38 buildings. It's a long list. It's got 30 buildings. Yes. And so these are facility condition assessment reports, actually. Just give me one moment. This is up. Sorry. This is volume one of these facility condition assessments. So each building has its own assessment 52, a 75 page document detailing all of the different corrective actions that Faith on Gold has recommended. So fairly extensive. As you can see here on the slide, they're covering all aspects of building facilities, everything from the envelope, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, you name it. It's in these these reports. Now, the next thing. So if a member of the public or council wants to see what's actually being suggested per item, if we come and check out this, how does that work? Sure. Just reach out to me. Well, happy to share it. And a member of the public could always do the same thing. Thank you. The next two slides are not building by building information instead of their rolled up information. So in other words, if you take all of that data and the underlying condition assessments, you then roll them up. You come up with some good and some not so good news. So I want to share the good news first, which is that if you look at our current facilities, we've got about 50% of our facilities in good condition. So the building we're in now, the good news is it's in good condition and that really is good news. That's this is a building that's being accessed by the public frequently. It's where many city staff and our electeds reside. So it's important to have facilities in good condition. The other side of that is we have 50% of our facilities not in good condition. The number that I'm really hoping sticks in your brain coming out of tonight's presentation is that number in the lower right hand corner, that over $12 million in immediate capital needs. Let me explain a little bit about what that means. This is the number derived from faithful in gold. And essentially it it is a roll up of capital needs that need to happen without. And if they do not happen, we're going to suffer larger expense later. So you think about an H fax system that has a 20 to 25 year life, but it's it's actually 35 years in. And so we can either wait for that to fail. And if we do, our costs are going to go dramatically up in terms of its replacement and then lost use of that facility. Or we can replace it now and save that future repair cost. And so that's an example of those immediate capital needs. We're talking roof replacements where we have roofs that are leaking HVAC upgrades, substantial electrical upgrades. That's what's represented in that over $12 million. Now, I want you to imagine for a moment that coming out of tonight and the next year, we did nothing around facilities maintenance. So in other words, no further investments in our facilities. Oh, the picture would get dramatically worse in the next ten years. And again, this is where we're we're focusing on that a little bit above $12 Million number. That number would turn to nearly $35 million if we were to do nothing. Even more that remember where currently we're at, about 50% of our buildings are in good condition. We'll look at that number ten years out. That number is 8% of our facilities in good condition. It's all to say. This underlines the case for doing something sooner rather than later. And the good news is this council has already done some things. You approved about $2 million in high priority facility repairs back in September with some of those general surplus funds. Let me back up a little bit and just show a few photos of the kinds of conditions that are out there. You see a couple or a few slides related to water intrusion coming through roofs. Ironically, in the upper right hand corner, that's our maintenance services center. That's where our maintenance workers who come out to other city facilities to catch water or try to repair roofs on the fly. They're also getting dripped upon. That's what that that photo in the upper right hand corner shows in this next set of slides. You see, we've got lots of pavement and asphalt that needs to be repaired and lots of equipment that needs to be replaced. In the middle there you see the middle, lower middle, you see that missing downspouts. That's an example of something we would call preventative maintenance. So in other words, that Downspouts is helping protect that building's foundation from water running into it when it's missing. Obviously, that's not good for the foundation of the building. And so that's an example of the kind of work we want to do in preventative maintenance. We want to do more of this kind of kind of work. So what's next? Well, we propose to do is we're not asking for any approvals tonight. We want to come back in February of 2017 with some ideas for how we can bridge our facilities maintenance funding gap. And you may ask, why am I not asking tonight for that money? And for one, because that's what a capital and operating budget process is for. It's for folks sitting in your position to weigh the competing interests of different, different priorities and to make decisions around that. And so in February 2017, we will likely have kicked off the operating capital budget process. And we want to present options to you for first how to bridge that 12. Remember, I talked about that $12 million we're likely to raise over the next ten years or so, about seven and a half million that we can put toward those $12 million in repairs. That leaves about $4.8 million for those high priority facility repairs. We want to we want to propose a way to bridge that gap, probably with some general fund surplus dollars if they exist. The second the second part of that gap is a bigger one. That's about the deferred maintenance. It's not about the big projects. It's more about that that downspouts that needs to be replaced. It's also about painting or in fact, systems, making sure we get a technician out every year who checks that HVAC system to ensure that it's operating properly. That's not leaking out. That kind of year to year. Maintenance can extend the life of that HVAC system and save the city money over the long term. In some ways, what we'll be back in front of you proposing. It's a little bit like two spouses discussing a vehicle that they own that is in disrepair. So what the facility's condition assessment has done is it said what in the vehicle is working, what's not, what needs to be replaced, what's the routine maintenance that's going to happen next? And now the spouses are having a discussion about, okay, now we've got some dollar values for that. Where are we going to invest this money and where's the money going to come from? Is somebody going to get a promotion? Is there a will somewhere out there that's going to help us get there? And so that's what we're going to be back in February 2017 to discuss is with some direction from you on dollar values. We then can turn out the first two years of the facility's capital budget. We can then have the long term facility CIP plan and then as much as we can around that preventative maintenance plan. So that's what we're proposing to come back to you in February of 2017. And with that, if there's any questions that Bob Abdullah or I can answer, we're here to answer them. As a member Ashcraft. I had one. Thank you for that. Nice presentation, Mr. Garland. Can you tell us of the the list of the 38 facilities inspected and assessed? That's on page four of your presentation. Um, are all of these buildings projected to be in use in the next year to three, five years? And I had a couple of specific questions. So number 18, Building 76 pool is that the pool out at the. At Alameda point. To point. So it's not used now, correct? No, I believe it's not. It's not correct. So, I mean, what. How. Much how much money would we be putting into something that I think eventually is going to be replaced? Because, you know, we have plans for a nice recreation center at Alameda Point eventually. Definitely. Sorry if I interrupted. Especially because any dollar we put into a building that is that might not be used in the future is a dollar we're taking away from another building that's being used on a daily basis by the public. Those are definitely decisions that public works will make and also keep the city council informed about in terms of what buildings we might not invest substantial dollars in terms of facility maintenance. The buildings at Alameda Point, honestly, they're a bit tough, right, because we don't know over the long term where they're going to be and whom whose hands and how they're used. So that that's a question that honestly, we're still wrestling with. Okay. So we can take a closer look. And the other one I wondered about and it's, you know, very close to where we are right now. But the veterans building, what percentage of that building is in use at any given time? I've taken the occasional dance class there through an RPG. When my kids were teenagers, they were involved in the activities in the teen underground or whatever that nice program is at LAPD runs. But what percentage of that building is used in on a regular basis? That's a good question. I do not know the answer to that. Add that to our list. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Comment My Vice Mayor. A minor question on your chart about the facilities. It'll still be good if we do nothing. You have a marina village there. What's that doing. There? What is it? So what? What we did was in some of our our what I call special districts, our landscape and lighting districts, homes, we have part of the components that relate to the public infrastructure out there. What we did was look long term what what needed to be replaced in those areas. So boardwalk, lighting, etc.. And so we're building that into long term plans and then running that against the revenue that's brought in through assessments. So that's what that Marina Village is about. It's about the landscaping lighting district, I think at zone five or six. And I don't know what I can say about that because I live next to the park. Can I say anything about that? Precious little. Okay. Never mind. Thank you. Any other. Comments? Just remember. Suck. Oh. Oh. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you very much for your presentation and for focusing public attention on the variety of facilities operated and managed by the city of Alameda for which continuing upkeep is needed in the short and a long term. Now, it seems to me that as we move forward on your the long term facilities planning and making sure to maintain these facilities, we might also have that discussion in the context of other CHP items so that we're not making the decision with regard to facilities in a vacuum. I know, for example, a lot of people are always asking me about. Frankly, their own streets. And that if you go down San Antonio Avenue, for example, I think that Street has not been paved in in a while. And it is it is getting to have some wear. And I just mentioned San Antonio Avenue, west of Grand Street as an example. But but. So there's a lot of tremendous needs that which when not attended. Will lead to even greater needs for the reasons that you discussed below. Something that's not invested in upkeep now. The costs go up. I don't know if it's an exponential going up, but it goes up at a higher rate than normal. But that just means that we have that that many more challenges so that. The thing that I would recommend for sure then is that as we move forward with your capital facilities long term plan, that we also have that conversation in conjunction with other items that are typically on our recipe for which, you know, there's been a lot of deferred maintenance. Absolutely. And Brody. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the presentation. You know, I also echo the comments that my colleagues made, you know, to two quick points. You know, one, I know last year when we had our reserves and we allocated our excess reserves, we did tackle some deferred maintenance. I know the vice mayor has been a champion of tackling these deferred maintenance issues before they become worse. So hopefully I know you said February of next year we'll have a plan, but if there is some excess one time money that we can do this year, you know, I'd like to you to be prepared at least to give us, you know, what the high priority items are that we might be able to attack this year rather than next year. And I also agree that it's a good idea to get this plan and get this baked in our our ongoing budget so we can start addressing these these problems. Thank you. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. So I was just going to go back to the $12.3 million figure you gave us for rehabilitating or addressing buildings that were in poor the worst condition. So of that 12.3 million, some of these were buildings that we talked about or facilities like the pool at Alameda Point that might not ever come into use. So that's correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Right. And I wanted to ask when this comes back, I'd like to know historically, for instance, for the last 3 to 5 years how much has been allocated for maintenance and deferred maintenance annually and then the occupancy of City Hall West. I know when you're evaluating the different buildings, that's another one. I was asked specifically about what's going on there. If you can try to share what's going on in some of these buildings that people may not know what they have, how the city does use these buildings. And then on the animal shelter. We did have a meeting with some finance representatives and they. And they may have met with you. I'm not sure. I just wanted to make sure that you coordinate with them. I know that they do have some serious needs in regards to the facilities. Thank you. Yes. All right. That being said at this point, is that all the direction you need or. This is for information. We're good. We can move on then. Yes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Now we will go to six be. Introduction of ordinance, amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending various sections of Article four and five contracts and administrative procedures and policies concerning conformance of all bidding procedures on public works projects to public contract code 22 zero 32 in California. Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting. I'm switching it. Liam. Thank you very much. Again, Liam Garland from Public Works and these two items are intimately connected. And let me just explain that before we jump in, which is that one of the challenges we see with getting all of these facility projects done is that we've got some construction contracting, municipal code provisions that are out of date. And that's what this item is about, is about updating those municipal code provisions regarding construction bidding. So with that, let me give you an overview of what public works is asking and then we'll jump into the details about the request and why. So the first is you see that at the top of the slide is currently any construction project, over $75,000 has to come to City Council for approval before that contract can be finalized. What staff is recommending is that we update our municipal code, which has not been updated in about 26 years, to be consistent with what the state law is in the area. And that's $175,000. And I'll give you the reasons behind that in just a moment. But that's what our first request is. The second is to have the city council, and this is on the bottom portion of that slide. It's to have the city council designate approval of plans and specifications. I said that incorrectly. Let me start that over to delegate to the city, engineer approval of a project's plans and specifications. So without further ado, let's jump in to what are the goals for this. So this is not coming out of nowhere. It is obviously related a little bit more than a little bit to the work we're doing around facilities and seeing the challenge around some delays on the contracting side because of an out and out to date and out of date code. They're also besides just getting up to date on code, we think we can save about 10% on project expenses by having our code up to date. We think we can save for months on a project's timeline by updating the code, and that's quite a bit of time. This, of course, will enable us to complete the ambitious number of facility ships we do want to complete. We think there's going to be another benefit, which is that with the streamlined bidding procedures for projects up to 175,000, we believe that this is going to make that work more competitively, more competitive to be bid on by local and smaller contractors. Essentially, local and smaller contractors don't have an administrative wing of their firms to respond to cities of formal bidding requirements. The last two are really about the delegating the authority of the city engineer to approve plans and specs, and it's about increasing the city's immunity from potential legal claims related to those plans and specs . We'll talk in a little bit of detail about that. And then finally, we want to eliminate some unnecessarily unnecessary city council approval. So these are the goals of the municipal code update. You'll see here. This is section two, Dash 61 from our municipal code. It shows that $75,000 construction contracting threshold. In other words, we have to have city council approval for construction contracts over $75,000. You'll see the date here, February six of 1990. This has not been updated since then. This was also the same year that we opted in as a city to the construction. I'm sorry. California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act. I am not going to say that again. It's Koepka. I will say that a few more times. We opted into Koepka in the year of 1990. Koepka has since been updated five different times and we have not kept current with that. And so that's why the increase from I'm sorry, the $175,000, that's koepka's current contracting threshold. And the revision we're proposing is essentially to have our code point to Koepka. And as there are future adjustments to that code, our code will also be adjusted. Here. You can see websites from the state comptroller's office who's involved in the updating of the construction contracting thresholds, essentially looking at what construction contract costs, what's the direction of those which is obviously up and making sure that these thresholds are kept up or updated consistent with the direction of construction costs. Here where we take a look at what other cities in the bay area who are in Cook what they've done and you'll see that that the top 11 there they are all consistent with where Cooper Cooper is currently. You'll see there's another five that are not consistent with where Cooper is currently, but they're above where where Alameda is. This slide shows the four months that we think we can save on our typical construction projects should this item be approved tonight? And again, this is why one of the reasons why we're coming at this now is because we're looking at these facility repairs, a bunch of which will be in the range of that 75 to 175000. And we think this is going to give us and public works a real opportunity to get more of that work done in a shorter time. Let me clarify a little bit about what this item is not. We are not making any changes to our current code regarding prevailing wages. We're not changing this body's governing of the budget and the approval of all of the projects in our capital budget. Oh, this doesn't change that that obligation or responsibility of the city council whatsoever. There's also another important point here, which is a construction contracting law is pretty clear in California. You award to the lowest responsible bidder, period. It's why these items end up on our consent calendar. We don't have much discretion in the matter whatsoever. And so that doesn't change either. If that changes, Bob Abdullah and I walk out of here in handcuffs. So construction contracts have to go to the lowest responsible bidder, and there is no change to that. So now I'm going to turn to the second part of tonight's item, and that is a proposed change where we're having the city council designate authority to approve plans and specs to the specifications to the city engineer. Oh, and I want to start just high level. So what is this about? And if you look at the photos here, this is primarily about our annual maintenance capital project. So you've got on the left photo, you've got our street resurfacing project, on our center photo, you've got our sewer main replacements. And on the right we have several pump station renovations. And these are the kind of projects that come up every single year. And the council has the option options the wrong word has the authority of approving these projects first in the capital budget. Then, if they are either facilities or new parks, they go to the planning board and staff's committed, in addition that for new facilities and new parks, we'd bring those plans and specs to City Council to be another opportunity for approval. And then on contract award, it's back in front of council. So the change tonight is only on the piece for approval of plans and specifications and only for projects that are like these routine maintenance projects, the street resurfacing, the sewer main replacement and the pump station renovations. So then the question is, obviously, by the way, there's a gain in time for public works. We can get more projects done without having to gain the City Council's approval of plans and specs. When we've got a city engineer who's got the expertize in the area who can approve those plans and specs, something is different today versus a couple of years ago. Case law has changed and now there's increased risk of a later legal claim if there's any change in those plans and specs once the work is done out in the field. And so what those court cases suggest is those changes don't have the immunity that's garnered with this city council's approval of the plans and specs. And every set of plans and specifications change once you get into the field. So that's a that is a an issue, which is if we want to better protect the city, then delegating that authority to the city engineer when invariably there's going to be changes to those plans and specs that best provides the city the legal defense it needs for any claims of improper design or plan coming out of those plans and specifications. So with that, I'm going to leave this slide up here with the two changes. I should say one other thing, which is if you do approve this item tonight, we've got a typo actually in the proposed ordinance where we refer to a subsection of Cooper when that reference should be a subsection F. No. Reverse. We refer to a subsection F when the subsection should be referring to D. So as long as we can incorporate that into if there's a successful motion, then we'll be where we need to be. With that, I'm happy to take any questions you may have. All right. First, clarifying questions and councilmember clarifying questions. All right. I have clarifying questions then when you go back to your presentation, when you had approval by the city engineer as opposed to city council, does that mean that currently city engineer does not approve these along the process. City city and approves them, but then they need to come to city council for a final approval. So if you look at your chart. I. I don't know which page it had. You had four steps. Okay. On page ten. Yes. You don't have if you don't have a step there that shows the city engineer approving. So that currently happened. When does that happen? So it would happen before the plans inspects were submitted to the City Council for approval. Essentially that's a city engineer stamping the plans inspector saying These are good to go. All right. So it does currently happen. So we would still we would just continue that. So the. Question here is where you're being asked then to remove the city council as part of this process. But it would still go to the planning board and the city engineer. And who is our city engineer? It's great that you mention that. I am proud to announce Shriram Agami here, who I just if I ever have an opportunity to give a few words about him. As you could approach the podium so that the audience can see you also. So Shriram has literally decades of civil engineering experience, comes to us from over in Oakland, which is experiencing similar conditions in terms of a built out city with lots of aged infrastructure and also Shriram. Once you get to know him, you'll realize he's got all the engineering skills and he's got a personality to boot. He came through a really competitive selection process and was the 100% consensus choice. So I'm really happy to be introducing Sharan tonight. Thank you. Welcome. It's a pleasure. Thank you. Of. Oh, I, I it's I, I mean, I was really excited about joining the city of Alameda. I thought it would be very challenging. Task two to take responsibility for it. And I. I'm really happy to be here. And I. It's my first it's my debut session with the council, and it's been an exciting one. And I enjoy. The staff that I'm working with. And we have we have many interesting projects coming. Our way and we hope we look forward to working with the council on this. Thank you. Welcome and thank you for joining us this evening. All right. Any other questions or comments? No. All right. So then we do we have speakers on this item. No speakers on this item. Okay. So then we can discuss this item now. I'm vice mayor. I think. Increasing the threshold is just a reflection of how much things cost today versus how much they cost years ago. I'm still a little. Can. I'm not so concerned about the the relinquishing of the council approval of the plants and specs. I understand of the the intent. Um, I. I do think this chart that's on slide number. Is it or. Is is a little confusing to me still because I, I think you explain that the council and the planning board. Look at the plans for the new facilities and approve that. It's that one. Yes. But then there'll be when those specs come back reflecting that plan. What I'm understanding is there's no need to go to council with those engineering specs for council approval, and I agree with that. None of us are engineers. None of us can stamp that. So I think this is a good opportunity. And I'd like to move that. We. Adopt this consideration with the caveat that at the end of a year we have an assessment of Did it work? And what were the problems? So I think we can make these adjustments. But I'd like to quantify the result. The other council members. The member. Member. I'll second that motion with the technical amendment that you mentioned, if that's okay with the vice mayor. I don't really have anything more to add than Frank already said. Remember, Jason? I think the thing that I want to add two basic points. One is the shifting from the $75,000 threshold to the hundred $75,000 threshold. You know, I think it looks like a big number. And it is I mean, even the 75,000. But I think it's important to take into account that the 75,000 was set in 1990. So simply when you input the $75,000 into West Edgecomb, it comes out to be roughly 138,000 in today's dollars. So really, the the change is $138000 to $175000. I think in that light, while I did have some early concerns about the going to the upper threshold, I that's certainly something that I can live with. And having the reporting along the lines that vice mayor at RCN indicated in one year's time, we certainly like to see if it is, for example, true that there were that much more locally owned businesses that that were less able to participate. The second point I want to get to, though, is I am concerned about the city engineering replacing the council. One of the advantage advantages of having the council approve the plans and specs is that, you know, we have a lot of residents who are very engaged in our city, many of them themselves, engineers of one type or another who have on some occasions attended city council meetings to point things out that perhaps. You know, the public might want to know. So on that, frankly, because the city engineer still is involved in the process, I prefer the status quo. So I don't know how much more to say about. Remember Ashcroft. Thank you, Mayor Spencer. I think it's important for municipal law to reflect the current state law. And I'm married to a construction lawyer, so those numbers don't make me bat an eyelash. I agree with the vice mayor that I don't have a degree in engineering. And while I can read a planner aspect, that's about as far as it goes, but I would look to a professional. And also, while I understand that we have a very engaged population, I know that the professionals we have working for the city are. Working for the city. I know the standards that they are adhering to, and I have confidence in the fact that I expect them to do their professional job without it being politicized. Sometimes we have very well-meaning public members of the public, but oftentimes there's there's an agenda at work there, too. So I'm very comfortable with I'm glad that we finally firmly filled that city engineer's position. And I think we've got a good team on board. And I compliment you, Mr. Garland, you've done two nice reports for us here this evening, so I am fully prepared to support this motion with the amendment. And I and I just would also throw in that certainly come back to us in a year's time and tell us what you found. Give us another pretty presentation. But I don't know if a year's time will be enough to say that. And X-number more local contractors have now gotten work because I think it takes a little time for these things to percolate. So, you know, let's let's take a look, but let's also be patient because those results could take more than one year. Thank you. So I want to walk through this chart again. If I'm reading this correctly, the first time city council approves it is in the budget and our that our two year budget. Yes. So when I recall it's in there, it's actually posted. No, it's no information about a project. It would be a dollar amount. The dollar amount that we would be approving. It's fairly, fairly detailed. The Capitol had a copy of the capital budget here. It's definitely not insubstantial. So that so there's detail in the budget about the project that would be approved. Detail. Sure. In the capital budget work covering the number of sidewalk repairs we're going to do, the number of miles of sewer main replacement identified, the pump stations that we're renovating, etc.. That's all listed in there. All right. And we approve that as one agenda item. I believe in the last budget process you had a presentation from me about the capital budget specifically. That was one of the study sessions. And then in the final approval of the budget, it was both operating and capital budget that were approved. Yes. And there was some discussion of the capital budget within that. Okay. And then it goes to the planning board. If it's pertaining to a park or a new facility. A new park or a new facility. Yes. And the planning board makes those approvals and that does not come to council. That's why it would end there into this new process. It would not come to council. No, no, no. It would come to council. So staff is committed to making sure that new parks and new facilities come to city council. It's the routine maintenance projects that would not come to council for approval of the plans and specifications. Okay. And the projects that would be specified during the budget process. That's when we that's when council would approve each project. That's right. Okay. And then so this chart of the city council approving plans and specs, that is the items then that are in the budget. We will not have it come back again. Yes, you'll see them again when the contracts are up for approval in front of the city council, but not at the stage of approving plans and specifications. Unless it's a new city facility or a new city park. Okay. And now it's my understanding we. So you just introduced to us our new city engineer. But have we not had a city engineer? Or is he replacing someone or we've had a vacancy there? No, we've had a city engineer who is stamping documents, stamping plans and specifications. We've had that city engineer under contract. So there's. Your contract. Exactly. All right. So this process, if at some point we don't have an employee who's a city engineer, then we would still have this process of sending those out to whomever is under contract. Or are we planning to, from this point forward, have an in-house city engineer? I am ecstatic. Is that what's happening here? Yes. Yes. Shriram is going to be here. And it's my job to keep that position. Filling that position in house is not related to this process. No. A of regard. So we need a city engineer in house regardless of what the council decision is tonight. Well, that's what I would think. And I think it's I would agree that we need an in-house city engineer. And I would be but I would be concerned about approving a process that eliminates council that sends if, in fact, we don't have a city engineer, that then with consent, you know, as we have in the past. So I would agree that it is important to have a city engineer moving forward. That that's a critical part of this process. But remember, De Saag, it's. Just a quick question in terms of types of plans that are being approved in the third arrow in your design. Let me give you an example. Say, the city of Alameda approves it as part of its CHP redoing a street. So at the third arrow, is that the point in time? Would it be up to the city engineer to approve a plan or that street as to whether or not it's going to be treated with what do you call service slurry seal versus something more grinding and redo? So is the city engineer basically saying what kind of treatment is going to be done for a street? Oh, yes. That is a typical city engineer role in this instance. What the city engineer is doing is typically that decision has already been made, but developing the plans and specifications for whether it's a slurry, sealing, complete reconstruction, and then what the city engineer does is is approves those and they then can be bid they go out for bid. The lowest responsible bidder is awarded to after it comes back to council for that contract award to be approved. So just not to be mysterious. So what I'm trying to get at is in some instances, it's obviously cheaper just to fill a pothole or deal with roads with, you know, the I think there are three different types of treatments. I can't remember slurry, seal and whatever. But in the long run, it always ends up costing more if you do the short run cheap treatment. So what I'm trying to get at is that what treatment that needs to be used for streets is a decision of the council, is that correct? And then it is up to the city engineer in this process that you've laid out to to see how the plan is meeting whatever treatment is is agreed upon for a street. Is that correct? Oh. I can answer the question. Okay. So what happens during the budget process is that the city council will approve X number of dollars for a street reconstruction, x miles of reconstruction. The city engineer working with one of our senior engineers will come up with the plan for how to accomplish accomplish that. The city engineer in turn under this will approve those plans and specs so that they will go out for bid bid and then that contract will come back to you for approval of that doesn't covers, you know, essentially a small pothole repair. That's a whole nother a whole nother being. And my answering your question or. No? No, I think not exactly. I think what I'm trying to get at is there is a street that has a rate and that needs to be repaired. And the types of repairs that could be done on the street could be low level or maybe. But we because we do that, because it's cheaper or maybe we do a higher level, but we don't because it's more expensive. But then in the long run, it costs more. Bob Hahn, Public Works Director. The streets are categorized by the PCI, the pavement condition index. It's a program run by MTC and they evaluate all the streets. We feed them the information and they evaluate all the streets. So the treatment on any specific street is related directly to the PCI of that street. OC of the PCI is very low. It means the street has deteriorated. And beyond potholes, areas are coming up. You have complete areas that are failed. That is the condition where you would grind the whole street down and repave the street over completely. Okay. A slurry seal is appropriate for a street like ten year old. Okay, so with the ten year old street, it's still in good condition, it's still tight. And that PCI is probably somewhere in 68 or something like that. That street just by that number would get a slurry seal because there's no reason to tear up the whole street. We wouldn't tear up a street unless a couple of reasons. Number one, if we were tearing it up to put pipes in and I want to remind the council that we're on a very aggressive program right now of replacing three miles of sewer throughout the city for the next 23 years. And that is driving our pavement program because we have worked very closely with both East Bay Mud and PGD, and we have given them a 20 year look out of the streets that we're going to be replacing sewers. And we have invited them to the party and to jump into those streets in a two year period after we got our sewers down. Sewers are typically at the lower level. Okay. And then they will come in and do their infrastructure repair and then eventually that street will be repaved over completely because it will have all kinds of cuts in it. And then fine. Well, just to summarize then, it's the treatment for a street is driven by the PCI. And the role of the engineer is simply to make sure that the treatment that is being implemented is done engineering appropriately. Yeah. So if you have a PCI of 78, it would take a slurry seal. If you have a PCI of 60, you might want to grind that whole street down. So what I was trying to get at was that so it's not up to the engineer to determine it's the PCI. It's it's a calculation that every city goes through. That's how streets are prioritized. We are prioritizing our streets right now based upon our sewer program, but we also have additional money to address those streets that are deteriorating. We're not ignoring the streets where we're really trying to concentrate in a strategic manner, how to replace the sewer pipe , how to get everybody in. But we don't want to do is we pay the street and all of a sudden the next day, Piccini says, Oh, I need to expand that pipe down there. I'm going to tear up your brand new street. Now, we've gone from at PCI of of 100 down to a PCI of 80 something overnight because now PGE has come in and torn it up. And once you open up that asphalt water gets in, that's how streets deteriorate. Thank you. I have one question. It's on the redlined ordinance and I believe that would be up to I think this is the council on page four, the section two, dash six, 1.4 award of construction contract. It says the city manager. Is authorized to award informed contracts pursuant to lowest responsive, responsible bidder. And the word responsive is new. No is being added. Is that. Responsive? Has always been there. Okay. A responsive bidder gives us all the information that we have requested in the bid package. Okay. If the if a bitter left out a piece of paper that we needed in that bid, then he is nonresponsive and he's thrown out of the pool because he did not comply with all the the things that we requested to be submitted at that point. So that's a non responsive a non responsible bidder is somebody that maybe has a history of botching jobs over the past five years. We do a little history search on the contractor and find out. Well, the city of Walnut Creek said they're never going to use this guy again. That changes our attitude and that's a non responsible bidder. If that can be proven, a non responsible bidder has a right for a hearing. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any other questions or comments at this point? All those in favor, I suppose. I'm sorry. I just wanted to make one quick clarification, please, in case you need to revote. So this is the first reading of the ordinance. And so so I wanted to make sure that the direction that you gave to staff to come back with an assessment of how this works. Is a direction and not part. Of the. Ordinance, is that correct? So that's one. Institute? Certainly, that's correct. It's not part of the ordinance. Thank you. Wording to include in the code. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you. I'm going to pose. I, I prefer that the buck stops with it. All right. Thank you. So we have four in favor. One opposed. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Motion passes. Thank you very much. And now we move on to six C. Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Chapter 30, clarifying text amendments to Section 3058 through 3050 9.3 of the zoning ordinance related to water efficient landscaping.

A RESOLUTION opposing Washington Initiative Measure 976 (“I-976”) and urging Seattle voters to vote “No” on I-976 on the November 5, 2019, general election ballot.

SeattleCityCouncil_10072019_Res 31911

I'm okay. Thank you. Casper. Brian. Sure before the clerk reads the next agenda item as provided under RTW. 42.178555 will now consider the adoption of Resolution 31911 and the conclusion of the Council Member comments. We will hear from comments from the public who wish to speak on the resolution. And the requirement is that we give an approximate equal opportunity to speak on either side of the issue, and that's what we will do. And having said that, will the clerk please read agenda item number two into the record? The report of the City Council Agenda Item two Resolution 319 11 Opposing Washington Initiative Measure 976 and urging Seattle voters to vote no. On AI 976. On the November 5th, 2019 General Election Ballot. Okay, so what I'm going to do before I turn the mike over to Councilman, whereas I'm going to actually move it in second and then we'll hear from Councilmember. Whereas while that's a live resolution, okay, so I will move to adopt resolution 31911 has been moved and seconded a councilmember. Whereas will you please present the argument? Yes, I will. Thank you. I was in the impression that we're doing public comment first, but that's fine. So. I think we'll hear from the council members first. Okay, then I'm fine. I'm sorry. I'm looking it. We could do it either way. Just 1/2. That's okay. I can do it. I just was told the opposite, but that's fine. I just want to say. No. I think we're going to go to council members first. Well, thank you. Age before beauty. So thank you. Council president or do we read into the record? It's been really great record and has been moving in second and so you could just present it. You only have to move it just to tell us why you think this is good policy for us to adopt. All right. I will. So this was on the introduction referral calendar September 30th, and you should all have a copy of you. I think you got it last week. A copy of the resolution, resolution 31911. So thank you. Council President Resolution 31911 Urges Seattle voters to vote no on Initiative 976 and outlines the reasons why, if this initiative passes, it will cripple our transportation system and threaten statewide transportation investments, including, but not limited to connected Washington local transfer transportation benefit districts, sound transit ferries, rail and freight mobility, transit options and public safety. Our region has grown exponentially, and all municipalities, large and small, are working hard to keep up with the demands of population growth, particularly transportation, particularly in King County and particularly in the city of Seattle. Statewide transportation improvements have been hard fought and are the result of great in part not I'm sorry partizan work at the state and in here in our tri county region. Pierce, King and Snohomish, for example, Sound Transit is a voter approved, voter accountable authority that provides multimodal, multimodal transit options across the home king and Pierce County. The people have voted affirmatively to invest in transportation, yet this initiatives is framed as a money saver by rich return to a $30 car tabs, quote unquote. It would, in fact, reverse the will of the people, increase congestion, delay construction projects and put 4 billion of state funding at risk. In addition, this initiative targets public funds that pay for services for seniors, veterans, children and the disabled. Our most vulnerable A96 is on the ballot for the general election in November, and I urge Seattle voters, voters and my colleagues to join me in voting no on this harmful initiative. Mr. President, at this time, I would like an opportunity to read a few of the whereas into the record. Please do, Casimir. Whereas there are, as you know, it's a four page resolution, there are 11 very important key and critical, whereas is, however, there are four that I want to read into the record for the viewing public. Number one, whereas the Washington initiative measure 976 here and after 978976 would undermine progress made by the City of Seattle Sound Transit in the state of Washington in building a more equitable and sustainable transportation system that responds to the challenges posed by the region's extra extraordinary growth and ongoing climate crisis and past failures. To build a mass transit system that could efficiently and cost effectively serve the needs of Seattle in the 21st century. By eliminating major funding sources for light rail expansion, bus services in Seattle, and the primary sources of non highway spending at the state level. And. Whereas, I 1976 would repeal funding authority for all or substantial portions of transportation benefit districts in Seattle and 61 other cities across Washington State, a sum of 60 million per year that is largely dedicated to improving safety and maintaining infrastructure and as in Seattle, to reducing crowding and expanding access to the bus service. Third, whereas I. 976 would also eliminate or reduce funding now dedicated to low income transit access and orca passes to all Seattle Public High School students, sale promise scholars and income eligible middle school students. And. Whereas, 976 is intended to eliminate 20 billion in funding for expansion of light rail to West Seattle and Balad along other elements of the 2016 voter approved Sound Transit three measure. As I shared council president, there were 11, whereas as I pulled for a particular that I thought were very important not only for my colleagues and the public, but certainly the viewing public as such, I would hope and I move that sale. City Council passed resolution number 31911. Thank you. Thank you. Cast. Whereas with any of our colleagues like the opportunity to speak on this, what I am checking now is we're going to hear public comment from members of the public. I'm checking to see if it's appropriate that councilmembers could speak after public comment. Is that would you prefer? I'm flexible either way, but I don't even know if I if the rules allow us to do that because typically we hear from the dyas and then the public and then we've also had some requests to do a little differently. But right now, be a great time while I'm getting a ruling to hear from one of our colleagues. So, Councilmember Herb, what would you like to say? A few words. Thank you. As Councilmember Suarez noted, the Transportation Benefit District provides 350000 hours of service, a lot of hours of service that has resulted in Seattle being one of the only cities in the nation that has actually seen an increase in transit use in the Regional Transit Committee meeting last month, I'm a member of that regional committee. King County staff indicated that Seattle could lose up to 175000 hours of bus service in 2020. That's half of the service funded by the voter approved Seattle Transportation Benefit District. One third of the City Service C line service is provided through the Seattle Transportation Benefit District, and 976 would of course harm funding for light rail projects, including Seattle and Ballard Lines. So really appreciate bringing this resolution forward. It's critically important for our transit needs here in Seattle. Thank you. Kathryn Herbold, Councilmember Swan, would you be okay to say a few words now and then we'll hear from the public unless other customers wanting to speak. And you'd like to say something. We'll hear from Casper Baxter as well. So, Councilmember Solana, thank you. President Harrell. I will, needless to say, be voting yes on this resolution, which strongly urges Washington State voters to vote no on Tim Iman's initiative. 976 not only will name, not only would 976 if passed reduce or eliminate funding for public transit. At a time when we have to greatly accelerate our measures to address the climate crisis, it would make the existing measures more regressive, absolutely unconscionable. But we also have to make a note that the reason Tim Eyman and the right wing keep getting an echo in our state is because of our broken tax system, where it is the nation's most regressive tax system. So in addition to opposing such regressive measures like a represented by 1976, we need strong leadership to fight for progressive revenue sources like, you know, for example, the Drum Pro Seattle Coalition, which fought for the high earners income tax and got member Herbold and I co-sponsored that legislation which has now cleared its first hurdle in court and is on its way hopefully to clear its second hurdle. So we need progressive measure or revenue measures like that to stop the right wing from getting an echo for regressive measures. But in the meanwhile, is absolutely critical that the state's voters reject 1976. Thank you, Councilmember Swan. Councilmember Belcher. Great. And thank you, colleagues. I certainly am going to support what you are arguing for. But I also want to say thank you to our legislature and thanks in no small part to our eastern Washington legislators. Oftentimes, I think we find ourselves on opposite sides of various arguments. But in the transportation world, we all agree, and we have supported legislation to improve state highways. I believe that every single county in Washington has received benefits fixing their highways through previous work that the legislature has done. I want to acknowledge Senator Curtis King as an example of someone, a Republican from Yakima, that I can work with to help reduce congestion here and also to support the highways for his constituents on the eastern side of the mountains. Voters in our city want more bus service, and we have frequently and repeatedly voted for levies that support that. And I recognize that what would happen if I 1976 passed is that many of the funds that are used for very important things that we all support, such as paying for orca cards for seniors recently, for our high school students, for seniors and veterans. And I would very strongly consider that to be in opposition to what we are doing here in the city to try to make transportation available and affordable for all. Thank you. Councilmember Becerra, Casper Pacheco. I'll just be brief. I just want to say that I will be supporting this resolution and applaud Councilmember Juarez for all her work doing this. I just want to really echo something that I've heard consistently through Vision 2050 about our region growing and with 1.2 million new jobs and 1.8 million new residents expected in the next 30 years, we know we need investments in our infrastructure to keep all of us moving. So I will be supporting this resolution and would like to go on the record as saying as I think that initiative 976 is malarkey. Okay. Thank you for that, Councilmember Pacheco. Councilmember Mosqueda. Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks to Councilmember Suarez for bringing this forward. I think it bears repeating what Councilmember Swanson mentioned. Many folks who are struggling are clearly concerned about the cost of their car tabs, and that is the result of our upside down tax system. So as we work to support Initiative 976, we also in the same breath call for us to right side up our upside down tax system. We have to have revenue to invest in transportation. We have to have revenue to invest in our crumbling bridges. We have to have this revenue to make sure that our economy functions. We are talking about a transportation system that allows for goods to get to the only deep water port in the western states here. We're talking about a major hub of transit and infrastructure that relies on us to have good functioning roads where we have to pay for that somehow. We have to make sure that small businesses and large businesses have the ability for workers to commute to get there, because we haven't built the housing that we need and we need that transportation infrastructure system. In order for us to do that, we need to rely on this revenue. That initiative 976 helps and I am sorry that that initiative 976 will take away from us if we if we see this pass. So we must oppose initiative 976. I want to underscore something that Councilmember Bagshaw also mentioned. This is not just about threatening our roads and our and our bridges. It's about taking away the very fabric of the system that helped provide services to seniors, veterans and children and the disabled. So I encourage folks to continue their effort to get the word out. No on 976. That's what this council is advocating for today, to get information out about what is really critical. And that is clarity and not confusion that's been propagated by, to my mind, yet again. Thank you to Councilmember Juarez for continuing to underscore our commitment to get the word out to voters to vote no on Initiative 976. Thank you, Catherine Mosquito. Any further comments from any of our colleagues from the dais? Okay. So that concludes comments from council members and will now provide an equal opportunity to hear comments from members of the public who wish to speak on the resolution. The total time allotted for comments will be 20 minutes and speakers will be called in alternating order between the two public comment sections, either for or against the resolution because we have one sign up in opposition to a resolution and five sign up in support. I'm going to start off with the Opposition, which is Mr. Iman, and then I'll go to the support, which should be Matthew Leong, and then I will likely continue to hear the support and then give Mr. Iman on the back end equal amount of time, because we could just go 2 minutes to instruments without ever having to try and come up five times. And so that does make a lot of sense. So, Mr. Iman, why don't we start with you for 2 minutes, but then you will be called back after that, after we hear from the support supporters of the resolution. Mr. Iman, you have the floor, sir. Well, thank you very much. This is a government resolution telling voters how to vote on a citizen initiative. It is an arrogant, improper use of tax dollars. Voters do not like politicians telling them how they should vote. This hasn't been a public hearing. This has been a politician hearing. This kind of manipulation, however, does not work with the initiative process. Everybody in the state gets to vote on it. You guys can rant and rave all you want. It doesn't really matter. Your vote counts exactly the same as every other voter in the state of Washington. So that's fine. And it doesn't surprise me that there is a poll out that shows that this is passing 70% across the state and it's leading in Seattle, 52 to 48. Those 52% of Seattle voters that are in favor of this measure aren't doing it because they like me. They find that it's completely dishonest to be taxing people on a $10,000 car and taxing it as if it's worth $25,000. And the tax burden, even for the people in Seattle, is absolutely reaching a tipping point where even they are realizing their property taxes are going through the roof. Every other tax is going through the roof. They're struggling. They're having a tough time. And this initiative comes along when the legislature had for two and a half years a way to be able to fix this problem. To say that a $10,000 cars were 10,000 for taxation purposes. They didn't do that. For two and a half years, voters have been saying do something about this problem and they've done nothing. When this initiative qualified in January, they had an entire legislative session to fix the problem, and they didn't. They could have put an alternative on the ballot. They didn't do that either. They've done absolutely nothing. And why is it we believe that by voting this initiative down and keeping a dishonest tax in law, that somehow they're going to turn around and start fixing it. Now people are getting ripped off. Everybody knows it and the politicians aren't doing a thing about it. And this initiative is the only way the people can actually fix the problem, get rid of this dishonest tax and come up with a better system, one where it requires voter approval and one where they have to actually tax the vehicle like it's worth 10,000. On the support side, Matthew Lane you have 2 minutes, sir. And then for Matthew, go to Kelsey Measure actually. So my name is Matthew Lang and I'm lead organizer at the Transit Riders Union and a proud member of the No. 976 Coalition. The Coalition has decided that I will actually be the only one that is going up to speak today. So I if there's any objection, I'm sure that they will bring it up. I've been on this campaign trail for about a year now, testified at Olympia, been working really closely to make sure that this initiative fails because it is going to be extremely harmful to all people in Washington State. A bus, bike, pedestrian rail and other multimodal cuts in our city will be extremely harmful to the members of the Transit Riders Union that use all those modes of transportation. Workers are going to suffer because of this initiative. Tens of thousands or thousands of jobs in the construction industry are going to be cut as we stop building roads, as we stop fixing potholes throughout the throughout the state. I've been hearing that entire counties might have to cut their entire bus systems because they rely so heavily on the transit benefit districts. I tell you, supports the leadership of the council on this and wants to make sure that we keep our market opportunity programs for youth, seniors and veterans, that we keep our transportation equity program, which is developing an equity analysis to bring transit to traditionally underserved populations. Currently, 53% of all carbon emissions in our city are coming from passenger vehicles or cars and trucks. Allowing any cuts to services to bus service would be in direct opposition to our stated emissions and commute trip reduction goals. So in that vein, the Transit Riders Union and the No. 976 Coalition support the leadership of the Seattle City Council in denouncing 1876, please vote yes on Resolution 30 1911. Thank you. Thank you. I'll call the names since I have them here. Kelsey Messier, would you like to speak? Andrew Johnston Would you like to speak true or not here? Steve Zamsky Would you like to speak? No. Vote no on nine, seven, six and Brown. Rachael Brown, would you like to speak? Rachel Okay. And I think Joyce LAMB was here, but she signed up for another area. So the way I sort of mis poorly described the, the sequence of events because I probably put the opposition side at a disadvantage because I was assuming that all of you would speak since you all signed up. So I think it appropriate to give Mr.. Mr. Iman another minute. And if you want to say another minute and then we're going to close by public comment, would you like to say another minute? Mr. Iemma And I did told you that you would have more time, assuming that the other side was going to speak longer. And that was a little unfair to your side about choosing. A time I really appreciate. Bruce, say you now the rules and let me know how it is going to work. I'm I'm very grateful for that. I think that just the basic point I'd want to make is if it was a private company that was gouging people like this, taking more money, then they're really entitled to the government shut them down. But because it's the government itself taking more money than there should from the taxpayers, all we're getting is excuses. You're saying it doesn't matter whether or not it's dishonest. It doesn't matter if it's artificially inflated because we're spending the money that we shouldn't be taking from you and relying on really good stuff. And what we're dealing with is we have a state that has a three and a half billion dollar tax surplus, which is more than enough money to backfill any affected government program. Get rid of the dishonest tax. Use the surplus in order to be able to backfill the affected programs and transition to a system that is a heck of a lot more fair, that under 976 they have to get voter approval and they have to use Kelley Blue Book or the actual value of a vehicle so that if a $10,000 car is going to be taxed, it's going to be taxed at $10,000. That seems reasonable to me. What I find just inconceivable and I'm out of time is that you can't recognize the fact that people are extremely upset about this, and they're very upset because their elected officials aren't telling them and acknowledging that it's a problem. Instead, you're saying, just take it because we're using the money on really good stuff. And I think most people think if it's dishonest, you shouldn't be imposing at all regardless of what you spend the money on. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the supporters of the resolution. Like one last bite of the apple here. I've just got one more thing to say. So I just bought a 2019 car and I'm going to have to pay about $450 this year in my car tabs. And I'm okay with that because I have the privilege to be able to do that. And I understand that access to transportation is one of the biggest markers for poverty in the country. If you don't have access to transportation, you can't get to work, you can't get around the city. We have to be able to provide these opportunities for all people in our city. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to close the public comment section. We've had ample comments from the diocese and so I'm going to prepare this matter for a vote. Just one moment here. Protecting the things I do. Yeah. Just a moment, please, because my colleagues are actually stealing his papers over here. Okay. All those in favor of supporting resolution 31911. Please say I. I opposed the ayes have it. The resolution has passed and the chair will sign it. Please, please read the next agenda item into the record.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to submit a grant application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Land and Water Conservation Fund Program, for the Davenport Park Sports Field and Recreation Phase II project; accept said grant, if awarded, in an amount up to $3,000,000 for completion of the project; and, execute all documents necessary to accept the funds and implement the project. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_03202018_18-0274

Motion carries. Thank you. Member 17 please. Item 17 is a report from Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to submit a grant application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Land and Water Conservation Fund program for Davenport Park. Sports Field and Recreation in an amount not to exceed or up to 3.1 mil. I'm sorry. Three male. Just game. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded the signature USF support. Okay. Let's hear from staff. Just a brief staff report that this is a very exciting opportunity that I think we should just make sure we get on the record. So interim director Steve Scott and Meredith Reynolds, Vice Mayor, members of the City Council are we're excited to be here tonight to bring forward this item, which is requesting authorization to submit a grant application to the Department of Parks and Recreation for the State of California Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is for the. Second phase of the. Davenport Park Expansion and Recreation Project. The project is planned for the Western 5.6 acres of Davenport Park and the is going to include amenities as identified through a community engagement process, which will include a multi-use sports field exercise equipment along the existing dog walk walking path and a shade. Structure and picnic area. So that in a nutshell is the grant application. We are very excited to be pursuing this. That concludes staff's report. Thank you. Anything else, Councilmember? Thank you for a report. I just want to say that, you know, we've been working very hard over the last several years to complete phase two of this Davenport Park. And I want to thank Parks and Rec, the staff who for who who have been working as partners but working very hard to make this happen as well . I'm really encouraged by this this grant opportunity, and we will do all we can to support it and wish I wish you all the best of luck for for our mutual community. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any public comment on this item saying no members, please cast your vote. Cosmo appears. Russian case.

Recommendation to adopt resolution declaring results of the City of Long Beach Primary Nominating Election held April 12, 2016 for the purpose of nominating and/or electing candidates for three offices on the City Council from District Numbers 2, 6 and 8; and

LongBeachCC_04202016_16-0358

I should have known that. Yeah. Thank you. Anyone else it? Fine. Okay, then we can move on. Okay. We have one item and we're going to take three separate votes. And first of all, I'd like to have the crow, please, with me those three items. Communication from City Clerk Recommendation to adopt resolutions declaring the official results of the Long Beach primary nominating election. The first resolution is declaring the results of the primary nominating election held in the city of Long Beach, California, on Tuesday, April 12, 2016. For the purposes of nominating and or electing candidates for three offices on the City Council from districts numbers two, six and eight, and directing the city clerk to issue a certificate of election to the candidates declared to have been elected at the primary, nominated like election resolution to certifying the results of the consolidated primary nominating election held in the city of Long Beach, California, on Tuesday, April 12, 2016. For the purpose of nominating and or electing candidates for two offices on the Board of Education of the Long Beach Unified School District, and for two offices on the Board of Trustees of the Long Beach Community College District. Resolution three Proclaiming, Calling and giving notice and giving notice of and providing for the holding of a general municipal election to be held in the city of Long Beach on Tuesday, June 7th, 2016. Designating the ballot, listing and adopting provisions relating to translations of and charges for the costs of candidates statements. Thank you. We can take it behind the wheel if you like, but we can have a vote on each one of these three motions at this time. And public comment and then answer. Fine. Is there any public comment? Okay. All right. Frances, Emily Dyson, Harris. I reside in District one and I'm absolutely elated. That District two, six and eight. You have. What a challenge. But I know that you were called and what a lot of work. But you have such a passion and commitment. I just admire you and what an absolute asset you are to the city of Long Beach. Thank you, Francis. Anyway, instead of Mr. Tyson. Sure. I'd like to just take this opportunity to say thank you to our city clerk. I know this was a new experience, first time election here in Long Beach, and I think it went off without a glitch. I know you, too. You and your your your team and the city clerk's office. I know. See many of them sitting up here. I know you had a great deal of community volunteers to help make this successful, this election process successful. I certainly wish we can get more people to participate in the process, and that's the challenge that we can work on together over the next few years. I'm certainly committed to doing that, and I I'll just be remiss if I didn't say that I was pleased with the outcome. So thank you very much. Like that. And excuse me a minute, Miss Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. I just wanted to thank our city clerk and our city clerk team. I think they did an amazing job, especially under her leadership for the very first time. So congratulations to all of you for a great, you know, your great work. And, of course, congratulations to our new and new newly reelected colleagues. It's been a pleasure working with every single one of you, but especially you two. And it's been I'm glad that we get, you know, four more years with you. So thank you. Thank you. I don't a damn about your rank. Thank you, I guess. Acting mayor. Acting. Acting. Acting tonight? Yes, sir. I want to also learn my voice to congratulating the two members of my city council colleagues, Mr. Austin and Mr. Andrews, for their reelection. It's been a great two years for me, working with you and looking forward to another two years, at least for the present, when we're going to do this again in two more years in 2018. But I'm sure that the city clerk by that time will be a veteran of elections in Long Beach, which is going to do it again this coming June for a runoff election there, much smaller than what you had to deal with the primary, but challenging nonetheless, because that's the nature of elections. So I want to congratulate you on a job well done for this time around. You did it in the primary, which is great. And the two candidates were launched a very formidable campaign that resulted in this election in the primary. So congratulations, both of you, and congratulations to the other candidates. But I guess we'll be dealing with that in just a moment. Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Turner. Thank you. And I'd like to echoed those sentiments of my colleagues in congratulating Mr. Austin and Mr. Andrews. And again, special congratulations for doing it in the primary ended. Andrews for making history in winning a in in the primary. And I'd just like to say I did my part. I tried to lighten the load on the city clerk by not having an election in the fourth District. And I think that worked so well. We had to try it again in four years that same way. So thank you very much and congratulations. Thank you very much. And also, I'd like to give my comments on the first of all, I'd like to thank the city crew for being so helpful and doing that count because it came out in my favor. But those are the type of things that I think you will see here in the city of Long Beach. I know it's your first time, but if you have candidates like Austin and I, you're going to always have to sit around and watch some votes come in from anywhere and everywhere. But I still want to thank you, and I'm glad they came in from my district. I don't think anyone want to do another term or trying to do a write in, but if you do that, I'm just telling you it's no easy chore. But you can do it if you claim it. And I want to thank all those individuals out there who supported me and especially our city clerk who was there. I don't know whether you got any sleep or not, but I know they were really pushing you. But thank you again. And I'm like to have that. I'm so glad that the counts came out in my favor and that's about it. Thank you again. Okay. Well, anyone from the public like to come up and say a few words as any. Who? Who are they? Are they? Who are you. Mr. Acting Mayor? We have a number of candidates for our management assistance program. They're going through her tour of the city, and they're all wanting to join the city of Long Beach. And they've got their assessment tomorrow. So we thought we'd since they were here, and this is a monumental occasion, we'd invite them just to come in and witness for a couple of minutes before they move on to the next event. Would you like to come down and say a few words? No, they would not. Because we're trying to we're trying to extend this council meeting. They're never the short. So don't you ever get this idea. If you folks would like to attend the airport meeting with us at 6 p.m.. Feel free to drive up there. That's where three of us would be. Okay. Oh, well, fine then. Okay. We're going to stay. Can I add a friendly amendment? Yeah, you already have, Kerry. That's. That's one that will allow us to keep this going. You guys won't have anything to do. Mr. Orson would like to put that in, but as we have spoken and everyone, I want to thank everyone for coming out here today, especially the individuals who didn't. We had our council meeting last night, but this was a special meeting. Was Scott together? And you see our mayor, the vice mayor is not here and and I sit in when they are not here. But I want to thank you individuals who for coming down and getting a chance just to see just this is just the tip of the iceberg, what you're looking at today. We usually are here about one or 2:00 in the morning when we started for. So if you want to become a part of this, just kind of get ready for it because it's exciting. It really is. When you can have all your constituents and people just call you every day and tell you what a bad job you did. And so it's okay, but you just kind of let that that'll soon pass too. So thank you guys really seriously for coming down and getting this quick moment of Sam and Francis. You are the greatest. Come back up. Yeah, we have plenty of time. Branches we climb. We don't get out of Detroit. Yes, we have. We voted yet. Not yet. Oh, I just want to say and I couldn't sit there and not say this, commending the clerk as well as the city. There's quite a number of people in the districts that are seniors and persons with disabilities and absentee ballots coming in but was so awesome as the city has a need ballot, which persons with disabilities were able to use and that that machine is quite phenomenal. And the reason I know all about it, when I served on the city's Advisory Commission on Disability. So I believe by having that we've moved forward and they're going to hopefully get more about machines. But I want to commend you for the job well done. I just could not sit here because more and more people with disabilities and I would say half and I don't really like the word disability because I believe we all have a purpose on this earth. We all have a gift. We have a choice of either fulfilling or just sitting back and not doing much of anything. But I believe by having certain things like that, it kind of helps a person to be able to be involved. And I just want to thank you for that. Thank you again, writers. And when you. Thank you, Francis, for those comments. And you raise another point that I meant to say, but I did not get too excited with a congratulate congratulating my colleagues. You know, the voter turnout, again, very disappointing, what, just over a tad or 10%. You know, we still we have our elections committee. I hope that once we get together soon, we can address that. We still have a long way to go in terms of voter education and voter participation. 10% is I can't say it's unacceptable because at least those 10% participated in the process. But that's another 90% that have not and are not and not engaged in the political process. I know that one of the things at play that comes into play is the fact that there is a possibility of voter fatigue. You know, we had elections here in April, June and November, at least this year and next year. And in two years, we're going to do it again for our for our. Midterm elections as well as our are general elections where we get the districts, including the mayor and city attorney and city prosecutor and city charter so we can do something between to address our elections between now and then. It would be great, but I hope that we can work with the city clerk in devising some kind of new ideas or new ways to get voters engaged in our election process, because this has been very the last two elections have been very, very dismal. And it's just it's just very, very low, low turnout. And you know what that means? 10% of the people control 90% of what we're doing here in the city council. So I hope that we can speak further on this at our elections committee and try to address the turnout, because it's just it just it just means something needs to be done to improve our turnout. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. And I was just going to address that as well, that at the I think we spoke briefly of the city clerk. And I had to address that to talk about a recap of this past election and then look forward to digging into some of the data as to what we can do going forward. I know she has some great ideas and I think collectively we can come up with some other ideas that we can bring forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Awesome. Well, I have to say, it's very encouraging to hear our election committee make some commitments to to dig in and try to help with their voter turnout. I think I had to take away from this election that not all of our residents are privileged to the same level of information, not only from public offices, but also from our newspapers. And I think as election committee, one of my recommendations would be to engage them a little bit more. We you look at a district like mine that has, you know, a very, very diverse. You want. People in one half of the district are more informed about what's happening in a community that they don't even live in. Right. Then the people who actually live in the community and think that when you have that that that level of disparity in terms of information, it opens the door for misinformation in campaigns. And so we ran into quite a bit of that this time around. And I'm certainly committed to working with you, my colleagues, and anybody interested to improve in how we communicate and engage residents. I mean, because that's the there's a I would say there's a big void in terms of information, and it creates a situation where folks are disenfranchized in the process. So I think we can improve that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Eisen. Okay. You guys know we have no more opportunities to do that anymore. No one else you'd like to speak again? You can come up all day long. Okay. Since you don't. Okay. Well, now we will not. We will skip the announcements. Oh, no. Well, let's take this vote to make us legal. Okay. Three votes. Three votes, you guys. Okay. For the record, you're voting on the. First resolution at this time. There was a motion and a second. Okay. Please cast your vote. Motion carries.

A proclamation designating May 19th through May 25th as “Public Works Week in Denver” and congratulating the Denver Public Works fifteen Employees of the Year for 2018

DenverCityCouncil_05202019_19-0496

So thank you very much. Thank you, girls. Manu. All right. Seeing no other announcements, we're going to move on. There are no presentations and there are no communications. But we do have two proclamations this evening. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please read Proclamation 496? A proclamation and a public works that I bring every year. So happy to make this proclamation. Whereas, in celebrating the American Public Works Association's 2019 theme of Public Works, it starts here. We recognize that Denver Public works through its 1400 plus employees, consistently delivers safe, high quality, equitable, cost effective services to the citizens of Denver. And. Whereas, as our city grows, Denver Public Works connects more people with a strategic vision, focusing on an integrated approach to planning, designing and building infrastructure. Making Denver more sustainable, multimodal, attractive, resilient and transparent. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works employees are integral to our residents everyday lives, delivering services that include street sweeping, snow, plowing, recycling and refuse collection, pothole repairs, street paving and mobility programs supported by top notch vehicle and equipment technicians. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works enhances the quality of life in our city by managing and maintaining public infrastructure, including streets, bike lanes, alleys, drainage ways, sewers, bridges, traffic signals, street markings, signage and on street parking as well as contracting, procurement, cash sharing and permitting programs who that need to meet the needs of the public. Whereas, Denver Public Works continues to make significant contributions to our city's built environment managing the planning, design and construction of public infrastructure and new transportation options that help people get around town with greater ease. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works Focus is safety, which is the backbone to all decisions made within Denver Public Works using Vision Zero, not just as a goal, but as a mindset that every decision made will affect the lives of all those that live and visit Denver. Whereas the Council specifically recognizes and congratulates the Denver Public Works Employees of the Year for 2018 for their achievement. Sebastian Tuxedo in Accounting Services. Christina Lahey in Finance and Administration. Danny Smith in Fleet Management. Scott Whiteman in Infrastructure Projects Management. Becky Simon in program implementation and Resources. Jason Smiley in the Performance Office. Rocha Mosley. Right of way. Enforcement Permitting. Jackie Bard. A right of Way Services. Kyle Vogel. Safe Safety and Industrial Hygiene. Isaiah Garcia Solid Waste Management. Marisol Camarena Street Maintenance Operations. David de Giacomo Transportation Design. Riley Lamy Transportation and Mobility Planning. C.J. Mossman. Transportation Operations. And Paul Cox. Waste Water Management. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, that Section one. The Council hereby designates the week of May 19 through 25th 2019, as Public Works Week in Denver and congratulates the Denver Public Works 2018 Employees of the Year for their outstanding contributions to the Department and the city and Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be forwarded to Denver Public Works and the 15 Denver Public Works employees listed above. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Your motion to adopt. I move to adopt proclamation number 19. Dashiell 496. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Sussman Thank you very much, Mr. President. There's no way to properly and completely thank the people up at Public Works. My goodness gracious. You are the backbone of our city. You are the people that take care of the places we live and work and play. I have been overwhelmed with your. Generous generosity with your time and your commitment to keeping our city pretty and clean and in shape and everything else. Just one of the most wonderful agencies that we have in the city and so necessary. I thank you for your service. It's been wonderful working with you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilwoman for bringing this forward and for recognizing not only the 15 names of individuals who were called out earlier. And I hope that you're all here. But to the 1400 plus employees who do this work day in and day out to make our city the attractive city that everyone is somehow attracted to. And you all have seen how we keep growing and growing. But you all really make us look good. You make the mayor look good. All the managers in the department and it's important to have good managers. I see several of them in the room here, but I just want to say congratulations to the 15, but also to the 1400 who do the heavy lift day in and day out. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I also just have to say thank you all. Denver Public works for your work, for your dedication. Every single day you go in and, you know, working for the city is is interesting because it depends on you know, you what you feel you find where you find your fulfillment of work. Sometimes it takes a long time to see that footed out of labor. Sometimes it's overnight, right? Sometimes it's like, hey, we're going to we're going to go in here. We're going to rebuild this street and it's going to be done right. Or we got X number of blocks done in one day and you get to kind of sit back and look at the street if you're in street maintenance. Right. And be able to see that that beautiful pavement, that fresh pavement on the ground and have that fulfillment. But sometimes it takes a while. Right. And for us as an apartment, it takes a while to see, to kind of step back and see the tapestry you literally build our city. You build cities, right? You plan it. You build it. And every time. Every time I'm out, I think. Being born and raised in this city and then getting having the joining you write in the last 12 years. You really don't see things the same thing the same way after once you join, it's like the matrix, right? You'd see nothing but the matrix and you just can't unsee it, see? You just can't unsee what you see in the city and how things are built and what it takes to pave alleys in West Denver, what it takes to plan our roadways, to actually visualize the bike lanes. Right. And what it takes to actually put that striping down. It it's a team effort and it's a heck of a tapestry. And that's our city. And you, ladies and gentlemen, build it. And I think, you know, every every year we come in and this proclamation is in front of us and we honor you there. But I think we need to do a better job. And I've tried to do my part. And when I see you out in the communities of saying thank you and making sure that our residents in Denver say thank you. Right. My grandfather and my grandmother and they're both right here and my pictures are on my my desk. I never forget their teachings. And one of them was me. How you always respect a person in uniform? It doesn't matter if that person is a police officer or a firefighter. Or if they're picking up trash. You show that person some respect. And my grandma, my grandmother's world, working for the city was like the highest honor. And now I see why after 12 years. And I could see that she's looking down and I say, you're right, Graham, because look at all these men and women that build our city. And so I have to say, I have a lot of memories, a lot of pictures, and I'm going through them nowadays. I'm like, man, that was a good day when we pave that street, right? But, you know, the best memory was being out with you all, some of y'all, and being able to pave the street. And one of the homies that was working on the street. I live on this street. Oh, so you're not messing this one up? Yeah. So. Right. So it's that kind of thing. And it's. And I just have to say I'm sorry to go off, but. But thank you. Thank you for your work. And thank you for for rebuilding our city. Yeah. I appreciate everything that you do, all of you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks. Actually, Mr. President, I was hoping to go last because we all know by tradition here that on the public works proclamation, you go last and you get all the requests that you ask for the city councilman. But I will go in the middle and just say thank you guys for all your hard work. You know, I got a chance to probably a couple weeks ago talk to some of the newcomers who were public works employees and just really invited them to be a part of a calling and be a part of a meaningful work that that I've seen for the last eight years in the city. And and I mean it it's it's incredible what you guys do. It's incredible what you are called to. And anything that we can do on city council, we try and make it seen and let our our constituents know how much we appreciate you. I remember there were some folks who worked on York and Repave York and in in the Cole Clayton, Whittier City Park West neighborhoods. They have been praying for that street to be repaid for years. And when it got repaved, everybody came out onto the park and gave everyone seven ups and and Cokes and things like that. All the folks who were street paving because all of the hard work that they were doing in the hot sun. And so I hope you all know that our constituents love the work that you do, regardless of how they act at times. They're extremely appreciative. And I just want to give a shout out to you, Liz. You know, I think, you know, leadership matters. And I think the leadership that you've brought into public works over the last year and the organizational changes and manners, and it's made an impact. And I think people notice and people notice you don't have a car. And I think, you know, you lead by example. And I really appreciate that. So thank you all. Thank you, Dr. Sussman, for bringing this forward. And you all are the backbone of the work that we do in the city of Denver. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Being the last to speak. Oh, I see. I see. Some other people chimed in now. Yours. So I would have been the last. I want to mention something that I've witnessed over the years I've been in Denver, and that is the dedication that the Public Works crew puts in in some of the harshest conditions we've seen in some of the worst blizzards. My first blizzard as a Denver eight was the Christmas blizzard of 82, and I remember how difficult that time was. I don't know if anybody is anybody was working there in the blizzard. Blizzard of 82, there was one. And then the Thanksgiving of 83. And some of those harsh conditions, not just the plow drivers and the street workers, but also the solid waste workers who work in some of the harshest conditions, the cold and then the extreme heat. And they're out there every day doing the job that we asked them to do. And I just want I just want them to know that the citizens of Denver appreciate it. They appreciate it very much. And I want to echo Councilman Brooks and and talk about the great leadership that we've had in this department from folks like like John Mrozek, Bill Smith, Bill Roberts, Stephanie Foote, all the way through to the current day, leading this department and constantly changing and reinventing as the times change and the demands of the of the people change. So thank you very much for everything you do. And I what is today? Today's Monday. My trash day is Wednesday. And I know that I will see. I think we're expecting snow, as a matter of fact, aren't we, that we will see our dedicated crews out there each and every day. And thank you very much. Thank, Mr.. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Cashman also failed at my attempt to be last, but, hey, give it your best shot. Thank you, Mr. President. So we, my colleagues and I, we sit up here and we sit in committee rooms and in various combinations, and we make wonderful policy. We create interesting things to move our city forward. And they're complex and they're meaningful. And then we ask you guys to do it. Okay. And the one that I've been involved in over the past couple of years and this council, along with with with the mayor and his administration, agreed that that it was time that we reconstruct or complete our sidewalk system so people can move safely. Around our city. It is the right thing to do. It is much easier for us to devise the ordinance than for you folks to put concrete and stone on the ground. And in the year and a half, I've been meeting monthly with with my Byner and Nancy Koon and a bunch of people from your department. I have become painfully aware of how difficult it is to deal with trees and landscaping and all manner of obstacle. And it has to be dealt with because the goal is correct. But. There's no way to adequately thank you guys, because as has been said, it's not like every door that you knock on says, Oh, so good to see you. We understand the goal of moving people. And now it's like, What are you doing? You're ruining my life. I can't afford this. You're destroying everything. And it gets done professionally and with good spirit as as much as possible. So just want to add my thank you. And I don't know how you pick a group out of the 1400 each year to honor because I can't think of one that I've met that doesn't deserve the honor. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. Probably in my office, we get more calls about public works than any other department of the city. And the reason we get those cars is because it's all about quality of life for our citizens. They don't call too, you know, they may call to complain, but they call about the needs of the city. And I'm just so impressed of how responsive public works is to all those needs we know we can call. And they'll be they'll they'll absolutely be on top of something, whether it's street maintenance, you know, pavement our streets or our potholes or curbs or whatever the the right away issues and especially get one of those favorite areas that all our citizens love is called parking these things but also the the pedestrian safety people oh your intersection the manager the traffic lights all of those things that that again talk about the protection of our citizens and the quality of life. So I just want to say thank you very much and all our citizens appreciate it. And also the council. Appreciate the fine work that you do. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman to Councilman Espinosa. Damn you, Ortega. I was going to be last, and I was going to start with my list of things that I was going to request. But now somebody else has chimed in that said the the I don't to to Councilman Cashman's point, I don't know how you single out 15 out of so many, but I do genuinely appreciate the work that public works is doing. And I think the 15 just represents, you know, each one representing a hundred people beneath them that do essentially as good or better work. They're just the ones that get noticed the the the eye to get a lot of public works call but public works knows it's usually just two people that are doing all those calls. And once we take that out, it's actually very, very low. I see Nancy smiling. So the point is, the only thing I really want to chime in about is two things. In my short tenure here. I have seen maybe they were things that were in the works, but I have seen more movement on on sort of some of the the micro adjustments, the things that we can do to improve outcomes and to be more adaptable in a in a sort of more in a more local scale than what we were doing before . And I genuinely appreciate that effort because I think the more we can pilot things, the more we can sort of test things, the more we can move towards a different future and better outcomes. And the reason why that's important is and I'm glad there's leadership here, is that is that I as as as old as infrastructure is an important it is to the core of city and city building and civics. The you guys are also sort of on the bleeding edge of technology where we're going to be headed in the future. And so it's important for you and everybody in your employees and others, I think you embody this, the ability to recognize that what we do is deliver a certain service that has to be done. But where we're going is someplace that we don't quite know yet. And we have to be willing to test and to push those boundaries. And I don't I see a willingness to do that in this department, especially with now the structural reforms. And that leads to my little second bit of commentary. I have been clear that I hope that this ballot measure that comes up in November comes with an ask a financial asks to the city, the citizens of Denver, because I don't want you guys doing it on the budget you already have. I want you to have an expanded budget so that you want to do more than what you've with what you've got today. So if and when you get to that point where you've decided there's a budget component to this, consider me an advocate for that ask. So thank you all for the work that you're doing. Appreciate you public works. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Well. I actually have a request and this is not for public works, it's actually for the public. So when you see our city workers installing sidewalks, putting in new asphalt, whatever it is they're doing, please adhere to their safety. It's so important to make sure that you're not in such a such a haste to get to where you're going, that you're going to go around the barricades or whatever, to put our workers at risk. And I just want to say that I think that's very important to ensure that we all pay attention. Slow down. You've seen those signs all around the city that say, slow down. But I thank you for your work. Once again, thank you for the partnership. Use your department with city council. I know we have tried to lead based on what we hear from the public, but many of the projects that you all are working on are based on what we hear people screaming and hollering that they want in our city. And we've worked in collaboration to make these things happen. And as they're being installed, we want to make sure that our workers are all safe. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. I will just. And since apparently it's a good night to be president, because I do get to go last, Jasmine Brooks keeps trying to sneak in there. I will do that. Thank you to Councilwoman Sussman for bringing this forward. Thank you to our entire public works team. I'll echo what my colleagues said and then say congratulations to the employees of the year. That is not a small accomplishment in a big department. To rise to the top and be seen and be recognized for what you're doing, that is above and beyond. So congratulations. Thank you for your excellent work. And with that, Madam Secretary, Raquel Sussman. Black Brooks. Hi. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore Cashman. Hi. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Mr. President, I remember. Secretary, please close voting and thus results. 11 Eyes 11 eyes proclamation 496 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for a proclamation acceptance. Councilman Sussman, would you like to bring somebody up? I certainly would. I'd like to call up the director of Euless quickly. Of whom we have spoken. Good evening, Counsel and Council President. Thank you very much, Council Members Susman and Distinguished Council members. I'm very proud and happy to accept this proclamation on behalf of the 1400 employees that we have in our department. In fact, we have not only the recipients of the Employee of the Year award, we have a couple of other folks and I'd like them to stand so you can see their faces. So all the public works folks in the chamber, can you guys stand? In the families, too. We have some family folks here. So I would like to give. Them a round of applause. And I would say it's very heartwarming to hear all of the comments from each one of you. We're really working very hard to develop a really strong culture in our department. Ever since I've been there, we've kind of done a revisioning. Making sure that we're trying to strive every single day to be an ideal public works department, which is really striving for perfection. Perfection is very difficult. But what we embody as a leadership team all the way down through all our employees, is that every single day understand what your mission is and your mission is servitude. And so you're a special person when you come into the department. You're not here necessarily to make money. What you're here to do is serve the public. We are first responders, so when people have an issue, they call us. We need to understand that. We need to respond effectively. So we take that to heart. And I truly appreciate the focus on safety. We are a department that as our number one priority, we really want to embody a safety culture. So we try to invest in our people by investing in our people and having good staff. We can deliver the services in a project that the people that live and work and play here in Denver expect. But it starts with our set, our staff first in terms of limiting their risk to safety and making sure that they're operating every single day so they can go home to their families because they get up every day and sacrifice. And so we want to be the leader in that space for our department, as a leader in the safety space that the general public can follow. So thank you very much on that. And I would echo the fact that when you do see our staff out, please thank them. We only get probably one or two days where we get this type of accolades. So I appreciate it very much. And we are striving to make sure your constituencies receive the best projects and services. So thank you very much. And I'm happy to accept this proclamation of out of the department. Thank you. Thank you. Classic. All right. We're going to move on to our second proclamation of the evening. Councilman Espinosa, will you please read Proclamation 500?

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Offer Commercial Tenants in City-Owned Properties a Loan Conversion and Forgiveness Assistance Program in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Community Development 858)

AlamedaCC_05192020_2020-7956

Thank you. Okay. And this is being presented by his presenting. Hi. And I'm going to ask for brevity. This was not a long staff report, and our council members read their materials and the public is always capable of going to the website and reading too. So, Councilmember Vella, did you have your hand up with that? No. I'm very sensitive to any motions. Okay. So, hi, Ms.. Mercado. Nice to see you. Hi. Good evening, Mayor and city council members. Evening. So and in the interest of brevity, I have two things that I'd like to talk to you about. So you guys sent us off several, several weeks ago to address the issue of being a landlord and how to how to help some of our tenants. At your last meeting, you gave us some direction. We had initially done a 60 day deferral of rent and establish a repayment process that began in October. At your last meeting, you extended it. For a 30. More days, for a 90 day, for a 90 day deferral. What I'm bringing this up because we resolve the deferral issue, but we're through meetings with our tenants. The tenants have asked you guys specifically said April, May, June, and our tenants have said we need it to be 90 days and we can figure out what what three months we would like to defer specifically so that they could be eligible for federal funding. The some of the federal funding requires that they be current on their rent. And so if we defer it, then they're not eligible. So I would just ask that you consider whatever motion you make to make to to change that to a 90 day deferral rather than the April, May, June. So you you resolve the issue of deferral of rent. But there was another portion that you wanted us to consider, which is the rent abatement. And there was lots of conversation about what a rent abatement program would look like. And you guys said staff manager. So I'm saying help us think about that and look at we looked at some white papers that were done by some real estate experts. We talked to property management companies in the Bay Area and down in Southern California. We tried to figure out what everybody was doing. And one of the things that we learned was one of the major pieces of advice and a couple of the white P papers were don't make decisions that for the long term, for a short term problem. And so we kind of were looking at what does that mean? And so one of the things that there were three different kinds of programs that were described in some of our research. One was the application of deposit, which would allow us to use security deposits with the agreement of the tenant to pay their rent . And then when the economy turned around or a tenant was better suited, they would replenish that security deposit fund so that we wouldn't be caught with a destroyed building and not be able to do anything at the end of the lease term. The other option was a program called Subletting Program, which essentially allowed us to well, we as landlords are tenants to sublet portions of their part of their building so that they could make their rent. And then the third program is the program that we're actually recommending tonight, which is a loan conversion program, which is the way we'll describe it as sort of an abatement for them. But you have some options, you have some flexibility. And the loan conversion program is rather than abating paths to rent, we agreed to convert the past to rent into a loan, a loan from the city to the tenant payable over time. And then the loan is evidenced by a promissory note that is cost defaulted with the lease. This we like this because it gives us a lot of flexibility in the promissory notes. There can be individually crafted to meet the needs of each of the tenants as well as we'll be able to say what the financial or the fiscal impact of each of these agreements would be, because they would be precise. The one of the things that we really liked about this program was that, let's say a tenant wanted to defer 24 months of rent. We could give them some benchmarks. And if they met these benchmarks, we could convert the loan into a grant. It's similar to the TPP program that if there were things that we'd like to see, like retention of employees or revise if it was a catalyst tenant or something like that, we could we could we could forgive all or a portion of it, however , we think would be best for the city and based on the individual financials of the tenant. So we like this program because it's flexible. And again, it can be our full abatement or it could be a partial abatement based on whatever benchmarks we would set up or that the council would be looking for. And finally, let me just talk about some of the alternatives to not doing this loan conversion program, and then you guys can have at it. Because what we're really looking for, the council is, if you like, this loan conversion program, what would be some of the benchmarks of some of the metrics that you'd be looking for for us to get from tenant job retention, you know, resiliency by a certain period of time, some things like that. But some of the alternatives would be that, okay, we do this program or we consider a rent reduction program, which was the thing that the broker talked about and you guys were remotely intrigued with last time, which is we we rebate the rent for a, let's say eight months and then the tenant has a period of time to catch up. So that way that there's cash flow to us and cash flow for the tenant. So that's an option. The other thing is we could allow the tenants to sublet. We could just do an active subletting program with our tenants. But that would also require that the sublet that sub tenants would be compatible with our zoning and permitting and it could be time, time consuming for the tenant, but it's something that we could do. And then the other thing is we could do the security deposit program. That may not be enough, because typically our security deposit is one month's rent. And then finally we could just stick with our deferral program and not offer any alternative to that and just do the 90 days and everybody has that. So I think that's all I'm going to talk about, because you guys have read the self-report and and I'm trying to be brief. Thank you. I appreciate a good report. Do we have any any questions about the clarifying questions about the staff report before we go to any vice mayor? Next. Quick question. So it seems like once you get direction, there's a whole program that's going to be set up with benchmarks and criteria. And if if we were to follow the staff report, there would be the the criteria for the 50% loan grant or whatever the direction was would come back. And what is the timeline on that? So I'm we are looking for you guys to tell us what kind of benchmarks you're looking for. We want to set this up as soon as possible because our deferral program ends in June. And I think you guys might be getting as many emails as we're getting from technically anxious about the expiration of that 90 days and and tenants who are who are saying the deferral program isn't good enough. So we would like to be exploring, negotiating with tenants right now to to get into the promissory term sheet, whatever you want to call it, to move this project along. And then at the same time, we would have some real time information. I know you're considering the budget tomorrow, but probably in the Q1 of next fiscal year, we should have a really good picture of what we've negotiated and what it means for our budget. Okay. Um, I have a couple of quick questions, actually, maybe just one. Can you explain what cross defaulted means? So the, um, the tenant agrees with the, uh, is that with the. Now it's about the loan conversion. So essentially it means that they default on their promissory note, they default on their lease so that both of the Oak Hill rated. Okay. So if they if they default on the promissory note, then they then they have to repay the loan. Well, I think we have the option of evicting them because. Okay. Because they've. Defaulted. Yes. On their rent. Got it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Do we have any were there any further clarifying questions? Okay. Do we have any public comment, Madam Clerk? We we have received one public comment for me to read in the record. And now I will ask any attendees who are interested should raise their hand and. It looks like there's one. And so we'll have that person go first and then I will read the other one. Very good. Jonathan. al-Khalifa. Yes, please. Mr. Barkley, that I don't see your whole name, but you're on. We're ready to hear from you. Yes, I'm his wife. Hello. Hi. Hi. I have a question about the sole proprietor we are. We have a business. My husband is the owner and we're working there as a family and for ten years. And I. Just want. To know if we're, like, included in the farm. Okay. So that actually is a question about the fund that we just and please don't take me on this one. That was from the last item. Now we're talking about something else about tenants who are who are tenants of city owned property, however. Starting is it tomorrow. Madam Clerk, the tape of this meeting will be available. Yes. All right. So you can catch up with that information that you missed. Thank you. And I made the next comment into the record. Okay. Jim Strelow, Alameda. I enjoyed the council's earlier discussions about considering a loan forgiveness assistance program because most commercial tenants were denied use of their rentals because of government restrictions. Some council members earlier said that it would show to other landlords that the city was setting the example for others to follow. I encourage you to discuss that program some more. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any further public comments? There are none. All right. So with that public comment is now closed for this item. All right. Counsel, how would we and I think as as Ms.. Mercado has indicated, she's looking for a direction from us on. Well, a first of all, do we want to go forward with I'm sorry, my temperamental iPad is freezing on me, but do we want to go forward with a loan conversion and forgiveness program? And if so, what are the benchmarks that we want to be considered? All right, I'm back. Or maybe not. Anyway, why? Okay, so we've. We've got the, um. Uh. The staff report and you know, direction about a staff has recommended a loan conversion approach because it offers the city flexibility. And I will throw out that I think flexibility is important these days and also individualized assistance. It's not one size fits all and our businesses are of very different natures and sizes and have different needs. Could be administered like a federal loan converted to a grant if the recipient complies with certain requirements. So council what's what are the benchmarks we want included? Councilmember De Soto has his hand up. Thank you. You know, I think like all of you, I did receive that email from the owner of Rockwall Winery and the fact that she had, uh, indicated that that she employs 81 people and she is facing dire situations. It seems as though what we are considering tonight could potentially assist her through this difficult period. So I think definitely job retention is certainly one of the key benchmarks that I would love to see. And I think what's unique about that venue is it does seem to be a catalyst. So that might be another benchmark. Um, so those are the two things that I'd like to see are one thing though that I would discourage is sub10 ending. And the reason why I'm going to specifically talk against Sub10 Inning is because what I have seen in the past is a lot a good number of facilities have leased out or subleased out areas to container cargoes. And I just I don't think that's that's in keeping of of kind of a type of built environment that we're, we're striving for. Um, and I think it's happened along, um, the winery RO Area Spirit's Alley, but I've seen it elsewhere too. So that's one reason why I'm going to speak against Sub10 anything, because I do think that there's an easy dollars to be made for leasing out to container trucks from coming from the Port of Oakland. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. De. So who's next? Cousin Rudy. And then you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Yes. I want to go next. I understand, um, the vice mayor's question that this was going to come back to us. And then we'd have to vote on it. Is that the question? Oh, no, I thought it was the vice mayor asked. I think, what's the timeline? And once you get direction, what's the timeline? And I'd have to look back at my notes to Ms.. Mercado. She said, We we need to move quickly because the deferrals are ending in June. But, no, I don't think this is back to us, does it? It's not it's not our goal to bring this back to you. We want to implement the program and report back to you in the fall Q1 of next fiscal year about where we are, how many of these loan conversions that we've done and and give you a report and maybe we think about what are there any next steps? Are we have we satisfied what we need to do to get the tenant through that step? Okay. So I just, you know, I like the concept of converting deferred rent into a promissory note. Um, some of the things that concern me that we brought up when we had our subcommittee read out was just, there was no cap. And the way this looks now, it seems like there's no cap because a tenant could request rent deferral for up to 18 months. That's a year and a half. And the staff could determine that they want to convert that rent deferral into forgiveness or either 50% into a grant or a 100% forgiveness. And that was the whole thing that we wanted to at least I thought I wanted to avoid in the beginning was, you know, just a blank check and this looks like a blank check. So granted, there are, you know, some requests to have some criteria and metrics. But, you know, unless we come up with those today at 912 when we haven't even got to our regular agenda, then we're not going to have an opportunity to have a discussion on them again. So, I mean, I again, I like the idea and I'll hear my colleagues and get back into the, you know, the nuts and bolts of it, but that this just looks like a blank check to me. And that's exactly what I didn't want to happen in the first place. So but I do like the concept of a promissory note, you know, with an extended due date. Um, but, you know, given the size of potentially 18 months and given the fact that our staff could just either forgive half of it or all of it, you know, just leaves me queasy because I have no idea how much it's going to cost. Councilman Brody, may I, may I make a request of you? Councilman Brody I think so. What I really want to do is keep these special meeting items moving forward, because after all, this is all about COVID relief and the need is now, I think you really you hit the nail on the head, one of a few nails on the head. How about seeing if you can come up with what you think a reasonable period of time would be? I think there's a figure out there, the time period out there, I'll give you give you a moment to think of it. While I hear from two other colleagues who have their hand up. Let's hear from Councilmember Vela, then the vice mayor. Councilmember Vela. Thanks. So a couple of things. I am okay with the concept of the promissory note. But I also want to understand what the finances were pre-COVID. I am very wary of a business basically saying that they're going to be shut down if we don't just automatically forgive all of their rent. I'd like to know what the state of the business is and whether or not the business, because we are investing at that point and I would want to know that they're that they have an ability to continue to operate. I also think that employee retention needs to be part of that. And while a business may employ anyone, people or 100 people, how many of those individuals are employed full time with benefits here in Alameda? I won't say with benefits because I am I want to understand how many of the employees are benefited versus how many people there might just have their temporarily or hourly during high season. Other things that I would like to look at, I personally would be interested in capping it at three months. And I think, you know, if we're talking about anything beyond the three months, then I think that I would just have it. I'll get to next year. Okay. I would want it I would want it to come back to council to discuss why there is an extended need and what the plan is or the model. I think I'd also be interested in understanding what businesses in the criteria I'd want to look at or what businesses found a way to continue to operate in some form during the shutdown, and some of our businesses find new ways to operate. There was an entrepreneurial spirit that I think has kept some of our businesses afloat. Again, this is the last resort, not the not the bailout out where a city with a limited budget, we don't print our own money like the federal government. And, you know, these are these are policy choices. And if we if we give to one person, that means taking from something else. And so I want to be very cognizant and intentional with how we go about making these decisions. The other thing that I would want to know is the number. Well, I think we can give points for being a catalyst, but to me a catalyst is what I would want to define, what cattle, what we mean by that. And I think the other thing that I would want to look at is what's the what's the potential sales tax that we think that they can bring in? And I am for for some of these other businesses, or is their business model going to change under under the new kind of continued restrictions? Do they have a plan for continuing to operate? So those are those are my initial thoughts on this. But I am more drawn to the promissory note option because I think that that protects the city and and address some of our concerns that we expressed earlier on when we discussed this. Okay. And so can I hear from the city manager? Had his I saw you put your hand up. Yes, Mr. Levitt. I just had one question for Councilmember Vela. And then as a comment and the question for Councilmember Vela is, you said about capping at three months. We currently have the deferral for three months. Are you saying capping at an additional three months for the for this program? So that would be a possible total of six months? Yes. Okay. And then the second comment is, we had talked about whether we could get this to in front of you tonight, May 19th, or whether it would take more staff work to get to June 2nd. And then Debbie and then that in my conversation, I push for it to be May 19th, in part because I thought there might be more questions that came up and that way we could bring it back on June 2nd. And so that was part of the reason we brought it on May 19th is to give us some more time to try to deal with it on June 2nd. If you have more items that you wanted us to consider and bring back for your consideration. Well, and I'll continue just kind of but I'm not sure. Again, I'm I'm not wanting to rush things that are not well thought out. But I'm wondering if we can't give sufficient detailed instruction to staff and say this is what we want. Go forth and start doing it. Let's hear from Ms.. Mercado. What were you going to say? I wanted to just respond that one of the things that we read in the documents was that in order to qualify for this, we, the tenant, would have to provide us with an extensive list of extensive information. And i. I. I am. I. And the staff report which like current cash on hand payroll information list of creditors. And then one of the things that we would do that I didn't want to go through the whole is that one of the things that we would use to evaluate an applicant is the tenant would have to provide us with a resiliency plan, like how do you plan on digging yourself out of here? So a business continuation plan. And we also like the the grant program that you guys approved last council meeting and you're discussing again this council meeting. We think that there should be an employee like the tenant should have more than 30 employees to be eligible for this sort of program. So we want to make it a little bit different. And then we also think that they should demonstrate significant loss of income of 30%. And we want to be able to just make it a little bit more difficult to to have to to be eligible for this, because we want to we want to make sure that we're we're using this program strategically. Okay. Mark Potter and then the vice mayor who has a chance to be heard yet, I think as. Part of and just two, one, one approach the council might think about this evening about how to balance the desire to kind of get it right and cover all the points and keep things moving is that there are a lot of criteria that are contained in the staff report about how this program would be done. But there's a desire from the council maybe not to have it open ended. So one one potential approach is for the council to say, go forth and council, you're authorized to negotiate up to X amount of loan conversion or you're authorized to do something for X number of tenants for X number of month months. And so then we have we have parameters and we have a framework within which we can then apply the criteria that are contained in the staff report and the direction we hear tonight. And I think that may be a way to kind of strike that balance between getting it right and keeping it moving. Something to the council might want to. Okay. I guess I would wonder about how the council would come up with a particular amount of assistance, because I think, again, it would depend on the amount that the company, the business is paying. But hold that thought. Vice Mayor, you've had your hand up for a while now. Thank you. Um, so for me, I think one of the, one of the interesting things about these discussions is we've talked with the community and read about what our community, so many communities are going through, is that our employees are having their wages cut or losing their jobs and businesses are seeing significant reductions. It's it's struck me and it's actually something that I've heard from a number of Alameda businesses who do don't rent from the city. But it struck me that it's interesting that there is a perception that people who are in the business of renting land must be made whole at all times through this through this process. And so everybody is taking a haircut and taking cuts and struggling. And, you know, we can't tell commercial landlords what to do in terms of we don't have the authority, but I think we can show moral leadership. And I do think that there is something I you know, we get about $1,000,000 a month in rent. And I think that we need to be thinking a little bit about the fact that we're collecting rent from people who are not legally allowed to use their buildings. And to me, that's the threshold I think we should be using, is that people who are not allowed to use their buildings because they were not legally allowed due the public health order, the length of time for for for the for for for a loan program would be based on how long that their business was impacted by the public health plus one month so that they have a chance to get in and start up. I think that we know that Councilmember De Saag mentioned job retention. I think if somebody can show that they retain 75% of their jobs over a year, we should look at 50% just taking 50% now and converting it. That would be our metric to to grants a year after. And then they might have an additional couple of months to pay the other 50% of rent that they were due. I struggle. I am struggling with the idea that our goal is to make sure that we're having people pay us for for land and buildings that they're not they're not allowed to even be in and use. Right now, I don't think every business that we rent to is going to qualify for this. We have some who have changed their business models or who are open and whatever else. You know, I think we could go to the city manager's recommendation. We could give some direction and some numbers could be come back. In terms of what we think we're based on the deferral program and whatnot, what we think that this might impact, we obviously don't know when things are going to be able to open up, but we do know that certain businesses are going to start opening up in the next two, four, six weeks. So this isn't an 18 month rent deferral program or anything, as it was, I think pointed out in the in the staff report as a potential way forward. So to me, I think we can I think we can I think we can craft something. I don't want the council being involved in having to make every single decision on this. I think that's getting us too deep. And I also want to be careful that our criteria is not us deciding who is important or who makes enough money. I think, you know, business communities and business ecosystems are made up of a lot of different sized businesses and they all have important places within that. And I don't want to I just government has never shown itself to be really good picture of winners and losers in these things. And so I think we should find the find the problem we're trying to solve, which is help people through this time when they are currently being asked to pay for rent, that for something that they can't use and then figure out a way to to support them coming out of that and then hopefully collecting a little bit of the money because there is rent, there is there is wear and tear on that building over the time that that that we should be collecting. So those are those are my thoughts. I don't know. I'll look forward to hearing other people have. But. Councilmember Odie, who moved me. Thank you. So I took your assignment. Thank you. Thank you. And heard my colleague. I agree with the vice mayor. I mean, when you if you're shut down, I think we should be more lenient for, you know, any type of abatement in those those situations. I mean, that that's just a fact. But if you're, you know, get up and running on July 1st and you request, you know, a nine month rate rent abatement or an 18 month rent abatement, you know, I'm not sure if that meets meets those values. I like the idea of Avella. You know, let's start with another three months. People could ask for up to three months. And I also think that, you know, we can extend these payments out. There was the suggestion was the total deferred rent is due in 18 months. But if you have a ten year lease, you know, why not let someone spread out those payments over the last ten years of that lease or whatever turns out to be nine and a half years? Um, there's one other item, and I forgot what it was. Oh, I mean, I still think having a cap, like, if we, if, if this number gets to be 300,000 and maybe this, it gets, the council gets pulled back in and says, you know, we're we already spent 300,000. Do you still want us to pursue this? Because, again, I'm really leery about the blank check and really leery about the threatening letters. I'm really leery about, you know, the parade of supporters coming to council. Um, so I just want to make sure that we're fair to everybody, but to the vice mayor suggestion. Yeah. I mean, let's be as leaning as we can when. When they're shut down. Thank you. Council every day. So, yeah. I'm here to speak in favor of going beyond three months, largely because if you watched, for example, 60 Minutes this past Sunday, you had the chairman of the Fed talk about recovery, probably not really happening until the end of 2021. And even if we shelter in place, begins to lighten up soon, if not and within three months, I think everything that you hear about in the business sections of newspapers or or if you watch CNBC, everything you hear about is that demand is still going to be tepid. So my sense is that that maybe it's not 18 months, but I don't think it's three months. So I think we need to go a little beyond that. Thank you, Count. Counselor every day. So you understood that that's an additional three months to the six months we've already mentioned the three months we've already provided. Yeah. No, I mean an. Yeah, no, I understand that. Is there any reason you wouldn't think that we could go with the additional three months now and revisit it if we're not seeing businesses open out there? And I watch 60 Minutes the other night, too, and that Jerome Powell, the chair of the Fed, is very eloquent and he said we're going to um economy will recover when we get a hold of will we get coronavirus under control. And I think he was speaking to nationwide. I mean, we are the most populous state. But I'd say that here in the Bay Area, we we got ahead of a lot of things. And I think our recovery is going to come back sooner than some places. But again, to the point Nanette made in the beginning, the advice given was don't make long term decisions for short term problems. Right now, we don't quite know the magnitude and duration, but I think we could come up with a reasonable figure now and then certainly come back and revisit it. My thought, I hear that. Sounds like. Nodding heads and I think misspeak kind of. Were you going to add something and then. Councilmember No. Okay. Um, we ready to make a motion in some direction? Councilmember Vella. Oh, you're muted, Councilmember Vela. You're muted. I did want some clarity from my colleagues in terms of if they had a suggestion for an overall cap, because I do think that we need to have stuff come back to us that exceeds a certain amount. And then the other thing was, I think while some businesses were were closed in that, like, for instance, you can operate a tasting room, you could. There's other portions of the business where you could still bottle. You have product that's not necessarily spoiling. So I think, you know, again, I like the aspect of this bacardi's point of looking at the resiliency and looking at what that different businesses took to try to to get out during during the closure, because I think that that speaks to trade it to an attempt to get some recovery. I am wary of or I did have a question of if a business owner has multiple properties that they're renting and and a combined set of employees, the total number of employees that we're requiring that a business owner have. How we came up with that number. In order to get the qualify for the relief. They wanted to see at least 30 employees, Mr. Conner. So it was just looking at what other other landlords were doing. That's where we came up with that number. But I would say that we have I don't think we have too many tenants that have multiple. I mean, we have a couple of tenants that have a couple of buildings, but we don't have tenants spread across multiple properties very much. I mean, that's a that would be an unusual and for an example, I would say like Astra has Building 360 and 397, but there are very few tenants that have more than one property. Okay. I mean, I would be inclined to to lower it to 25 since that's what we did for our grant to see 25 employees. So we're looking for a grant. We did more than 25. I understand that. I understand that. But because our grants were up to 25, why not lower it to say people with more than 25 that way? There is not this section of businesses with five people that aren't are aren't qualifying, that are tenants and. And can I just make a clarifying or asking clarifying question? So right now we're only talking about businesses that are tenants where the city is the landlord. The grant program up until now has been for small businesses. So I it's not that I mean, I guess I guess I'll make the point. There was a fund founded to point small businesses to apply. Okay. So Councilmember Vallas agreeing that there is that delta that we're leaving people out. Okay. All right. And Councilmember Vela, did you have or Councilmember Odie, because you both raised this, do you have a, um, a cap, an idea of what cap and the cap is, the amount of how much rent the city is giving up? Is is the cap you're looking at? Did you have an idea of what that would you know, what would would trigger you wanted to have the the program or have a report that brought back. I'm worried about. Councilmember Odie, I'm sorry. I'm worried about the amount that might be abated versus, you know, the amount that might be deferred. Um, so, I mean, when we did the subcommittee we talked about 300,000. Mhm. I mean it'd be good to get a report back and I think like Ms.. Mercado's nodding her head so that might be that she's in agreement with. That's a reasonable figure. Yeah. And Councilmember, I don't know, I think you said this, Mayor. Um, you know, if this, if we need to do more in three months, we can do more. Right. So, I mean, I totally agree with that. I'm not saying I don't I'm not trying to be miserly or anything, but, you know, I don't want to give this huge blank check and then find out maybe it was not necessary. But if we need to give it and every three months we come back and we need to give it, okay, that's a different story. We can do that. That sounds good. Okay. Are there any groups that are under 25 that might might qualify for this? Any. Any you know, there's like a mom and pop and there are a couple of mom and pop shops out there. I don't know. Um, well, so we do. I mean, there's, we have the Park Street sellers. Uh, yeah. And we have like the. Oh, yes, yes. Just Alameda point. And you're right. Just Alameda, right. If you have to have those, those types of businesses. We also have, um, you know, probably, probably many of the tenants, um, like Pacific Pinball. They probably don't have that many employees, employer employees. Um, so, I mean, I think it, uh, I think they're, I think in over, over 25, it's, it's a smaller group. I think you're going to hit your sales rounds, rounds, Astros. You will hit I mean, I don't know about Rockwall, she said 81, but I think a lot of those might be part time employees. As Councilmember Vela said, I think the antique fair might have a lot of part time employees. I mean, I don't think that they might hit that 25 threshold. So, um, I, I think the 25 is, it's, it's, it's a reach for many of our tenants. So because I would like maybe the 25 is just for forgiveness, but, or a conversion, but I'd like to see as many people eligible as possible, even if they were, you know, ten employees or five employees. So the other thing I just want I mean, I want to be clear about what we're proposing, because remember, remember a lot of our research, not very many landlords are offering rent abatements. So this is sort of I mean, in fact, I, I had read that practically no one is offering rent abatement. So I think we're being very, you know, patterning our program, patterning our program after the federal PGP, where we're setting the pace by saying we're going to loan you this money and potentially you will be forgiven. And so I think I just want to make sure we're clear. We were over 25 are only 25 were offering abatement. Just straight out the gate. Can you clarify that, please? Well, I. Well, I do think that that's that's a good point that we, um. Just because we can because we're the landlords doesn't mean we should do something that other landlords aren't doing. And it's. And it isn't because we're being cheap. It just might be that we're being prudent, that we want to be in a position to be able to do the things with that revenue that, that the, um, that the our made a point, um, you know, the revenues are paying for because remember that, that the revenues made there are used out there. But I think we can help people through some hard times. Um, but I think we should be more judicious with the criteria about who actually gets their rent abated along the federal program. Paying at the back end of your lease. I can see that things are going to get better for most, but we've got to apply these criteria. Um, and I just think that there's a lot of things we'd like to do, but already we're seeing less revenue and that's going to start, meaning we're unable to do some of the things we need to do to keep these areas viable places for people to come when the customers can come back. So I'd like to see us craft something that really relies heavily on deferral. You know, we can lengthen the amount of time, but abatement under really specialized circumstances. Anybody want to try and craft a motion? Yeah. Vice Mayor, not slate. I know I don't want to craft a motion because I'm not sure I'm I'm so I'm definitely on that team abatement. You know, I appreciate Mr. McConaghy comment. I think just because everybody is not doing the right thing doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing. And I think we spend a lot of time talking about tenant landlord relationships. And I think this is one where we're where we need to show leadership and even use that leadership to encourage others to do so. My question is, we have the 90 day deferral as it is. So if we were to say let's say I keep hearing about three months, that's how how does how does the the the 90 day deferral and the loan conversion, does that become a six month loan conversion program? And how did how did the two things we have 90 days and deferral and then we're adding another 90 days essentially in loan conversion are those two separate things so they still have to pay the 90 days that was deferred under the original agreement. And then this is a new. Set what the proposal is. Can you clarify that, Mr. McKenna? I. When you're unmuted. Yes. Yes. So. Okay. I would say I'm not sure if I'm clarifying or if I'm giving you my opinion, but I would say that the all of it gets mixed in together. And so if after six months, we you know, the tenant has proven that they're I mean, that they've overcome, I would say, and and met some of the benchmarks that you've set up like employment. And I think that we would potentially offer a 50% abatement and that they would just be stuck. They would be not stuck. They wouldn't be subject to the original deferral program that we put together. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. And and I'm going to call did you finish your comments, Vice Mayor? Well, I had some comments when I saw the city manager's hand go up. Yes. I wasn't going to let him. I thought that was related to the questions. I think he might want to talk about it. And I just want to say something and maybe this is just semantics. I would say we're all here to do the right thing. And so we may not agree with each other, but a difference of opinion does not mean that someone is supporting a position that is the wrong thing. It is nice to be more generous. I would say, you know, there's a lot of considerations, but it's, you know, we're all right. We're all trying to do the right thing in these difficult times. And I would never say that I didn't suggest otherwise. I said it might be a matter of semantics and sometimes it's a matter of perception. City Manager. Yes. Mayor Ashcraft and City Council. I would agree with what Nat ended up saying at the end, and that is that I would see the 3 minutes I've envisioned that the three months would be combined with the first three months. Or. The other action that you requested, where if they didn't do three months from April through June, that they could add another month at some point. But if you you added this three months for the loan, that could be wrapped into a loan that we would probably try to wrap all six months into a loan, or else it would make it unfeasible for for the tenant to be able to to manage that loan at that point. And that's my kind of. And your. Comments. I really did like the vice mayor said about her, that making the program and the length of time the building was unusable or that they were not open plus one month. I thought that was pretty clever. And then I do like the three. I like having three months or $300,000 being the cap and having the council say whichever is greater or whichever is lower. I mean, I think that gives us some guidelines that we can work with in administering a program. So those are just my two comments. Okay. How does that sound, counsel? So. So we've got the. I'm sorry. I believe I had the floor. Sorry. I was looking away, taking notes. That's okay. Yes. Thank you. So thank you, Councilmember Odie, for directing my attention. Council vice mayor. It's down there. Not on the. The. I. Worried about $300,000. Our total rent is $1,000,000 a month. We already if we were to go with plus one month we're looking at four months and whatnot and half if half of that is abated. We're going to hit $300,000 with like two companies or three companies possibly depending on which ones we do it. So I just want to I just want to make sure that we don't set a cap that has us has staff coming back. And the other thing is, I want to be. Whatever. However, we move forward tonight, I want to be sure that we are careful, that we are not. I don't want to approve seven businesses because they were the first seven in the door. And then it turns out they hit the cap and now we're coming back and asking for more. So figuring out how we're going to have that cap conversation before people are told they have received this, I think is going to be an important part of this. But like I said, I as I'm further on the abatement side of this, I'll let my other colleagues decide how they like to move forward. And I would just ask the clarifying question. So when it comes to the application period, I mean, you're you're not contemplating first come, first serve, I would imagine I would think you're having an application period. And once all those applications are in, then the hard part comes comes that you need to look at everything and who meets the criteria. And I'm sure there's some sort of sequencing or, you know, ordering who's scoring highest or what have you. And then you'll know, I guess, how quickly you'd come to the cap. Is that is that a fair assessment of when you make. Yeah. Yeah. So I was thinking that and I wasn't thinking $300,000 total for the program. I was thinking as a tenant, I got that and there's very few tenants who pay $50,000 a month. That's I mean, you could get a long period, you could get a lot of room per tenant there. But I also think that it's not first come, first serve. I think each of these agreements will have to be negotiated. And there's a lot of paperwork that we're going to ask these tenants to provide us to make their case. And if they can't make their case, then they're I mean, we could offer them probably a more deferral, two months more deferral, but not necessarily abatement. I think they have to prove up because as you guys all just said, that, you know, this is money that we're going to we're going to be using for development and to dig ourselves out of having this dilapidated property. So I think, um, I think we would be looking at these applications pretty closely and with a lot of scrutiny. Thank you for the clarification. I'm an economist, Jodie. I say use your double take, but I mean, I did get that. I mean, we read these lease leases, those are high monthly rent. So that's what I mean about it. It is lovely to to be generous, but it has its cost. Councilmember Brody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. 300,000 person per tenant. I mean, that is basically a blank check for almost every tenant. I mean, I just go down the list, you know, 27,000, 30,000, 38, 2013, 12 nine two, two, three, two, five, four three. I mean, those are just the the least the monthly leases. So I don't know. Would you. Councilman Brody, may I ask, would you have a capped amount for those paying rent within a certain category? Because I, I can see your point that this would be too generous for those. And I, when we were on the subcommittee and probably has been provided to the rest of the council and this kind of gave us that list of the rent, the monthly rent payments. But what would you think of having like a small, medium and large cap somewhere? I want to see what we can do without. I think the principle you're you're advancing is a is a good sound one. But is there a way that we can give staff direction without being so much in the weeds, you know, the parameters? So here's kind of what I would like to think based on my colleague's comments. If you are shut down and locked out. I mean, we said it. We should abate your rent. For the first three months or whatever until you're when you're locked out for the second three months, we should be as generous as we can with deferrals and this loan conversion. And then when staff reaches 300,000 in proposed abatements, then they come back to us. In proposed abatements statement tenant. Not deferrals abatements. No abatements but that. But even for a smaller tenant you would spend it cumulatively. Cumulatively in total total. Cumulative well which would give tenants paying a lower rent more months to have it. But the city manager has his hands up. He's going to clear this all up so we can move forward. Aren't you. Know. I'm not sure about that. I was just I was clarifying that I think Councilmember Audi was saying 300,000 among all the tenants is where he's talking about. So statements, though, not deferrals on abatements. Right. I think I think there's a little bit of a split on council. Again, I'll just recommend that we take your comments and we come back with two or three choices in June. And then I think we can synthesize it and be able to bring it back and you can have a good program moving forward. Okay. Let's hear from Councilmember Vella. So I would want to know what this means to the capital improvement projects that we have planned out at Alameda Point on our other properties. Because, again, I think that there there's a cost to this. And while I think that, you know, we need to I also think there's very few businesses that have truly been locked out to a point of being able to undo and unable to do absolutely anything. I think that there was certainly a period of time that there may have been a stall and they'd have to reconfigure how they're operating. And there are some businesses that that business completely probably dried up for them. But I don't know that that necessarily means that they were or were locked out. And I think so. I want to be conscientious of that. And I want to go back to what the budget analysis is and what gets delayed, because I also don't want to be in a position where and I've been at meetings where we've had our tenants come forward and register different complaints about infrastructure out there where, you know, where were then causing more harm to other. Businesses out there because. We're not investing in certain infrastructure things as a result of giving these abatements, especially if the business is not going to be able to be sustainable in the long term. And we're just delaying the inevitable. Good points and I do think we probably have a couple of businesses. I'm just thinking of our, um, some brewpubs that, that, that don't produce the product that they could be selling and rely on people coming in. But you're right that, that is probably more the in the minority because even the winery that was mentioned, they're still selling their wine, they still have their membership. And, you know, you go out and pick up your bottles of wine per month. Um, but so, uh, councilmember decide it just quickly. I think one way to get at the issue of not being a blank check for everybody, all those, you know, 20, $20,000 a month rent one way to not get it be a blank check to to a lot of tenants out of Alameda point or whatever properties that we own is again goes back to the question of having benchmarks for example jobs howsoever will be defined it certainly if we create a threshold that that that will deal with that another benchmark going back again is that the notion of catalyst and when I read the staff report by Catalyst, I think we're talking about basically for the most part, foot traffic generating or or a type of business that has positive collateral effects with regard to businesses immediately surrounding it. So I think that will be one way to kind of account for, you know, an attempt to not be a blank check for everybody, as Councilmember Odie is rightly, rightly concerned about. Thanks. So Council, shall we take the city manager's suggestion and submit our comments to staff for them to return in June? Or does someone feel that we're ready to actually craft a motion and move forward? I couldn't wait to June. Um, I, I, um. I think we can certainly wait till June. I want to make sure that we're helping folks who need help and not keeping them waiting too long. And we also don't want to defer too many things to June because that will come back to haunt us in its own way. Councilmember Odie, your thoughts? I was going to make a motion. Not a completely solve the problem motion, but one to give staff the authority to. I think this was requested early that for the three month abatement or three month deferral, it could be any three months. So let them have that flexibility and then also give staff the discretion to give an additional three months deferral per tenant that would be converted into a promissory note loan type arrangement. And then they could come back and, you know, further discussion on potential abatement, because I think there were some good points here that were made. But, you know, it's going to be tough for me to, like, say goodbye to money. So that would be kind of my suggestion. Okay. So to give it authority to the staff to let is take any three months off as the deferral of the the original. April, May, June. Right. Mm. Some may want to play with that. Okay. So then, for instance, if you paid April, May, June, you can get an automatic July, August, September deferral. Right. Mm. Right. Okay. Everyone should have the opportunity for those three months and then give them the discretion to defer and convert into a, uh, a promissory note up to an additional three months. And then that, that should at least keep people, you know, less worried that from now until, what, the end of September, right? Yeah. Um, and, you know, I, I, I like, I think that has a lot of merit because, again, with more time, we get a clearer picture of where, where the reopening is going, where the economy's going. Our our revenues and our, our losses. And, uh, so, I, I, I think I, I like that. Um. And then we can, I can. I'm sorry. And I mean to cut you off. And then I think it was the other way around. Sorry. You can continue the discussion on abatement, although I am inclined to do as John mentioned, you know, if you if your doors are closed, you know, I'm super sympathetic to that. Without having it like a cap. I'm okay. I see the vice mayor his hand up. Yes. Does your motion include staff coming back in June with the crew? With the proposed criteria for discussion, for for the the potential, what we're calling it conversion to grant for 50%. June or July. You know, whenever they feel they can, they can do that. Yeah. Okay. I would be happy to second that motion then. Okay. And I'm just going to say, I think the one thing everybody needs is some certainty so that, you know, some folks are going to need to know if they have certainty of at least if we perform certain metrics, we can do that. So with the understanding that staff is doing an incredible, incredible amount of work and an incredible job doing that work. You know, the sooner the better with no date. Okay. And I'm so when and you want this to come back to us in June or give us a few months to play out. Would be June or July. I mean, I think I saw Miss Potter and Mr. Levitt, I guess in order of hierarchy city manager. First I was just asking before you vote, could you actually restate the motion so that I understand it exactly what what the motion is? Sure. Ed, can la read it? Well, I think. I can try to read it. I think it was you were giving staff three months deferral for any three months that they could do the staff recommendation of any three months. And then you were giving additional three months deferral with the tenants, with the promissory note involved, and then bringing back the abatement issue. And then the clarification was the criteria for the conversion to 50 cent 50% grant and then it would be in June or July and it would be better. Or 100%, you know. I'm not that far off the table for me either, because it's like I said, I think if they're if they've been locked down and locked out, you know, I think. I think. I think Councilman, morality, if we're bringing it back for discussion that we don't have to narrow the parameters of the percentages are because we're bringing it back. Okay. So we've had a motion. Do we have a second? I seconded it. Oh, you did already? Um, you're too late to send it, Mr. Love it now. Yes, Mr. Low. You have to unmute the. I just had one more question. So. So it. I'm still not clear. Does the motion include abatement plus three abatement for while they're closed down? Plus three. Plus three. Is that what it includes? Because that's the way it sounds to me. Not high. Well, you clarify. Maker of the motion. I don't think we're getting to abatement at this. Okay. So no abatement. Well, let's hear from Mr. Odie. Well, I thought we'd defer that, but it was okay. That was my understanding. The April, May, June deferral Part A is to give those that may not want April, May, June, the option to take those and any other three months and just leave it open because leave it open. And then that we would authorize you on a case by case basis to grant additional deferrals of up to another three months , that people ask them that those were converted to the promissory note. And then we would have the discussion on abatement or or a 50% conversion into grants. You know, when you thought it was appropriate in June or July. Okay. Okay. Okay. Miss Mercado. You're muted, this kind of. Yes. So I just have a clarifying question. Or like I do, we have some leeway and flexibility and the repayment terms. Because, remember, you had mentioned before that it could go over the remainder term of the lease. However, because one of the issues that you will hear, you probably have heard is that, you know, we are deferring these three months, but then they have to pay that 1/12 of it over a well over a 12 month period of time. So do you want to give us some flexibility in negotiating the repayment terms? I'm totally I mean, not as my colleagues, I'm totally open to, you know, having a promissory note go out to the end of the lease. Well. And if I could add, I think this is where these solutions can be individualized based on a particular businesses need and circumstances. And I think that staff is in the best position to know what those might be and to carry on those negotiations. So I would certainly support giving them the flexibility to do that. I think they understand the spirit in which we're proceeding. Vice Mayor Knox White. So I would agree with that. I just want to be careful that we're not also using you know, again, we're not picking companies that we think are good companies as opposed to using their accounting, etc., and existing rent. Right. I even think the catalyst issue is very more nebulous and than we would like it to be. That's why you say end of the lease, because. You know. I agree. I like end of the losers. Yeah. Okay. If there are no further clarifying questions, we have a motion. We have a second. We have a roll call. Vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Yes. Not quite. Yes. Odie. Yes. Yes. Mayor. As the Ashcroft. Yes. Carries by five eyes. Hey. It's for counsel. And you know what, people? It is 10:00. Goodness gracious. We we haven't gotten too far into our agenda. But let's take a quick ten minute break. Is there a slow ten minute break? Vice Mayor? Not quite. Thank thank you. I appreciate the break. I did want to say, given that we have a lot of people looking and we have a lot going on, I'm wondering if we wanted to make a motion did to hear the rest of the agenda so that people know that they're not going to be sticking around for another 90 minutes only to find out their agenda is not coming up. I, I personally would be willing to commit to that, but. I would be a little more judicious about that because it's 10:00 and I would say I would be supportive of a motion that certainly any item for which we have public speakers we will hear. Um, and I think there are some things on the regular agenda that need to move forward. Um, I think like the BIA votes, but I'm not sure that we'll get all the way down to the end of the agenda because I think we still have to take a a motion as we get closer to 11:00. But certainly we're going to finish this special meeting and then launch into the regular meeting. Okay. Okay. Okay. So ten minute break. It's. What time is it? It's 1002. Okay. It's ten or two. We are starting up at 1015. I know that's a little bit longer, but just give you time to get into place. Okay. See you at 1015. Thanks, everybody. And you know, before you you just remind me, Laura, which are we going to hear first on this next when the commercial or the. I guess council can decide what they want to do. Yeah, I think the staff is going to give the presentation in two parts. So I think they'll they'll address. Oh yes. Oh I can I can answer that. Monama. This is Eric. I can answer that. Ma'am. Can you hear me? Yes. Can you. Hear me? Yeah, I can hear you. Yes. There you go. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. So I can answer that. You hear. Us? Yeah, we've. I couldn't for a second, so I guess. Okay. So I've asked staff to the guy who's going to give the presentation is going to do first the commercial and then that. And then after you're done with that part, then Councilman Brody can recuse himself and Councilmember De Soto. And then. And then he'll do the residential. Okay. That sounds great. Okay. We're ready to go live. Okay. Yes, Jim. And then. We. We we have to be out of the picture during the public comment, too. Right. Um. I knew yourself. Mr. City attorney. Even even. And Matt and yourself even admit. Yes. Speaker, are you there? Yes. All right. I see, cause there's no way to segregate public comments. Clearly, my recommendation will be that the two councilmembers step off the dais or the camera for the entirety of the public comment period. You can do that. Okay. Thank you. I see. All right. Hey, wake up, Drew. I know. Come on, people. Okay. And we, um. And before we get started, I just want to say we don't need a long winded staff report. We've read our materials, the public had access to them. So give us the cliff notes. Give us the high points. It's 1020. Okay, let's do this thing. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. This is Scott. Looks from city engineer and members of the City Council. First, can you all hear me? Yes. In fact, I'm just going to let the public know. Thank you for indulging the council. We needed to take a little break there. And so with that, we are now moving into item camp to D. And I'm going to ask the city clerk, Ms.. Weisinger, if she would introduce that item for us. Recommendation to endorse implementation of Temporary Street Reconfigurations to provide space for social distancing in response to the COVID 19 emergency. Thank you. And so, Mr. Wickstrom, our city engineer, is on the line. So does that mean you are presenting this item or is it a joint venture or how are you doing this? I am going to lead the presentation and both Andrew and Rochelle are available. Should there be questions that come up? Great. That sounds good. Okay, Mr.. Wikström. Thank you. And I would like to thank, obviously, Rochelle and Andrew for helping to basically write the staff report, which is very complete and thorough. So in the interest of time, as the mayor suggested, I will be relatively brief in my comments.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 610 South Vine Street in Washington Park. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 610 South Vine Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-7-22.

DenverCityCouncil_08012022_22-0654

Thank you. Thank you. We have no individual signed up to speak on this item this evening. Are there any questions for members of Council on Council Bill 20 20583. Seeing none. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council and Council Bill 20 20583. Councilwoman CdeBaca. I'm just I'm very supportive of this and hope the rest of my colleagues will be as well. Okay. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 20583. Can I? CdeBaca, I. Black Eye. Clark I. Gillmor, i. Herndon Hines. I. Cashman, i. Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 12 hours. 12 days cancel 22 days, 0583 has passed. Councilmember Haynes, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0654 on the floor for final passage? I move the council bill 22 to 0 654 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 20654 is open. May we have the staff report? Hello, everyone. My name is Ed Semifinals. I'm here with 616 South Main Street. The current zoning is a single family zone district applying for a single family zone district with an 80 year. Now we're looking at a different part of town. This is Council District six in Cashman's district. This is located in Washington Park neighborhood. The site itself is just east of Wash Park. It is a single family house that is 6240 square foot. And the request is to allow for an excessive volume. The site itself is currently on us, you see, which is urban single unit C with the minimum block size of 5500 square feet. It is surrounded by us, you see. This single unit is on the street all around it. So the site itself is in the top left corner, which is a one story structure. But throughout this neighborhood we do see one, two, two story structures predominate single unit. So it went before the planning board on May 2nd. It was approved unanimously. But to date, we have had several comments. We've had two letters of support that are in the staff report, but we've had six letters of opposition, including the East Washington are are now who voted voted that the application is not consistent with the with the review criteria and they specified it within the staff report and then as well as six letters of of opposition mentioned concerns with property values, parking, traffic, noise, quality of life, short term rental impacts to the neighborhood, as well as safety concerns as well as density concerns specifically and opposition. There are several review criteria that we look at when analyzing the specific Maps amendment. The first one is to see what the plans for this specific part of town. We're only focusing on two plans, which is comprehensive plan 2040 as well as Blueprint Denver Land Use and Transportation Plan 2019. So there's several strategies specified in comprehensive a plan that are mentioned in the staff report. And I'm just going to jump into a good blueprint to classify this area as urban. When we look at the future place type, this area is classified as residential low, where it's predominantly single and two unit uses where accessory dwelling units are appropriate here. Vine Street is a local street, which is primarily characterized by residential uses. And then this specific site is classified as other areas of the city within the Future Growth Strategy Map, where we anticipate to see 10% of new employment as well as 20% of new housing. Blueprint has specific language around accessory dwelling units, which is found in the land use and built form housing policy number forward. It calls for diversifying housing choices through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. For review criteria two, three and five. It is specified in the staff report and for the fourth criteria which is justifying circumstance. It is consistent based on a city adopted plan from Blueprint Denver that was read earlier. Therefore CPD recommends approval based at all the findings of the report to have been met. Staff is available for questions as long as the applicant check is on for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening online. We've got Fred Blick. Thank you, members of council. I appreciate your time tonight. My name is Fred Glick. I live at 3850 North York in Denver's Clayton neighborhood. I am the vice chair of the Denver Planning Board. But I'm here today in my individual capacity. And while I'm here to speak in favor of this map, amendment is made. Be clear by the plan for post rezoning meets the criteria and given our commitment to it using Blueprint Denver. There's really too much to my mind, no good argument against this rezoning. However, I was so deeply concerned by one of the letters received in opposition that I felt compelled to be here tonight to speak to the points raised by the applicant's neighbors. These neighbors state that their neighborhood is one of Denver's most expensive, and they make clear their belief that they view potential edu residents whom they anticipate to be people of lesser means as a threat to the safety of their teenage daughters. They go on to describe 80 residents is generally transient and in transition. They mention in the midst of divorce, recently unemployed, in rehab, convicted criminals. I'm not even quite sure to start with this. The idea that certain people have no place in our residential neighborhoods for at least our most expensive ones because they're of lesser means that people in transition shouldn't be around families. There are no divorces with children who are loving parents. There are no recovering alcoholics who are washed. Park homeowners, rich people with criminal convictions are more worthy somehow than poor people with convictions. And sadly, I'm reminded of the ugly rhetoric around blockbusting. People who are different from you are coming. Hide your wives and daughters. I have an 80, you and my ten. It is admittedly in transition. She's an oncology nurse completing her pre-med requirements so that next year she can start med school. She's transitioning from being a nurse to being a doctor. I urge you to reject the sort of fear mongering that the neighbors have put forth and support this rezoning. Thank you. Think. Think, think, think, think. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0654. Councilman Cashman. Yeah, just a couple of questions for you, please. Would you remind me what is the maximum size accessory dwelling unit that's permitted under the request to district? So the maximum size is 864 based off the large size that can be built here. And there's a height as well as four detached structures. It's 24 feet. Okay. Do we have any evidence whatsoever that the addition of an accessory dwelling unit diminishes property values? No. Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no one else in the queue. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 20654. Councilman Cashman Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I do think this I think this application meets the legal criteria by which we assess rezoning applications. I think Blueprint Denver is clear in its direction that accessory dwelling units are applicable in all neighborhoods. This is a neighborhood that has had tremendous change in the past couple of decades. My my friends, council Councilman Clark grew up in this neighborhood and I think is very as familiar as anyone with the level of change. I lived on Virginia Avenue across from Wash Park for many years and in a bungalow that still exists. But in throughout the neighborhood, these small bungalows have been replaced block after block by extremely large homes, and that have certainly changed the nature of the neighborhood. I still think it's a wonderful community in which to live, and I don't subscribe with due respect to the neighbors that that are in opposition. I don't believe that the addition of an 850 square foot home addition is a threat to the character of the neighborhood. I think it has every opportunity to gently diversify that community and provide much needed housing for for those that are not going to be able to afford property in that neighborhood. So I fully believe it's, uh, something worth supporting.

A resolution approving a proposed Tenth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and SMG by adding funds to provide continued scheduling and management services and administrative and payroll services for on call stagehands who provide theatrical production services in city venues. Amends a contract with SMG by adding $23,000,000 for a new contract total of $86,000,000 to provide continued scheduling and management services and administrative and payroll services for on call stagehands who provide theatrical production services in city venues. No change to contract duration (CE93004-10/THTRS-202261807-10). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-4-2022. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-2-2022.

DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0214

No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Council member CdeBaca has called out Bill 273 for a vote. Under pending, no items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item up on our screens. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put resolution 214 on the floor for adoption? I move. That council resolution 22 dash 0 to 1 four be. Adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments and questions by members of Council on Resolution to 14. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. Although this is not specifically an on call contract, which I always call out to vote no on, it is a contract where there are still negotiations happening between the different parties that are involved in the contract. So really appreciate them coming to committee to explain what was going on there. And you know, the contract negotiations between SMG and the theatrical production services team. But since this is a contract for up to $23 million and it's unclear how much of that could potentially be access, but the average spend amount is about $7 million. I feel like this falls into the same category as a number of the on call contracts that I call out because we don't have any reporting that tells us at the end of the day what is used, how much is used and for what. I think that I am I'm equally uncomfortable voting yes on this contract, so I'm going to go ahead and call it out to vote no. You know, the charter says that we as council members have a duty to oversee the budget and to oversee improved contracts over $500,000 and without the reporting requirements on the end of some of these open ended up to contracts. That's a little bit it can get a little sticky. And I feel like we are we're not necessarily, you know, following the money in the way that we should be. So I'm going to be a no vote. But, you know, I understand why everyone else supports it, and that's great. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Tad, are you here to represent arts and venues? Okay. Oh, the whole gang. Hail, hail. The gang's all here. Okay. Can someone come up and just briefly explain the relationship between the city SMG and and the Yahtzee Local seven and why we fund this and what what the purpose of this is? Because I'm concerned that if this were not to be approved, what would be the consequences? Just briefly and as you come up, we'll ask you to go ahead and introduce yourselves for the public record as well. I'm Mark, Company Director Performing Arts Complex. And your question, I think, gets to when we were in committee, we talked about why Local seven is not a union that is negotiated with the city, has to do with the CSA rules and things like that. So we have a third party that we enter into an agreement with and they negotiate on our behalf. Exactly. I recall when this came to the committee. The the rationale is that we do not have a collective bargaining agreement with the union. And this goes back to quite some time ago that we've been doing this. So SMG, which is our our vendor, our operator of these facilities, pays the members for the work that they do and. We pay for that work, but it has to go through SMG. That's correct. Okay then. So why $23 million? Yes, we have. Did you introduce yourself? Yes. I'm sorry. My name is Frank Del Monte. I'm the director of Finance of Arts and venues. $23 million. So we had put into the ordinance that we had been averaging about $7 million a year. That was before the pandemic. Activity has increased dramatically. We've added about ten weeks to the season. We're probably averaging now between nine and $10 million a year. We had two years left. The contract is going to be competitively bid this year going into 2023, and we'll consume that. So as we articulated, this is a pass through. We pay the stagehands, they're called for the events and it's negotiated through SMG. Thank you. So the understand, just for the folks who are listening on Channel eight or here in the room, the the $23 million is not fully spent unless $23 million worth of work is is performed. That is accurate. So it's a it's a pool of money from which we will pay. And right now, the balance in the contract is how much? About $1,000,000. So if this were not to be approved. We could not pay the stagehands and we couldn't hold the event. Okay. Thank you. And we also have here Brian Preston, who is the business agent for Yahtzee Local seven. And I spoke with him briefly in the hallway before the meeting, and I believe he had some input he wanted to give us on this. Madam President, sorry to invite him up to the mic. Sure. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr.. Preston, yourself for the public record. Absolutely. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Good evening. My name is Bryant. I represent I stagehands under the collective bargaining agreement with F and g for councilwoman. Can each agency stand through International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees? We were organized in 1891, not 1908, as stated in the committee. But it's always difficult to bear witness to and far too common for us to be the topic of conversations we're not included of. So here we are. We know that COVID changed the face of our industry and funny looks to have been temporary, but we're still not back at full scale. We spent the pandemic being categorized as hospitality workers, not as entertainment workers, which left a lot of our members without that needed assistance during the time. As stagehands, we make a living not being seen. But if the last two years have taught us anything, it is the visibility matters. So here we are. We're here to speak today in favor of this amendment, so long as it represents the reality that truly includes us, as we haven't had a raise under this agreement in four years. So we view this as the first step, going to hopefully many to come in gaining equitable pay for our members. Thank you. That's all I have. Madam President. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilmember Sawyer, we have you back up. Thanks, Madam President. I was in committee and so already had this discussion. This isn't a question of the contract itself. It's a question of the agencies of the city and county of Denver not reporting to city council on the money that they are using on open contracts. So just want to make sure that I clarify that obviously I support our workers and and obviously, as I said in committee, incredibly grateful to arts and venues and the entire team for doing what is an extraordinary job, keeping all of our arts and venues operations running even during COVID, when, you know, it was very unclear what was going to happen next. So really appreciate all of that. This no vote is not at all about that. It is about the lack of reporting structure from the agencies of the city and county of Denver. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 22. Dash 214, please. Sawyer. No. Torres, I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark, I. Flynn All right. Herndon, I. Cashman Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. When you have a nice. 11 eyes council resolution 22 dash to 14 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Council members say to Barca, Please go ahead with your questions on resolution 251.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary with private property owners in Long Beach to identify economic development projects and share costs to implement the Business Corridor Improvement and Property Beautification Partnership Program on private property, in an amount not to exceed $25,000 per property, as funds are available to support the program. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02202018_18-0165

Lucian Case. 25. 25 is a report from economic development. Recommendation to execute all documents necessary with private property owners in Long Beach to identify economic development, project and share costs to implement the Business Corridor Improvement and Property Beautification Partnership Program on private property in an amount not to exceed $25,000 per property citywide. Give us a motion in a second or any public comment scene. And did you want to we have to do a very brief going to just go to John, very brief taking this address. I was going to get to that. So Mr. Geisinger report. Thank you, Mayor, and members of the city council. There's just a few things I need to read into the record as part of this presentation. As you know, on September 5th of 2017, the council approved a corridor improvement fund of $450,000 for three boulevards. And I'm trying to get my clicker to work here. This included it's buzzer me. Here you go. This included Carson Avenue, Pacific Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. The goals of this program were to improve property values, increase customer traffic, and help individual property owners, groups or associations of property owners located within the project areas. On a first come, first served basis, the preference for these projects will be given to those that have the greatest potential for significant economic impact in projects may include signage, painting, windows, awning removal of external security gates, lighting, landscaping or the development of business improvement districts, among other projects as identified by the property owners. As I mentioned, this is a one time $450,000 allocation from the City Council for 2018. But staff will be seeking additional funding sources such as the Community Development BLOCK grants for businesses that fall inside those eligible areas or matching funds from the private property owner if the private property owner offers that. Additionally, tonight, we're asking the City Council to approve the partnership agreement between the city and the private property owners with the following terms and conditions. This must be new work or improvements to the property up to $25,000 per property. The scope of work must be approved by the city prior to any work or project. Kick off payments will be made on a reimbursement basis. Contractors will be required to pay prevailing wage and contractors must maintain current Long Beach business licenses. One other note is that the partnership agreement may be used for properties outside the project area if funding becomes available for those projects in the future. Construction. That was my report. Sorry. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. Mr. Mayor, may I please speak out? I'm sure. I have a note from Mr. De Andrews who had to leave. To be in Sacramento in a few hours. He wanted to thank the staff for their hard work on this, and he'd like to. Ask specifically about the eligibility of the. Funds for the creation of the Property or Business Improvement. District on Pacific. And just I know that I'm supportive of this idea and I just want to make sure that the staff were supportive. And COUNCILMEMBER Yes, the we will be reaching out to business owners and property owners on Pacific and if they wish to aggregate their funds toward the establishment of a business improvement district, that would be considered eligible as well. Wonderful. And then last question. Will there be priority to projects. That have matching funds from the business owner? Yes. So what we're going to be doing is compiling a list and trying to maximize the amount of the funds by leveraging matching funds or outside sources. So absolutely, the projects where we can have the greatest impact would be those that we can actually leverage additional funding from the participants. My only last comment is before anything is spent outside of. The zones that were designated by the Council at the Budget Oversight Committee and the full council, and to note that it comes back to this body for review. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Please cast your vote.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending Section 21.49.130 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify certain contracting details and add a subsection to the Department’s authority to contract for energy efficiency through conservation efforts.

SeattleCityCouncil_04092018_CB 119224

Bill passed and sure will sign it. Please read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee and Item 13 counts 4119224 related to the City Department amending Section 21.40 9.1 37 Pacifica to clarify certain contracting details. And that is subsection two, the department's authority to contract for energy efficiency through conservation efforts. The committee recommends the bill passed. Councilmember Mosquito. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very excited about items 13 and 14 on our agenda. These two pieces of legislation really came from the incredible work that the Blue Green Coalition has done, bringing together labor and industry that is trying to create a green energy economy and good living wage jobs. I want to thank the folks who have worked on this for over two years, really? Folks from the Bullet Foundation, from the Labor Council, from the Sierra Club, from community at large and from Seattle City Life, who have put a number of provisions into place and piloted efforts to make sure that we are truly creating more energy efficient buildings and thinking proactively about what we need to do to hold up our end of the responsibility. I see. Dennis Hayes here, thank you so much for your incredible work at the Bullet Foundation. And we look forward to these pieces of legislation advancing the commitments that we've put into place already. I would love to speak first to Council Bill 119224 and then 119225. Constable 119224 helps to expand our city's very successful pay for report pay for performance program to a large range of commercial buildings. They are expanding the current effort from 24 months contract to up to 84 months, which is seven years. I want to note that the Seattle City Light intends to make sure that we are paying for 3 to 5 year period with an additional two years to cover time between the contract signing and the project completion. Also, I think it's important to note that the energy savings from this program will continue to contribute to the state's regulatory and City Climate Action Plan targets. Look forward to working with our city and community partners to implement 119224. Very good. Excellent. Any comments? Councilmember Bryant. Thank you. Councilmember Skinner, to thank you so much for your work on this and getting this done. Following on a pilot program that has worked really well. And unfortunately, it's and often is the case, it's can be unbearably hard to pass the right set of regulations to allow people to do the work that we really need to do to meet that kind of clean energy future and our carbon emission goals. I want to thank the amazing folks in the community, Dennis Hayes as mentioned, and a whole host of other folks that have refused to give up on this work when it's hard to get through the regulatory process. And so, Councilman Mosquito, thank you for getting this done. And I look forward to seeing all these projects move forward and seeing how we can't make all the buildings in our city as clean and green as the board center. Very good. We ready to vote? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Gonzalez Herbold High Johnson Mosquito I O'Brien Salon President Harrell seven in favor and unopposed. Bill passed in show assignment. Please read the next agenda item. Agenda item 14. Agenda Item 14. Constable 119225. Link to the satellite department authorizing execution of agreements for up to 30 buildings, including building participating in the city's 2030 challenge high performance existing building project pilot for the purchase and or sale of energy occurring as part of the energy efficiency as a service pilot projects with a contract length

Application of Kathleen Justice to rezone approximately 18,423 square feet of land addressed as 5256 Rainier Avenue S from Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a height limit of fifty-five feet and a (M) mandatory housing affordability suffix (NC2-55 (M)) to Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a height limit of sixty-five feet and a (M1) mandatory housing affordability suffix (NC2-65 (M1))(Project No. 3025493-LU, Type IV).

SeattleCityCouncil_10142019_CF 314365

The report of the Planning, Planning and Zoning Committee. Agenda Item one CLERK 4314 365. Application of Cathleen Justice Teresa on approximately 18,423 square feet of land addressed at 5256 Rainier Avenue South. The committee recommends that the application be granted as conditioned. Very much from Pacheco. And colleagues. This is a contract rezoning application from Cathleen Justice to rezone approximately 18,423 square feet site at 5256 Rainier Avenue South from neighborhood commercial to with a 45 foot height limit to neighborhood commercial two with a 6465 foot height limit and a higher corresponding MTA requirement. The applicant plans to develop the site into a six story 73 unit apartment building with commercial space as DCI and the hearing examiner both recommended approval as condition. The plans committee unanimously recommended approval in September, with one amendment to correct the title of other Clark file. Thank you very much, Councilmember Chicco. Any other questions or comments before we move this? If not, I will move to pass Council Bill 11966. I'm sorry. Strike that those in favor of granting the application as conditions. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries the application is granted as condition and the chair was signed the findings, conclusions and decision of the City Council. Please read the next agenda item.

Recommendation to request City Manager return to council within 90 days to: • Report back on the current city ordinances regarding residential parking requirements for garage use, what efforts the city undertakes to enforce such ordinances, and recommendations of how these ordinances can be better utilized to enforce these ordinances in parking impacted areas; • Work with Development Services to report back on the permitting process for garage expansion and retrofitting permits, and the feasibility of expediting and streamlining incentivizing residents to bring their garages up to code for parking use; and • Report on the feasibility of the city sponsoring a community garage clean-up day where large-scale trash disposal and hauling is provided for the residents who choose to participate in the clean-up day.

LongBeachCC_07182017_17-0560

Thank you. So let's move forward with item number 27. Please. Item 27 is communication from Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Gonzalez and Councilmember Peers recommendation to request the city manager to report back to council within 90 days on current city ordinances regarding residential parking requirements for garage use. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you. This item actually has come to us as a result of a parking study that was commissioned by the Belmont Store, Belmont Shore Parking Commission. And they came back with a series of recommendations. And this is one of the recommendations that staff has communicated to the residents they would be supporting. So I'm not sure I know there's someone here from Public Works, but the item pretty much speaks for itself. It's trying to encourage people to clean out their garages so that they can park in their garages. We have a lot of parking impacted neighborhoods, and the goal is just to try to encourage and streamline the permitting process so that people who want to remodel their garages so that the modern cars can fit. And some of these homes were built in the twenties and thirties. They can't fit their cars in there. So we want to make sure that we provide an environment that allows for that to happen and support our neighborhood organizations who are working on efforts to do community cleanups and things of that nature. And since staff is supporting this recommendation, I ask my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Councilwoman Price, for bringing this item forward. I think it's important, you know, that we are enforcing the rules that are on the books. And if we're not enforcing them, we should, of course, revisit them and make sure that we're adjusting as needed. And so I'm thankful for this item as being in a parking impacted district. I also want to say that while we're looking at the permitting process to try to assist people that are going through this process, they were also included in the report to establish a process for those who might be able to prove financial hardship by giving them more time to adjust the situation, whether it's, you know, rebuilding their garage or cleaning out their garage, that we include that in the report as well. I know I've had a couple of calls into my office from constituents that have had that issue, but I do ask my colleagues to support us in this item. Thank you. Thank you. So the scene is open. Any public comment on this item saying no members, please cast your vote.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Arterial Asphalt and Concrete Program Phase II; accepting a deed for street purposes for certain real property in Block 2, Public Benefit Subdivision of Tract 17, Georgetown; laying off, opening, widening, extending, establishing, and designating the property for street purposes; placing the real property conveyed by such deed under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06112018_CB 119241

Agenda item for Council Bill 119241 an ordinance relating to the arterial asphalt and concrete program phase two excepting a deed for street purposes for certain real property and block to public benefit. Subdivision of Tract 17 Georgetown laying off, opening, widening, extending, establishing and designating the property for street purposes. Placing the real property conveyed by such deed under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilwoman Bryant. So this is a curb ramp project in Georgetown. So a small, little curb ramp that was put in. In order to put the curb ramp in, we needed to acquire a few square feet of private property that was adjacent to the the sidewalk to make it fit. And this is the action that needs to be taken for us to accept ownership of those few square feet into the right away. Very good. Any further comments? Please call the roll on the pastor of the Bill. Herbold II Johnson Juarez Mosquito. I O'Brien. Hi, Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi, Gonzales. I President Arroyo. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passed and share with Senate. Please read the next agenda item.

A proclamation recognizing the importance of securing an accurate and complete population count in the 2020 US Census.

DenverCityCouncil_08132018_18-0898

Thank you. Thank you. All right. For our next proclamation, Councilwoman Ortega, will you please read proclamation eight, nine, eight? I would be happy to. Proclamation number eight, nine, eight. Recognizing the importance of securing an accurate and complete population count in the 2020 U.S. Census. Whereas the United States Census is a constitutionally mandated, complete assessment excuse me of the population and has performed. Decennial since 1790. Most recently in 2010. And. WHEREAS, the Census determines the allocation of seats for the U.S. House of Representatives, redistricting of state and local government, legislative districts, and distribution of more than $675 billion in federal funds to state, local and tribal governments. Whereas, Mayor Hancock has named three co-chairs Pastor Del Phillips, Dr. Jeanine Davidson and myself to lead the Denver Complete Count Committee that is in process of training key city employees and community partners to assist with this critically important citizen outreach effort. And. Whereas, in 2010, Denver's efforts were a model that cities across the country worked to replicate because of our financial commitment to marketing, outreach and staffing that resulted in a high response rate. And we will be geared up to do the same for the 2020 census. And. Whereas, Denver is a growing city and an accurate census count is vital to meet the evolving needs of Denver residents, Census 2020 will direct the amount of federal money distributed to Denver for housing assistance and rehabilitation, education and early childhood to higher education, transportation, infrastructure, senior centers, libraries, hospitals, facilities for people with disabilities and emergency planning . In response. And. Whereas. Punitive actions taken by President Trump against immigrants and refugees from various countries will require our best efforts at the local level to be far reaching. And. WHEREAS, it will be challenging to alleviate the fear of hard to count communities and to educate and encourage full participation by everyone in the upcoming 2020 census. And. Whereas, ensuring a complete census count is imperative because the data will profoundly impact Denver residents far into the future. And. WHEREAS, everyone, whether a United States citizen, a refugee immigrant or an undocumented worker, we all rely on the programs and services provided by local and state government, paid for in part by federal grants. And we're as the Complete Count Committee should address various racial, ethnic, cultural and geographic considerations of the community to ensure residents understand the census process, trust in its confidentiality, understand its importance, and fulfill their obligation to participate as is required by law. And. Whereas, Census data is highly protected and confidential, the Census Bureau is not permitted to release responses to the Census, furnished by any individual or on behalf of an individual or release information to other government agencies, including the IRS, Immigration and Naturalization Services, law enforcement agencies or welfare agencies. Now, therefore, be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Council of the City and County of Denver shall support and assist in the Complete Count Committee in fulfilling the goal of achieving a complete count of Denver residents. This will be accomplished by formulating effective strategies to ensure Denver's response rate in Census 2020 through outreach, information, campaigns and community engagement. Section to the complete. The Committee will harness the local knowledge, expertize and influence of each committee member to design and implement a census awareness campaign targeted to communities throughout Denver with focused, structured neighbor to neighbor outreach. Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the CEO of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transcript transmitted to Pauline Nunez at the United States Census Bureau. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Your motion to adopt. I move for the adoption of proclamation number 898. Has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Most cities across the country have already undertaken their training for their complete count committees that are already seated. These are committees that are representative of broad sectors of our community. It will be important to ensure that we're recounting elderly folks, people who are homeless. We have something like eight or nine refugee communities in Denver that did not exist when we did the 2010 census count. So folks who are considered hard to count are going to be where part of our efforts are focused in ensuring that we do the absolute best effort to count everybody. Because if we do not, these are this is data that we're going to have to live with for the next ten years. And if we don't have a complete count, it may mean that we potentially do not get an additional congressional seat. We potentially do not get the resources that are earmarked to your cities based on the census count that you have for your jurisdiction. So it's going to be critical that we all play a role, including our city agencies that have any touch points with community to be getting the word out. And my hope is that we can look at trying to get a staff person on board as soon as possible and not wait until the 2019 budget, because so much of the foundational work needs to be happening right now. And, you know, Denver is geared up to put about the same amount of money in the 2020 census outreach that we had in 2010. And I think with some of the fear mongering that we have seen happening in this country, it's just going to make this job that much more challenging. And so I thought it was important to bring this forward, to put this issue on our radar screen and be looking out for us, beginning to push out more information as as this work evolves. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I'd like to ask if my name can be added as a co-sponsor. I missed the email and I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for her leadership on this. In the past, Councilman Lopez has also been a leader on Denver's count. He's he's been around long enough for two censuses. That's a huge accomplishment. I just wanted to underline Councilman Ortega's concern about our underrepresented populations in the sense that they are important and large pieces of our community. But some, because of the the events of the day and the inhumane policies of this federal administration have been, I think , driven somewhat into more of the shadows. And that includes undocumented immigrants, folks who are here with visas or other backgrounds, because even some of those communities have been targets for this administration, even when they are documented. I did just want to add the fact that our city has issued a comment in response to the federal notice that they were going to add a new question to the census on citizenship. No such question has been asked and the short form since 1950, because it's not a best practice that we get the most information from people when they don't feel like they are being vulnerable to a federal administration that is not supposed to use this information . But to convince folks of that is difficult, especially if the person at your door is asking a question about your citizenship. So to the council members, you know, this information came to us today as a copy of it from Gaby Corica, the legislative liaison for the mayor. But for our community, I want you to know that we have protested this proposed rule that was was receiving public comment in the Federal Register, along with many of the organizations in our community. And we protested both because of our desire to reduce the fear in our community as well as to ensure an accurate count that there are, you know, in the letter well, documents, the almost 15% of our city is foreign born. And again, many of those individuals are documented. They have legitimate papers and all of the things that give them the right to be here. But even they sometimes feel nervous. So it's our job to do both to fight efforts at the federal government that might create more fear and confusion, and then to assure people of the legal rights they have and to fight to protect them, to make sure that the rules are followed. So I want to make sure that our community knows that we're working on both those fronts. So with that, I will proudly support this proclamation. And then also I just want to add, I believe, Councilman Flynn, we're coming to government and finance for this topic. I don't know if you know the date yet, but we're working on scheduling an update for council as well. So to make sure we stay up to date. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Captain Canete. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary? Raquel Ortega. High Assessment a black eye. Brooks I Espinosa, i flinn i Gilmore. Herndon, i Cashman. Can each new. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting in no results. Sorry one person is missing. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Proclamation 898 has been adopted. Councilman Ortega, do you have someone you'd like to bring up? We do not. The staff from the Census Bureau is actually in Washington, D.C. at some training, and I will get the proclamation to them. All right. Thank you very much. That concludes our proclamations. Resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.

Recommendation to Reconsider Award of the Contract for the Publication of Legal Notices and Consider Providing Direction for Funding Options to Assist the Alameda Sun. (City Clerk 10022020)

AlamedaCC_09072021_2021-1186

and so July 20th, I'm sorry, wrong date. And so basically there's two things before you to consider tonight. There is one thing the contract and the second thing, funding options. So basically the council does have an option to terminate the existing contract with the Alameda Journal and could then, you know, pursue entering into a contract with the Army to fund and then the funding option. There are basic funding that I think I could turn it over to, Mr. Butler to outline the options and kind of discuss what funding I think they've had to. And and just before we get into that, do we have public comment on this item? Yes, we have at least one speaker. All right. Okay. Ms.. Butler, go ahead. Hi. Hi. Nice to be back. So we have given us some examples of the types of funding that we can provide as a city. For example, we could use general funds to do a general sponsorship for the news paper, or we could support the Sun with. Ads for our. Shop, local campaigns, restaurant week and other local events. Or we could sponsor a section in their paper. We could say it's sponsored by the city as far as funds that they have received from the city grants and things like that, they have not received grants from the city. They did apply for Almeda Strong and they applied for the COVID 19 grant that their lottery number did not come up. And those were two separate funds, right? The COVID 19. Crisis. What was the maximum that they could have received from each of those sources? So they could have received 7500 from one or the other. If they were qualified, we would have to evaluate their their application to see if they were qualified. And were applicants able to receive funds from both. Or just just one? One. Okay. Okay. And then I believe there may have been some other funds that they received from the state or federal government. Is that. Correct? That is correct. They received PPE, and I would just try the paycheck protection plan funds. And. That was a. Federal loan that could turn into a grant. Okay. Thank you. Counsel, any clarifying questions for Ms.. Butler before we open that public comment? Okay. Let's hear from our public speaker or speakers, please, Madam Clerk. We have one speaker at Chuck Capellini. Good evening, Speaker Capellini. Good evening. Not a mayor and city council members. Thanks. I'll be fast. I know you're trying to get through the meeting tonight. I'm here to encourage you to reconsider your early vote and award the contract for the publication of legal notices to the Army. The Sun. The Army. The Sun is locally owned and operated, and they are a vital part of our community. Six years ago, I began organizing the Alameda Spelling Bee, a citywide spelling competition for Alameda. Students in spelling bees are traditionally sponsored by local newspapers. I reached out to the Alameda Sun to see if they'd be interested in getting involved. And within just a few hours. Eric Cause The Sun's founding publisher responded that the Sun would absolutely be willing to step up and be a sponsor of the spelling bee. And Eric himself even volunteered to be a judge for the competition. In the ensuing years, the Sun has remained an important sponsor of the Almeida Spelling Bee. It provides free space to advertise the event, and they've been they've covered the event every year, including by displaying the winners photos on the front page. I share this story as an example of how the LME, The Sun, unlike other publications distributed in Alameda that I'm aware of, is engaged and active in the city in ways that go far beyond what other publications do. The Sun's pages feature stories about Almeida's history on a regular basis, and the publisher regularly conducts historic walks of the city. The Sun provides an outlet for city government, including updates in the library's other services, as well as regular front page column by Mayor Ashcraft. In fact, I suspect that the Alameda Sun may be the city's most important outlet for informing Alameda about news from the city government. So the fact that the sun is locally, locally owned and operated really does matter. And the legal notices contract goes a long way in helping this paper to survive. So when considering which publication the city should trust the legal notices contract, it's important to weigh the other values and value that the sun provides to our community. And of course, if there are alternate ways that the city can support the Sun, financial or otherwise, I'd encourage you to pursue those paths as well. Thank you. Thank you. And do we have further speakers, Madam Clerk? That was our only speaker. Okay, then we are going to close public comment at this time and we will hear from the council. Councilmember Dave, address your hand up. Yes, thank you. I think we talked about the reasons why we believe we need to consider reversing our decision. So I would encourage us to go immediately to a decision. And the thing that I would move is that we move to terminate the contract with Alameda Journal and award the contract to Alameda Sun and also invite the Alameda Sun to to obtain their sources of funding described in the three bullet points in the staff report, capping it at no more than $19,200. That's additive to the contract itself, by the way. So just to be clear. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Second, the motion. Was that a motion? Yeah, that's the motion. That was the motion at second. Okay, then we'll open for discussion. I'd like to lead the discussion. Okay. I will. I think this is a case for we can have our cake and eat it, too. And I'll tell you what I mean. I don't think we should terminate the contract with the Alameda Journal to provide legal notices. And the reason for that is they have the more extensive circulation, and that's important when we're providing legal notices. And I don't want to see us pit one small newspaper against another, albeit one is even smaller than the other. But they're both small newspapers. And in an era where we're seeing a lot of local journalism just fold and not be able to carry on, I don't think we need to in any way be punitive or adopt a punitive stance towards a newspaper. But I do think that we can certainly provide some forms of financial assistance to the Journal The Sun. And I mentioned briefly when we were talking about ARPA funds and ARP offenses, we all remember were there to assist businesses and entities to recover from the impacts of COVID 19. And certainly COVID 19 has has impacted this small local newspaper. They were they did get the paper money. And presumably, if they didn't lay off any staff, it converted into a grant. The ability to apply for either the city's COVID 19 relief funds or the strong was just by lottery. And your number came up or it didn't. And I guess we have expended those funds, is that correct? So we'd be we'd be looking from two other sources. But I would I would recommend that we follow the the first bullet and the alternative, keep the contract with the sun, with the Journal and provide direction on funding to assist the Alameda Sun. And I liked all of the things that Ms.. Butler mentioned to us that we can take money from general fund. I would add we can take money from ARPA, we could place ads for restaurant week, we can sponsor a city or a city section. I think a number of our departments I know I do a monthly column, by the way, my monthly column runs in the Journal as well as The Sun. And because we know we're trying to get the word out about important topics as widely as possible. But I know the city attorney's office and our public information officer and probably others recreation parks, I think all two informational pieces. So I do want to see us assist the sun. And I think it's a matter of how much money we'd like to allocate to doing that. Because remember, the contract isn't a price specific. There's an estimate that if the number of ads continues at the pace at a previous level, it would be about 46,000 a year. But that's not a guarantee either. We may be able to provide some guaranteed income anyway. My thoughts? Anybody who wants to weigh in who hasn't yet. Okay, back to Councilmember Harris Spencer. I just want to say, in the interest of time that I believe this meeting is at midnight, we have 14 minutes to go. So I'm looking at this correctly. There's a motion and a second on the table. I think it is critical that we terminate the contract with the Journal and award it to the Sun, I think , and that's what the referral was. But so that I wanted to try to move this along. Thank you. Well, you know, in the end, when you mentioned time and time is running out, something that I made a mental note of after we didn't finish the consent calendar until almost 9:00. Is that moving forward? I'm going to go back to something I've done before, that when items are pulled from the consent calendar, we're going to move them to be heard at the end of the regular agenda item because it's just not fair to make our staff and any public speakers have to hang around this long to have their items heard. I want to hear from the entire council, though, before we vote. Vice Mayor Vella, we haven't heard from you and Councilmember Knox. Well, I don't think we've heard from you either. So. Your thoughts. Councilmember Knox. I am happy to speak. Yeah, well, I want to. I have a different perspective. I don't think we're talking about funding two small hometown papers. The Alameda Journal is owned by a Denver hedge fund, and they have 100 papers and 200 other publications nationally. The Army, The Sun is a local one and I continue to support them. If for some reason we wanted to continue running the ads in the Alameda Journal, I think that the number in the the original staff proposal was $46,000. If we want to commit to funding $46,000 in support for the Alameda Sun as well, I'd be happy to look at that as a as a way. But I think that, you know, right now I my interest, you know, I didn't vote to move the ads to the Alameda Journal. But if for some reason that bet that there's an interest in keeping the ads there, I would be willing to support something that also provided the funding that we were talking about for the Army. Do something about it for us back in June. If not, I'm happy to support that. The motion that's on the table. Vice Mayor Vella. But I continue to have the issue with the circulation and the whole point of the legal notices and until we can find a way to expand that. So, you know, I'm happy to, you know, look at the other options relative to the grants, advertising, things like that. My position hasn't changed. I. My sense of things is and I and I agree that they are not both hometown newspapers, but my sense of things is, at least for me, wanting to help them out, I think is separate from making sure that we have the legal notices. So I just want to make my position clear on that. I don't I would not support moving over the legal notices and then also giving them aid or assistance. But I would be open to talking about the, you know, the options that Ms.. Butler added. Thank you. And. Okay. So. Are we? Is this a do we need to bifurcate this? Because the the there is the recommendation that we reconsider the awarded the publication. And. Funding options for the son. I I'm not sure. Well, I certainly can't support all of that, that we're going to avoid them the contract and give them all this other financial assistance. I mean, at some point, would would the city be the major funder of this local newspaper? And that raises some concerns in my mind. Councilmember SAC Yeah, thank you. I think that's a good point. I think, quite frankly, I think the cleanest thing to do is simply to terminate the contract with Alameda Journal and award the contract to the Alameda Sun without providing additional funding to the Alameda Sun. I think the contract is the funding. And Mayor, as he Ashcraft, I appreciate what you're trying to do. I really do. But in this case, I think we're just going to have to go with one provider who we believe to be. And each of us are going to have different opinions as to who we believe, but who we believe to be reflective of of the needs of Alameda residents. And so that's why I'm I'm just going to go with one legal notice provider and and change my vote from previous to the second bullet point. So that's the motion. Okay. And I appreciate that. I always appreciate our dialog. And also just and to be clear, we're doing this to support a local paper and not because they will provide their superior service of more extensive legal notices, because they won't. But we want to help keep them in business, but that's pretty generous and that's as far as we go. So the second year of the motion, are you in agreement with them? I'm happy to second that. Thank you. Okay. We had a motion. We had a second. Any further discussion? Saying. Then let's have a vote. A roll call vote, please. On Florida. Yes. PEREIRA Spencer. I. KNOX Right. I. Bella. I'm going to vote I. But I really hope that we can find a way to expand the legal legal notifications, because I think it's we need to do that. Mayor Ashcroft. I will reluctantly vote I and I'm going to look at this as a trial period for a year. I expect that this is a pretty, pretty significant infusion of funds to the sun. So we'll see what they do with them. Okay. Trace by five. So when your contract. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. Not quite. All right. Just related to this that I'm wondering if we want to one of the reasons we have to do this is our charter actually requires us to have a newspaper, a record, which is a very outdated thing. It doesn't allow us to necessarily use online and other sources as our as our record. I'm wondering if you want to give some direction to it over the next few months. Consider bringing something back to the ballot that can be a part of a clean up in the 2022 election. There may be other items that people are interested in, but since it's something we. Can yeah, we can talk about that in charter. I think we're kind of creating a bucket of things. Okay. With that, let's move on. Thank you. Good. Good point. And that that will be considered that so let's let's call it close out. But we're not going to be very clear. We're not giving that direction to staff because that was my question was very in giving direction to staff to do that. I am. Vice mayor. I was just going to say I'm comfortable giving broad direction to staff to figure out if there's alternatives for writing a broader legal notice and what that would entail. We just don't want to get in trouble with that. Would you see? Yes. Okay. All right. So keeping it general direction. All right. Thanks, everybody. Okay, let's move on then to the next item. We're closing the item and we're moving on to council City Manager Communication, Mr. Leavitt. There you go.

A RESOLUTION adopting a spending plan for the proceeds of the Seattle Transportation Network Company tax to provide support to affordable housing near frequent transit, transportation, and a driver conflict resolution center.

SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_Res 31914

Bill passes and chair of Senate. Please read resolution 31914. Item number 25 into the record. Agenda item 25 Resolution 31914. Adopting a spending plan for the proceeds of the Seattle Transportation Network Company Tax to provide support to affordable housing near frequent transit, transportation and a driver conflict resolution center. Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Okay. Just one moment, colleagues. Here's the last piece of legislation. Oh, this is for the item number 19. Okay. I'll come back to that. Okay. This is the other part of the spending plan, a resolution that Councilmember Swan was going to amend in light of what happened in number 23 customers. What did you want to say? Anything else about the amendment or should I just proceed with the vote? I'll defer to you. Go ahead. Because I'm not you know, since the other amendment failed, I'm not planning to bring it forward today. And I do plan to vote yes on the spending plan resolution. But with the understanding that we will continue to be organizing with the drivers to make sure that their needs are met through the revenues raised. You know. I'm not I don't want to generate a long discussion, but I showed some I don't think I made my point clear. You didn't understand my point about when I said that the services provided in your amendment was sort of a subset, I think is the word that I used of drivers that would have my thinking as I look at what's happening to both our country is that we'll have a lot of potentially displaced workers, whether they are parking lot attendants or security guards or just certain segments that technology will replace. And I sort of when I read your amendment, sort of the spirit of it looked at a lot of the challenges that particularly immigrant refugees. But but many people have when being displaced are being challenged by large companies. And so the point I was making was that these great services that it might be advisable for the council to look at other subsets or other groups, other workers, other types of workers that may be impacted as life goes on in this country . So that was the point I was making, and I hope that that was clear at least. Okay. So number 25 is here. So resolution so. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote. No. No. You're voting no on the resolution. But we weren't even coming forward with this. You know, this is there's this is the base resolution. This is not an amendment. Okay. So let's do that one again. So those in favor of adopting a resolution vote i, i. Those opposed vote no. The resolutions adopted that show. Sign it. Okay. Okay. Let's go to 26 through 30 collectively.

Recommendation to request City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents and agreements to accept funds from the South Coast Air Quality Management District; and increase appropriation in the General Fund Group in the Legislative Department by $5,026.25 to fund Board support, offset by the FY 22 revenue received.

LongBeachCC_05172022_22-0576

Motion is carried. Thank you. Next up is item 32. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, Councilman Diaz, Councilwoman Allen, recommendation to request city manager to execute all documents to accept funds from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and increase appropriations in the General Fund Group and the Legislative Department by five $5,026.25 to fund board support offset by the FY22 revenue received. Vice vaccinate Richardson. Sure. Thanks. So annually there's a transfer from HMV to the City of Long Beach to account for the cost of my board. A And this is. This represents that transfer. Thank you. Is there a second on this motion? Councilman Ringo. All this support. In any public comment on this item? If there is any members of the public that would like to speak on this item in person, please sign up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the race hand feature or dial star nine now. See none that conclude by becoming. Thank you. We'll do a roll call vote, please. District one. I District two i. District three. I. District for. I. District five. High District six. High District seven. High District eight. High District nine. High ocean is carried. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and go back now to item 29.

A bill for an ordinance amending Sections 39-121 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver regarding the Schedule for Use of Facilities, specifically for the Denver Golf Enterprise Fund. Amends Section 39-121 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to increase fees for City golf courses. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-17-20.

DenverCityCouncil_03312020_20-0267

11 nice one name. Lebanese one accountable to six two has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, put the next item on our screens, please. And Council Member Gilmore, if you will, please put Council Bill 267 on the floor. I move that council bill 0267 be ordered published. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. Just wanted to go on record not supporting a fee increase. We know that these golf enterprises, specifically City Park Golf Course in my district, is one of the few accessible golf courses for people who enjoy this sport and don't have the luxury of expendable income at the levels most golf course courses require. And so at a time like this, we want to, especially as the new golf course opens, we want to encourage as many people to experience it as possible. And we limit that possibility by increasing these fees, especially the way that they are based on demand and really eliminate low income people from utilizing our golf courses on the weekend. So I'm enjoying this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call. CDEBACA No. Black When I. Gillmor Herndon High. Hines High. Cashman High. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval, I. Torres Council President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because voting notes results. 11 times when they. Recognize one they're accountable to six seven has been ordered published. That does conclude the items to be called out this evening. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote otherwise.

Remand of the Approval Granted through CF 314356 for a Contract Rezone: Application of 70th & Greenwood Ave, LLC to rezone an approximately 12,188 square foot site located at 7009 Greenwood Avenue North from Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 40-foot height limit (NC2-40) to Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 55-foot height limit and M Mandatory Housing Affordability suffix (NC2-55 (M)) (Project No. 3023260; Type IV).

SeattleCityCouncil_05202019_CF 314425

The Report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee Clerk file 314425. Remand of the approval granted through clerk file 3143564a contract rezone application of 17th and Greenwood Avenue, LLC C Terry Zone An approximate 12,000 188 square foot site located at 7009 Greenwood Avenue North from neighborhood commercial two with a 40 foot height limit to neighborhood commercial two with a 55 foot height limit and a mandatory housing affordability suffix. The committee recommends the council grant the application as conditioned and the report of City Council of the City Council Council Bill 119511 an ordinance relating to land use and zoning affirming the reason approved ordinance 125640 and accepting and amending property use and development agreement as condition as a condition of the zone approval introduced May six, 2019. Thank you very much, Councilmember Brian. Thank you, colleagues. If you recall, last fall, we we had a process where we went through this and made an approval of the contract free zone that was appealed to King County Superior Court. King County Superior Court remanded it for to address the issue of the transition that came to the committee about a month ago. In the committee, we had 5 minutes of what's the right word, testimony, I guess, from both sides, and then made a recommendation. That recommendation was giving direction to staff on how to proceed. They revised the the puta, the property use development agreement and we have those now before us today. There's the clerk file, which is the findings, conclusions and decision, and I'll talk to that first. And then the second item is an ordinance which brings in the the powder highlight just on page three of the clerk file, the what the Superior Court directed us to do pursuant to R.S. W 36.7 3.140. The contract rezoning, approval and Property Use and Development Agreement are hereby remanded to the City Council to address compliance with SM c23 .34.009 Deed two, which requires that a gradual transition in height and scale and level of activity between zones shall be provided unless major physical buffers, as described in subsection, are present in the area where the commercial lot 287710-4100 shares the rear boundary line with the single family residential lot at 7010 Palatine Avenue North. We discussed a couple of options in committee and ultimately chose to set aside the rear lot of the lot defined there as the buffer in the findings of fact for the this click file. I want to read the second one in particular. It says The rear yard of the single family residential lot at 7010, Palatine Avenue North can be modified to provide a landscaped open space that could be integrated into the landscaped open space on single family residential lot. And then it lists a lot number, which I believe is the lot immediately to the south of it. And then in our conclusions we add a conclusion section. This is also on page four that says a landscaped open space in the rear yard of the single family residential lot of 7010 Palatine Avenue North provides a physical open space buffer between land use, between land uses and allows for a gradual transition between the height and scale of the neighborhood commercial zone on either side of the property and the single family zone on the west side of the property. That's about all I have to say on this. If folks have questions, I'm more than happy to move forward. I should say that we'll need to substitute version two of the file for version one, so maybe I'll go ahead and move the substitution. Now let's take the substitution first. That's the easiest one. So go ahead and formally move the substitution. I guess I could take that as your form of motion informal movement there a second. It's been moved to second and you make the substitution as. Stated by Councilmember O'Brien. This is a subscription only all those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So the bill is substituted. Cosmo O'Brien Did you have any more words to say on the clerk file or the bill itself? I do not. Read any questions for many of our colleagues on this matter. Okay. CHEERING Then I want to thank everyone for testifying and thank you for doing the committee work on this and listening testimony, I think on more than one occasion. So that being said, we will move to to vote those in favor of granting the application as condition. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries the application is granted as condition and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and the decision of the City Council on the Council Bill. I will move it past council. Bill 11951. I'm sorry. Let's go. Councilmember Brian is pointing in. That means hold. Up. I believe the puta as amended. I'm looking at kettle here. Do I need to just substitute the updated puter as the attachment? So I will move to update to amend the ordinance to update the attached to the with the one that has been completed and in front of us in our packet today. Just so I'm clear before it's second and you're basically amending the council bill 119511, correct? Correct. Okay. Their second. Okay. All those in favor of the amendment adding the puta two counts. Bill 119511. Say I, I oppose the ayes have it. And now we have an amended council. Bill, any further words to say on this one? Okay. At this point I'll move to Kath to pass counts bill 119511 as amended. All those in favor say please call the roll on the passenger bill. Let's do it that way. Herbold, I. Or as Mr. O'Brien. Hi, Jacob. I Sergeant Gonzalez. Hi, President Harrell. I aid in favor and unopposed. The bill passed. I'm sure I'll sign it. Okay. We're going to take items. Just one sec. Let me get my bearings here. Let's do take the next. Items individually. The appointments. Okay. Thank you.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Ethics Code; amending Sections 4.16.030 and 4.16.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code to require City Councilmembers to disclose financial interests in legislative matters under consideration by the City Council prior to participating in those matters, and creating a limited exception to the requirement that City Councilmembers disqualify themselves from participating in such matters.

SeattleCityCouncil_06202016_CB 118701

The Report of the Full Council Agenda Item one Constable 118701 relating to ethics code many sections for point 16.0 39.0 70 of the code to require City Council members to disclose financial interests in legislative matters under consideration by the City Council prior to participating in those matters and creating a limited exception to the requirement that City Council members disqualify themselves from participating in such matters. The committee recommends the bill pass. The bill was held until June 20th, 2016. Thank you very much. So I'll say a few words and I'm going to basically make a motion to refer it back to the committee. I want to thank all my colleagues who are sort of following this issue. This is legislation that was presented to us by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Committee to deal with financial interests among council members and how to proceed. And and we had a recommendation that came out of committee, came out of the commission, was passed by the committee. Councilmember Burgess raised some concerns. And many people are following the issue and raised, I think, some concerns that certain warrant more discussion. And so because of that I will move to refer council bill 118701 to the Education, Equity and Governance Committee. Like any other further comments. Councilmember Member Whereas. I correct me if I'm wrong here, I didn't vote in favor of this. Are you? Well, I will correct you if you're wrong. I thought you. I think you're wrong. No, and that was just a committee vote. Just committee vote, I think. Did you attend the committee? I didn't vote yes. Okay. So then the minutes of the committee might have been sort of a moot issue now, but will will. Today with the way. It was committee. The when did it get introduced. When why are you smiling like that? You know, luckily this is all videotaped. So if you go. Back and look at the recording, my recollection, Councilmember Suarez. Is that in the in the committee, when we originally considered this bill, it was all three voted in favor of recommending that it move out of committee. It was again, there were two pieces of legislation. One had to do with us considering doing the ethics work for the city of Kirkland. It was a renewal of a contract. And the other piece came from the committee. Both came from the commission dealing with what councilmember may do and looking at legislation. Had a good conversation, good discussion, but I thought it came out of committee unanimously. But like I said, it's sort of a moot issue because we're going to send it back to committee, have more discussion from from that point. But we can always go back and look at the committee vote. Any other further discussion has been moved in. Second, those in favor of referring the bill to the Education, Equity and Governance Committee, please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries the bill is referred. Please read the next matter into the record place.

A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Sheryl Whitney, who resides in council district six, to the Harborview Medical Center board of trustees, as the district six representative.

KingCountyCC_01172018_2017-0507

It has been enthusiastically moved and is before us. Any comments or changes? All those in favor of approving the minutes please signify by saying i, i any opposed? All right, so this brings us to motion number 2017 0507, a motion to appoint Cheryl Whitney, who I think we all know from our time here at King County to the Harborview Medical Center Board of Trustees to fill the remainder of a four year term. Cheryl's from District six, my district. I'm delighted she's agreed to serve on the Harborview board. She's here with us today, along with Patrick Gallagher of our council staff, who will present the item. Please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council members, for the record, Patrick Homemaker Council staff. As you noted in your introduction, Ms.. Whitney has been appointed to the Harborview Medical Center Board of Trustees by the county executive. She will be serving out the remainder of a four year term that runs through the middle of July 2020. So it's got about three and a half years, about three years left in the Harborview Medical Center board is comprised of 13 members, nine of them appointed by districts, and four at large by the county, the county executive, the board as the representatives of King County at Harborview Medical Center and oversees its operations, including the selection of the executive director. The since 2011, Ms.. Whitney has been co-owner of Whitney Jennings, a Mercer Island based full service management consultancy. And prior to that, Ms.. JENNINGS Ah, excuse me. Mr. Whitney served as a consultant to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Those are her more recent positions. And as you noted in your introduction, Madam Chair, she has a long history of almost 20 years with King County, and her final position at King County was as deputy county executive, so that I would conclude my remarks. Madam Chair, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Also with us today is Jennifer Yu, who serves as a staff at Harborview and is the staffer who's coordinates the board appointments. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Hamacher, I want to ask a question. Then I'll call on Councilmember Gossett. I just want to ask Miss Whitney if you would take a moment just to tell us about yourself and your interest in serving on the board. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the council I sat in, probably not this chair, but one like it. And for my confirmation as a department head here and a King County. And I'll be honest with you that I think I feel as nervous now as I did as I did on that day. There's something about public service. It never fails to be weighty, and I think that's as it should be. So I cannot tell you what an honor it is to be sitting here and to be considered for this position. I fully understand that a board position with Harborview is big and this institution is a jewel in this region and means so, so much so. I I'm I'm I'm honored throughout my career at the county, as Pat mentioned, I spent almost 20 years here at King County. Throughout my career, I had the opportunity to be up at Harbor View on many, many, many occasions. And I have watched the staff there perform at. Miracles. But as impressive as the life saving work that I have watched them do is the grace and the dignity that they treat each individual that is in front of them. And the grace that they show is so incredible and so powerful that the opportunity to have the opportunity to be a part of that culture is an incredible opportunity and honor and one that I really look forward to. I was asked to say a little bit about myself in terms of my history and how that might be of use to the board. And I would say that I a number of things, but what I hope is that my understanding of the leadership here at King County, of the systems here at King County, that so many of the faces have changed, those systems remain. And whether it's jail health or public health, human services and their daily interactions with Harborview, I hope that my my understanding of those organizations and those agencies is useful. I will say that I, I got my beginnings at King County in the Budget Office. So I know a great deal about the difficulty of balancing a budget for this institution. I hope my understanding of that work is useful here. I at one point served as the deputy director of what used to be executive administration, the general government department that housed the facilities management function. So I hope that that role will also be useful as the board is looking at potential facilities issues on into the future. And the very last thing I would say is that I was honored to be a part of the original work, King County's original work on equity and social justice. I'm incredibly proud of where that work has has gone. But that is a lens that I know from speaking with the staff at Harborview is critical to them. So I hope that I bring that perspective to the work each day. So thank you so, so very much and thank you for being willing to serve. Councilmember Gossett And then Councilmember one right there. Thank you. My first question, Madam Chair, is for Patrick. And I wanted to know, is she a District Six appointee or one of four at large? She's a she is an appointee representing District six. Okay. Thank you. I know. I can. Help her. She she sat on somebody's knee when she was three and she was already impressively articulate person, even as a little girl. I went to college with her uncle, so I'm really looking forward to this. But I have now I have a question for you. I put my professional hat back on. It was nice to hear what you said about the staff in general at Harborview, from your observations. But what if it were brought to your attention as a new board member that some low income patients of one of Harvey's clinics came to? The board or the board found out that there are allegations that they're being abused or misused are not treated adequately. I want to know how you would handle that kind of situation. And thank you for the for the question for the important question. And you will note in my comments that because I have I have seen firsthand and under very difficult circumstances the incredible grace of the staff at Harborview that I would find it I would find it shocking. But as someone who has been a part of the management structure of this organization with 13,000 employees, and knowing that there isn't perfection that that takes place every day, you do have to step in and you do have to step in seriously and raise issues. And when you when you hear them and you have to do it immediately. So I would have no I would have no hesitation about raising it with Paul and with the staff. And in fact, I would see that as my obligation. I'm sorry that Paul Hayes is the executive director at the hospital. My apologies. To. Councilmember Gordon right there. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to thank Councilmember Garcia for clarifying where he began his remarks. In this era of getting nervous, everybody is is a long term relationship and friendship. Cheryl, first of all, congratulations and thank you for your willingness to serve. Those of us who have worked with you in the past and know the skills you're bringing. And I want to thank Councilmember Claudia Baldacci for recommending you for this confirmation. I share with you my belief that our review is one of the one of the gems of King County, who truly has produced a service that across the board, blue collar, white collar, no car is happening. A hospital that has received and served so many people, and those of us who have had relatives or friends who have gone there, have always, in my case, received nothing but positive feedback by the people who work there, because a hospital alone is not what makes it work. It's the people who work there and the service they provide and the quality of service and care. And I agree with you, I've heard nothing but positive feedback as you look at the budget, which something that you've had a keen background with with Executive Sims, as you look at the problems, the financial problems, what are some of your personal and professional concerns about the place of medicine and general and specifically as it relates to Harborview? So thank you. I have as because I haven't yet attended a board meeting. I'm not I'm not deeply ensconced in the the on the details of of harbor of his budget. But certainly as as a resident of this county, of this state, as a citizen of the U.S., when you look at the overall issues that frame and Medicaid and the health care structure in general, we're in a period of flux and it's it's unknown what's going to happen with that. So I'm I go in with a very clear eye as to the importance of and of health insurance and whether or not the fragile population that Harborview serves will continue to have access to health care and what that means in terms of reimbursements and just the bottom line for the hospital. So that is one of the things that I will be I'd been watching it before and having this honor to be sitting on this board. It's something that I've been extremely passionate about. And so I am I'm deeply, deeply concerned and interested in that you might see in my. Resumé that I'm also a board member at DSC Downtown Emergency Services Center and at DSC. We are on we are working on issues of behavioral health, particularly on that and how that interfaces with primary care and the funding and of of both of those systems. So I have a very a very keen eye for that and will be we'll be watching and to see how how I can be useful and where we proceed as a country in addition to to what's happening here in the region. Well, again, I think the only constant in this world is change. And we see the change every hour and day and the needs by which health care. I sat on our board for 12 years. The Franciscan Health System, which is a nonprofit, takes in St George, St Clair, St Francis, St Anthony's. I wish I was looking for fire insurance, but at the end of the day, we looked at change. And and my concern again is about mergers and how we try to figure out ways to make the hospital financially secure it. We're we were a nonprofit, obviously a Franciscan health system, but you're a nonprofit. And again, unfortunately, nonprofits can end up in debt and then collapse. And right now, I look at the some of the challenges facing UW medicine in general. And our review in particular. And I'm worried. So I think it's really important that someone with your background understands as much as we may want to serve as many and as often and as much, we may collapse the system in the process. So it's very important to bring your judicial and balanced view to understand there is a price to be paid and a financial accountability in the long run. So I agree. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I can't remember Up the Grove, followed by Councilmember Lambert and Councilmember Dan Belsky. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for your willingness to serve. As you well know, Harborview has a unique mission, at least in this state, in terms of that public mission. And there's a special relationship between the county and medicine, and we value them as a partner. But there are times where the values and priorities may differ between the senior staff at UGA Medicine and the Board of Regents versus the County Council and the county executive. And we've tried to spell out in our agreement certain values and sometimes we interpret those differently and we see it most notably around employee relations sometimes. And I think often a majority of this body and the county executive view part of that public mission as setting the example for how we treat employees. And often we've seen you dub medicine in the in the desire to save costs really kind of do that hard nosed business model. Bottom line, how do you navigate that? Where do you see your responsibility as a board member when there is sort of a little bit of a difference in approach and values between You Dove Medicine and King County over issues like particular employee relations or compensation and contracts and things like that. And it's a challenge, right? I mean, it's a it's a big deal. It's a challenge. But this is in my mind, this is public service. And the the the varying points of view, the bottom line and the care that we want everyone to receive. All of these things require a balance. And I have and after the 20 years of battle scars here, I, I just I don't have fear about this issue of I'm trying to because because I believe that that everyone is trying to get to the best possible place as it relates to providing excuse me, providing services to the community. So knowing that we have our eyes on the prize of how we're trying to move forward and trying to then be able to reconcile and and work through tough issues. And I, I think that's I think that's the job of the board. Right? I think that's I think that that's our responsibility to hear where all the concerns are and then to set to set to set a course. So I'm in the end on the hypothetical of, you know, what may come about. And I'm I'm I'm not afraid of that and have spent 20 years of my county government career doing precisely that, listening to to the various concerns, understanding the financial impacts. And but I'll say about the employees that they are the miracle. I mean, they they are what is what is making that that place move. And so their their concerns and their ability to do a good job has to be a North Star for for the organization. And I and I hope I hope that to be the case because, in fact, they're the ones when you when you talk to anyone who has had an interaction up at Harborview, it's how they were treated, the expertize that was brought to their room and that and the dignity that they were shown. All of that is critical so that the employees as far as I felt this way when I worked at King County, I'll bring that attitude to to this board that the that the Louisa are central to this as a Lambert thank you to you and your expertize and it gets to the adage if you want something done, ask a busy person. So thank you for being able to do that. And everybody said what I wanted to say, so I'll just say ditto. On the idea of interfacing the DC population with the Harborview population and also 1811 House and. Now those facilities have one another mutually to make sure that people are treated with respect and also on a path to changing their lives. And also the the contract that we have that's wonderful with your job and making sure that their financial viability going forward doesn't negatively impact us. And having that really clear conversations, that may not be easy. And I know for your experiences here and sitting in conversations I watched, I know you can have those conversations quite well. So thank you for being willing to say, Hey, customer. TOMASKY Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for bringing this nominee forward. She touched on her experience in the Budget Office, which at the time was done on the fourth floor of this building. If I ask you, you're dating me. But yes. Oh, I'm dating myself. I'm dating myself. I worked across the hall. I mean. Yes, in executive. Walks, the executive. Office because it was there, too. Absolutely. But Cheryl, I think you touched on this in the response that comes up, the gross inquiry. I think one of the most powerful tools you will have as a board member, an independent board member representing the best interest of the hospital. Its mission is its budget approval for the hospital. Right. And your budget experience and your expertize there, I think will be a very powerful and that plays into, I think, a lot of the issues that we care about with respect to how we look to Harborview to serve its mission population. Yeah. And in the course of our negotiations with the updated contract with the University of Washington, which I encourage you to read and a motion surrounding it, we updated that mission, keeping it central tenants, but emphasizing them to make sure we reminded the hospital that we're there to serve that mission population is those who are uninsured, immigrant and refugee communities, you know, traditionally underserved populations. And even with the Affordable Care Act, I think, as you know, there's still five or so percent, maybe more of the population who are not covered by insurance because of the exclusions in that. And I'm I'm hopeful that we as a community working in partnership with Harvey and you that medicine can look at filling that gap which would be consistent with our reviews mission and would be interested in working with you on that. Great. With respect to the budget, I'm not sure I have some questions here. We just want to get well dialog. Now, one of the things that we did with the Harborview Agreement with University of Washington was for the first time ever, strike a deal where you don't mess and pays about. I think that we're only $5 million a year into our public health fund now. They can do that in cash or trade. So far it's been cash, but those dollars have been life saving for our public health department that's been cut there. And I want to call that provision to your attention. There's there's a that's a challenge is the budget is tight in the medicine world and, you know, medicine and and I ask that you watch that and be continue to be supportive of that because it's you talked about keeping our eye on the north star of serving the population it well it's two different entities public health and you're missing they are serving that same part. Of the country. Because we were up the grove talked a little bit about employee relations and labor and there are some provisions in the contract new that address labor relations. And unfortunately, from my perspective, it's continued to be an ongoing struggle. And I was very pleased to hear your response to concern about the groans about your commitment to the workers, because they are the health care is not the building. That's right. It's not the machines necessarily. But but it's them. And I hope that you'll carry that philosophy forward. And absolutely. And remember that as a trustee, you're, of course, there for the for the community. Like my question getting to it is I noticed in your publications that you've got extensive experience and work on issues surrounding equity and social justice and leveling the playing field. Yes. And you are no doubt aware of the major demographic shifts where our review at one time was in the epicenter of probably the community that was least served in terms of access to quality health care. But geographically, now, many of those patients live far away right now, you know, is a terrific partner and maybe helping solve the challenges that creates because of their clinic footprint throughout the county. And I wondered if you've got thinking or ideas about how we could take Harborview and its wonderful partnership with you, that medicine to it to address disparities countywide, particularly as they become more geographically spread and. Great. Great question. Great issue. And I so I'll be honest with you, that that my. My uninformed kind of knee jerk reaction to that would be to talk about that footprint of clinics that are that are spread throughout the region, that that's absolutely critical and you're absolutely spot on that the how the population and that we see the. They call it the in academia the suburbanization of poverty that it is that that we need to think so differently about these issues. I talked about my work at DSC, where we're working with this chronic homeless, mentally ill population and its work has been centered in in Seattle, but that we have been talking as a board about how are we supportive to those communities that are that are seeing the same issues that are taking place around around the county. So this is on top of mind and deep and heart for me as an issue. And very, very I'm very clear that that the city of Seattle itself is not the sole epicenter and that that these issues are are around the region. So I, I carry that issue with me in my lens about service provision. And I hope to, to understand this more thoroughly and what is actually happening on the ground, because I know a couple docs that work out in the surrounding the surrounding communities. I know that those services are taking place, but I would but it's something they need to know a lot more about and what access looks like for people. Who are at the heart of. Of harbor views, service population. I want to give Councilmember Gossett the last word here. I thank you. One final question. I appreciate that, Madam Chair. And this is I kind of follow up on what Councilmember Dombroski was asking, you know, about staff relations. While you were one or Ansell's top deputies, he was successful in getting a couple of policy changes through the King County Council, one of which had to do with contracting out. So we actually passed some policies and that for these workforces, King County has a policy of not allowing those services to be contracted out. So hypothetically speaking, if a situation arose where the University of Washington has day to day managers at the hospital say, well, we need to save money. So these workers at Harborview or that are served by Harborview, we don't have to, you know, contract that out because we've got to save money. Just I mean, you can vote the way you want to vote for. What would you take into consideration and taking that kind of vote should you be confirmed today? And I would be I would be thinking about precisely the issues that we thought about here when we were talking about not wanting to degrade our service level for for a bottom line. What we one of the things that I feel very proud of King County government for is working with employees, working with labor in order to solve heart problems and the the unions and what we you know, we have many here at King County are not and are not naive about what about the financial position. So I don't come at this thinking it's an it's an us versus them or it's that black and white. I my tendency because my experience is that working with employees and working with labor, that you actually get to some good, you get to some good answers. And that translates into a bottom line as it did here when we worked on health care issues. And that actually worked and in pocket actual real life savings, not glossy and not just happy talk, but real life savings. So my my inclination is to try to be working in partnership and to see where we can actually achieve that, you know, what's real, that you need to balance the budget. But at the same time, being able to work with the people who know that work in order to be able to come up with solutions. I've seen it. We've all seen it. We we have done that here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. And I really. Appreciate your being here and answering all our questions. I think we're all i, i although this is one of the longer interviews we've done, I think everybody's very excited to, to have your expertize and deep experience and obviously carrying on on the board. So at this point, I would entertain a motion to approve proposed motion number 2017 0507 appointing Cheryl Whitney to the Harborview Medical Center Board of Trustees with a do pass recommendation. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to make that motion. I'd like to propose motion. 2017 0507 the do pass recommendation. Thank you. And moved and seconded. Any comments or questions? All right, all those in favor please signify by saying I. I opposed. All right. I thought we had broken. Oh, I'm sorry. Is that a roll call vote? Let's call the roll. Thank you. Thank you. Council member and Staff Council Member. Dombrowski Council Member. Dunn Council Member. Gossett I Council Member. Commonwealth Council Member. Lambert High Council Member. McDermott High Council Member of the Grove. Council Member. Von Richter. I. Madam Chair, I. Madam Chair, the vote is seven is no nos. Council members Dunn and Caldwell's excused. Thank you. By your vote. You have passed the motion and thank you again for your service. This can go on concerns and most people want to revisit and invite Miss Whitney back again. All right. Well, let's put it on consent and on regular order. And this will come before the council in two weeks. Thank you so much. I know it's a it's going to be very exciting to work with you. All right. Our next item is ordinance number 2017 0481, which would establish a King County Immigrant and Refugee Commission. This was a follow up to a recommendation by the King County Immigrant and Refugee Task Force. And today we're just receiving a briefing.

Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations for Appointments to the Civil Service Board, Commission on Persons with Disabilities and Social Service Human Relations Board.

AlamedaCC_10062020_2020-8313

a while. And now we're going to talk about the concept of landfill obsolescence. So the recycling plan is currently in the process of being updated, and I should have more to provide as that's taken care of. Thank you. Great. Okay. So then I will move on to Item 10-K, which is the last of my board and commission appointments. I have done lots of interviews, but I've enjoyed them all because as I've said more than once, we have amazing residents. And so here are my three boards and commissions that I'm filling vacancies for. The first one is the Civil Service Board, and I am recommending there's two terms or two openings that I'm recommending that the incumbent, Troy Hayes Murphy reappointed. And Mr. Hosmer is actually a retired Coast Guard commander and has been a valuable member of this commission and would like to spend another term, serve another term, and we would like to have him do that. And it was we had amazing candidates. It wasn't easy to choose, but I have selected April Madison Ramsey as my as my appointee for the new position on the the Civil Service Board. And Ms.. Madison Ramsey is an attorney, an amazingly qualified attorney. She currently is on the staff of legal counsel to the Stanford Medical Center, which is besides Stanford Medical Center, Stanford Hospitals of the SEALs, Salter Packard Children's Hospital, Family Medical Center and more. She was senior counsel to Dignity Health before then, where she handled employment, litigation and risk management. She has a very full resume, but a few highlights that are very relevant is she's worked in the Oakland City Attorney's Office and also in the San Francisco city attorney's office where she served as legal counsel to the Civil Service Commission. So you can imagine the Civil Service Commission in a city city county the size of San Francisco is a pretty big deal. But she is happy to volunteer to serve as a. Member of the Civil Service Board in Alameda. So those are my two appointees for that board and then the Commission on Persons with Disabilities. Again, just a very inspired group that applicants. And so I am these are my appointees. There were three openings to fill. So Arnold Berlinguer is the incumbent and Mr. Berlinger is a former schoolteacher. He's a former school principal. He is is in a wheelchair because he's lost a leg. He is an advocate for disabled individuals. And when it's not times of COVID, he is a frequent user of public transportation. But he's just you know, he's in a vulnerable category. And so he's had to curtail his use of public transit for the time being and also reappointing another incumbent. Her name is Jennifer Linton and Ms.. Linton, like my other appointee, Alison Mullings, they're both parents of children with special needs. What if the child has had special needs since toddlerhood the other because of circumstances became disabled as a teenager. And but yet they're passionate advocates for their children and bring so much awareness of what it's like to just navigate through daily life in school and living circumstances as someone with disabilities. So we are happy. I am happy to nominate them, introduce them to you for my nominees to the Commission on Persons with Disabilities. And then we have our very busy. They're all busy. But the Social Service Human Relations Board, you heard from Ms.. Baptiste earlier, they're going to be doing some more work, looking into programs around homelessness. So I am pleased to reappoint the incumbent, Christine Chilcote. And Christine, chocolate is well known around town because she is the executive director of Girls Inc of the island city. She also has worked closely with the school district on the mental health awareness programs and the studies and assessments that were done of the mental health needs in our school district. And so she is and she has a master's degree in education and so and reappointed is Chilcott and they are very excited to appoint two newbies and one of them is create and then create. You might have met her because she's the mother of what is the Butterfly Girls. You remember the Butterfly Project, but pretty impressive. In her own right, she has an undergraduate degree in biology from UCLA, a master's in public health from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health. She's currently working in Oakland in a program called Starting Oakland Starting Smart and Strong, which is a cross-sector early childhood collaborative focused on improving urban care in education in Oakland, especially in the most underserved areas. She has worked in the city of Oakland, Department of Human Services and the Violence Prevention Unit and in Headstart. And she brings a wealth of skills to the set of Social Service Human Relations Board. And then we have Mr. Anthony Lewis, who has worked as a vocational rehabilitation counselor for the state of California, assisting people with severe disabilities to achieve employment. He's retired now, but he is a volunteer with the Institute on Aging and help staff their San Francisco call center. And so he was telling us about how they're definitely hearing from seniors, many of whom live alone, who are experiencing loneliness and depression from the shelter in place requirements. And he's also a member of the Paratransit Advisory Committee of the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Mr. Lewis is also blind, and so he is a also a frequent user with his golden retriever of public transit. And I said AC Transit and he said all forms of transit. So those are my. Nominees to the Social Service Human Relations Board at our next council meeting on October the 20th, you will have a chance at the opportunity to meet them and to vote on them. And so then Councilmember Odie 410 be that you kind of give us your stop waste topic three. Yeah, I think so. I apologize for news out of Turkey. You know, it could have been a council communication. So I would say with that that end and we will adjourn this council meeting at 11:00. So well within the same day we started. Thanks, everybody. A lot of work. A lot of good work. Thank you for your time. Take care. Stay safe. Let's see at the next meeting. Thank you, staff. Great job. Good night. Thank you so.

Recommendation to rescind the November 10, 2015 action of authorizing award of Contract No. 34145 to Ford E.C., Incorporated, of Los Angeles, CA, for the development of the DeForest Wetlands (per California Public Contracting Code section 5101, the bidder is requesting relief); Adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7055 for the DeForest Wetlands Restoration; award a contract to C.W. Crosser Construction, Inc., of Anaheim, CA, in the amount of $4,971,287, and authorize a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $745,693, for a total contract amount not to exceed $5,716,980; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; affirm Categorical Exemption No. 115-115 (15301, Class 1); Authorize City Manager to accept $623,600 in Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District grant funds for the implementation of Phase 2 of the DeForest Wetlands project; and Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $623,600. (Districts 8,9

LongBeachCC_05102016_16-0416

An excited please. Report from Public Works Financial Management in Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to rescind the November ten, 2015 Action of Authorizing Award of Contract of 40 C for the development of the De Forest Wetlands. Award a contract to C.W. Crosser Construction for a total contract amount not to exceed 5.7 million and accept $623,000 in Los Angeles County, Regional Park and Open Space District Grant funds for the implementation of Phase two of the de Forest Wetlands Project Districts eight and nine. Thank you. There's a motion in a second. A public comment. CNN. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay. That concludes our business for tonight. The second part of the public comment agenda on non agenda items. Is there any please come forward. Karen reside. And I'm the president of Park Pacific Cars, which is the senior resident building on seventh and Pacific. And I have an issue I just want to bring to the council and make you aware because it concerns public safety, particularly in my realm, seniors well-being.

Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Certain Elements of a Proposed Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC_02022016_2016-2526

Okay. We're going to take a short break right now. I'm going to. Over real quickly, what we're going to be doing. We're we're coming back to the rent issue. Staff has a presentation that should take about 10 to 15 minutes. I'm going to ask all council to hold their questions on that. Then we have our 2829. We have one more speaker now. 29 speakers One more. Okay, so we're at 30 and we're going to limit those to 2 minutes each. And if someone else like when you're standing up, if there are a lot of people that you think are going to agree with you, you can always say anyone that's an agree with me, please stand if you want. Do something like that to try to make it. So maybe some of you don't have to speak for the full 2 minutes. Obviously it's already 1120 and then it'll come back to council and we'll be able to ask our questions and go through that part of it. So thank you very much. Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. And this presentation and this item this evening is a follow up to the January 5th meeting, city council meeting. At that meeting, the council made a lot of progress in reaching consensus on a number of key points that would be going into the proposed ordinance and was able to give staff some really good feedback and direction as we move forward in crafting that ordinance. However, there were several key items that staff either felt we didn't hear consensus at the meeting on January 5th or that we wanted to come back tonight and get specific direction from the council. And I would like to run through each of those issues and then following my presentation and the public comment, then come back to the Council and receive direction from the council on each of the issues. There was consensus on the part of the council at the January 5th meeting to require the offer of a one year lease to prospective tenants. There was not consensus about offering that one year lease to in-place tenants, and at the meeting on the fifth, staff suggested that we go back and take a look at the City of Mountain Views ordinance, which recently went into effect regarding one year leases and based on a review of that ordinance. And we did see that Mountain View was requiring the offer of one year leases for both in place and prospective tenants. So staff is recommending that that the ordinance reflect that one year leases be required for both in place tenants and prospective tenants. There were several issues, one being the program fee and the other being the capital improvement plan that were not discussed. On the fifth. At the meeting of the Fifth, the council asked that staff table the discussion about program a program fee and directed us to to do more analysis about what the cost of the program would be once we had the program more fleshed out. So we are doing that and we anticipate coming back to the Council on the 15th with with a program fee proposal and we don't have any additional updates for for this meeting. In addition, there was consensus on the part of the Council that there be a requirement for a capital improvement plan that would be approved by the city prior to terminations for substantial rehabilitation. But as staff had been saying during this process, we had not yet been able to put together the policies and guidelines for for the CIP that is actively in progress now. And we will have those policies and guidelines, a resolution for the Council to consider at its meeting on February 16th. No cause eviction protections. There was consensus on the council that no cause evictions would be permitted in the city of Alameda under any new ordinance. However, those no cause evictions would have several limitations. The first limitation being the requirement to pay relocation benefits. And then the second limitation would be capping the maximum allowable rent increase that would be permitted for for the the next tenant who would move in. And the purpose of these limitations is really to discourage evictions. That would be solely for the purpose of evicting tenants to raise rents up to to the market level. And in addition to having consensus from the Council about permitting no cause evictions with limitations, there was consensus about capping the rent increase that would be allowed for the new tenant. So only a direction that we're looking for this evening is what the amount of that cap would be. There was some discussion at the meeting on the fifth that it might be 5%. If that was going to be the threshold amount for triggering the rent review process, maybe that was an appropriate cap for the new tenant. There was some discussion that perhaps it should be zero just to reflect the disincentive that the Council wanted those provisions to be. So we're looking for feedback on what that cap should be. In addition, there was consensus that there should be a cap on the number of no cause evictions that would be permitted in any given year. And initially in the three draft ordinances that staff presented on the fifth staff was recommending a cap that would would set four buildings, for example, with 15 or more units. The cap would be set at no more than 50% of of units being it being able to serve no cause notices on up to 50% of the units in a year and no more than 25% for buildings with four or fewer units. There was discussion at the meeting on the fifth that perhaps that cap was too high, that if a if a property owner were patient in two years, they could empty out their building with a cap of 25%. And we did hear some discussion about reducing that cap down to 25 for a maximum of 25% of units receiving no cause eviction notices in a one year period. We just the minutes did not reflect that there was consensus on that issue. So we just want to confirm that the council was agreeable to capping the number of evictions, no more than 10% a month or 25% in a year for buildings of five or more, and then for buildings with four or fewer units that it would be capped at one unit a year. There was a lot of discussion, but no consensus about the issue of mom and pop property owners. And I think and whether or not they should be exempted from requirements of pain, relocation benefits, which there was consensus that relocation benefit should be required for no cause and no fault evictions. And then the discussion was whether or not mom and Pops should have some sort of an exemption. And the first two bullets on this slide are really to kind of frame the the the discussion or the the issues about this. You know, on one hand, it's the ability of a mom and pop property owner to pay the relocation benefit. Would that be a hardship? Would they, you know, maybe not have the cash on hand? And then on the other kind of on the other end of the discussion is that if you exempt mom and pops from the payment of relocation benefits, is that it does that create a disparate impact on tenants who, just by virtue of living in a smaller complex, they would not get the same rights and benefits as tenants living in a larger complex so that those kind of the first two bullets kind of frame this issue. And then there was the discussion about, well, and if we were to look at doing some sort of exemption, whoa, how would we define, you know, a mom and pop property owner? And so staff did. You know, we did take a look and see if we could find ordinances that had definitions of mom and pop property owners . We didn't find a lot of examples. Los Gatos has rent control and Los Gatos is rent control. Ordinance applies to projects that are three or more units. The city of Los Angeles has a definition. It's a very narrow definition. Their definition of mom and pop operators is narrowly in their muni code for relocation benefits that are paid for owner move ins. And their definition of a mom and pop is you can't own more than a single family home. And then for four units in the city of Los Angeles. So those were those were kind of what we could find looking at, you know, over the last month to see if we could find a definition. Because if the council is interested in and if there is any consensus on on whether or not there should be an exemption, you would need to define what a mom and pop was. And so staff would want feedback. And I do apologize for that typo up there about defined honors be defined. So I apologize for that. And and the other thing I wanted to point out, it's in the staff report that there was there's been some discussion that perhaps if there was a desire to kind of acknowledge that pain, the the cash relocation benefit could be a hardship right now. And what we had talked about was relocation benefits would either be in the form of cash or additional time, and that that would be at the choice of the tenant if the council were interested in exploring potentially an idea where mom and pops once again having to be defined and their option, they could choose the cash benefit or more time. And that might deal with the issue of whether or not they had the financial wherewithal to to pay the relocation benefit. So something to think about and that's talked about in the staff report. Another issue that there was a little bit of discussion about was was there sufficient discussion afforded to to the council and the community about whether or not a rent increase cap was that a consensus was reached regarding the issue of a rent increase cap? What staff heard and what staff believed the consensus was on the 5th of January was that there was that the council there was not consensus on setting a maximum allowable rent increase or, you know, that basically there was no consensus on having an annual cap on the amount of rent increase, which is what that's traditional rent control , is that you have a maximum allowable rent increase. And if you want to raise your rent beyond that maximum allowable annual rent increase, you go through a petition process, a hearing process in the alternative. Or alternately, what we heard is that council wanted to establish a rent increase threshold which was set on the fifth at 5% above which a property owner would be required to initiate the rec hearing process. And then. Layered on to that would be the requirement to provide what the slide here says, a binding arbitration appeal process. And I just want to talk about those two words. Binding arbitration. Binding arbitration has a legal and a technical meaning that we are not proposing under the the ordinance and the program. Typically in binding arbitration in kind of the strictest legal sense is that the two parties waive their rights to a judicial you know, they say we do binding arbitration and we agree to go with the arbitrator decision and we give up our recourse to to that to the courts. We explicitly say that if somebody doesn't like the hearing officer's decision, they could take it to the next level, to the courts. And in addition, the rules are much stricter with binding arbitration, and the rules would not be kind of technical and strict. It would be a little bit more informal than technically binding arbitration. So we're actually calling it a binding hearing process. So that was my short cut. But I just want to clarify that we're. You will not see binding arbitration going forward, appearing anywhere in any of our documents. And then I just wanted to this was the the ordinance this was the flowchart that we showed and shared with the council and the community on the fifth. The only thing that is different about this is that when we had presented this on the fifth, we were working with an 8% cap. And we we've revised this to reflect the 5% which the Council had given consensus on on the fifth. So that what it shows is that right now, under the current ordinance that went into effect October of 2015, the landlord has to notify when the landlord increases the rent. They have to notify the tenant of the hearing process the availability of that process under the proposed ordinance. Now, you would not only would you notify your tenant of the availability of the right process, but if you are proposing a rent increase in excess of 5%, you must the property owner must file that notice with the the staff and start that process. And then if the rent increase is 5%, under 5%, the tenant can request a hearing, but it's a more optional process. When the racketeering is scheduled, the landlord must attend that. That is also provided for in our current ordinance that went into effect in October. And if a landlord doesn't attend the hearing, the rent increases null and void, and the rent cannot be increased for another 12 months. That's already on our books. The one kind of nuance to this is that with the hearing process under the proposed ordinance. If you've raised your rent, if you're proposing a rent increase 5% or more or above 5%, add someone with an ownership interest must participate in the racketeering. So that's another kind of piece that just kind of taken together with all of the other requirements is really intended to incentive incentivize property owners to keep rent increases at 5% or less. You go through a non-binding process if the parties agree. Great. If the parties don't agree and you are and you are in a unit that is subject to Costa Hawkins, is subject to rent control. You can go forward with the binding hearing process and if you are in an exempt unit, a unit that's exempt from Costa Hawkins, your appeal process would be to the City Council for a non-binding. Review of the Iraq decision. And then this slide just shows in a little more, you know, kind of going the next step if you end up if one of the parties requests. The binding hearing process that which would be available for rent increases above 5% for units that are covered by Costa Hawkins. You can go through the back and go to a binding hearing. You have the hearing with the hearing officer. The hearing officer's decision is becomes the imposed rent. And you. That's your rent. Unless you. Decide to go onto judicial review. So that is just kind of a recap of the the process charts that we had presented on the fifth and that we. Believe. There was consensus on that. And so really staff is asking that that that that direction be affirmed for us. And then lastly on the data collection, the council felt very strongly about the importance of data collection. And we just wanted to clarify that because we're focusing on increases of about 5% or four tenant initiated cases, that that's where we would we would be requiring data for those increases, and we would not be requiring property owners to notify staff of increases that were less than 5%. And this is really kind of striking a balance about the amount of work and the cost versus the effectiveness of of the data collection. So with that is staff's presentation. I will sit down, take public comment and then happy to return and talk about. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. And I'm going to call out names and if people could line up and then you have 2 minutes and you will just keep it moving. Okay. I really appreciate that. It'll be Eric Strimling, maybe you, Kevin Yi and then Keith White, Whiteson and then Amanda. It looks like. Like. So you could line up on this side and then approach. Let's go, Eric. Thank you, sir. Good evening. Waste is not good morning this time. That's right. Let's try to get all these through the evening then quickly. So very interesting meeting. I just thought along the meeting, the people who are getting the community development block grant, how many of them are renters? How many of them will be able to afford 5% rent increases? How much of the money that we're trying to get to these people will be taken by rent increases by landlords? How many of the artists in on Alameda Point would be able to afford a 25 to 30% increase in their rent over the next five years, which is what a 5% per year increase would give them? They have a fixed rent. That's why they can afford to be there. It's why they can predict and build their business. I think tenants in Alameda should deserve the same favor. On the one year leases. The real question is at the end of that lease, is that an eviction? Standardly a lease ends and it's the end of a contract. And you just say, I'm not really doing a lease and goodbye. If that's the case, then offering a one year lease is a trap. If you don't take it, then you get all of the protections of eviction control. If you do take it, you're out after a year and you get nothing. So I'd like you to please explicitly put into your ordinance that termination of a lease is an eviction and subject to all of the controls. Whatever controls you do choose to put on to evict on to evictions. I'd like to point out that 53% of our maidens live in rental units, or 52% of housing units are rental. More than half of your constituents are who you're talking about here. Landlords constitute maybe 2%. So it's a lot of people and they're living with a 30 day. I mean, they're living with a 60 day possibility of eviction all the time. If you keep the four months, do the math, you're going to get a lot of evictions on December 31st because six months from then is the end of the school year. Parents will choose to stay in school and lose the money in order to keep their kid in the school. Thank you. Maybe you. Maybe you. All right? And I need you guys to keep going. I'm sorry. We are. You only get 2 minutes. This is quite late and I'll try and keep. Let's see. Or with 2 minutes. And there are so many things we all want to talk. So I don't envy you guys. You have to weigh the delicate balance between apparently 53% of their constituency are tenants and maybe only 47% of their landlords. So what I invite you to look at is, is a. That were mom and pop businesses. I mean, sure, there are. There are a handful. I think someone earlier said Don Smith had some security concern. Well, there are not a lot of Don Smith. Most of us are mom and pop. My wife and I have lived in Alameda for 15 years. We we saved up our life savings and bought a property. We rehabbed it, spent literally two years because we bought it in foreclosure and spent hundreds of thousand dollars, including the foundation, made it we made it habitable where it was not before. So we're increased the housing stock but for Alameda and it was a Victorian home. So so it's got a nice statue on Lincoln Avenue. And so. The concern that I have is the controls that you're putting that you're considering putting in place prohibit us from being comfortable about being able to sustain our business. You say, well, this tenant, if it's greater than 5%, will. The the normal landlord tenant relationship is to take care of the tenant because you want a long term tenant, you're going to do the repairs that are necessary. And because a vacancy is is a big no in our industry. And so you're by putting that 5% threshold in there, for example, what you're doing is you're telling the landlord community to every year raise the rent by 5%. I don't want to raise it by 5%. I'd rather most times leave it at zero or 2% or something like that. But I'm going to need to keep up with the because I don't know what's coming down the road. I might have a bad tenant who destroys something. I might have a leaky roof or an earthquake that I can't fund without. Thank you. 2 minutes and that's as much. Appreciate it. Thank you very much, Phoebe. Maybe you? Yeah. My name is Phoebe. You. Good evening to Mayor, Madam Mayor and the councilman. Thank you guys for staying so late and hear us out. Well, it is there are more than 50% of all Americans are renters. That means less than a little bit less than 50% of all Americans are homeowners. I'm not sure 2% or 7% or any percentage of them are landlords. But I've heard enough of landlords telling their stories, just like the gentleman before me. So Alameda has a very tight community. Sorry to. Interrupt. I need you to lower your sign so the people behind you can see or you can go sit in the back row so you're not blocking anyone. Thank you very much. All right. You may continue. Thank you. We have a very tight community here in Alameda and it shows by one example are a measure a parcel tax was voted by 68.1% of the voters in Alameda to pass. The special assessment to only the property owners, which we all voted yes. So we will pay $0.32 per square foot by the properties that we own to support our school and our school district. And that means for a property owner who owns a 2000 square foot property, they will pay $640 more property taxes per year. And for some landlords who owns about 10,000 square foot, maybe eight units are rental property, they will pay extra 30 $200 per year. That's a little bit too short in 2 minutes, I think. Can I finish? I'm just. Sorry. We need to keep moving along. Well, you were. I were interrupted. All right. All right, go ahead. Go ahead. That's right. That's right. I appreciate that. I don't know if you gave extra time. Right. Thank you very much. Thank you. So we voted yes to way more so the majority. Another example is if you are studying the thesis that our HCC has been reviewed for unreasonably increase rent, there are only a handful of landlords does that. The majority of the landlords in Alameda are very reasonable. By strictly rental control in one format is going to penalizing mom and pop landlords like us. So another point I really, really would like to make is the reason, another very valuable reason why we love Alameda is because we have all these historic homes. You know, they are in the styles of or different. I appreciate that. We have 20 some more speakers to go. So thank you. Next speaker Kevin, you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Kevin. And then it'll be Amanda and then William, if I can. Okay. And then Franny and Mark. Okay. Thank you, Major Spencer. Mayor Spencer, council member of staff, city. Staff for being here, just like hearing us out. My name is Kevin Yi, and I'm here on behalf of all the all the moms and pops owner in Alameda. Like many, you know. Small landlords. For years, my wife and I, we weren't able to refinance due to the market value at the time when the rental market was extremely low. And for many years, my wife and I, we were always in the red when we had to go into our own funds to pay the bills. And it wasn't until one or two years ago that we were starting to break even. I mean, one of the main reasons my wife and I decided to invest in. Alameda is because is a small towns, a close knit community. And, you know, like life was. Simpler and there was no rent control over. Here. And what I see in bigger companies, corporation or owners that were thought to have 20 to 100 units in a same building. You know. They're having to pass, raise, rent. Substantially or evict with no with no cost. I mean, everyone knows that in general, cost has been increasing and still increasing everywhere from property tax, property insurance management fee, utility repair and maintenance. I mean, the 5% increase is quite low for small owners that have less units to work with. I mean, just recently because of the storm, I put up a 20 foot fence with two gate and that cost almost $2,000. And I have several estimates I made that were from local, you know, a handyman. And I compared it with the estimates I had with the licensed contractor. And they were like 3500 to 4000 for the same fence. I mean, and to get a plumber or locksmith into your place is like $80 just for them to show up. I mean, this is just showing that costs are still increasing and repairs are expensive. I mean I mean, I'd just like to also mention to know just cause I mean, with my eight years experience that says land or I encounter like tennis that just aren't compliance with the building rules and no matter how hard I try or how do we solve this? I think all. The tenants I mean, all the landlords had experience, like with tenants that are just noncompliance with the rules that everyone's lives miserable. And because. Of this. No, just cause it helped us out tremendously. I mean, I just want to say, you know, that your meeting is on February 16th. I just hope that my next speaker. Amanda. Okay. Let's go. And then after your manabe. William and then Franny. And then Stephanie. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm here to represent the small mom and pop landlords, and I just wanted to give you, like, my my perspective of this as a property owner from mom and pop standpoint is hard, like Kevin mentioned and the previous owner, that landlords try to do their very best to accommodate everyone. And so it's not in their intention to increase rent or anything like that. But when. You know, things that come up, for example, just the basic of mortgage payment and property tax, you know, that increases every year, plus just homeowner's insurance that left alone. But when something happens, like your roof breaks down, that's $20,000 of replacement cost right there. And then so I mean, just to bring up something like that, refrigerator cost replacement is two 500 plus stove a repair is $200. So the list goes on. And so just to bring that up, it is hard for someone like that. So that 5% is kind of difficult to work with. I just I would just wanted to bring attention like, for example, like mom and pop struggles to, for example, I recall when we had to borrow to it, I mean , financial aid for my daughter to attend college. And it wasn't an easy task, but luckily she was approved the financial aid and loan because of budget. But that's do because the rent did not cover the expenses that we had to incur. And so we didn't mind making the sacrifices. We knew what we were getting into and I and I'm happy about that also mentioned about the refinance it was it is difficult when you are going under the market, the value and your rent control. It doesn't when you're trying to refinance a loan, they're going to decline you and then that's a possibility of foreclosure. So I just want to bring that to your attention to as well in terms and then I think somebody mentioned about she put on a slide show about the 5000 dollar moving expenses. I like that option of perhaps considering relocating for 4 to 6 months instead of paying that 1500 dollars rent. If that's a consideration, the Times is up. So anyway, I guess that's about oh, like one last thing, but the mom and pop, she did statistics about it. I just want to bring like Mountain View in like Los Altos is a whole different market. I mean, the rent is outrageous. So thank you. Thank you very. William is there. William, when you went home. Okay, Frannie. We are not I'm not the time. You really are not. He get up 5:00 in the morning to go to work. All right. And you're Fannie and Freddie or thank you. And then after Frannie will be Stephanie and then Don SC later. Go. Evening, everybody. Good evening. I represent a group of small property owners in Alameda City. We are looking at a proposed rent ordinance. We did not see any exemptions, so we would like to respectfully request that if there's any proposed rent ordinance, there will be clearly defined exemptions. We have night requests. Number one, new building after 1995. Second, substantial. We have dilatation of the 1995, especially the historic building, because when we restore them, we get to keep the outside and we do that foundation after the inside is extremely costly. I have renovated two buildings like that due process. I spent $500,000 in each of the building. I'm a rent is about $3,000 a month. And historic home because we believe that under the California era Mental Control Act, historic home cannot have rent control without clear study and approval and special approval request exemption to single framing, home and due process. Because a lot of homeowners, elderly, family, they live in one in Alameda and the rent out the other. It's very common to rent a one unit of a due personnel I mean that to supplement the retirement income. House share situation. A lot of men and their relatives live the house. When a couple rooms subsidize the income, tenants own property within 100 miles of Alameda should not have a rent control apartment. I have a tenant works at Google making $103,000 a year and he rents one room from me. I can tell you that in two years we'll be buying homes in other cities in California. So rent control should be income based. And finally, if the tenant refused to cite another lease, same length as a current lease should be exempt. That's it's the same as the San Francisco rent ordinance. And then. The Labor and material concession calls in the last four years doubled. I got a call from a licensed contractor doing four steps of Stairway for $5,000. So 5% is way too low. And we do not have a lot. Of evictions in Alameda when there's no rent. Control. Q Is there, Stephanie? No. Stephanie. All right, Don Celotto. And then Katherine Pauling and then April ceded her time to Catherine and then Malcolm Leigh. Good evening. Thanks for your time and thanks for working so hard on this. Just a brief explanation of our situation. We are a mom and pop landlords. The biggest property we own has three units. Most of them are single family units. We do own several units. We've invested a lot of money because they're older homes and maintaining them with roofs and in foundations and so on over the last few years. But most of our tenants, we try not to raise the rent. We're very small and make very small rent increases. Just because they're good tenants and we'd like to keep them there. And usually if they leave, then we'll worry about market rate. They leave voluntarily. I have a couple of questions for you, though. How much is this whole rack process going to cost? And we did discuss it at one of the prior meetings. It seemed quite large. And then how are we going to pay for it? Are the landlords going to pay or the tenants are going to pay? Are we both going to pay? But I think we need some clarification there from you. And then what happens when we have to sell the home for whatever reason? We'd like to be able to get the market rate for that home, whoever is buying it, if they want to continue to rent it out. We're going to have other issues. So is there anybody thinking about what's happening there? You know, please take it into consideration. That's all I have. Thank you very much. Thank you. Katherine Pauling. And she has someone saying a time to her. So it's 4 minutes. I have two people sitting time to me at this. The other one. I have April and Malia. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Katherine Pauline, leader of Alameda Renters Coalition. Thank you. It's not quite. Good morning. We sent a letter responding to the staff report and I understand there was difficulty opening it. So I want to use the time to actually read our position. We went over it very carefully. We have a number of questions and a number of concerns. Dear Mayor and Council Members, the Alameda Renters Coalition respectfully provides the following for your consideration regarding rent increases and evictions in Alameda. We believe there are important principles that must be emphasized and kept in mind during your deliberations. They are that the ordinance regarding rents and evictions must, in the first instance, serve the dual purpose of keeping rents stable and keeping residents in their home. Recall that it was renters. The majority of Alameda residents who brought the issues of excessive rent increases and unfair evictions to the council in 2014. Why do we say this? It's because too much discussion has focused more on landlords right to a fair return rather than on rent stabilization and tenant protections. I will have to point out that that Debbie spent quite a bit of time expressing concern about how mom and Pops could pay even the small allocation allowed, and only a passing reference on what it might be like to be a tenant with none of those resources. And that is to the core of this. This is becoming kind of a landlord protection act. 20. She she really she went on and on and on about the mom and pops and only a passing momentary reference to tenants. The rent crisis was not created by the tenants, but by excessive rent increases and unjust evictions by too many Alameda landlords. Again, we ask that you keep this in mind. Regarding the cap on maximum allowable increases. Without a cap on rent increases, rents quickly become unaffordable and rent stabilization is not achieved. We have consistently called for a rent cap of. 65% of the Bay Area CPI. In line with numerous other California cities. Despite this, staff has never provided data indicating why it is not possible for landlords to make a fair return, with rent increases capped at 65% of CPI, nor even addressed it as a reasonable option for Alameda. Neither staff nor council have provided a rationale for uncapped rent increases, nor provided data regarding the cumulative effects of uncapped rent increases. Uncapped rent increases this threshold that you mention do not stabilize rents and ultimately lead to displacement. Similarly, the proposed 5% rent increase threshold to trigger a mandatory review by the Rent Review Advisory Committee rank is not related to any economic metric. Such as the CPI. And again, no analysis of the cumulative effect of 5% rent increases is provided. Cumulative 5% rent increases show after only three increases, which can occur within 25 months, that on a $2,000 apartment will cost $2,315 within 25 months, a 315 a month rent increase with a 5% cap. And after five rent increases and when Don Lindsay did some of his stats, he showed that the average tenant stayed about five years and in an apartment. And then there was a natural move. After five rent increases, it would be a $552 a month rent increase. These are not affordable rents and increases like this do not achieve rent stabilization. The title of your proposed ordinance, on the other hand, rent increases at 65% of CPI so that a $2,000 a month rent amount increases to $2,098. It would be a $98 a month rent increase. After three increases, it would go up to 2160. Oh, excuse me. I read that amount increases after a 98 a month after three increases 165 a month after five rent increases at 65% of the CPI. Stabilize rents and protect tenants from economic displacement. Meanwhile, the average income growth has been 2% per year, meaning that Alameda families with a 5% cap would be falling behind. To truly stabilize, rent increases must be limited to 65% of the Bay Area Consumer Price Index, which currently at 2.4% would make 1.6% the allowable increase. We've been dealing with double digits now for year after year and the council chose, the landlords chose 10% and indeed that's what the RAC was imposing time after time, then arbitrarily 8% and the moratorium now arbitrarily 5%. It's still almost three times what is reasonable. Somehow this disconnect where property owners, homeowners have twice had more than twice the income of renters, there is a disconnect here. So I'm going on with my second seed capital improvement plan. It's now 6 minutes, so that it was 6 minutes. But one more person has offered this time. You have another. That was 6 minutes. I'm sorry. At that time. Because two other speakers said they wouldn't speak and let her speak. But. Okay. So then I'm going to propose. 2 minutes to kind. Of wind it up or you can come back around because I've got another 20 some speakers. I understand. Thank you. Okay. So there's also the capital improvement plan. And we do not believe landlords should have should be able to evict tenants just for substantial rehabilitation. We've talked about this before. People stay in their homes when they do it. It should be a temporary relocation. What should the expense should be covered? No cause protections. An ordinance that allows no cause evictions does not provide tenant protection. A cap on the number because we oppose all no cause evictions. We cannot of vision in circumstance of multiple evictions being acceptable relocation assistance. The current amounts mentioned are far below. It costs me 8000 to move the last time by the time you do first last deposit and the cost of moving. I'm 67 it's and my friends with their bad backs. We can't do a U-Haul and do it anymore. The amounts of money. 1500 for moving. Are you kidding? Relocation assistance. So the benefit, the rent increase process and the rec individual, when you have 55.3% of households in Alameda are renters and you're going to do it individually through a mediation and arbitration process. And renters have to pay. Where I resolved. And withdrawn. I freaked out contact. All right. I'm sorry. I actually don't have a gavel to gavel. I don't count it out. I'm sorry. I'm quiet. Please. Thank you. I don't. I. I'm okay. I'm sorry. We're going to take. A short recess. Thank you for taking a recess. I don't have a dog, and I. Yes, we're taking a recess. I'm sorry. I don't have a gavel. I need to calm this down before you can take. And you even hear me that I'm taking a recess. Did we take. Ah. Easy way to get the gavel. Is that. The big. I think maybe it. Not seed time, I think, you know, the the stalwarts. Well, just in case anyone was thinking of doing that. Well. Otherwise, I don't think. And I think. Okay. So he's. Going to change the rules because of intimidation. Midstream. Okay, that seems okay. Like Rule of riot. Well, actually, Ms.. Ms. Wooldridge just pointed out that we probably can't change procedures that we announced at the beginning of a meeting. Actually, something so. So we were on recess. Now we're going to resume the meeting. All right. Member Ashcroft Well, I, I would favor not seeding time, but I understand some people might feel strongly about that, just that, you know, those of you in the room are the the stalwarts who stayed. So you should be able to have your 2 minutes. And then just a tip to all of you speakers, just launch right into your remarks. You don't have to greet the mayor, the staff, everybody else, because that's eating up your 2 minutes. So just go straight to the heart of what you want to talk to us about. Okay. Any other council comments. Thank you. All right. So after Kathryn, I have Leah Vella, then Malcolm Lee. She ceded her time to Katherine to. All right. Now Malcolm Lee and then Tony charr yet it looks like. And then c h unchr. I am a yes. Let me just cut to the chase. The a lot of folks, if you are not a homeowner, you don't understand. A lot folks will not understand this. It's not to blame them. But you when I'm a homeowner, I also am also a landlord. Now, the when we collect rent, on one hand it goes out as a mortgage. Property taxes maintain the big ticket items, even maintenance. And a lot of us are all working class the homeowners. So what happened is this we go to work during the daytime and we stay working now. The so the at the end of the day, we go to the building, we went to head of maintenance crew and sometimes we get where to head off the service people to clean up the cleaning crew. So as we go along some years, we have good tenants until we don't. And someday we have a good economy, someday we don't. So let's just go back a little bit from 2006 all the way to 2010 and 11. Randall Market is very, very soft and is very hard for us to keep our buildings full due to that load at low occupancy during those years. Who is out there to help us? No one is. We have to struggle extremely hard so that we can keep afloat. Otherwise, if we can't collect rent or if we have too much vacancy, then our we won't be able to pay the mortgage. So what would happen? Foreclosure and lose. Just two years ago. We have a we have a chance to catch up and now we have this rent control imposed of us. Just like all my colleagues mentioned earlier, the the maintenance costs, everything goes up on top of that. One thing that I like to point out to the council members is this. Recently we got some letters from a garbage company. They said you have to have compost and if you don't separate them, if your tenants do not do that, you as home owner, you will get dinged for it. So we got caught in both ends. This is not right. So I'm completely against Franklin trial. Thank you, Tony. This discussion started at 8%. I was okay with that. Now we're dwindling down to 5%. Landlords have a lot of expense here. We have property tax insurance. Maintenance on the properties. And, you know, there are rumors the Federal Reserve is worried that we'll might be going into a recession. And if we do go into recession, I can tell you a lot of landlords will have a hard time when these tenants are not there and buildings are vacant and we have 20%, 30% vacancy rates. They will have a hard time. And, you know, forecast is that at the end of the year we will be in a recession and things will not be as nice as they are now. What are you going to do for the landlords? What do they do? Are we going to be supplemented in any way? Who can we take? Give us a break on our property tax? No, the answer is no. Will the banks give us a break? No. They'll foreclose our properties. So please have a little consideration. We really come out like the bad person here trying to gouge everybody. It's not the truth. And you all know that we have a big financial responsibility and we're just trying to stay afloat. Thank you. Thank you. And I want to clarify, we are not talking about a 5% cap. We are talking about a 5%, what I'm calling a trigger that if a landlord wants to do more than 5%, that they would go to rack. But we are not talking about any cap. And when you compared it to the 8% that was during the moratorium and that was a cap 8% during the year that this proposal is has no cap. However, the landlord would have to come to our rent review advisory committee if they want to do more than 5%. And then that's when the the landlord would have the opportunity to share. But you're speaking of these additional costs or whatnot. So I just want to clarify that. So you're. You're welcome, Tony. I'm sorry. That was Tony. And now it looks like Cenci. And then Greg McConnell. And then Mimi. Good morning. So I guess you heard the latest news, Yahoo! All 1500 last week. We were. And then before that, GoPro, Twitter, IBM, HP, all announced layoff. No new IPO for a while. Chatter about Apple and Google have a hiring freeze. Last quarter GDP point 7% or this number indicated basically economy inflection point is actually closer than many of us think. So actually when you made a decision, think about it. When you go through a downturn, you basically, as the Lord shared the responsibility to shoulder the responsibility that's no market economy, whatever, you know, free reign, one month's free reign for the tenant. Okay, you go ahead and do it. Nobody help us. But when the market is good, the economy's good. Then we have to go to some sort of control economy. So basically you have to have a cap. That's not fair. And then number three, I wish that the console can be a little bit more creative in terms of thinking outside the box. Like Redwood City, they actually have some sort of incentive for the landlord. If you offer volunteer rent control under certain limit, they give you some sort of incentive. I think there's something creative way you can think about it. And also single say they are considering rent control. They hired a consulting group to study it and the finding, you guys can also attend a meeting as well over there. Basically, what they found is really interesting. From 1990 to night, 2014, the 24 years, actually the rent increases for the unit that under rent control are higher than those that are not under rent control. So if you think about it, it really makes sense to to actually allow the market economy to do its work, don't mess around with it. So if you have interest in it, you can get a report from sellers they are willing to share with you. Thank you. Thank you. I just. I'm Debbie. Debbie Porter. Why don't you. Thanks. All right, Greg McConnell. Maybe. Is there a mommy war? Ah. Oh, there's like RH. Ah. Lester Cabral. Is he? Anyone else come up. Good evening. Manama City Council. Let's talk about resident of Alameda and a property owner. Been here for many years. You know, it's only been less than 30 days since we met on this issue. And all of a sudden we've got all kinds of new things here. You know, 5% was 8%, you know, and these little notations and stuff. You know, with rental business. There's a lot in into doing rent here in Alameda and anybody that's if you studied the state real estate guide you'd notice there's quite a few there's quite a bit of information in there. I think we're acting too quick on this here. We need more time to really get into defining what's going on here and the best avenue. Like I said at the last meeting was we do have a rent for review committee here. Let's utilize them. You know, you get into 5% and all these other little things, you know, they're just little tricks on there. It's really not going to work. We need to go case by case. They say there's better than 50% of the housing here in Alameda is rentals. Okay. That's a lot of people, you know, and not everybody is getting hit with hard rents. There are some out there. Sure. Those need to go before this rent review committee and get ironed out. But the majority of it out there is not, you know, I mean, that's just where it's at. I've been in the business for over 50 years, you know, and seen a lot. You know, the market is from supply and demand. And, you know, you have to really look at that emphasis. You're going to put us little guys out of business. You know, that's just what's going to happen. The mama papa clause here, nobody can define it. Come on. Anybody that owns less than five units, you know they're a mama. Papa, because they can't afford ten units. That's just way out of bounds. But anyway, we need to do a lot more work here. Thank you. Thank you, Dan Wang. And then Minha Yang in a yang. And then Tristan Schmidt. And even he won't want me there. Yeah, I just wanted to echo the comment. You know, especially concerned about a court of arbitration. Is that taxpayer or a landlord? Landlords or renters. So, you know, wish that I chatted with real estate agent and he told me is that this will rent control will have a very negative impact on society in the city and especially in terms of income. And he predicted that the investors will have much less interest in buying rental properties and that and the value will drop. And as a household now I'm concerned about that. And also to the as the number of transaction in real estate sales are drop, this would reduce the income from transfer tax and the property tax and consequently we reduce the funding for schools and the public. So is I really like Alameda as a very charming city and a school system? And, you know, I'm really concerned about that. I do want to our children, you know, they need to have early release because of lack of funding. That is really not good. And at that point, you know, I would like to echo that. You know, I have experience. I have a plumber who charges $200 for 40. 40 minutes. On clogging. And we have some guy come to change the tank or charge it, you know, $800 for the labor. And, you know, who is going to cap that. And so, you know. So in short, you know, cost is there. And, you know, once economy is not good, there's nobody protect the landlord. Thank you. Minor, Mina. I'm interested in Schmidt and then Rosalind mcCorvey. Hi. Good morning. Mina Young. Um, as a mom and pop owner, we really need things to be flexible because we all to ourselves, I mean, we take care of. The parties ourselves. And we have parents to take take care of. My dad has. Dementia and then, you know, we have to take care of him and have to take care of the properties. And so, I mean, whenever something happens, we have to take time off from work and take care of it. So either take care of the work or take care of the parents. So it's very important that we be flexible. And so by having more laws and more restrictions, it's very hard to run the business. So a lot of times we would rather not run the business, just not rent. And so you'll get less tax revenues and then we'll get less income. It's very hard to do that. And so and we are owners and and tenants and I mean, we are roommates sometimes with our tenants. So it's is very important that we be able to, uh, to work with the tenants directly, freely. So by having more restrictions, it's not going to help and you'll you're going to take more units out of the market. Thank you. Thank you. First, Linda Corby. I'm sorry. Tristan. Tristan Schmitz. Next. Sorry. You're right. My husband and I have been mom and pop tenants in Alameda for 20 years since 1996. My husband's a teacher. I'm a childcare provider. I see a lot of classism going on here, a lot of implicit class values that are discriminatory. My husband's a teacher. I provide childcare. But the gentleman back here who told me to get a job at 20 years of employment experience, have a master's degree in psychology. And I'd like to know why the police don't respond to this kind of thuggery when innocent renters stand in the hallway and get sent to Santa Rita classes . Okay. That's what I see here for the last nine years, before I got evicted by Gallagher, Lindsey, my mom and pop landlord never once came by. I had a leaking pipe for nine years. I had a crumbling wall. We had two heaters, neither of which rarely, hardly ever worked. We had gardeners come in between grass of Tony's left cigaret butts all over the place and mowed down the tulips we planted. This is not market value service. How many of these landlords who claim to be mom and pops actually live in other towns? How many actually have other jobs? Other incomes? How many have properties in other towns? One of my landlord has a very lucrative restaurant business. Another one was a car dealer. We need to take into account the fact that just because somebody already has money, had enough money to buy a property does not mean that they are guaranteed an unlimited raise every single year. The economy has tanked because we had to bail out the banks. Okay. The economy is not getting better. I am not going to get a 10% or a 5% raise every year. I provide a valuable service here. I do a lot of volunteer work. Money is not my first priority, but my next home is going to be a tent. And you know where you go from the tent? The police come and take it away. Why? Classism. First, Linda Carvey. And then Lawrence Quintero. Good evening. I'd like to see if we can get exemptions for mom and pop landlords. We are small business owners, just like you were saying about Alameda Point. Say the small business owners retain them. You have to protect us also. We. This is. This is not a hobby. This is our job. We are responsible people and we do the best we can. And as far as, uh, having rent control on the small, say, 5 to 6 unit buildings and under. I think it would be unfair. The. We don't have deep pockets like the larger investors. I personally know people that are in rent control units in San Francisco. They're laughing at the bank out there. They're planning on staying forever in these units. They they earn each $150,000. They're married. And, you know, they're going to stay forever. And it's not fair that they're able to stay. So this rent control should be tenant income based and it should not be, you know, oh, just everyone. It doesn't work that way. And also, historic properties are a lot more expensive to maintain. And just repairing anything is just a fortune. So that should be an exemption also. And, you know, one has the right to devalue my property when I go to sell this or what, you know, whatever I intend to do in the future that your 5% cap or or possibly more. It's not going to be convincing to the next buyer. So when the appraiser comes out, okay, when the appraiser comes out to do an analysis, they're going to take into all of this into account. So you're devaluing my property, which is not fair. Thank you. Thank you. Lawrence Quintero. And then Dan Zhang. I just wanted to. Give you my interpretation of what's going on here. My wife and I have had a three unit place here in Alameda for about 25 years. And in that 25 years, we've had probably two evictions. And they were because of the behavior of the tenants, not because we wanted to get the people out, because most of our tenants stay there, some, you know, seven, ten years. And we treated them right and they treated right, you know, treat us good as landlords. We were always thinking of what they could afford. We try to keep our rents down as much as we possibly could because we wanted to keep them. So as a small landlord or mom and pop, as some of them say, we've had good experiences. And our tenants have a good experience. Now, when we're talking about a place that has 50 or 100 units, that's something else. And I don't feel that. I should be put in the same bottle as somebody who has tenants and mistreats their their tenants. And I just don't think it's fair. I think the rent rent review board has worked well, and I don't understand why we have to change everything because of some people's concerns. I mean, I feel bad if somebody is having a tough time, but landlords can have have tough times also. I just had to put a new sewer ladder. 9000 bucks. You know, I'm not going to go to the tenants. Say you have to give me so much to pay for this. I had to figure out how I was going to pay it. So as I say, the rent review thing, it doesn't bother me. Because if you do right, you're going to come out okay. I just don't like the fact that they're trying to box in with all these others. Thank you. Thank you. Dan? And then Margaret Tong. And then Layla. I'm here. I just want to express my. Opinion about the No Cause. Eviction because. Alameda is different from San Francisco. Hayward, Berkeley is a way to want to be. Another San Francisco or, you know, like a San Jose. Or, you know, you know, Alameda. We have like 4000 buildings outside the historical buildings and study list. And the also we have to see, do you have a soft story list? So for the homeowner, I have to do the earthquake originally, you know, certain type. So some of the job we need to evict, empty the whole building to finish the job. So if we have the. The limitation of the eviction, no cause eviction, then how could the homeowner do the job? So why here? So if we have five or four units, that means that the first to evict the one I pay for the, you know, something like the penalty or relocation cause the and the wait empty the unit and the with another year you wait another one and then after four years empty the building. Then we I can do. The earthquake a regional fee. So that makes no sense. So that. Yeah, I just want to say. That. So everything should be. Case by case. We cannot deal with it just like it is with. Margaret. And then Leila and then Daniel Lee. Well, everyone. I am. Mom and pop small shop and I'm single. Mom. I have a big mortgage to pay. I have a historical building. Maybe I have a brick foundation that on which I don't have money to replace. I just spend $20,000 on a roof and replace a roof because of the rain. So I have not increased by tennis rent for the last three years. So I treat them very well. And I if they have a hardship, I can delay their payments. So I think this rent control is really unfair to put us in a hardship. We are responsible owner. We are. He kept everything all the way up here right away. Since the the market baby market is tied to the standard of living people, of income. So minimum wage went up 28% in Oakland in last two years. I have not. I am sub engineer. I work full time. I'm single mom. My rent, my income have not increased for the last ten years, but I still keep up my rent. I'm not. I'm raising my child by myself. So I think this is rent. Control is not fair for small mom and pop shop. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Layla. I'm sorry. What was your name? I'm sorry. Hey, come on. What was your name? I live in Alameda for 20 years already. I have a house, a very old and the old house. You know those? Of those houses really near the coast right now. This is a business. Business would be outside. Happy then deal. Right. Right now I feel this is not fair because the the thing is for tenant happy you have one side happy the others are not happy. You don't have a right to stop this business. They leave. We should pay them. And moving fee. Up 5%. We have to file for a hearing under 5%. They can file for hearing. And when they move out, we have pay that we have to pay the moving cost and the month's rental cost. We we pay too much and we earn so little because the slow time, you know, when the business is not not good, the houses empty. Nobody can they can choose us. We cannot choose them because our. Life saver already in there. We cannot move the house away. We have a mortgage we have to pay every month. No matter this business, good or not. So I feel very, very sad. Okay, that's it. Thank you. Lila. Before the incident, I was seated by someone. Okay. Did they turn around? Yes, they. Did. Masha. But I did it before that, though. So I think that I should. We've all been waiting for over 5 hours. I'm sorry. I don't have a slip for that name. Say it was. I thought I did. Or did I already call it? I don't know. Ah, you try to do it in 2 minutes. I will try. I'm going to be brief anyway. Thank you all. My name is Layla and I'm a realtor and longtime resident of Alameda. I'm here on behalf of myself, as well as clients I have closely been working with this past year who are mom and pop landlords. And I'm here to oppose this ordinance. And I'd like to give you one brief example of why, supported by actual numbers and this is, by the way, obviously one of many cases. My most recent example is the sale of a multi residential property. My buyer purchased this historic property at the beginning of this year for over $1.7 million, which is on par with current comparable home values in Alameda, where we all live. He currently has a longtime tenant and some of those tenants have been there for over 20 years, and they pay right now in amount of $880 a month for an apartment that is over 1000 square feet in a very nice location just a couple of blocks away from Park Street in Alameda. While I strongly do empathize with these tenants and their situation, I empathize even more for these home owners and landlords whose source of income and only source of income for many comes from these rents which they use for their own bills and livelihood. And this economy is has been and always will be extremely volatile. And it's incredibly unrealistic to assume one's rent will remain the same from year to year, let alone for decades. The last time this particular property was sold was for $130,000 with an annual tax of $6,000. The current tax for this new homeowner is over $35,000 a year, with 5000 for insurance, 5000 for water, utilities, and a mortgage of over $100,000 a year. So his total cost to own this property amounts to over $150,000 a year. The way current rents are at that property, he's making an income of under $70,000, which he now is experiencing a loss of over $80,000. This is a strong underestimation, by the way, and I'm almost done. At this time, the Bay Area is one of the most expensive areas in the entire nation. Home values are dictated by the market, not by individuals. And these home values are what govern the rental market. And these home values are also what makes our beautiful cities so desirable by many to live in, and which is what keeps our businesses here thriving. Again, although I do empathize with the tenants, I believe that the city should look elsewhere for solutions. Please do not punish the homeowners who are bringing up property values and paying exorbitant amounts of annual property taxes. Thank you. All right. And in the future, if you want to have someone cede your time to you, I need that person here so that I know. All right. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next speaker, Daniel Lee. And then it'll be Susan G. O. And then Jeff camera. Okay. So obviously you will see you have already seen that. How much how much friction we have right now by I go ahead and bring it up this ring control stuff in. In so many cities in the Bay Area. I can see in Pacifica, San Francisco, Mountain View. And the river city in san mateo. Any city. This is a tenant, eva. Gays are fighting for their paycheck. They are not fighting for the tenants. They get funded by the city. They get funded by the state. They get funded by the federal ban. Also, probably. And they get a money from the corporation. So they are fighting for their paycheck. They are fighting for their livelihood. They are not fighting for the tenants. We have a very good relationship with our tenants. So all these rent control is coming in right now is going to create a very, very bad relationship between Lando and the tenants. I won't say tenant. I will say our tenants because they are our customer. They pay our bills. We also have to pay a mortgage as well. And just like my colleagues at one money, one side of the pocket, the money comes in and the other pocket I go still up because of the mortgage as well. No. Earlier, one of the teachers say that she'd get evicted. I think. We do not evict any any rent paying tenants. Have you fire anybody who is doing a good job as your employee in piece? Of course not. We don't. Anybody. Anybody? Any tenant? Any tenants that get evicted. It has to be none. And then rent paying tenants or they are behaving badly. Right. Oh, thank you. Thank you very much, Susan. And then Jeff. And then Karen Bay. I go to work last lastly late. Yeah. I'm a small landlord of Alameda. I'm strongly against run counter run trays made by market, not made by landlord or the government. I'm against it because it. It's not fair. They are poor people too. We'll protect small landlord. By the way, I got the last 20% of my 41k and the savings. I cannot pay my son's college fee. Can you please tell me when we will have a city council hearing to get my money back from the stock loss? I did an increase rent every year before. If there's a rent control, I must increase every year. Do you think gun control policy protect tenant? No, absolutely not. I have a full time job Monday to Friday, such like I have to get up sticks for my work. My husband and I spend much of our night time and the weekend to work as a handyman. I do a lot of work gardening, cleaning, painting, small fix, even toilet fix. I also take my 15 year old daughter to do yard work. I let her come here to do the yard work. She asked me, Mom, why you don't hire a gardener to do this work? I say, Daughter. I want to save money. I want to lower my expense to keep this rental property. Otherwise, I don't have money. I'm pro-people too. However, Pepsi's mortgage water power pigeon ye garbage insurance are all increased. Last year for the mint. For the Mint? Is it for the maintenance? I spend $20,000. I just got my water bill yesterday. This must be increased to 5.8% than last bill. I cannot see till I'm out. I don't have extra money to pay. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Jeff. There's a gentleman there. I did. I call your name already? Are you all right? All right. Come on up. Thank you. My point is that I think there's not a tendency, not enemy. I think we want to do each other well. And I'm very good landlord. I have to say. Then I. I rent my room. Paul, my tenant. It's only $400 right now. So if I want to improve my. I'll pay my house, then rebuild the foundation. What happened? Think about that. The first. And the second is the. You get on the house and me on the house. I'm retired already and my wife retired. We total income is that lower than $2,000. Okay. So. He would control everything we have to. Foreclosed in my house. The theory is that the only control that then you can do a Home Depot. You controlled the contractor controlled the auditorium through that lets the builder and then you charge it up. Why you don't control them. They come to us. Right. Everybody need to free and then you need to. How many? To living together. So everyday need to talk each other and don't make us strict nor a strict discipline then to who make us a hot time for when to sign and other sides happy. I have to say that my situation in finance is not written in my hand. My tenant. An $80 an hour. You know how much on the highest time. I'm on 40 in an hour and then is lucky. I'm a driving instructor. You're happier. $80 sell them. But they earn each day, each week and each week they then $2,000 each week. And day a week. What happened? So you need to. Consider all the elements together and then make everybody happy. Okay. Thank you very much. Jeff Canberra and then Karen Bay and then John Klein. Good morning, Mayor Spencer. Council and staff. My name is Jeff Canberra. I am a. Community facilitator and have privately mediated numerous tenant landlord disputes. Over the past. 18. Months. I am here. Tonight to draw your attention to a group of residents. That the provisions that. You are discussing may not adequately protect. Our city contains a number of. Groups of residents. That would not. Use the rec. They include families and especially. Elderly tenants that are. Fearful of even talking to their housing providers. And the fear rest in rent increases, even within the limits that you are setting. Service reductions and subtle forms of retaliation that would not rise. To the level of actionable conduct. This list also includes. non-English speaking and ESL residents that do not. Understand the complexities of going through or simply fear Iraq. Hearing undocumented residents, tenants living in. Illegal. Units, and tenants that believe that property management companies regularly review the list of RAK applicants and blacklist residents. The raft, by its very nature, is confrontational. A trained mediator working a semi-private. Environment can assist attended in opening the lines of communication. With the housing provider in a non-hostile, non-confrontational manner that can lead to a mutually. Agreeable resolution. This is the method I have used time and again. There are numerous cities using the semi-private mediation process. The City of Mountain View just passed such a provision. The idea. Of an optional. City sponsored semi-private. Mediation being available to this. To the disputes would serve the most vulnerable yet vulnerable members of our community. As a city sponsored program, the committee would be able to oversee the mediation to assure that the tenants participated in a process that was fair and level the playing field. A city sponsored programs could still collect the data. Thank you very much. I will give you the rest of the time. Thank you. Karen Bey and then John Klein. Good evening. I'm here this evening to represent the small mom and pop landlords. We are going to be the most impacted of all the landlords by this proposed ordinance. If you own 20 units or more, you have the opportunity to spread out the cost. But if you own 1 to 4 units, it's it's it's it's not feasible to spread out the costs without raising rents much higher than 5%. And if you own an older building 100 years or more, the cost to maintain and repair those buildings are significant. I share the same story that this woman told. I'm a single mom again. I've got a brick foundation. I finally the rents have gone up. I can apply for a loan. The loan is 65% LTV. But with your proposed rent ordinance, our property values could go down. We've been told that our property values could be lowered. So this is as if there's an earthquake. I and I need a foundation out of luck, right? To lease the Mountain View ordinance for the leases that terminate. Say that as long as both the tenant and the landlord agree. And I think that that language should be in the ordinance because most tenants are good. But there is the occasional problem a tenant that tries to gain the system relocation assistance. I think it should be means tested. The Mountain View ordinance requires you to qualify for relocation assistance. So it focuses on working families, which is what we need to focus on. That's what this is really about, is the working families. And if they qualify for relocation assistance, can they get it? Finally, I just want to say everyone should pay for the cost of this housing crisis, not just the landlords. It's unfair to make us pay for a regional housing crisis that we didn't pay that we didn't cause. So the Mountain View ordinance create the have a community rent relief fund and they use that fund to help to help tenants with housing issues. And I think if we need to find a way to tax everybody so that we all share the costs, not just the landlords. Thank you. Thank you. John Klein. And then Rita Hill. And then Maria Dominguez. My name is John Klein, and Charlie Edwards has succeeded some time to me as well. So the staff report I'm glad to see that it's proposed a and to talk to you about the mom and pop exception. I propose that that mom and pops are comprised of 2 to 4 units. You have over 4600 units. That would be mom and pops. That's 28% of the rental rental units in the city. You are concerned about the large landlords with 50 units or more. That's only 17% of your units. The mom and pops are 28% of your units. The fact that you're considering any kind of exemption for them is why we can't call what you're working on the Landlord Protection Act. It just shouldn't be happening. It just shouldn't be happening. But even so. No one's ever provided any data that substantiates the claims that they can't afford that and any benefits. As a matter of fact, that is that claim is contradicted by experts from the real estate industry. For example, just six months ago, in October 2015, as a research vice president at the National Association of Realtors said in August 2015, rent spiked 3.6% over the same time a year earlier, the fastest pace since 2008. Naturally, people collecting rent are thrilled with the gains they are seeing. Both large part investors and mom and pop landlords are enjoying the best conditions they've seen in years. Similarly, a Zillow economist in an article about the Bay Area titled Best Cities for Small Landlords, the greatest returns are actually in the markets like San Francisco and San Jose, where there are short term monthly losses. But the long term earned equity makes them the best markets to invest in. So we say that Oakland, Alameda, real estate markets are virtually indistinguishable with regard to their profitability. So so these claims that they can't afford tenant protection benefits are unsubstantiated at best and in spurious. So. Really? So that's what I have to say about the mom and pops. But so the data collection is what's important here. Right now you're talking about just collecting data on 5% rent increases. You must collect it all the the the the mom and pops who come in and say, we never raise our rent more than 5% . You don't know that. And you don't even know who the mom and pops are you. And so the data collection needs to be all units. It needs to be by size 2 to 4 units, 5 to 9, 10 to 19. And these categories are out of the bay report that I'm giving to you. So none of the claims that the mom and pops are making can be substantiated unless you do complete data collection for all types of units. Thank you. Thank you, Rita. And then Maria Dominguez. I'm talking about the displacing family and the low rent tenants with rent control. Number one, displacing family. You know, more landlords would only rent to the individuals sharing rooms instead of renting entire apartment to family. B Individuals have a much higher chance to move out due to a change of jobs and family size and etc.. Number two, with rent control and we will spend more money to rehab the property, then rent at a market rent instead. And with rent control we can. No longer help people out and we must rent property out at above market rent, otherwise won't be able to raise rent in the future. And number three, create tension between landlords and tenants. You know, we want to have a good relationship, working relationship with the tenant and also want to lay low. Landlords are human beings. We're not evil. We're not enemies. We bring the business to the city. And rental business, just like other business, is a very good business for the economy. The city too and also know no more long lease. We usually signed two years with a low increase in the second year only a few percent. But now we will only do more one year lease. And that's why rental control does not set there. The rent law is that it push the rent higher. So thank you so much. Thank you. Maria Dominguez. And then. John. John. My name is Mario Mingus. I'm an Alameda resident and a renter. I'm a very active member of my community. I'm part of the League of Women Voters, Alameda chapter and a member of Alameda Renters Coalition. I received a 60% increase in November, and I'm here tonight out of self-interest, but also and more importantly, my community's interests, including low income, working class and middle class workers. Are you willing to displace schoolchildren in the middle of the school year? Are you willing to lose schoolteachers? Just today in San Francisco? Tenant protections for San Francisco teachers are being proposed. Why isn't Alameda looking to be an innovator in the Bay Area as well? If you don't do the right thing, you will contribute to increasing homelessness in the Bay Area and creating a less racially diverse alameda. This is Black History Month. Housing is a civil rights issue. Do the right thing and be on the right side of history. Don't let Alameda history repeat itself like ten years ago when hundreds of black families were forced out from the Harbord Island Apartments, a complex that was then home to about a third of Alamitos black population. Today, black and immigrant families are especially vulnerable, including Filipinos, Vietnamese and Latinos on the island. Again, do the right thing and be on the right side of history. Put a cap on maximum allowable increases of rent at 65% of the Bay Area. CPI is reasonable and in line with numerous other California cities. Don't look at San Jose. They're going to change it as well. They're going to bring down their numbers. Pass no cause eviction protections, provide relocation assistance, amend the relocation benefit exemption for so-called mom and pop owners. Mediation and arbitration is not appropriate here. Create an elected rent board that is accountable to the community, mandate data collection for all rent increases and collect an annual program fee so you can pay the costs of the hearings, the program staff, the data collection and all the other necessary administrative and enforcement costs. Do the right thing and be on the right side of history. Thank you. Thank you. John. John J. I and G. John, are you here? Monte Hyang. And Monty on yours. It has Tristan sitting time to you, but she already spoke. So is there someone else that wants. If you need more time. I'll talk fast. All right. Okay. I'm a 15 year resident of alameda. I pulled off some comments. Brant complaints from facebook. Alameda peeps. You may be familiar with it. This is deni. In October, our day care provider got her rent increased by $750 after another increase of $200 earlier this year. She'll be paying for 4000 a month. Our little one loves her. We were extremely happy with her. It would be great if she could stay in Alameda. This is the day care provider. This is Gillian from January. In writing, I'm writing on behalf of my dear friends who are a lovely family here in Alameda. They are being evicted from their apartment of eight years because the owner is moving in the family and now we are faced with daunting rent increases we all know have caused so much duress here in the community. This is this is Maria from today. We just received a 6.3% increase increase effective March 1st. It was a $90 increase last March and a 100 and hundred dollars increase this March. My husband refuses to go to the rack for fear of retaliation. But I can report the data, so why can't I report the data somewhere and have it matter to anyone? This is Siena for January 31. Got a 8% rent increase notice yesterday. Less than six months ago, they added utilities to our lease. How long was slow response, a service request and poor upkeep of common areas. I feel like they've been holding us hostage because of threats of rent increases, because people are afraid to complain. So when a hired lobbyist comes in here quoting. From a Cheyenne telephone telephone survey. I hope you'll think about people like Danny and Gillian and Maria and Sienna. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speakers, Brian Maguire. If you haven't heard yours, it's time. Thank you. Good morning. Didn't think I'd manage to do this later than last time. I'm impressed that after ignoring the buzzer for 4 hours, you managed to you chose to unilaterally give this item in particular 2 minutes only and start cracking the whip. That's seems kind of arbitrary and capricious, if you ask me. But for the people, the landlords complain that 5% is not, uh, functional for them. This is a very different than, say, two thirds or CPI like you see in some of our neighboring cities. If the economy stalls like everyone likes to predict every six months, you still have the ability to catch up at basically double the rate of inflation over recent years. So it's it's a far cry from what, you know, the people are are trying to say what happened with, you know, comparing this to like a stricter voter driven policy. You guys should be championing you guys should be the ones endorsing this all the way. Because like some have said, this is this is going to protect you as far as some of the. Provisions as far as mom and pops, which we hear about all the time. They don't have to evict the tenants if they don't want to pay the relocation costs, if they do need to evict the tenants. They have a pretty nice piece of collateral that they can use to finance that, you know, relatively moderate or minor cost, depending how long the tenants been there. If you can't make that work, you're in the wrong business. And no business owner deserves guaranteed success. Just look at the restaurants out here on Park Street. Property owners. Do not have a moral right to extract all of the income gains in the region from a booming economy. If there are any exemptions considered from this council, I would suggest limiting it to something like owner occupied parcels with two, maybe three units capped. Anything beyond that? You're you're in the business of, you know, providing housing and you're a property manager. But if you were living on that site, maybe there's some some differences there. But thank you. Thank you. Any other speaker slips. All right. So he was our last speaker. Staff are going to come back up here now. Now, Miss Potter, do you have, like, a list? How do you propose? So my recommendation is, if we could call back up the PowerPoint presentation, I would suggest that we just scroll through and we kind of like we did on the fifth issue by issue, if that works for the council, otherwise we can answer questions. Yeah. You know, we never did have an opportunity to ask questions on the staff report, I assume, just because we wanted to get into the speakers. So can we ask the speakers as we go through I mean, ask for clarifying questions as we go through the items instead of all at once. You mind if we do it for item. On the staff. Report? Um. Um. I'll do my best. But normally we do have a chance to ask clarifying questions of the staff report. She's going to be going over the report. And it's going to be the bullets to it. But Mr. Spencer, she's this is not the standard we're looking at. See. Where do you want to start? Yeah. So I am prepared to talk on the PowerPoint slides, the staff report or the principles that were the exhibit to to the staff report. Um, but if we just wanted to start and take them in order, we would start with the one year at least and staff would request a consensus direction from the council about. Um. Mandate and a requirement to offer a one year lease to in place tenants as well as the already agreed to offering of one year leases to prospective tenants. All right, Member Ashcraft, are you in a position to discuss that or you want to go back to something else at this point? I'll go with the flow, but I expect you to let me ask my questions at some point this evening and not to get to a point and say, okay, no questions, it's too late. But, I mean, I think we need to now have more council deliberation than hearing staff speak. So. Debbie Ms.. Potter's presented this question. In the frame. So she's going to go item by item, and then we can respond and deliberate then at each item. I remember. So I like it. I prefer just to begin going item by item, asking whatever clarifying questions or any questions we have, and then and having an opportunity to the extent that council members so want to, you know, frame all the questions and comments and concerns. All at once. Everybody, whether you. Agree with or dislike, I mean, as you suggested, Madam Mayor, we go through each item, liberate, give our comments and questions, and there's something we haven't done and we want to do a wrap up statement. Then we could kind of do that up there. Didn't you want. Them okay with you? I prefer that. I think it's orderly. I think I was very successful last time doing it that way. Did you want to weigh in by square or. Yes. I like the idea of going through the points that need the staff feels it needs to get clarification on. But I do think we should be able to have questions or comments on the staff report. Or offer other thoughts at the end of this. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm I'm in agreement with the vice mayor if you know. It necessary at that time. I beg your pardon. If we still need you at that time. Yeah. Right. But bear in mind, we're doing this cleanup session now so that when we come to the 16th, we'll be ready to move on with the first reading of an ordinance. We most certainly weren't ready to do that coming out of the January meeting. Remember. And I believe that we were clear with staff when we suggested this meeting that it would be pretty much limited to these these eight items that, you know, not rehashing what we've already decided. Absolutely. I agree. Member de SAC. So if I could just begin a quick, quick question on the one year lease, if it were all right. So at this point is go ahead with your recommendation. Thank you. So there was consensus on January 5th that one year leases be required to be offered to prospective tenants. There was a question about whether or not you wanted to extend that to in place tenants. Two staff's recommendation is that the one year lease offer requirement be extended to in place tenants to. All right. Desai My quick question is, do we have, for lack of a better word, case history of how this works in other places, though? Do we know where other places have a similar feature? Yeah. So Glendale. Glendale is one of the cities that's had a longstanding ordinance regarding the requirement to offer a one year lease. The city of Palo Alto has this requirement and then Mountain View just put put an ordinance. I think it was effective last month. And do we have any can we provide a 10/2 response as to if we know how effective that's been in addressing whatever their housing issues or. Well, I would say the example of Glendale is that I'm in Glendale. If you offer a one year lease, you are exempt from all other requirements regarding relocation and all the others. So, so in Glendale, and if you go on to their website, they'll tell you that. You know, their their programing they have. There is very little activity because my guess is that they offer one year leases and they move forward. And that's what Palo Alto has had in place. But we have not researched the the the details are kind of beyond that. That's fine. That was an interesting point about Glendale. Thank you. Mm. Any other clarifying questions or comments on this issue? So notwithstanding your comment about Glendale, we're not proposing we're not even on relocation benefits yet. Right. This is, you know, the recommendation to require one year leases was part of the package of sort of additional tenant protection measures. And from staff's perspective, the idea of offering one year leases is to bring some stability and some certainty to the process that if you have a lease, you will your rent will not go up for a while, for 12 months. And it's an opportunity to to introduce stability. The council already said that they wanted to do this for prospective tenants. The only question I believe that's on the table for for for further discussion is that if you extend that requirement to in place tenants and. That that's what other jurisdictions who have this requirement they they offer it to in place as well as prospective tenants and the in-place tenants are only once because the or you know as. The ordinance is going to be effective. And then what we anticipate is that you would offer that the one year lease when either if you have a lease now 60 days before your lease expires or at that time your first rent increase. And it's a one time only. Requirement. And if you've done that, you've you've fulfilled that obligation under the ordinance. And it seems to staff that the you know, it's equitable if you required of perspective as well as for the in-place tenants. But we had a question from an audience member. If they offer a one year lease, does then become a month to month or is it one year and then done? We'll roll to it. Typical residential rental leases in the state. That it rolls. Yes, roll to month. But is that a requirement of this then? If there's a. Requirement. Is that it be if you have an existing lease and you're going to be offered, you're an in-place tenant with an existing lease and you're going to be offered one lease. It has to be materially the same. So if it rolled to month to month, it would roll to month to month in the new lease to. All right. Thank you for clarifying that. Remember, it's a quick. Question. I think we decided last time, if I'm not mistaken, that you get one rent increase per year, right? That's correct. So, I mean, if you do opt as a tenant to go month to month and don't accept that lease, you're still going to get one increase per year. You're not going to get an increase every two months or three months or six. That's correct. And then we so our is your suggestion that, you know, we do this as a one time stabilization and then everyone whose lease expires and gets an increase within the next 12 months gets an option of one year. And then we just we're one and done. Yes. Some people don't want I mean, this is what February. Right. The recommendation is one day. So anyone whose lease may have expired in January, you know, next January, they'd be subject no. But once the right for. The first time, there's a notice of a rent increase after the ordinance goes into effect. Okay. So what if they don't do it in the first year? But that only applies to rent increases in the first year after the ordinance goes into effect. The way we are and the way we've drafted is the first time there's a notice of the first rent increase, whether it's a year from now, 24 months from now, if. Or any other member. Oh, I'll go. After. Them. Just for clarification, a tenant could opt to, rather than if the tenant had some reason to not want to be held to a one year lease. Job relocation prospects are something they would don't have to accept the one year lease. They could ask for month to month and they wouldn't be penalized. That's correct. But they would still have the rent increase then. Correct? That's correct. And I remember they it I remember. Just just to be clear on the policy. So on the rent increase, with the one time a year limit, you know, we've kind of taken care of the rent increase. The stability that we were trying to get with this one year lease was on the evictions because those that were on a month to month lease would then understand that at least for the next year, unless they do something like nuisance or don't pay their rent, that they're not going to get a no no fault eviction or, you know, some Omar or something like that. Evictions. It's things like provision of a parking lot or access to laundry facilities, things that are that are provided to via a lease that that you would have that kind of certainty or stability for for an additional year. And then anyone that may, for one reason or another, you know, not have a formal lease or be on an oral agreement on a month to month, which, believe it or not, they're still out there. You know, we'd get them like with standardized terms. You know, one thing we may want to think about, you know, is some type of model lease, but that's a discussion for another day. Right. You're right about that. Yeah. Well, actually, I might have had some request about coming up with a model list once the ordinance is in place. And that's something I think that staff is interested in working on that would be available. Standard noticing, model list, those kinds of things that that. Could be helpful. Yeah. And we're not we're not it's not a gender issue. We don't want to be here till four in the morning. So thank you. Another time. Every day. So one last question for me on this topic. So with regard to going back to the Glendale model, are you saying that we anticipate implementing that feature of the model where if you implement a one year lease at the time that the lease is exhausted, if the landlord so chooses not to continue and the per the Glendale model that the landlord doesn't have to provide relocation benefits. No, we're not recommending that. All right. So then, are we ready to give direction? So this time we were just giving direction. We weren't actually taking emotion. So. Right. Right. I think if there's a sense of the council or consensus that the clerk could capture, that would be all right. So council members, you just want to go around the table. How do you want to do whatever you want? I'm okay. I'll I'll go ahead and say I'm agreeable to staff recommendation. Anyone else want to weigh in? I'd like to have it the way it was originally. Where it's just the first time. Nebraska. Did you want to weigh in? Do you want him to clarify. What's between. The four? It doesn't apply to existing tenants. You don't want it to apply to existing tenants. Oh, okay. I'm. I'm agreeable to what's on the screen before us. To offer the least to existing tenants. I had never talked to. Any questions are going away. No, I. I think. It's supply it to new tenants. But I will hold off as to whether or not existing tenants. I mean, I'll have to think about that more. Well, is that an abstention then? Because we know it just means that for sure and for. Uh. So we're going to be able to craft an ordinance to come back to us. This is this is preparing for that. All right. All right, go ahead. 5 seconds. Yeah, I'm fine with the staff recommendation. So I would say that that is there's no chances. To have this work and be a majority consensus. Majority. So that's helpful. And B will be capturing the concept of the one time lease offer for a perspective as well as in place tenants in place. It's when there's a rent increase or not. If they're on a month to month and then if they're already have an existing lease, it will be 60 days before their current lease expires. Just once. Just once. For. Two years they would. That's correct. And just for technical clarification, Ms.. Former Madame. Referred to and b I don't see an. Inbuilt in the staff report under staff recommendations. Gotcha. Okay. Okay. I'm a. So this one, I don't think we're not asking for any action this evening. This was just an informational update. And so unless council had any feedback or input for staff, I'm. Member Ashcraft Okay, so the direction I would like Steph to go in, in the ordinance you're crafting is that I think. It's important to. Um. Not have the tenant bear the cost of arbitration. So I know there's been some discussion in the course of discussion of, you know, both sides maybe dividing the fee. I think I said this before in January, this playing field is not level. If someone is, you know, coming forward saying, I can't afford this rent increase, how are they going to afford the. The the arbitration clause. But I think there is a you know, it's not wanting to throw a wrench into the works. But as I listened to you, Ms.. Potter, explain that we can't say binding arbitration because there's legal implications, and you're right. And then you get into, you know, really having it be rent control. And there's other implications to that. So it's just a binding hearing process. But there's the judicial review. So just stop and think for a minute of how onerous a process that might be. So landlord comes forward wanting to have an increase of more than 5%. First you go to the rack. We all know that's not binding. Then we go to the arbitration process. But that's not binding either because it can still be appealed, so then it can be appealed to a judicial process. So we are requiring in some instances people to go through cross three hurdles. So it's my understanding that's exactly what the City of Gardena has, and that still counts as rent control. By having this arbitration, it is considered some sort of rent. Control by the and even it's clear what what Gardena does are, you know, Cucamonga or whatever. What I'm just concerned about is our renters here. And I just stopped and thought about that process, for starters. How long will that take? And and then what's the cost? That what's the cost as a judicial process is this small claims court so parties aren't represented by attorneys or what's the. Can you walk us through that? Because I think we need to consider that. If you want me to jump in on that. Sure. Can I just one thing that I want to say about what's being proposed is that for rent increases that are being proposed, that are above 5%, that the rent increases not effective until the the that all of the processes have happened. So I understand the technicalities. I've read the report, but I'm just saying, what happens if I mean that conceivably a renter and a landlord could go through these three steps? That's correct. That is that is correct. And so, Vice Mayor, you I think Mr. Bash was going to chime in. Well, I'm concerned about how much time we're going to spend on this part. Vice Mayor, did you want to comment? I just want to comment very quickly on this whole notion of binding arbitration or binding. Hearing. Hearing and thinking about and then hearing your explanation. I'm not. I'm no longer supporting that because I don't think it provides enough benefit for the cost and the problem. We've had a non-binding system when people are avail themselves of it or feel comfortable enough to go to it. It's been fairly successful at a fairly low cost, and there's still judicial review at the end of that process that's available to people. And I think this puts and maybe. A unwieldy and and maybe not beneficial step in between. A mediation. And if I was to say spend the money, I'd spend it for private semi-private mediation in front of the rack. Before it becomes public. I think that has better benefit than putting a binding arbitration at the end of it. And so with all due respect to and I'm concerned with the time to, but I would still like to have our attorney weigh in on this. Madam Chair and members of the Council, Michael Rausch from the City Attorney's Office. The. Yeah. The agenda report's going to indicate that the program fee will be such that it would cover the cost of the the hearing process. So, in other words, that we make some or certain assumptions that there'll be a certain number of matters that will go to the binding hearing process and that will have a cost. And that cost will be built into the overall fee that housing providers will pay. The the persons or the housing providers who will be subject to that process will presumably pay a slightly higher fee than those that aren't, because those folks won't have the opportunity to go to the binding hearing process. But if it does go to the binding hearing process, once that decision is done, it can be challenged judicially. But I think, as Ms.. Curran has indicated previously, it would be done by what's called a petition for writ of mandate, where basically a a trial court would review the administrative record that was had before the hearing officer would look at the transcript, would look at the evidence, and then based on that, decide whether or not that decision was upheld by by substantial evidence. I think the substantial evidence rule would apply there, not an independent judgment ruled. I don't mean to be talking legalese here, but just for the just for what actually will happen. So the answer is, as staff is going to propose it there, there would be no cost to either the tenant or the housing provider to go to the binding hearing process. But beyond that, if someone wanted to continue to challenge it, it would be on either the housing provider or the tenants costs to do the judicial process. So there would be a cost to a tenant to to to for the court filing or. Correct. I think the idea of much like, you know, to analogize it to when the council does a land use decision a person might not like, the planning commission's decision can appeal to the city council. City Council decides that if somebody is dissatisfied and wants to go to court, that person then has to pay the freight or attorney's and other court costs that would be associated with the writ of mandate process. And that would be the way it would be handled here. Just just a point of clarification, a couple of things. This process that we're talking about right now is not really on the agenda right now. You all decided that process. We're not asking for any clarification on that process. So I would really I mean it with all due respect. Program fee is not even actually on this agenda because we're suggesting that we're going to come back in February 16. Okay. And that that's fine. Fair enough. But just I was trying to give direction because then when you come back, we may be sending you back again, but. But that's actually not going to be separate and. That's correct. That's right. And my question on this subject matter of program fee is simply this. In the case. I believe there are cases that we here in Alameda are probably looking to. Of cities that have that administer this kind of stuff. Perhaps Los Gatos is an example. I'm not quite sure, but I think it would benefit the public and many people if we simply demystify this whole process and in addition to kind of, you know, discussing the mechanics of it, but kind of be able to point at, well, and this is how Los Gatos works for good or for bad, but just the facts or this is how did you say Gardena? This is how Gardena works, how much it costs and blah, blah, blah. So that we get we get the sense that, okay, this is something that, you know, that other places are doing. And so we're not doing something that's so. No mystical. Well, we were actually focusing on what or what the proposed ordinance looks like and what we think it's going to cost to administer our ordinance. But we we will have flowcharts and lots of information. Thank you. All right. Just real brief. You know. Personally, I think on a policy level, this is going to benefit tenants. And there's also going to be some some things in there that the landlords want. And I think the only fair and equitable way is to share that cost equally across all landlords and tenants. 5050. That's just my. So actually, I, I I'm going to hold off because. Thank you. Thank you. That's what I heard you wanted us to do. So honor that. So you could just go straight to the next point that you need us to respond to in order to craft the ordinance. Let's stay focused on that. Thank you. So the next item is that the council has already indicated that they want to allow no cause evictions with certain limitations. So the the only the only direction that we're really looking for this evening is what the cap what cap you would like to see for the next tenants rent increase if there is no cause eviction or an in place tenant. All right. So my position on this one is that then the the rent to the next tenant would be whatever they could have gotten if they've kept that tenant. And so if they hadn't given had a rent increase within the past year or if they wanted to do more than that, go through whatever would have been the same. So. So are you suggesting 5%? Because that's the that's the threshold. Or it. Was that. They hadn't received the rent increase. But how are we going to. Okay. So whatever is not clear, sir. Really? Yeah. I mean, I. I see that it's a split the baby. So if you've had a run increase within 12 months and the new tenant, the old tenant couldn't get a rent increase until the 12 months is up. But if you're evicting somebody at the end of their lease, then you'd be entitled to raise that rent 5%. So you'd be entitled to raise it to an unlimited amount. We're not paying a rent. But if. The thought was here that you could only charge what you would have, charge the tenant that was staying. Well, know what that cap is really. The 5% is really equivalent to the trigger that we would require initiating the process. That's what the 5% was it. And in January we had it set at 8% because that was the percentage. For rent on a new. Tenancies, rent on the new tenant. And the whole point of this policy, if I remember correctly, was to disincentivise the rent evictions. That's correct. So if you allow somebody to evict somebody and then charge a 25% increase. Exactly. A disincentive. So that's why we're asking for a direction on a cap. Right. And I think the mayor's suggestion was. If you if the if they got their rent increase in the last 12 months, then you couldn't. Increase that existing tenants rent if they were on month to month. So that should be zero. And correct me if I'm wrong, but if they were eligible for a 5% increase, you know, we would make at that flat 5%. What about instances where a tenant tenant a move is evicted for no cause and receives a relocation benefit? So are we saying that the landlord has to pay a relocation benefit and then where the new tenant is kept? Yes. Because this is connected to that code section as my recollection. Where. Yes, that's correct. Next to that code section. In which case it's. Doesn't start brand new. So it would actually be. If if the code section is correct, if that's what this is, then it's zero. However, there's the next time they could give the increase would be whenever it would have been eligible for the prior tenant. Is it coming? So I understand. I understand the point about if the rent has been increased once in the past 12 months, you can't increase it again. So that might argue for a zero, you know, allowing for no rent increase. The part that I'm not quite following is that because there is no cap on rents, I don't know if they haven't done a rent. If they're if they haven't if they're owed a rent increase. It's been 12 months. They could do 20%, 15%. I mean, you would have to set a. Cap purpose of. I know. So that's why we need a cap hearing. So. Right. So we need a percentage cap. So may I. Remember? So I'm going to suggest that we make it 5%. And it's part of the package of what you as a landlord, you have rights, but you have responsibilities. So you're going to come up with this. You want to turn it out. Don't have to give a reason. Don't have to go to court and pay attorney's fees. But you will have to I know we haven't gotten to the relocation assistance, but we've talked about this. You'll have to pay the relocation assistance. You'll have to pay the movie expenses. You can charge the next tenant, assuming they you evicted right at the end of the term or whatever the. What you were currently getting, plus up to 5% increase. And with that, I also expect to eliminate a lot of the arguments I heard tonight about how mom and pop landlords can't possibly afford all these various expenses because we are giving you a cushion is essentially what we're doing. But I don't see how we can. Well, I don't know. I mean, there may be legal ways, but I think if 5% was the trigger that we chose for taking, you know, a below 5%, 5% or below would stand unless the tenant took the the landlord to the rack. It seems like 5% is an increase that we found was reasonable. And let me ask this question. So going back to real life examples, can you give an example where where such a clause exists? No, because this is this is kind of this is a good example of the hybrid ordinance that the Alameda is looking at. If most cities with rent stabilization don't allow no cause evictions, they they only allow evictions for just cause. And then if you don't have rent stabilization, you tend not to have eviction protections. So this is something where the city is kind of proposing to do something that is accommodating the request by a lot of the property owners that they be allowed to do no cost evictions, but are willing to put limitations on that to really address the very important issue of sort of the economic evictions, evictions strictly to raise the rent. When a tenant has been paying their rent every month, they've been, you know, abiding by their lease, that kind of thing. My opinion is simply that to me, while we have. Discussions about the relocation assistance and maybe there are other benefits. To the extent that the tenant. Tenant A is moved and received whatever the relocation. The benefit is in my opinion that landlord, as so to speak, given to the church already. So now we're doing a second penalty where they can't do some kind of rent increases because it's altogether possible that they have to do a rent increase for or some capital expenses. I know. That's just my opinion. Right. So capital expenses would be a different type of eviction if you were to if you wanted to, to deal with a substantial rehabilitation. And you needed you were going to make a big investment and you needed a rent increase above the 5% that you would. That would be a different grounds for eviction. This is evictions for for no cause where you don't have to show cause. And so the council had already agreed in January to. To doing the cap and to doing the in requiring the relocation. And really what we're focused on is the very narrow question of what the percentage cap should be. It was my understanding and recollection that when we did this, went through this, we were told there's a civil code section that says that you cannot once you have a city that has rent control, that and that's what this would be then that if you evict for no cause that that next tenant, you cannot increase the rent for that civil code section. Well, you can rent. You disagree with that code section that that does not apply. Very. I, I think our opinion is that the Council has the discretion if it wants to set that 5% cap, that it does that it. I don't think it's quite as black and white as that as it may have. Self-represented. So could we set 10%? 20%? You don't think it has any bearing on this at all? I don't think it does now. So what do you think that code section speaks to? Well, I think it speaks to situations. It it's a fairly narrow exception concerning single family residences. And this is going to apply more broadly than that. So, again, I just think that. It really addresses a different issue than than you're really kind of facing right at the moment. So I think if the council if the council wants to make it zero, it certainly can. If it wants to put it at 5%, I think it can do that as well. So I'm hoping we don't have very many no cause evictions and that's what I think we're trying to contain here. So I would like us to figure out a way that it can, in fact, be that they don't get to bite that they have. I actually don't think this is about evicting someone. And then you could increase the rent all you want for a no cause eviction. And and. But. But should that number be zero 5%? So I, I feel I mean, I've heard the term split the baby. It's not my favorite term, but I guess it's biblical. But I do think we have to try to address interest on both sides. And what is that? I think there are different no cause evictions. And I'm just going from, you know, a lot of conversations I've had with housing providers. And one is that, yeah, we've seen egregious rent increases where a landlord came back with, you know, a very steep increase after they got charged twice as much or whatever. But I'm also told that there are times when you have a problem tenant that is, the other tenants don't want to testify against him in court, and that's what it would take. And yet it's causing a problem for all of the tenants. And this is a way to get that tenant out. It's also a way to look at it charitably, to not put a black market on that particular tenant's record that would make him or her have a harder time renting a subsequent unit because there's you know, there's all different ways to look at this. So I'm comfortable with having the No Cause eviction allowed. And I know the the landlord organization's really wanted that and they're not thrilled with relocation expenses, but I think that's equitable. But again, I do think that we need to take into consideration ability to maintain property, ability to put aside that reserve that you need for, you know , unanticipated expenses or, you know, expenses going up. But I think then we're being quite fair. And again, the 5% figure, it is about twice CPI, but it's used in Los Gatos, you know, successfully in that well, that's their cap. But I, I, I would argue that we allow a 5% cap. I don't think that's egregious because again, it's something we agreed was the trigger beyond, which is a trigger to to go to rack. Remember. I mean, I'm fine with the 5% also. I mean, I don't want to get into a long discussion on the rest of it. So can I spare them? Yes, Jose. I am to them. There'll be a suggested cap. 5%. Okay. Thank you. But there's a double penalty. Relocation benefit was the penalty. Okay, well, but then you could. That's all right. Next issue. Let's go. Got it for next issue, then. Sticking with that, the concept of no cause evictions is to cap the number of allowable no cause evictions in it in a 12 month period. This is one of my staff report questions. All right. Go ahead, Amber Ashcraft. So my question was how? So Mr. Potter in the staff report and this is paragraph number five right now, the cap on number of no cause evictions. And the first sentence is to prevent a property owner from undertaking a mass eviction to renovate a building in lieu of preparing a capital improvement plan. Why would we ever allow a property owner to do anything that involves involved evicting tenants without a capital improvement plan? We we don't want to do that. We want to prevent that, which is why we are recommending that there be a cap on the number of no cause evictions. So there's not a workaround. And so you're really compelled if you need to evict your tenants or relocate them for purposes of substantial rehabilitation, you will have to go through the capital improvement plan process. So do you ever envision? So. Okay, so how would I? It's maybe it's the IRA, but how would. Would this first phrase come to pass to prevent a property owner from undertaking a mass eviction, to renovate a building in lieu? You mean to go away to do a mass? No. Cause. Yeah, exactly. That's why we need to cat. That's why we're recommending that it be capped. And so I think everyone was supportive of that concept and it was really initially staff had recommended it cap at 50% and I think the discussion was 50% might be too high. Staff is prepared to go with it. We're prepared to say we agree that that probably was too high and that 25% probably makes sense for buildings with five or more units in that. For buildings with four or fewer units, it's just one one. No cause eviction here. You have to fix. You agree so I. I'm sorry the. Fix your math because if you have five or if you have five units 10% a month is. That is one and it's 20% one. So you just need to fix the math. Okay. We will. But what should it be? We have a rounding up or rounding down. Right. Okay. So because you would get zero if you were only about 10% of one. So I'm agreeable with staff recommendation with tax return. Parts of this, correct. You're asking for both parts? Yes. Okay. I'm agreeable with that. So this mainly is speaking to preventing mass evictions. Masquerading as evictions. Right. So this. Is circumvent. Kind of dealing with the harbor. This would be a tool to prevent Harbor Island happening again or for $0.70 on it. And it's also a nightmare. I would prefer I would support this for units, buildings with units of maybe ten or 20 more, because that's where the problem's been. We have not had this problem. Or for the smaller buildings. And I think the we should recognize that difference. In fact, the two marquees that drive this are 30 plus. So I would say sell it for a price. Thank you. Okay. So I want to speak to that because part of the second part of this, no more than one unit per year for buildings with four or fewer units. So if they have four or fewer units, you're okay with them doing evicting all of them at once. You don't think anything. There on the circumstance and and I think. Hold on now. Aren't we entering into kind of. Hold on members? They let him finish his comment. I think those are different circumstances than theirs. That's why I've been pushing for evictions to be within the scope of of Iraq, so that those those type of where there's untrue unfairness, people have a recourse. All right, remember, they suck it. Well. I think we run the risk of having the threshold too low if we do. Or units. But no more than one unit if you only have four units in your building. Just so basically. 20%, 20% conceivable that what you're saying is anyone who who owns a. Building the four. Plex. Anyone who owns a four plex at any point in time. Even if it's. They run the risk of doing a mass eviction by definition. So these are for no cause eviction. This or even for. Nothing. Well, this is. I mean. They would think this would cap this would cap the number of no cause evictions that you could do annually. Two one if you're doing four or fewer if you were had it for plex or smaller. And it would cap it to 25% of the units annually in buildings with five or more units. The idea. Right. Once again, the idea is that you wouldn't do a bunch of no cause evictions as a way to get get. Get rid of folks and then and not sort of be required to do a capital improvement plan or something else in support of why you're evicting out all your tenants. But it's completely possible that in a four plex or even a six plex, that you could remove a person following the rules, like moving in a family member. Correct. And and then it's also possible that. Some other thing happens such that you do another no cause evictions that that is conceivably have reasonable grounds that. The family member be. Allowed and you'd be permitted to do that because family move in is a different it's a no fault eviction. It's not a no cause eviction. So you could do if you had a four plex, you could do three owner move ins theoretically and one no cause eviction. You could do that. This is this is a cap on the no cause, not the no fault. That. There are differences. Do you want her to go over that? One last question. It's a do it again. Do we have examples of cities having this kind of language? No, because once again, this is tied to the fact that we're going to be permitting no cause evictions. But we want to protect. And cities either have. Only just cause eviction or they allow evictions without regulating them. So we're really this is this is kind of new, new territory. I wrote it. And I think that was the policy. You know, the choice was doing just cause which. It's a controversial issue, but we made a policy decision not to do just cause. And landlords have told us, you know, we do these no cause evictions very rarely. And they still wanted to have the ability to do with them. So this this gives them you know, this is kind of the tradeoff. This gives them the ability to do that. And, you know, we heard landlords here today say, oh, I never evict people. I'm not going to evict people. I want to keep my tenants. But that's true. You know, that's not going to really be a big deal. Right. And, you know, this is kind of the. You get one mulligan, you know, one bad decision. You know, we can't protect landlords from making, you know, multiple bad business decisions. And like one of the tenant people said, you know, if you do that, maybe you're in the wrong business. So you get your one shot. Use it if you need a second one. You go to court. You know, if if you need four or five, then, you know, maybe you're in the wrong business. So I'm fine with the staff recommendation. Thank you. Member Ashcroft And. I just want to chime in and say that I object to having any exceptions to this. I think that this needs to apply regardless of what the the size of the unit is. I really don't want to see us start carving out exceptions because we we came to this project to begin with because of the stories we had heard. We're trying to to correct that. And so I just don't want to create different classes of of tenants. And some are protected and some aren't. And again, we're going to do this. We're going to put something together. We're going to have an annual review. We will have a chance to look back over a year's worth of work and see what works better than others. And and, you know, tweak as we need. But I don't want to start. So this has to pass. And you're okay to march then. So this is the yeah, I am. I want. That to be the same. Because part of what we want to do is also encourage people to take care of their buildings, to maintain them. So if you really have a substantial renovation you need to do, then you come forward with your capital improvement plan, but not just move people out so you can add in, not raise your rent a little bit more. But we're going to do that still. The cap is in place on this. Tent, right? Yeah. I think we have. To be aware. You're aware? I support staff's recommendation. Remember? Did clearly remember Ashcroft. You just did. Vice mayor does not remember days ago. Well, my concern, you know, part of my concern is. You just don't know what we don't know. And. All due respect to. You know our experts here. I don't think anyone is really. I don't know. Has anyone really incorporated such things and understand all the questions and the nuances? And that's. Okay. So the birds are speaking about no cause evictions, about three of us that are comfortable with it. Let's move on. And I would just say that in cities with rent stabilization there, not a lot. There are no no cause evictions allowed. So you have jurisdictions where you only can evict for cause. And those requirements have been in place in many jurisdictions for many years. So you do have the track record of not permitting no cause evictions. So because we are agreeing to permit no cause evictions, we're going to have rules that are a little different than than communities that only. Yeah. So it's a built in protection is the way. I see it. Mm hmm. Okay. So actually on this one, we are looking for direction from the council about whether or not there should be any kind of exemption for mom and pop property owners on the relocation benefit requirement. And if there is if there is a recommendation to do that, and there's the secondary exercise of defining a mom and pop property . So I'd like to speak to this. When we looked at this before. It was offering additional time because the concern has been that people are being forced out. And then we came up with this thing that they would buy certain months and then it was going to be the tenant's choice. However, my preference is to come up with something that is the same, whether it's a small, whatever you call because mom and pop or a larger one. But I'm wondering what if it's always going to be if you want to do and it could could we do it legally if they want to do any? Any of the situations where this would apply. There's no cause, no fault that it would always be the additional time unless the tenant and the landlord agree that then it's money and or formula or something like that. But it's always the time. The primary default would be the time unless there's an agreement between the tenant and the landlord that it would be, you know, the dollars for each month that they would all down and then have that apply to all situations. Because what I've been hearing is that mom and pop smaller landlords may not be able to afford given it to be the tenant choice, but if we made them all, the default is the additional time based upon how many years they've been there and then they agree to lesser. But so then it would always be the same, whether it's a mom and pop or a larger landlord. So may. I. Yes. Speak to. That. Actually, is would that be legal for us to have something like that for these conditions? No fault. No cause if we could we do that. Additional time for the buyout based upon how long they've been there. But then if the landlord and the tenant agree that they if for whatever reason, the landlord wants them out sooner than the landlord has to pay the tenant the money based upon the rent that we had that same formula. That we had discussed before. The the way that the ordinance is currently drafted it, it basically provides that there that at the choice of the tenant, the tenant can extend the time to remain in the unit and give up. Well, let me back up for a second. The way it's currently drafted is that the tenant has the choice of remaining one month for every year that the tenant has been in the unit up to basically four years, four months. But it goes on to provide that the tenant at the tenant's choice, the tenant can remain in the unit beyond the otherwise vacation date in exchange. They basically exchange the month rent for an additional month to stay in the in the unit. So, for example, if the tenant had been there for three years and they wanted to remain an extra month, then they would only get two months worth of additional. Relocation benefits. That's the way it's currently drafted at the council. But you can give direction in terms of how it wants to do that. But that's currently what would be before you if you leaving aside sort of the exemption issue. And that was and I would just add to that and the reason the ordinance is being drafted that way is because that's the direction staff received on the 5th of January. So. Yeah. And really the only there was there wasn't consensus about doing anything differently from mom and pops, but I think there was a. There was a desire to see if the council did because there wasn't consensus on the Fifth. Was there a desire to kind of revisit that idea of an exemption that. I think it was very narrowly focused on the relocation benefits and it was really around, as you were saying, Madam Mayor, that you have the cash in hand to do it and would time be preferable to cash. And the suggestion potentially is that in the instance of a mom and pop, you, instead of allowing the choice to be solely rests solely with the tenant but the mom and pop, they could make the decision about the cash or the time. All right, Mr. Ashcroft. Thank you. So one of my overarching principles for what we will achieve is that we keep this simple and streamlined. And I think the fewer. Permutations the better. But also again, we need to remember why we began this discussion in the first place. Of course, we want to be fair to both landlords and tenants, but bear in mind we are allowing a rent increase that is twice the CPI. The the concept of mom and pop landlords in even defining what that is and then also doing a means test because some mom and pop landlords have on their properties long enough to own it free and clear without a mortgage. We and any business owner has to keep in mind that there are always unforeseen circumstances and operate with some sort of a reserve. I think we're giving the ability to raise rents in such a way that you should be able to create a reserve for yourself. But what we also want to do with this is to make sure that this isn't being used arbitrarily against tenants. And so I think that what we had for what is in the ordinance currently in the draft with the number of. Payments of a month's rent based on the years of tenancy. I think it's perfectly reasonable. I worry that and I wouldn't support leaving it to the landlord and the tenant to work out between themselves because that playing field is not is not level. And if we only give tenants time and not money, how does that help them go to their next? They're paying rent and they're looking around trying to find another place in a tight rental market. But they still have to come up with the first and last month's rent and security deposit. So there's no assistance for them. And the the landlord is not having to take responsibility for their actions. So I would strongly objected to any carve outs of any particular categories of tenants, because that's essentially what we're doing. Yes. So then leave it at the tenants choice. Leave it just. Because that's what we. Have for. The tenants choice. Just leave it for everybody. All right. Member Odie. I'll try to be brief and I kind of agree almost 100% with everything Councilmember Ashcroft said it kind of look at this house. How's it going to play out? I think, one, you leave yourself a huge loophole. So if the landlord knows I can trade for months instead of paying four month's rent, then if you're astute, you're going to say, okay, I want that person out in June. You know, I'm just going to start the process early. And then knowing that I want them out in June and I'll get them out in June, because in these type of cases, possession is king. So you want possession. So the sooner you get possession, you know, the better it is. So you're going to want to. I think there's a lot of room for manipulation. You know, I understand the concept. I understand why idea is being brought. But I think there's way too much room for manipulation. I think it's going to be difficult to define mom and pop because I think we said this earlier, not every 2 to 4 unit is owned by, you know, individuals like we've seen here today. Some are owned by corporations and not every big building is owned by corporations. Some are built are owned by locally owned folks that, you know, have the same challenges that the 2 to 4 units have. You know, they're on premises. They manage their own property. You know, they have a handy person, you know. So I don't know how you can you can draw a distinction. And, you know, I think, Brian, Mr. Maguire said it best. I mean, if you know, if you don't want to do this, don't evict people. And the folks that came here tonight said, I don't evict people. So if you don't evict people, you're probably not going to have to worry about this. And just this is important. So I just wanna spend a few more minutes on it, you know, think about if I do an am I. So you say I'm going to move away? Yes. Move on and remove it. I'm sorry, owner. Move in. So I can't afford. You're saying on one hand I can't afford to have a relocation, but on the other hand, you're saying I'm moving in or my son's moving in or my parent's moving in, you know, and. But by just definition, you're taking that unit off the market so you can afford to take the unit off the market and change your cash flow. But you can't afford to give somebody, you know, four months. And the same thing with, you know, this this other type of fiction, this end, there's no cause thing that we're allowing this loophole on where we're giving the landlords. We're saying we're not going to do know cause or just cause because you want a cheaper way than paying an attorney $25,000. So, you know, there's a tradeoff there, too. And then the other one is, if you're taking it off the market, if you're acting it now, you're already making a conscious business decision. I can do without or for some reason I'm not going to be I'm giving up that income stream. So you're making a decision that I can afford to give up that income stream. So in my mind, if you can afford to give up that income stream, you can afford to pay more months relocation . And you know, I understand everything everyone said, but, you know, there was a tenant. And his argument to me is why we shouldn't do it. And he exceptions. There was a tenant, 70 year old man, 70 or 73 year old man. Seven year old wife. Small unit. Four Unit. One of these people that are mom and pop on Clinton Avenue and he got evicted because the owner wanted to move the son into the property. There's one vacancy and another vacancy on February 1st. So two vacancies plus his. And it's like. Mom and pops violate these rules. You know, mom and Pops, despite every good intention that we heard today, there's going to be bad actors, and we have to protect our tenants from these bad actors. Every day. A Thank you. I feel strongly about small mom and pop landlords because for the most part they've played fair by the sentiments by Alameda. And we should recognize that. You know, you take a look at, for example, the rent review advisory committee agendas for the past two years, and I've done that. You take a look at the agendas and there's been 40 cases that I bet that have come forward. And of the 40 cases. Clearly the vast majority are apartments. So what that means is that we're not talking about mom and pop landlords. You know, I've heard from them. And, you know, I think the arguments raised about the difficulty of spreading the cost, I mean, they're they are reasonable. Cases, there are reasonable arguments. And I think in Alameda, there's a special place that many of the mom and pops play, particularly in terms of the many of the historical buildings that they maintain. So we're not here tonight or for the past several months because of the small mom and pop landlords. And yet we're dropping the hammer on them, most especially. And they can't deal with the cost in the same way that a ten unit, 15 unit or 20 unit apartment can. So, you know, I think people really should take a look at the rent review advisory committees agenda, take a look at each of the addresses that are there and just Google Earth them. And you'll see that they are by and large. More larger apartments. Now, I think there's a case to be made for for making sure that the small mom and pop projects in Alameda are not are exempted from from things like the relocation benefit. And if they're not exempted from the relocation benefit, that they be given consideration as contemplated here where I'm given. Right. Vice Mayor, did you want. To weigh in? I agree with Councilmember De Saag, and it's not the size of the building. It's the number of units owned by the individual. So that's another complication. That goes into the definition. But I think someone who owns. Five four unit buildings is not a mom and pop, but someone who owns an eight unit building could be. So I think we have to peg it and we kind of did in the previous discussion where there's a cutoff of five units. So I think the number is there and I think there are also financing. You know, how you get your your loans at one point, it becomes a commercial loan. So that might be another way to identify. I'm sure there's a definition there. I do think that there needs to be a distinction because the larger the land owner, the more financial capacity they have to weather ups and downs and to have capacity to wreak havoc as well. So this is for no cause and no fault evictions. So if you have a mom and pop land, whatever that is, a property owner who wants to do a no fault eviction. So then they go ahead and they evict the tenant. And that tenant doesn't get any benefit because it's a mom and pop. But if you have a land property owner that owns five units and they want to do a no fault eviction, that tenant then does get relocation and everything. And but nothing goes to the tenant that is the mom and pop. Well. My what is my stance if you can remember last time was that I think these. The evictions should be subject to mediation and required mediation so that there's accommodation either by finance or time or a combination of both. That's worked out on a case by case basis. Mayor. Amber Ashcroft, thank you. So the problem I have with citing the RAC statistics is that we've all sat here and listened to people tell us that people were too afraid to go before the market because again and even if it were to be used for evictions, it's non-binding. All you can do is, you know, everybody has to show up and then the landlord has the option to say, yep, nope, I'm I'm doing what I want to do. But to member disagree because I know you've asked several times for precedent of what other cities have done in this regard. In this particular instance, if you'll note on the in the staff report on page four, they're at the top of page four, the last sentence of the first paragraph. Staff has not found a rent review slash rent stabilization ordinance that exempts mom and pop properties from the requirements of the ordinance. And I think that's telling. And it's what the mayor just said, that you would give some tenants the opportunity to have relocation benefits and others not. And I, I know that there's you know, we want to believe that the mom and pops, who are the good guys and the large landowners are the property owners are the bad guys. The first case I saw when I first came on the council involved the four plex and involved four sets of tenants who'd been there from 7 to 17 years, and they got rent increases of 20, 30, 40, 50% and. They really scrambled. So I, I think I think what we put together in the draft ordinance on this is a good one. And again, a year, let's give it a year's chance to prove itself. And at the end of the year, if we found some horrendous, unintended consequences, there's things that can be done. So you're agreeable? I'm agreeable. You're agreeable. So three of us are agreeable to going forward with staff recommendations and not excluding them. Mom and pop. It's going to be fine. Thank you for moving us. Let's keep moving. Okay. The second to the last issue, is it the issue of the rent increase cap and affirming that there is no cap on an annual maximum allowable rent increase, but there is a threshold amount above which a property owner must initiate the process and that that threshold amount was set at 5% on January 5th. Okay. Remember. This is one that I did correspond with staff about because I went back and listen to oh my gosh, the whole meeting that we had in that frigid auditorium. But I was particularly interested in this because we really didn't ever have the discussion about rent caps. So it wouldn't really be fair to say there was consensus about this. However, I am the chair. As I said, I put in my notes. The tape of the meeting reflects that there was no consensus on this issue because there was no discussion. But I'm willing to accept the 5% trigger and require that landlords initiate the process, followed by, I said, binding arbitration. But that's not quite the right phrase. And then review the statistics again in one year to gauge its effectiveness. It worries me somewhat because we are kind of saying there's no limits on what you can charge. However, I've also said in correspondence to staff that we want to make sure that both our RAC members and the arbitration arbitrators that we use have training and understand what the guidelines and criteria are that we expect them to apply . But again, we are charting some new territory, so we're not going to be able to see every outcome. I think there's light at the end of the tunnel, but some of this you have to take that leap of faith or keep doing what we were doing, which is to say nothing, which was having its own negative consequences . So I feel that this 5% trigger is very reasonable. It addresses the need for owners of older buildings to maintain them and mom and pops, whatever they are, to have reserves for relocation benefits and moving assistance. So in other words, I would agree with what's on the slide before us. Anyone else wanna speak to this? What about provisions for when landlords had not increased rents in previous years? Are there. What consideration do we have for that? I mean, is it as a straight five, is the threshold a straight 5% every year or in the case of Los Gatos? I think what I read was that if they had not raised the rent for two straight years, then in that third year when they're raising the rent, that the threshold is actually higher. Right. So that's when you have rent control. But all all that this is is a trigger threshold to get you to the rack. So if you haven't raised the rent in three years and you you notify your tenant that you're going to be increasing their rent 10%, you will then go to the rack. And part of what you'll say to the rack is I haven't raised the rent for 3% for three years. I'm sorry, for three years. And the rack then will take that into account when they make a recommended rent increase. Well, in the case of those guys, I think what it is. Don't don't raise the rent here. And in the third year, when you propose to raise the rent and it happens 5%. This isn't a trigger. There's a. Rent control. Those Congress has rent control. It's it's the it's the greater of 5% or 70% of the CPI. So they have they have rent control, which is 5%. And so you can't raise your rent. So and it's kind of like San Jose with their 8% rent control. If you haven't raised the rent for two years, you get 20 something first, you know. So the same living plan if you don't. Let me explain. If you don't raise the rent for several years, somehow have to take into account the cumulative effect of that. That's correct. That's why, for example, previously what I've always been arguing is that at in any one year. Threshold by which. The rent review advisory process ought to be 8%, with the caveat that over two years it is no more than 12%, so that on an annual basis really 6%. So that's what I'm getting, that there might be some times when. And it is having this hard, fast 5%. With a hard, fast 5% is a requirement to go to go to Iraq to have your rent increase that over 5% be mediated. Right. So I think the rack would take into account you haven't raised the rent in three years. You haven't raised it in two years. You haven't raised it in five, therefore. We are a reasonable rent increase would be 8%. And if all the parties agreed you would be on your way with with an increase of 8%. But what I am saying is that if in one year in year one, someone raises the rent by 3%, that means in a year or two they can't raise the rent. More than 7% is three plus seven equals ten. And over two years that averages out to five on average. Member. You want us on this. But that's not part of what what's currently being considered. I know. Right? So what I'm saying is, ah, is it a hard and fast 5% or do we take into account these kind of. But the average there. Is no our number here. Is 5%. This is a trigger. I know 5% is the trigger. So I know I want. To move on to another council member. Member. I mean, I guess not just because but if if we do a 5% cap and you also want to have some type of of consideration of banking. But if we don't do a cap, then maybe we don't need. I'm not talking about automatic trigger. I'm already about to express your. Let's move on. Thanks. I guess. Quickly. Based on the process that we designed at the last meeting, you know, good or bad, like it or not, it's kind of not a cap driven process. So, you know, I'll keep my opinion to whether I wanted to or not, but I don't know if it fits into the process that we. So are you agreeable to this? Are you able to use the trigger? Not a cap. Correct. Because I'm agreeable. I agree with member Ashcroft in regards to this. I'm sorry. Are you still speaking? Mr.. I mean. You know, the. There was a trigger on when the landlord had to initiate it and then they could prove that they were entitled to something higher. Then that's what this says. Cap. Right. But that's what it says. And so are you agreeable to this then? I suppose pretty much the summary was the fact that we all spent all that time on last time. It's these points. I don't know, based on the process. So that's what this is saying. There's no cap we have. So you are agreeable. Yeah, I agree. There's not. Yeah. Okay. That's what we need to know so we can move on. So. And I just want to say that I, I, I understand you Christian Council member deserves concerns, and that's certainly something that a landlord could bring to the. I do hope, though, that in the criteria for the rec members making decisions, it's more than just, oh, I haven't raised the rent for two years, so now I want to raise it 15%. I hope there's more. There's a there's we've identified in the draft ordinance a number of factors that the. We don't want. To wreck. I'll trust you on that but I just. And the. Housing. Okay. Perfect. Okay. All right. All right. All right. The vice mayor said he's fine with us. All right, so we're get on this real. Real consensus on this. Yes. Those to a majority. Okay. So now we're. Okay. Yes. So, um, and the last issue is the one of data collection. And I think, as we all acknowledge, everyone is keenly interested in the data collection, the annual review, the check in. And really what we're looking for is confirmation that what we would be proposing is to collect the data for rent increases above 5% because those are the ones that have to mandatorily you know, they have to mandatorily initiate the process. And then because tenants have an opportunity to initiate a process for increases less than 5%, we could also track those, but we're not recommending requiring landlords who are giving increases of less than 5% to report to the housing authority. And in some ways, you could argue that's potentially an incentive to another incentive to keep your rents below 5%. Where your rent increases. I'm okay with the rent increases above 5% because they'll all be triggered. It will have will have the information. I would say just to simplify this is anything that goes to rack we track. And that's what this means, actually. Yeah, you're right. You're right. That language is clear. I appreciate that clarification. That's real clean that anything that goes direct retract. In any way. But all right. And I agree on that, too. Member Ashcroft And I think it also goes to hopefully keeping the cost of the program fees down because if we get to to complex was it Byzantine I think was the term is it too late now? So but anyway, we wanted the. Yeah, the. I think that we definitely need the data collection and I think that a lot of this can even be done online when I think there's a process whereby the, the landlord can make this request and do some of this online and maybe even with the license payment, there's ways that you can probably collect a lot of information. And that part of that I haven't. But yes, I'm in agreement with this. And the other council member, they saw. Questions, do we know how many rack cases to how many cases come to the rack for 5% rent increases right now? You have? I don't believe that there have been a lot. I do think there's one case that's coming up, though, that's less than 5%, but there aren't a lot. But that's going to change if the ordinance is adopted, the way the direction was given, that's going to change because it's going to be a mandatory reporting for any rent increase, mandatory reporting and initiation of the process for any rent increase of over 5%. It will on its face. There's going to be more cases. Not necessarily because we might have fewer rent increases above 5%. If we have zero rent increases above 5%. Which would be great. I mean, just to weigh in real briefly. You know, I think we should, at least in the first year, collect everything. You know, as the tenant suggested. So we have data and that's what we've been asking for. And after one year, we'll have data to evaluate. You mean everything that goes through Rack. But we should track everything for the first year. I mean, I don't think there's there's agreement with me on that one, but that's just my thought. So I think I think the four of us were. Did you say you're agreeable to the tracking number? Just like I'm not sure where you landed on. Okay. Okay. So there's four of us that are limiting data collection to what goes through rec mean. Can we voluntarily have people report if they want to just so it can be tracked? Absolutely. I repeat that separate, though, because the credibility I don't know how you would confirm that. That's actual. Who's submitting. That? Yeah. Yeah. All right. I mean. Versus right now. All right. What else do you need? That's it. Somebody. And we need. More. So I'm. That's what staff was seeking this evening. The feedback and direction is extremely helpful to us and I think that keeps us on track for being back before the Council on the 16th. I want to clarify this then we'll be coming back on the 16th based on the direction that we've now been given as a first reading on the ordinance. And at that time, members of the public will again have the opportunity to weigh in. Correct? That's correct. In the staff report and the proposed ordinance will be published. It's Thursday. All right. Member Ashcroft So I did have a couple of comments on this. Exhibit one, the principles of agreement in this party. So the on. Okay. So I do want to see a clear written standards and guidelines for Iraq and the arbitrator regarding what documentation a landlord is required to provide when making a request for increased rent, and probably conversely, when a tenant is making a request for a lowered rent. This will help assure that parties using this process are dealt with in a consistent manner. I think that's important. Um. And then. Um. So then down under the rack process and this was something that one of the landlord associations raised, it's the first bullet. Under paragraph five, it's on page two. A person with an ownership interest in the property must attend the hearing. Tenant or landlord initiated. If not the rent increases void and no rent increase for 12 months. I thought that when we amended the rack ordinance we actually said the owner is somebody with the authority to make a binding decision because. The. It could be that. An owner isn't able to come, but shouldn't a property manager, as long as they had decision making authority. At that point, that. That's the way the ordinance currently reads now for for under the current process. I had understood from the Council that there was a strong desire that for the rent increases above 5%, that there would have to be the actual person with the ownership interest. So we are looking at that. And although we you do have to legally you have to be able to make an accommodation if somebody can't do it so. That a stay they have. Right. So because we. Because there will be a mechanism for somebody to who represents though who's legally, you know, who's who has a legally binding authority to make decisions if if they can't make it because we have to be able to legally we have to make that accommodation. But other than that, we would see someone with ownership interest. For the increases above 5%. If they're under five. We're keeping it as the current status quo where you can send somebody who is authorized to negotiate and come to a mediated settlement. And then on the did you remember Ashcroft? You want to go through all of your points? I think I got them. Okay. I had a question. So at this point, we're reviewing these principles to. The fourth bullet here under the rack process on page to. Drain from our men. Ah, I think this was actually the topic. Our agreed upon was to resolve the issues of staff's lack of clarity, not to. Um. So it says in the first paragraph set forth below is staff understanding of the City Council's principles of agreement concerning a proposed Rent Stabilization Tenant Protection Ordinance that staff will use as a roadmap for the ordinance will be presented. I think it behooves us to get out there exactly. Because I think this is going to be part of the ordinance. So we need to get feedback. The I want to clarify. So on the fourth bullet here, it says if the housing provider does not file such a petition. Under RAC. Okay. If the housing provider does not agree with the committee's decision unless the rental unit is exempt. The housing provider must file a petition to have a neutral hearing officer consider the rent increase if they are here. If the housing provider does not file a petition, the rent increases void and no rent increases permitted for 12 months. And I think that that should actually be the amount of the RACK'S recommendations. Right. That is. I think this is. Okay. So that's that's like a typo or something. Well, it's turned it around in one day and try to notice. I appreciate I just want to make sure the agreement. You are on, whatever. Your recommendation is, it's not nothing that the landlord gets. They get what the rack had. That's correct. Okay. And then. Then. Go ahead. I think that was. The only thing that I found on that. Did anyone else find any things that they want to clarify on these principles? All right. So then any other comments on this before we move on to the next agenda item? We're good. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Everyone on this. Staff.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6965 for the Improvements on Santa Fe Avenue, between Spring Street and Wardlow Road; award the contract to All American Asphalt, of Corona, CA, in the amount of $1,526,407, and authorize a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $152,641, for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,679,048; and authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto. (District 7)

LongBeachCC_01062015_15-0028

Item 32 is a recommendation to adopt plans and specifications in the word of contract to all American asphalt in amount not to exceed $1.6 million for improvements on Santa Fe Avenue between Spring Street and Wardlow Road in District seven. Can I get a motion in a second? Your England Andrews. Any public comment on the item? CNN Please cast your votes. Oh, you rang a please speak. No, I just want to thank them for their diligence work. And it's been a long time project we're waiting for. For a long time. And I'm glad to see that they're going to proceed with that work. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Actually, the city attorney, did you want to say something real quick? No. Okay. See no public comment. Please cast your vote. Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. Motion carries eight votes. Next item. I. Adam, 35, is a recommendation to adopt. Okay. I'm sorry, 30 3 a.m.. Item 33 is a recommendation from public works and financial management with the recommendation to adopt specifications and award a contract to five construction companies for anticipated and emergency construction repairs to various city city infrastructures and improvements performed under the method of job order contracting

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7156 for the North Health Facility Tenant Improvement Project and award a contract to Harry H. Joh Construction, Inc., of Paramount, CA, in the amount of $2,330,605, with a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $233,061, for a total contract amount not to exceed $2,563,666; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments. (District 9)

LongBeachCC_05122020_20-0415

Item 15 Report from Public Works. Recommendation to Award a contract to Harry H. Joe Construction for the North Health Facility Tenant Improvement Project for a total contract amount not to exceed 2,563,666. District nine. Right. There's emotion. Can I get a second, please? Mr. Myers, I'd like just a quick, brief stack of boards or project. Dirk was going to get started. Report, please. Great. Craig Beck, director of Public Works. Yes. I think you may remember city council. This is an. Important. Project that we have before you this evening. It's for the North Health Facility. It's necessary to do a number of improvements that will improve both the efficiency from an energy perspective and also from an operational perspective. As you may know, we've been working up there in the Halton Park community area, completing a brand new community center and doing retrofit of the old. Auditorium and building. And completing. This will continue to provide needed services in the north Long Beach area. We have a very competitive bid. It's about $500,000 under the engineer's estimate. So we believe that we're in a good competitive marketplace right now, and we recommend your approval to. Move this project forward. That concludes my report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to just add a comment. Yeah. Go ahead. Okay, thanks. So I'm proud of this project. It did it. This facility was a center for families and youth, and it actually had to close down and move out all the all the staff because it was in such poor shape. It used to be a site of an old development center as well. And so now that we've identified these grants and we're able to move forward, it allows us to bring a clinic in North Long Beach at the Highland Park site, a workforce base and more community meeting space. That Highland Park that really changes the function of out in part from just a focus for seniors and teens, but now a resource for the whole family. Resources, health resources, clothes and family. So it's a really important project. And I want to thank Craig back in the Health Department for what they've done to be able to creatively get this done with with really no impact to our general fund. But. Thank you customers. And they have sent comments. Good job. No comments of the council member. Your anger. That's very ringa. Okay. Roll call. Can we get the mover and seconder for item 15, mayor? It was Richardson and the rest. Thank you. District one. I. District two, i. District three. I district for. I. District five. Hi. District six. By District seven. District eight, District nine. I motion carries. Great. Thank you. With that, we are going to go ahead and go into new business. So as we as we conclude, I want to start by closing the meeting in honor of someone that meant that many of us knew.

A bill for an ordinance amending the sentencing structure for violations of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, modifying the general penalty, and creating a tiered penalty system for different levels of class 1 and class 2 violations. Amends various sections of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to reform the City’s sentencing structure by modifying the general penalties and creating a tiered penalty system for violations of the municipal code. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-3-17.

DenverCityCouncil_05222017_17-0513

Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments again to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put Council Bill 513 as amended on the floor? I move that council bill 513 as amended be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in second at the public hearing for council bill 513 is open. May we have the staff report? Chad Sublette from the city attorney's office. Welcome, Chad. Thank you. This. Can you hear me all right? Yeah. Okay. First, I want to thank you, Mr. President, the body, for taking this important piece of legislation out. The last time that we looked at sentencing, comprehensive sentencing reform within the city and county was in 1993. And over the last 24 years, we've seen a significant change, not just in the types of crimes we see in our municipal courts, but how we best react to those crimes and how we deal with those. The legislation before you the great thing about it is this has truly been a working document for the last three months that we developed a concept working with our stakeholders, but have continued to develop this and develop this as this move forward. It accomplishes three significant things. The first is comprehensive criminal justice reform. We're bringing proportionality to sentencing right now for the majority of crimes that are committed. The maximum sentence is 365 days. So looking at the different types of violations and crimes that we have and bringing some proportionality that. The other thing we're doing is continuing to hold violent offenders accountable. That as we've seen in the in the public hearings that we've had and the discussions we have, that we have some significantly violent offenders that we deal with a municipal court. So continue to have the tool to deal with those offenders was important. And then also addressing collateral concerns for our immigrant and for our immigrant population that as we as we've all learned there are, can be significant consequences for violations of our municipal ordinance. So also trying to address that. First, I want to talk briefly about the proportionality piece. So what we've proposed creates three different layers of sentencing. The first is are is our general penalty provision, which would move from 365 days to 300 days. And that general penalty would encompass the vast majority of our of our ordinance violations. As you can imagine, we have thousands and thousands of potential ordinance violations. So having the general penalty moving to 300 will address a significant portion of those. We have what we call class two offenses or these are kind of our quality of life crimes that unfortunately impact some of our most vulnerable population here in Denver. And moving the maximum sentence for those crimes from 365 days all the way down to 65. I just want to be clear, when we talk about these numbers, sometimes we'll hear 365 and think everybody's getting sentenced to 365 days. But just to be clear, these are maximum possible penalties. And so moving that maximum to 60 days. These would affect offenses like sitting or lying in the public right away, urinating or defecating in public or park after hours. There are additional ones, but those are just some examples of those quality of life crimes. And then we create a kind of a Class one offense. And these are violent crimes, which a third of subsequent domestic violence, sex crimes, crimes with serious bodily injury. These would be in that class one offense with the maximum possible penalty standard 365 days. Here, I think it's important to understand we're not creating any new crimes. These are sentencing enhancers. So it's not like an officer will be able to go out and write a ticket for serious bodily harm. It will come to us, as it always has been, as an assault. Our prosecutors will look at it, and if they determine that it meets the necessary elements, then they would ask for that enhancement up to 360 365 days from 300 days. Another very important piece under that class one offense is creating the enhancer for a hate or a bias based crime. This is really filling a regulatory gap that we have right now. Right now we have a state hate crime or bias based crime bill or statute, but it is limited to a very small number of crimes. So, for example, we see hate crimes that might be defacement of public property. And this would allow us to prosecute or to enhance the the defacement to a level one offense. Hate crime. And as we talked about these issues and I'm sure you will hear later on the reason that hate crimes are in that bucket of class one offenses is because the impact it has on our community as a whole that within a crime of hate is carried out. It impacts our entire community. It it victimizes our entire community. So that's why the decisions but hate crimes in that in that type one or that class one offense was made in terms of the collateral impact on immigration population are immigrants in our community as we've all learned and continued to learn. Immigration law can be complicated at times. But one of the things that we know is that if it is a crime of moral turpitude, somebody is convicted of a crime of moral turpitude and faces a potential sentence, not that they serve that sentence, but the potential sentence of 365 days. They can, if they're here legally as a legal permanent resident, as on a work visa or on a student visa, they could be eligible for deportation. So that's a crime of moral turpitude. It's any crime with a potential potential sentence of 365 days. So if you're in the park after hours, you're arrested, you're convicted of that, have a potential sentence of 365 days. That could be viewed as a crime of moral turpitude and you could be subject to deportation. The second kind of area that we see that is that if you have been here and you're applying for permanent status of some of some sort and you have one of these convictions of moral turpitude, it can eliminate your defense to removal or your ability to become a resident. So the biggest area we see impacting is those those people that are here legally removing that that deportation threat. Another part of the bill is on hate crimes, as we will collect data on that and report back to you. And additionally, we are committed to working with our stakeholders to look at what additional data is going to be important when we look at type one offenders and or type two infractions. What about that? Do we want do we want to be able to track and report back to you? And I also think it's just important to recognize that this was a piece of legislation not just brought by the city attorney's office, but supported by a presiding judge, by a presiding judge and all 17 judges. So I want to thank you for taking this legislation up tonight. Thank you, sir. We have six speakers this evening. I'm going to ask that you come to the front bench and we're a start with I'm going to call all the speakers and you guys can come up. Dora Lee Larsen. Amber Dower. Rosa Via. Julie Bench Wicker, Scott Levin and Ginny Santos. Doralee Larson, you are first. You have 3 minutes. Thank you, counsel, for this opportunity. I feel so honored and privileged to have been working in Denver specifically on the issue of domestic violence prevention for over 30 some years. I started when I was 15 and that never gets old, right? This is specifically talking about a sentence enhancer. And to put it in context, I am only supposed to give my name and address and all that stuff. Yes, I'm sorry. Sorry. Doralee Larson, I'm a Denver resident and I live at 2275 Fairfax Street, 80207. So I'll start over again. I'm the executive director of the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Coordinating Council. And we monitor we manage another project called the Denver Metro of Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee, which, by the way, is soon to become the Colorado Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board. When Governor Hickenlooper is available to actually sign the bill, it's already passed both houses. So we're proud of that. In that context, I can tell you that in 2015, Denver had one domestic violence related fatality, which I think is something that we could be very, very proud of. Unfortunately, in 2016, we had 14 domestic violence related fatalities. Now, I really hate to be such a buzzkill, but I think the good news is that we're able to work with partners like the Denver City Attorney's Office in the Denver DA's office, but the city attorney's office specifically to change that. So, again, looking at a sentence enhancer, I truly believe that more than a few of these perpetrators regarding the fatalities in 2016 likely had city ordinance violations in their history. And it's a little it's more than a little absurd to think that the same offenders who abuse their partners may be sentenced to the same consequences of someone who urinates in public or has a dog off leash. Some of these incidents involve strangulation. Now, that's not to be confused with choking. Choking is an internal act. Strangulation is an external act, but that's a very, very serious behavior to actually know about. Now, we are probably the most researched professionals in Denver on the issue of lethality. We know lethality assessment, and there's no such thing as a minor domestic violence incident. With that said, the Denver city attorney's office has a remarkable record of taking these crimes very seriously. And so I implore you to support the restructuring of these the this municipal code violations and having proportionately sentence in sentence enhancing for anyone who doesn't think that domestic violence affects them. You could be dead wrong. And again, I don't mean to be such a buzzkill, but that's just the reality of the situation. So thank you for this opportunity. Thank you, Ms.. Larson. All right, Amber Dower, you have 3 minutes. Thank you for this opportunity. Again, my name is Amber Dower. I'm a program director and victim advocate at the Domestic Violence Initiative here in Denver, Colorado. I live up in Evergreen, a970 Soda Creek Drive. Doralee is one of my personal heroes in the domestic violence world. She is one of the most knowledgeable women. So I'm going to speak specifically to the advocacy portion of the minimum sentence of 30 days for the third domestic violence offense. And the importance. Of that issue is that that gives us time as advocates to strategically plan a way for our clients to leave their abusive relationship. To find housing, to find a job, to move their. Health care providers, whether it's in a different part of the state or out of state. And that will allow them to leave safely and ideally permanently. Whereas right now, if domestic. Violence occurs and the perpetrator is immediately released, we don't have that time to plan for them to enroll and address confidentiality to get somewhere where they're safe and covered. And that increases their danger for lethality greatly. So thank you very much. I'm going to keep it short and sweet. I appreciate the time. Thank you. Mr.. Rosa Veal. My name is Roosevelt Hill Garcia, and I'm here to support. This. Issue in you know, I work a lot with a lot of victims that sometimes. They don't want to come front. Just because they know the perpetrator. Is going to get out right away. So to me, they need to stay there and. Pay the consequences for consequential acts. Thank you. Thank you. Julie Bench Wicker. Sorry if I mispronounced that. Great. Mr. President. Council. Good evening. Thanks for listening. My name is Julie Barnes Schweikert. I live at 1146 Timber Vail Trail Highlands Ranch, Colorado, and I work at Disability Law, Colorado. I am the Medicare Medicaid Ombudsman for the State of Colorado. And as I said, my program is housed at Disability Law, Colorado. In my ombudsman capacity, I provide assistance and advocacy to individuals who have both Medicare and Medicaid, most commonly referred to as duals. Approximately 70% of my jewels are elderly and the remaining 30% have significant disabilities. Most, if not all, of these individuals meet the definition of at risk adult. Prior to being hired as the Medicare and Medicaid ombudsmen, I worked for nearly 20 years at a community center board or CCP, providing case management services to adults and children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I spent seven of those years overseeing a team of investigators. Our charge was to investigate allegations of abuse, neglect and exploitation of our customers with A.D.D.. Unfortunately, we were always busy. According to the 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, nearly half of people with IBD who are victims of sexual abuse will experience ten or more abusive incidents . Violent victimization for persons with disability is more than twice the rate of persons without disabilities. Serious violent victimization for persons with disabilities was more than three times the rate of persons without. Only 3% of sexual violence. I'm sorry. Sexual abuse cases involving people with A.D.D. were ever reported. So why are our folks with A.D.D. victimized at these alarming rates? Well, many of these individuals are completely dependent upon their caregivers for food, medication and personal care. One of our severe abuse survivors reported that the ongoing boost allowed the ongoing abuse to continue because her perpetrator told her that she'd end up in a nursing home if she told. People with A.D.D. are also often, often, often isolated and segregated. Many have communication challenges, making it even more difficult to report their socialize, to accept being touched by anyone, especially someone named staff, because they are often viewed as asexual and many are not provided with basic sex education. And as such, they are unable to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate contact. Some are unable to conceive the fact that someone they know may harm them. Sadly, however, caregivers are more often than not to be the perpetrators of these abuse of this abuse. Research suggests that nearly 99% of abusers are known and trusted by the victims who have it. By my estimation, I oversaw several hundred investigations of abuse and neglect of at risk adults in my seven years. Ms.. Bunch. Your time is up. I'm sorry. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you. All right. Scott Levin. Thank you, Mr. President. Council members. My name is Scott Levin. I am the director of the Anti-Defamation League at 1120 Lincoln Street in Denver, Colorado. I come here today to ask you to pass this piece of legislation and especially the bias motivated section of it. As I explained to the committee hearing, the ADL feels particularly interested in these hate crimes type statutes. We were the progenitor about 30 years ago with the draft model, the model hate crimes acts that are now adopted across the country in so many places. And we're so pleased to see it here in Denver. As Mr. Sublette said, bias motivated crimes or as they're colloquially known as hate crimes, are message crimes. Their crimes where it's not just targeting a victim, but it's targeting an entire community that's just like that victim, telling that victim that they're not welcome. And people that look like them, that act like them or have the same identity as they do, are not welcome. So by passing legislation like this, it's sending a great counter message which is saying, we care about our communities and we want to make sure that everybody feels welcome and this is a particularly precious time to be able to do this. From the information that we've been tracking in my conversations and the conversations that my office has had with the Denver Police Department. There was a 30% increase in hate crimes just over the past year. There was a 62.5% increase over the past two years. We also measure anti-Semitic incidents that have been going on in Colorado as a whole, including in Denver. We had 150% more hate incidents against Jewish people in this past year. And this crosses in Denver, quite unfortunately. Last year, you might remember in April, during the time of Passover, a very important holiday to the Jewish people in Virginia, Vail. In that neighborhood, there were two or three blocks where three dozen cars were vandalized. There was houses where things were painted on garages, and there was painting all over the street that included swastikas and statements of things like kill Jews and many other racist comments that were put forth. So by passing legislation like this. I commend you for what you're doing. I commend the city attorney's office for bringing this forward and really appreciate your voting yes to send that message that people are welcome in the city and county of Denver no matter what their identity might be. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. 11. Lastly, we have Jennie Santos. When has nudges. Good evening. My name is Jenny Santos. I'm a legal victim advocate at Servicios de la Raza, where our area code is able to offer. However, I'm a Globeville resident from eight or to one six. The reason I'm here today, I'm asking you to look at this bill and to support the resentencing of the bill . As a legal victim advocate, I multiple times. All the clients that I see often are actually all the clients that I see are victims. However, we're asking you to do two reforms so there could be some habitual domestic violence account offenders so that they could receive the maximum sentence of 365 days. And also for individuals or at risk adults that are homeless or mentally ill, they shouldn't be punished, but instead provided rehabilitation support services such as housing. And the reform will change all but seven so that people that don't be so that people will not become deportable. And. Be allowed to be better protected so that our immigrant population isn't arrested for lower level crimes. With that, thank you very much for your time and have a good evening. Gracias. Thank you, Mr. Santos. And thank you for all the speakers for finding parking and going through security and sitting in these hard chairs. This concludes our speakers. Questions for Members of Council. Councilman Espinosa, I have a question for the city attorney. Which one? Just kidding. I'm trying to find it in, in, in 17, five, 13. Can you point to me the the it was mentioned the 30 day minimum by one of the speakers. Now, if I may counsel the in a previous version of that bill, there was a 30 day but but kind of a mandatory minimum. But in conversations with our stakeholders and different people, that was removed. So I think that's what she was speaking about. Yeah, but. She was implying that it's still there. Yeah, it's it's not there. Okay. And then specific on the language of back to the habitual domestic offender, which is, you know, page three line to in line, page four, line three, sorry. Where there's that sort of. Not a definition of habitual domestic offender, but all the rules pursuant to the so the bullets, the sort of A, B and C under those are all inclusive, right to the sort of section two. They're not sort of one of those. You know, sometimes it's worded that one of these conditions needs to be met. It has to be all those. Conditions, the way I read that or. No. Right. And where I would point you to is maybe that last sentence, the sentences that were separately brought and tried and arising out of separate criminal episodes. So it could be any one of those. It doesn't have to be all three of those. Okay. Okay. And that you're comfortable that that that is clear. Yes. And then lastly, on that same paragraph, paragraph mean section two. Convicted of two or more prior offenses that include an act of domestic violence. So prior offenses can be any misdemeanor included in Class one. We just step back. We don't have misdemeanors. We have in our municipal code. But it can be it could be a damage to property. It can be threats, it can be assault. There's a number of ways in which a crime can be committed that would then have a domestic violence tag to make it a act of domestic violence. And then so back to. How does how does the appeals process work with regard to this? If somebody were convicted and then they were appealing that. They could appeal. There's ways you can appeal a sentence. You can you could claim that the sentence was not that the sentence was not unanimous, that the jury verdict was wrong, that the sentence was unlawful. So you can appeal a sentence just just like you can an underlying conviction. So if they're in the appeals process. Well, they never mind. That doesn't make any sense. Okay. Thanks. I just suddenly the I that threw me off the 30 day. So I went back and read it and all sudden things weren't sort of computing. Okay. They had. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you. County. Thank you, Councilman Espinoza. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Chad, if you could stay there for a minute. So a couple of a couple of questions. I believe in committee. You explained that the 300 day group, generally, if it's a 300 day sentence, it generally amounts to 180 days served. Did I hear that correctly? Yes, Councilman. You get good time credit when you are serving your time, which amounts to essentially 18 for every 30 days. So on the 300 day sentence, you would typically serve 180 days. Okay. Thank you for that. And would you also through for the, um, since it mattered to me in committee, I thought maybe you could explain basically to our viewers why first and second, domestic violence charges were not thrown into the end enhancer category. Yes, Councilman, as we were looking at researching this bill and talking with our community partners and talking with our internal advocates, what we generally like to do in a first or second domestic violence that doesn't involve strangulation or serious bodily injury, serious bodily harm is to make sure that we can do treatment for the offender. We can do if there's treatment that's needed for the victim, whether it's anger management or specifically domestic violence. Because our ultimate goal in the city attorney's office is to not see you again. So if there's a way that we can put those supports in place and support the family to move through this, that's what we'd like to do. But, you know, at some point, once you've done it, you've gone through it once and you've gone through it twice. That's why we chose the third or subsequent language. And do I understand that with even a first time domestic violence, there can be conditions that would move it into the more serious category? Yeah. If if there was an act of strangulation, if there was serious bodily injury, if there was a concussion cuts, loss of consciousness, things like that, it could move that into the category. And obviously, if it is, you know, life threatening or apparently is permanent disfigurement, things like that, we could have filed that into the district attorney's office and we see that every once. In a while. Okay. And finally, Mr. President, I was interested during the earlier hour speaker's presentation about the 30 day minimum providing time safety period. I'm just interested as to why you decided that that didn't fit. And ultimately, when we were when we were looking at it, you know, we see a wide range of offenses and, um, and being able to give our judges the discretion to move from zero to whatever the maximum is, I think was important. And before we wanted before we wanted to move into anything like mandatory minimums, being able to bring you the data, to be able to say this is why we need this, and to make sure that it was neutral. As And when we talked about racial disparities and things in the criminal justice system to make sure those were being addressed before we would bring you a mandatory minimum. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega. I have a question for you as well. I'm trying to figure out where the issue of bullying follows, because in a lot of cases, threats come with bullying. Right. And I know this is more prevalent among youth, which would more than likely be served in the youth offender system. But sometimes this happens in the workplace. So where where would that fall? And that's a great question. And doesn't just happen in the workplace. We see the same dynamic you might think of in bullying with kids in an intimate relationships or relationships with spouses or your partners. And so, you know, trying to address that when we look at kind of the domestic violence continuum, trying to address that. But in terms of bullying, what we would really look at in the city attorney's office is what is the underlying act? Are the are these threats? Is it harassment by telephone to see if there's a criminal component to to it? Because that is the end they were. Where we're restricted to is criminal conduct. So if it were to involve the youth that ends up in the youth offender system, do they get caught up in the same cycle? In terms of. The the the ultimate impact that it has on. You know the the outcome. So. You know, a youth is is treated differently in the youth system. But I'm not clear if the underlying. Not just the categories, but the sentencing. Descriptions that are in the bill would would apply. And and I guess I have to answer that in two different ways. One, having been a juvenile prosecutor at one point in my life, all of those factors are taken into consideration when you're looking at, you know, sentencing or treatment or or probation, that, you know, if there's a history of bullying, if there's a history of that type of behavior, then that's going to be be argued at sentencing. The district attorney. Does the vast majority of our prosecution of do you have what you would generally consider juvenile offenders? We do have juvenile court that doesn't have incarceration as part of an outcome. We have probation. And then if you violate probation, you could be tackling a locked facility for 48 hours. But most of those cases where we would see serious bullying cases would we would try to push those to the district attorney's office. Thank you. Thanks. Hey. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. The goals of this ordinance are very easy to support because it makes little sense that any violation of city ordinances or regulation, whether it's urinating in public or where a physical assault would carry the same maximum sentence. That seems to make little sense. But as the folks who are at committee might recall, I had some problem thinking through our literal authority to adopt variable maximum fines and maybe I could call Chad forgive. Forgive me for not calling on you, but I had an extensive correspondence with David Broadwell on this and I think I think I'm there and understanding it, but I just wanted to bring that out for anybody who might have watched that on TV or or any of my colleagues who cited the committee in the prior to 1982, the city charter appeared to give us the our predecessors, the ability, the legal authority to set different maximums for different violations. But in 1982, in September, there was a charter amendment proposed by the Council and worked through with the county court judges at the time that required us that limited our authority to only to set. Uniform, maximum fines and and jail time. And I have and Chad, I did read your email and I saw your opinion on that. And I and thereafter corresponded with David. And so I had trouble seeing our actual authority to adopt a different set of maximums for this as much as I want to do that. And so, David, over the late last week, we finally you sent me the ordinance, the enabling ordinance or the implementing ordinance from December 1982, in which the council, the same council that put this on the ballot, also said that that unless there are only if there are no definite fines spelled out in the D in the Denver revised municipal code, would this uniform maximum apply? But I still didn't see the authority in the charter to do this, let alone ignoring the fact that the Council had gone ahead and done something like that. In 1988, there was another charter change that amended that, but it kept uniform maximum. We had to have a uniform maximum for each and every violation, but it allowed us to set different varying minimum fines for violations. So that further cemented my understanding. But David, you you said that there is this principle where courts look on how the legislative body over time administers and carries out that authority. Maybe you could explain that so that I have a comfort level that I can vote yes on this. You're on. And Mr. Sublette and I have discussed it as well, but I'll go ahead and respond since you have asked me to. I'll be happy to do that. But we've had an interesting academic discussion offline that I'll share the short version with the rest of council. Councilman Flynn is quite correct. There's a reference to uniform maximum jail and fines in the charter added in 1982. But from the very moment the word uniform was introduced, council was adopting implementing legislation that on its face contemplated. There could be variation. So. So ever since 1982, your predecessors didn't didn't read that word uniform in the charter to mean that a dog at large has to have the same potential maximum penalty as an assault or a significant disorderly conduct. There have been variations through the years. One of the things I talked about with Councilman Flynn as about ten years ago now, council adopted administrative citations as an alternative to criminal, and that has very specific maximums when you get cited with an administrative citation. It's tiered 150 on the first offense, a higher amount on the second offense and so forth. So I think councils, your and your predecessors in the past have in various ways construed the charter to allow them to create different penalties for different offenses. This, frankly, is a somewhat more kind of ambitious take. I'll I'll admit in terms of how sweeping this is changing most offenses to 300 instead of 365 keeping some circumstances spelled out where it can be more. With a few examples where it can be less. But there are other examples of this through the years. And the principle that Councilman Flynn talked about is one that we lawyers invoke all the time, which is that if the charter has been interpreted flexibly in the way I just described for a really long period of time, courts are going to tend to defer to that. And blessed, if in the, I should say, highly unlikely event in my opinion, that this enactment tonight were to be challenged on the theory that now everything has to have the same ceiling in terms of jail and fines. We are in the city attorney's office. Just don't believe that would be the interpretation at this point in time. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, looks like we are done with questions. This closes council bill 513 now. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the city attorney's office and administration for their work on this bill. As folks who may have been following the conversation know, we didn't have quite as much unanimity in the community. There was definitely some testimony and concerns that were raised along the way. So I feel before I vote, I just needed to talk through a couple of those things for the record. You know, I think from the community's perspective, this conversation started with a fairly fundamental value, which is that consequences for immigration are under federal law and they should flow from that, and that the city's approach to criminal justice really needs to be self-contained, that it's not appropriate to use criminal justice to kind of superimpose immigration penalties intentionally, unintentionally. The idea is that this deeply held belief that we want all of our residents to use the criminal justice system. We want victims to call and report perpetrators, even if they're are people, they know who they may not want to be deported, even if they want them to stop the harm that they're doing, and so that they'll show up at court and fulfill their responsibilities. If they do commit a crime or commit an act, and they need to be held accountable, and that to the extent that we keep these systems separate, our community is safer because there is more trust and there is more faith in the integrity of that city's system, and that it's not our job to be seeking out ways to impose criminal penalties or I'm sorry, to impose immigration penalties on folks who may have, you know, fulfilled their sentences. And I think, you know, the case that I think of that most illustrates this is the Lima Marin case where the governor just took someone who if we were talking about his crime while it was being tried or while it was happening, we would have made a lot of judgments about whether this was a person who should or shouldn't stay in the country. He served his time and he lived out rehabilitate rehabilitation in our community. He had a family. He was an upstanding member of the community. And then, you know, he ended up back in in prison and came under the attention of immigration. And so I think it's a really good example of why we don't want to leap to immigration consequences without giving the criminal justice system and the rehabilitation it provides a chance and then allowing folks to use the defenses that they may or may not have in the federal system to, you know, whether it's to to to to try to extend, you know, a stay of deportation or whatever types of motions they may have available in immigration. And so I share that connection because I think that for some members of our community, the fact that we carved off even a few offenses in this bill and said, nope, we're still intentionally thinking about the fact that there should be some other consequences. We know they're going to happen is, I think, deeply concerning because I think for for that group of community members, the integrity of this is about keeping the two systems separate. And when we saved even a few offenses at that 365 day maximum, I think that it underlies the entire question are we or are we not in the business of using our municipal code to, you know, layer on immigration consequences? So so I sit with that discomfort tonight. And I think that, you know, this is probably not a conversation that's over for us as a city as we look at other areas the community is concerned about. So but I also think that along the way, this bill became about more than solving just that challenge. So there was already a conversation about hate crimes that had begun. We then had the question about decriminalizing the lowest level offenses. And so as each of those has come up, I've tried to do my due diligence. And so really briefly, I just want to share where I think our work continues. So I think it's important for us to monitor this closely and on the low level offenses we were really it was encouraging to learn that only 16 arrests , I believe, happened last year under that entire class of low level offenses that are being brought down to a lower minimum, that may still be too many. But one of the things we know is that most of the jail days in that category are probably happening more for failure to appear, more for probation violations for other things . And so I think it's really important for us to revisit this conversation as a council to remember that we said we wanted to do that, right, so that we look at the data to understand what are the real drivers of jail nights for those folks in those offenses. It's probably not at the moment they're committing the act. It's probably happening later. And the city attorney's office and the jail have promised us that data. I think it's really important we look at it. So so for me, that's something we need to be committed to following up on. And then in the hate crimes piece, I think, you know, I appreciate the speaker from the Anti-Defamation League. The one thing we want to just be really careful is this is not about ideas and it's not about speech. It's about. It's about threatening, dangerous actions that are harmful to people. And so I think that we have a narrowly drafted ordinance, and we want to look to make sure that we're using these enhancers only in the most, you know, provable of cases. And so, you know, I appreciate the city attorney's office being willing to bring us that data. So so I just want to acknowledge that even though some of those speakers I think we're here earlier and they left the chambers, they didn't make it as long as the rest of you. There were some concerns about this bill. I, you know, intend to keep following through on them. But given the balance of the massive number of offenses that we are reclassifying with this, the fact that we are taking some low level offenses way down, I will be supporting the bill tonight and I appreciate all the dialog that it has taken to kind of figure out that this is the right next step, if not the final step. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman, can each. Councilman Espinosa. More on the discussion. I just wanted to say. I did I didn't I don't take our the charter language to mean singular I mean a singular maximum across the board but more but but uniformity in how they're defined. So I'm quite comfortable in voting to move this forward I mean to adopt this. And I just wanted to thank the city attorney for taking this on and moving so in such a timely manner to deliver something that we were requesting on this front. So thank you very much for the work that you guys had done and handling the outreach that you did. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez. Mm hmm. Excuse me, Mr. President. I do a lot of the things that were said. Could easily say I support that and. The flight that I do want it. I think the administration I think the city attorney's office for bringing this forward. This is something that it's definitely fine tuning. It's something that we identified as is is creating a win win. At the center of all this, it's it's public safety. And you want to make sure that in order to have public safety, in order to achieve public safety, a lot of people say, well, we want the city to feel safe and you don't want that city to feel safe. We want the city to be safe. And that's the main pillar on which everything rests in a great city. And that depends on trust. You want folks to be able to come forward and report crime, especially victims, especially people who think who who feel that they're in there in a threatening environment. And I think that's that's the key, right? You want that relationship to exist. You don't want people to be afraid to call the police. And unfortunately, people do. And they are. And I think when it comes to, you know, when it comes to the immigration policy and the broken immigration system and the environment that we in, that is becoming even more prevalent in cities like Houston are already reporting that the drop in crime, especially from areas where you have a lot of immigrants who were living in this in the city, and we would hate for that to happen because, you know, things like domestic violence, things like a lot of these crimes, they discriminate against. No one just happens in every community, wealthy or not, black, Latino, Asian or not, it happens. And we want people to be able to report that. So I do really appreciate the clarification there. Their needs. I mean, we do need to further clarify what our roles are under the Constitution and what they aren't. And I think that that's something that that definitely we're looking at and something that we're definitely monitoring. Decriminalization. I'm glad that we're on this path. I'm glad that we're looking at decriminalization. There are a lot of there are a lot of low level offenses out there that do not require a jail sentence, that don't require jail time. And, you know and you know, you have your repeat offenders and but you also have folks that just I mean, there are just some things that are out there that it just makes no sense. You send them back and you send them in the jail. You could be making it worse. And so that those are those are the things that I'm glad that we're looking at able to do that nowadays. You know, I had the privilege to visit New York City and speak of New York City and the city council and work with some of our folks out there to look at the New York City justice reform, criminal justice reform bill. And it was pretty remarkable of some of the things that they were there were working on and looking at decriminalization, but also how that impacts our jail beds as well, too. That's a crisis that we have in our city and looking at and how we able to achieve multiple goals in the same in the same realm. And that's something that I look forward to look forward to be part of in those discussions. But I really this is a great first step, a great move forward. And I got to tell you, the the bill to finally or finally the bill to look at hate crimes. I mean, that's serious. And unfortunately, now it's becoming more prevalent. And it has it's been around for a long time. These kind of crimes have been around. There's a lot of harassment in all parts of our city. And I think that's something that we it's a good, low hanging fruit that we were able to get and something that really just reflects on the values of our city. So my hat's off to the city attorney's office and the folks that are working on this. And I forgot the city attorney. She was here and she oh, there she goes. Oh, this is that wasn't my joke. That was his joke. But I, I wanted to thank you and thank you for your leadership on this. And, Crystal, you've been at the table as well, too. And Crystal's. Clone, basically. So. Thank you. Mr. President, I do support this moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Lopez. Councilman Lopez almost called you, Mr. President. In school for ten years. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. You know, while this topic came at least into my vision, and I know at least several of us as a result of the immigration discussion, this revision of our sentencing makes so much sense, even outside of away from that that particular lens. Long overdue and an excellent job. As usually happens, there are going to be people reading about this and watching and considering this that are going to say we didn't go far enough and there's going to be people who say that we went too far. I'm at a position where after a great deal of consideration and a lot of discussion, I'm very comfortable with this bill. While I share a councilman, CNOOC's concerns that we look at the data as it comes in and be sure that we're honed as as sharp as we want to be. I think this is just an excellent starting point. And I also want to add my my thanks to city attorney Bronson and her entire team for a great dialog. You know, I sat here on another issue a few weeks ago and said that I felt that the city and council had had not done its best, had not worked well together on an issue. In this case, I think it's the opposite. I think the dialog was open and broad ranging and I think we got a good result out of it. So I will look forward to supporting this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. I will close this out and just say probably one of the most fascinating, intriguing, interesting discussions is just the discussion we had over the 364 through 65 on immigration reform. If you want to watch that, you'll learn everything you want to know about immigration law and to to to know that our it feels good to know that we have talent within our city, in our on our legal team to be able to, you know, after going through that exercise to say, hey, we got it right. And so hats off to you, Chris Brunson and all of the team there, Crystal as well. And you guys just did it, Chad, you you guys did a great job. And so thank you for that. And I feel like this is a great step in the right direction. And Kristen, you made a promise to me that this is our last step, that every city in our country right now is working on criminal justice reform. And, you know, it's it's one thing that both conservatives and liberals agree on that we shouldn't have people in our jails that are just sitting there. And so I hope that we really start getting serious about jail reduction. And we've had a conversation on this council. You know, we don't want to see more jail beds added because they disproportionately affect certain parts of the city, which is not right. And so this does the right thing in the right direction. I'm really excited. And with that, Madam Secretary, roll call. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman A black eye. Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I Cashman. Can eat. Mr. President. I please close the votes and please hold voting US results. 12 Wise 12 Eyes Council Bill 513 as amended has passed. Congratulations on to the mayor to sign this bill. Congratulations to the mayor as well, who is very supportive of this bill.

Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Grant Agreement Between the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating and Waterways and the City of Alameda By and Through the Alameda Police Department and By Motion Amend the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Revenue Estimate by $40,700 and Expenditures Budget by $44,770. (Police 3112)

AlamedaCC_09202016_2016-3243

Adoption of resolution authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute a grant agreement between the State of California, Department of Parks, Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways, and the City of Alameda by and through the Army to police department by motion amend the fiscal year 20 1617 revenue estimate by 40,000 and expenditures budget by 44,007 seven. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Spencer. So I pulled this item because once in a while we need to hear good news. And this is good news. This has to do with a a grant award that the city just received in excess of $40,000 to do some important cleanup work. And I did give Chief Larry a heads up that I was going to pull this. So do you want to just tell us really quickly what great things you're going to be able to do with this money? Sure. I hear Spencer councilmembers Paul Larry, chief of police. Not officer, chief. Offender, covered tonight. Those you can see. So in a nutshell, what this grant is going to let us do is it will allow us to abate and remove privately owned. Derelict vessels from the estuary. If they're out there, it will also give some boat owners the opportunity to surrender them before they wind up going into the water, which would be even better. It will cost us a lot less to get rid of the boats. It is not for commercial vessels. So if there is a commercial vessel, this grant money would not apply to that. But typically that hasn't been our problem. Our problem has been privately owned ones at about $10,000 a pop. It's not going to get us very many boats. But I think over the last few years we've been on top of it enough that I think, you know, we should be able to to do it within the within the grant funds. And then also we had $50,000 allocated by the council, and that's a parking lot item last year, which I still have to work that out with the finance director to see if we can use that as a. As a cushion just in case we go over for next year. But at any rate, that's what it is. So thank you very much. Then the vote is that we have this grant from the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways to do this cleanup. But I know some of the folks here in the audience are homeowners on the estuary. So you know what I'm talking about, right. Anyway, so with that, ready for the vote. Sure. So I move that we adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute a grant agreement between the state of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways, and the City of Alameda by and through the Alameda Police Department and by motion amend the fiscal year 20 1617 revenue estimate by $40,700 and the expenditures budget by $44,770 because there is a 10% local match that we will make again. And I wanted to add, I really appreciate the chief you're of all the officers that have been involved in this. I think this started maybe one or two years ago when I was first mayor there, some community activists, if you will, that really wanted this and they organized some meetings and you all showed up. And to have you apply and go through the process and now have this happen is actually a really good thing. So thank you very, very much. All those in. Favor. I thank you. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Moving on in. Right. Five An adoption resolution supporting the 2016 Alameda County affordable housing bond measure.

Recommendation to approve the Downtown Long Beach Parking and Business Improvement Area (DLBPBIA) Annual Report continuing the DLBPBIA assessment for the period of October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to extend the agreement with the Downtown Long Beach Alliance for a one-year term. (Districts 1,2)

LongBeachCC_10092018_18-0901

Motion carries. Now we move to item 19. Report from Economic Development Recommendation to approve the downtown Long Beach Parking and Business Improvement Area Annual Report. Continuing the assessment for the period of October one, 2018 through September 30, 2019. Districts one and two. Council and Pearce. Their staff report. Eric Romero. Honorable Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. This item is the annual approval of the downtown Long Beach Parking and Business Improvement Area Annual Ongoing Assessment. The downtown Long Beach Alliance has two established sources of business improvement district revenue that pass through the city of Long Beach to the organization. This recommended action relates to the business operator assessment funds that are used to promote and market the downtown Long Beach. Downtown Long Beach on behalf of the businesses located in the downtown Long Beach Parking Business Improvement Area. The 2018 19 LBA budget narrative describes proposed activities and budget information as well as the method and basis for continuation of the assessment. The budget narrative proposes no change in the boundaries and no significant change in proposed activities. The debate board voted on April 18, 2018, to raise the assessment rates by 2.79% per the allowed Consumer Price Index adjustment staff across the City Council continue the levy of the assessment and authorize the city manager to extend the agreement for one additional year. That concludes my staff report. It's been. Awesome. Thank you. Councilmember Arango. Any public comment on this now? Please cast your vote.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4150 N. Elati St. Rezones property located at 4150 North Elati Street from I-A, UO-1 to C-RX-12 (rezones light industrial/residential to urban mixed-use residential with a twelve story height limit), in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-30-16.

DenverCityCouncil_10102016_16-0752

11 eyes. We keep looking at councilman lopez. 11 Eyes Council Bill 624 has passed. Congratulations. Good work, guys. All right, Councilwoman Black, the last bill. Can you please put it on council? Bill 752 on the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 752 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in, seconded the public hearing for council bill 752 is open. Sarah White. Can we please have the staff report? Good evening. I'm Sarah Waite with Community Planning and Development. Here to present staff report four 4150 Melody Street. On slide two, you can see that we are located in District nine. Slide three, you can see we are in the Globeville statistical neighborhood. Slide four details. The request that we have here, the property is just under 70,000 square feet and they are requesting a rezoning to potentially in the future redevelop the site for multi-family housing units and to better align it with the adopted plans in place. The request is to rezone from IAU oh two to C-Max 12 or x 12. I'm sorry, that's incorrect. On the slide, slide five, the requested zone district is c x 12. In the urban center neighborhood context. It is a residential mixed use district with commercial uses limited to the ground storey with a maximum height of 12 storeys . The surrounding zoning in the area immediately to the northwest and south of the site is all IAU oh two. We do have some CRM ex 20 directly to the east and then a little further west towards the station. We have some pieces that have already been re zoned into TMX and CMC zone districts. The surrounding land use is primarily industrial, currently with a mix of multifamily and single family scattered around. Slide eight shows just some of the examples of the context in the area. It's really mixed. We have some three storey newer multifamily. We do have some low scale single family in the area, as well as some one and two story residential or industrial. I'm sorry. There were several are and I was notified during this process and the planning board moved on their consent agenda to recommend approval, as well as the committee decided to move this forward on the August 30th agenda. And we have had no public comments. The five zoning criteria are applicable here. We have several plans in place, including Comprehensive Plan 2000, Blueprint, Denver 41st and Fox Stationary Plan and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. On Slide 13, we have several of the principles from comp plan 2000 that are applicable to this rezoning request. Those are detailed further in your staff report, but they're mostly related to infill development. Slide 14, we can see the Blueprint Denver recommendations for this area. This site is recommended for urban residential and it is an area of change. Slide 15, we can see the land use recommendations from the 41st and Fox station area plan. Again, we have a recommendation of urban residential and a recommended building height of 2 to 12 stories. Then Slide 16, we have the recommendations from the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, which reinforce the recommendations from the 41st and Fox station area plan. Again, we have urban residential area of change. And on Slide 17, you can see the height recommendations from the Globeville neighborhood plan with a maximum recommended building height of 12 storeys. So the rezoning request is consistent with all three of these plans. In relation to the uniformity of district regulations. This would consist of a uniform application of the Sierra Zone District and for the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adapted land use plans. The justifying circumstances for this request is that the land or its surrounding environs has changed. We have several areas of change here. We've got the 41st and Fox commuter rail station scheduled to open later this year. The proposed redevelopment in the area signals the change in the surrounding environment to the 2D context, and the current zoning of IOTA does not reflect the city's adopted vision reinforced in all of the small area plans. And then the consistency with neighborhood context and urban center neighborhood context is consistent in this area, and the Sierra Zone District does promote a safe and active, pedestrian, skilled, diverse area that we'd like to see in the TODDI and the Sierra. X12 applies to residentially dominated areas where 2 to 12 storeys is desired. So given that all five criteria have been met, CPD recommends approval. Wow. That was really good. Okay, so presentation is over. We have one speaker. Keith Hurley. You have 3 minutes. Thanks for being here. Good evening, counsel. I'm glad I'm the last one. I'm here to answer questions, but I do have a few. Comments, if I could. If they would. Please go ahead. I would just like to. Know that. I've been trying to I would love to stay there. But to get a permit to. Expand my building to accommodate our growth would be near impossible. Given the permitting circumstances in the in the city. I've been trying for ten months to get a permit to just. Build a. Break room and a bathroom for my employees. And I still don't have a permit. And the pot shop across the. Street thrives while we struggle to accommodate a growth. So I think it's best that we move out of our current location. And I just would like to. Get my frustration on. Just trying to expand, add people to my small manufacturer, and I think it's best that we move from that location. Okay. Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? And I have one just to. Keith, can you can you come up? You are the tenant or the you own? I own the building. And my my I. Also my company operates a building. We are a small manufacturer of signs and lighting. Okay, great. And so you are you plan to move, but you want to you want to sell this property eventually, or will you be the developer? No, I'd like to sell the plant the property to an apartment developer. It's a it's a great location. We're one block from the light rail station with views of downtown. It's it's better suited for multifamily. Is is the sale of the property contingent on this rezoning. Yes, sir. All right, Councilwoman Ortega. I want to ask a question, and I'm sorry I didn't get your name first. Sarah. Go ahead, Sarah. Sarah, we've done a number of very high density rezonings in this area. And I want to know what kind of look is CPD taking when we look at the aggregate of the density that will be in this area, knowing that there is primarily one road into this site where we're going to see some serious traffic problems once all that development occurs, assuming it builds out to what has been proposed in all the rezone applications that have been brought to council. Sure. And I can't speak to any specifics on this site other than, you know, we do have a few small area plans in place that speak to recommendations generally of connections. Any time that we have development at a site development plan level, it's referred to all of the applicable agencies. So I really can't speak to it much more than that. You know, this is what the plans that were adopted by the neighborhoods call for here, this density. So so I guess I just want to draw this to the attention of my colleagues, because in this particular location, once we start seeing all of these proposed developments that we've already approved rezonings for, begin to move in. We're going to be expected to play some role in, I don't know, either white ministry, and I'm not sure how much the zones are taking into account that need that will exist into the near future. But again, with Box Street being the primary access point into this area, I don't see people going all the way around and coming in through the Globeville neighborhood unless they happen to be coming from the east side of town to get there. But really, from council on the downtown, that's the primary area. So I'm just raising that as a red flag that we need to be thinking about not only in this area, but where we're significantly increasing the density and we're wanting to ensure that the infrastructure is adequately employees to accommodate what we keep allowing to occur as higher density coming into these areas. Yeah. And if I may, I know that there have been some discussions related to the Fox home development about some additional access points to the neighborhood. It's a little further off and I don't know a lot of specifics about it, but there is that discussion happening as well. Thank you. Great. Any other questions for members of council? Actually, I have a question for Councilman Espinosa. Real quick, Councilman Espinosa. So I'm on the neighborhoods tonight. And one of the neighborhoods that this CPD made the developer reach out to is North Highlands. Do you believe that North Highlands, since you represent them, are concerned about this rezoning? Essentially, yes. To the point that Councilwoman Ortega was making in that the 38th Avenue underpass is our only connection from the north part of North Highlands and all of the sunny side to downtown. And it is now a odd intersection with Fox Street, which is the lone point of access to the South from this whole area. And so if we want to encourage my own constituents to access 41st and Fox, we don't have adequate we don't have any surface parking or anything on on on my side west of anchor. But we do have all that surface parking and whatnot that RTD put in there. So it's a very we're doing this thing in a very discombobulated way. And so I do think that if we're thinking in a sort of micro regional level, then yeah, both Sunnyside and Highlands would be concerned about that future. They didn't I didn't see them comment on that. No. I will be honest. I think they like being informed, but you won't see them comment because it's outside of their statistical neighborhood boundaries. Thank you for saying that right there. I will talk about that in my comments. Okay. This this concludes the comments for members of council. Public hearing of council bill 752 is now closed. I'll call on myself this be in my district. Representative. First of all, sir, apologize that you are experiencing those long waits for your permits. We are working. I can tell you, this whole council cares about efficiencies in our permitting department and we are subcontracting out. We are hiring new folks to deal with the demand that's going on. And so just apologize that your business isn't able to do. We hope sincerely that you stay in Denver. Denver is a great city and we would love to work with you in the future. I'll just say I'm going to be supporting this because it's consistent with the neighborhood plan that freshly has just been done 18 months ago . I do raise the same concern as my colleague Councilwoman Woman Ortega. I don't think we have adequately thought about access points out of the neighborhood. It's one way and one way out, but we really have to put a lot of thought in that. And I think it's Crissy thing and allow Brad Buchanan and all the folks need to get together and we need to have a real conversation about that. To my third point, I do not know why we're notifying neighborhoods to neighborhoods away, especially active neighborhoods that I know if they had an issue, they would be commenting immediately. And so point taken on the 38th underpass because that is a contention point. But I would love someone on this council to take on the registered neighborhood conversation and just make sure that we have good, vibrant neighborhoods and that the reach out point isn't all the way across the city or 15 blocks away of folks who don't care about the particular development. I think it I think it's inefficient. So I will be supporting this. I'm just commenting. Okay. Any other members of council want to make a comment? My goodness. It is 8:00. Three public hearings. Well done, everyone. It has been moved the second it. Madam Secretary Brokaw. Black eye, Clark. All right, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I, Catherine. All right. Can each new Ortega assessment? Mr. President. I please close the voting and announce results. Mr. President. Yes. They're not going back there. Oh, there you go. Yeah. Yeah. Please call the voting results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes down to Bill 752 has passed. Congratulations, sir. There is no pre adjournment announcement except that I'm disappointed in my Colorado buff alumni up here. This man still doesn't have a hat. See no other business for this body.

Recommendation to Review and Comment on Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Housing Methodology Committee’s Proposed Methodology for Distributing the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) among Bay Area Cities and Counties, and Staff’s Proposed Process/Meeting Schedule to Update the City’s General Plan Housing Element for 2023 to 2031. (Planning, Building and Transportation 481005)

AlamedaCC_12012020_2020-8509

of Governments. He is also an Alameda resident. And so I just briefly I represent our city on the Association of Bay Area Governments, also known as a big which is the Nine Bay Area counties, which comprise, Randi, 110 cities, hundred and 901, 79 counties. So 100 and total. You had a district, 110 entities. 101 cities. Yes. And the nine counties and I also sit on the a big regional planning committee. I represent the Alameda County Mayor Mayor's conference on the PC. And so we are here to talk about a very timely topic, housing and and more. And so I want to turn the item over to Andrew Thomas and you can take it from there. Thanks so much, Mr. Thomas. Thank you. Mary Ashcroft, members of the council, Mr. Ensler and I are going to tag team this presentation, so I'm going to get it started off and then I'm going to hand it off to Randy and then I'll wrap it up at the end. So we're pleased to be here. We are at the beginning of a really an 18 month process. Are you seeing multiple screens on your. I'm seeing. Several. Two screens. Maybe we could change. Laura, can we just get this single slide up? Well while Laura is trying to help us out there. So we're at the beginning of the housing element update process. This is required by state law. We're right at the very beginning. So we here in the city of Alameda, with the help and guidance of the city council and a lot of hard work by the planning board and staff over the next 18 months will be working on updating the city's housing element. So tonight, what we are hoping to do for tonight is start this conversation with the city council. We're going to make a suggestion that this not be the first and only workshop with the council, that this be the first of several over the next six months. And then, of course, the entire process ends with the city council in 2022 when we come to you with a final recommended general plan. So tonight, what we'd like to do is give you a little bit of an overview of the process. And Randy is going to help me explain to you one of the key elements of this process, which is called the RENA or the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. So next slide, please, Laura. Please. There we go. Thank you. So for the benefit of anybody who might be watching on the first question, might be, well, what is a housing element? Housing element is required by state law. And this is a law that goes back many years. Since 1969, state law requires that all jurisdictions like Alameda must. We must plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in our community. And these laws are in the government code 60 5000266499 if anybody wants to look them up. But the key, what you'll find if you do is that what these laws say is an Alameda has a responsibility to make adequate provision for housing needs for all segments of the community that we must adopt and implement a general plan for the for the community. And it must include a mandatory housing element and that that. Element. Must identify and make sites within our community available during the housing element planning period, which is typically eight years. And when we say available, what that means is that appropriate zoning and development standards and with the services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city's share of the regional housing need, which Randy will explain in a little more detail, and that we have to do it for every income level that could not be that cannot be accommodated on our on sites that we already have identified. And if we don't have enough sites, then we must identify sites as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multi-family rental housing. Our next slide, please. So the first step, of course, in the eight year process is to. Is to find out what our regional housing need is for the next eight years. And the eight year cycle that we're talking about is the period 2023 through 2030, so or 2031. So the and the process has already started at the regional level, determining the regional allocation at the state level and regional level, determining what the region's allocation and then Alamitos share of that. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Randy to talk a little bit about how that allocation process works. Laura, can you take us to the next slide? Thank you, Andrew. Thank you very much. And members of city council. It's my pleasure to be here. You know, I wanted this first slide to be up here, not just for yourself, but for the public. This is the front cover of a document, a 100 page plus document that can be found at a bank's website that discusses all the details of the arena process. And as Andrew mentioned, any law that was signed by then Governor Reagan and has been changed and strengthened over 60 years is going to be incredibly complex and it's going to be process heavy. And we're going to touch on just a little bit of that process this evening. Next slide, please. So this gives you a sense of of the different steps that the Reno process goes through. There's public comment, and that also means city comment as well as long as as well as the general public throughout that entire process. Next slide, please. This is another look at that process. You can see it began in 2019 and it's going to end in 2023. So it does take a long time. There's plenty of opportunities for cities to have their voices heard, for the community to have their voices heard. Again, the law is very complex. You can see some of the major milestones on a graph to the right and written out on the left. And you can see that there is also plenty of time for appeals and all sorts of activities for cities and the public to be engaged in, in this very important process that, you know, there are few things more difficult than the meeting of state and local control on the subject of housing. Maybe water in the state of California is tougher. But this one this one is notoriously tough. Next. So there are dozens of requirements that agencies like IBAC have to take into account as they do this process. And IBAC takes this process very seriously. There is a large number of professionals who are seeking to meet the requirements of state law. The needs of cities throughout the Bay Area. The demands of the state, which is this is a fundamentally it is a state law requirement on local government and a bag is local governments representative in this process with the state. When you boil down that many dozens of requirements, they really get to really five general categories. I'm just going to read them because I think they're important enough to take a moment on is to increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types and affordability in all places in an equitable manner to promote infill development and socio economic equity, to promote improved jobs, housing balance. And of course, the Bay Area has been a jobs machine for the past ten years, producing jobs at a rate of seven times what we're producing housing to balanced household income distributions, meaning housing and income throughout the Bay Area and to affirmatively further fair housing for the entire community . Next slide, please. This is just a little taste of of the process. So AIBA creates a housing methodology committee. The word methodology might be a long one, but just think of it as a formula. We're going to take a peek at it here in a little bit. This whole housing methodology committee has met since September of excuse me, October of 2019. It's met 12 times all in public session. Widely attended public comment throughout in publicly noticed meetings held throughout the Bay Area. Next. This is the little kind of a peek behind the curtain here of the kind of details that the Housing Methodology Committee has to deal with. So I'm going to cover some of these things, but not all of them in that very long report that is available on airbags website is there for people who really want to get into the details. But I do want to draw your attention to the number on the very top 141,176 units was given by the state to the Bay Area in order to allocate those. The state, however, details those number out and you can see in the yellow looking on the left hand part of your screen, very low, then to the right in green, low wound to the right moderate and moving to the right in orange above moderate. They break out these elements that have to be planned for and determined for each individual city. What the Housing Methodology Committee does, and this is the formula part is the next slide down. And what they seek to do is to break out these housing elements in a way across all the city jurisdictions and unincorporated areas of counties in a form that is considered equitable. And that's that is what is the discussion. And that discussion can be, as you can imagine, very detailed. So in the case of the very low and low portion of the housing, you can see that those formulas are going to be a little different than the formulas on the moderate and the above moderate income. And I'll just point one obvious one to you on the hard right, 60% of the allocation of above moderate housing was job proximity and automobile proximity. And the idea is that well-to-do people are likely to be able to afford a car, but we still want housing next to job proximity, and we're going to touch on that a little bit later. So the point of the slide isn't for you to all become expert in this formula, but to get a sense of the kind of detailed work that goes on behind the curtain in order to come up with a number. Total jurisdiction allocation, the little target on the lower right hand side of that slide. And of course, we can go back and answer any questions that any of you may have later. Next slide, please. This gives you a sense of what the Bay Area looks like if it was in the form of a honeycomb. So hopefully you can pick out the counties here and hopefully you can pick out the city of Alameda that has a 16%, if you can read that. Interestingly enough, the number of households growth in the Bay Area as a result of this Rena process is expected to be 16%. So Alameda kind of hit the number right in the middle. It just happened by happenstance. I want to be I want to be clear about that. The methodology creates a formula. That formula gives us an outcome, and then that outcome is here before you. What you can see, however, and this is the benefit of a regional allocation process, you can see that the county of Santa Clara with the darker numbers, as you know, the Bay Area has been a jobs machine. That jobs machine has been centered in a handful of places, one of which is San Francisco, one of which is Santa Clara County. And you can see that county, which represents approximately about 25% of the Bay Area's population, is taking about a third of the Bay Area's housing allocation in this particular draft of the numbers. And let's be clear, the numbers are going to change. There's a draft out there. There's a series of actions that a back in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission still need to take. But you can get a sense of the layout of the numbers. I will have you notice all the areas that are lighter or more basically white in color. You can see the scale in the middle of the slide and you can see the different colors. What you can see is. The renal process has to be consistent with the regional transportation plan. And what we're seeking to do is to put the housing where the jobs are and put the housing in the jobs where the public transit is and where the highway system is. So one of the objectives here of the whole planning process is to save our open space, to save our farmland, to try to put the brakes on sprawl to the best that we can within the law. And you can see it here in this graph about how things are working themselves out with respect to the total allocation in this particular cycle. Next slide, please. So this is where I handed back off to Andrew Thomas. Thank you, Randy. So once we get our arena allocation and as Randy said, it's a draft. At this point, there's still a lengthy process that will play out over the next 9 to 12 months at the regional level to finalize that number or that that methodology. And then hopefully by next by summer, next summer, 2021, we will know we'll get our final draft number. But the current number, as Randy said, is represents a about, you know, would result in about 16% growth for Alameda in terms of rough numbers, it's about 4900 units to be over an eight year period. That's a that's close to just about 1% of the total regional housing need. Alameda looks like it will be allocated about 1% of that total. Now, as Randy said, it may change. So we already as a city need to start thinking about how we're going to accommodate our new housing, where we're going to accommodate it and how we're going to accommodate it. And so that it's time to start thinking about that and talking about it. And we we believe we can do it. We've done it the last two cycles, and we believe we can do it again. But it will it will require that we get creative and we're going to, as we did in the last two cycles, we are we believe at the staff level that we're going to need to adopt general planning and zoning amendments that are in direct conflict with City Charter Article 26. For anybody who's watching, who's not sure what that is, that is a section of this Alameda City charter that prohibits multi-family housing in Alameda and it prohibits residential densities in Alameda, over 21 units per acre. It's the state, the Housing and Development Department for the State of California wrote us a letter in 2009 and I'll just quickly read this to you, was they're pretty clear about it. They said in addressing Alameda, prohibiting multifamily or limiting density is a fundamental constraint with significant impacts on the cost and supply of housing and particularly a variety of housing types. In addition, Measure A, which is the common name for Article 26, severely restricts promoting higher density housing and mixed use development near jobs and transit to maximize land resources and address climate change. Pursuant to government code, the city is required to make zoning available to encourage and facilitate multifamily development and address and remove constraints. As a result, the element must include programs to address and remove or modify this constraint, including making zoning available to allow multifamily housing. Next slide, please. So over the course of the next 18 months, the the job that we will have to accomplish is to figure out where we can put housing. The first step in that process will be to identify, well, what sites do we already have zoned for housing that will be available to to build housing over the next for the for the period 2023 to 2030. This is all very preliminary. Still, we don't know our final arena number and where we will obviously spend the next 18 months working through these numbers. But just to give you a sense of where we think we are at and what the issues are that we, the council, the staff and the planning board will need to to to work through with the community are the following. We think we have enough land already zoned to accommodate about 2100 units, and that's comprised of about in terms of the arena, about 551 lower income units and about 1500 above moderate those units, as you can see in the table or generally located at Alameda Point, where we think we have a capacity for about a thousand more units at North Housing, where we've already approved a project of about 500 units, which is 50% affordable. So we split that between the two income categories. And then we're making some assumptions here, which we'll have to confirm over the next 18 months with the state of California. We think we should be able to count the Boat Works project because of recent actions by this City Council to make that project feasible and resolve longstanding problems with the works project. The reason why I say it's still going to be a discussion with each CD is this is this site has been on our on our housing element for two cycles now and it hasn't been developed. So the first question. Is is it really available? And we're going to make the case that it is now with these changes that the city council made. There may also still be some building permits left still to issue by 2023 at Alameda Marina and some at Alameda landing . So this table just estimates maybe 100 at each of those projects. And then due to some really good changes the council made to the second unit ordinance a few years back, we're doing about 25 to 30 second units annually here in Alameda. So we will if you multiply that over eight years, we anticipate another 200. So that's how we get to this 500 approximately affordable units, some 1500 above moderate units. What this table shows, though, is we if if our allocation remains relatively constant to this initial projection and as Randi said, it could very well could change. So these are just estimates at this point. But if it does end up being around 4800, you can see on this table that we will be short on our lower income categories by about 2300 units, and we are going to be short on the above moderate by about 500. So approximately 2800 units or short. So what this means for us is we're going to have to find land suitable and available for about 2800. Obviously that our number goes down, then it'll be a little bit less. If it goes up, it'll be a little bit more. Next slide, please. The sites that we think we will be talking about as a community. And this is not something we have to decide tonight. But I just wanted to let everybody in the community and just make sure everybody had the same basic information, the kinds of sites that we think we will be talking about to accommodate those additional units include sites such as and signal terminals. This is a project that has been in the housing element for two cycles now and is still vacant. It's vacant because it's infeasible to develop. We will be coming to the Council with a proposal for a Tidelands exchange in the near future. If the Council approves that Tidelands exchange, then we think we will be able to count enteral terminals in our housing element. If the Council does not, then we will not be able to get annual terminals into the housing element. It will not be accepted because it's not available. South Shore Shopping Center is another site that we've all been talking about over the last few years. This is another property owner that is interested in building housing, which means it's available and has some residential zoning already, but it could accommodate more. So that'll be an interesting conversation if we want to try to allocate more housing to South Shore because we're trying to get to 2800 units. You know, those two projects alone get you to a that's about 1100. So we would we still need more sites and the sites that we're talking about or the other shopping centers in Alameda Alameda Landing Shopping Center, Harbor Bay shopping center, marina village shopping center, blanding shopping center, as you see on the table, available availability unknown. That's because we haven't talked to the property owners for for the state. We need to show that the zoning we are putting the zoning in place. But we also have to show if we're talking about shopping centers and sites with active commercial uses, that they're actually available for housing. And this is done at least it has been done the last few rounds, and we've been successful when we provide evidence from the property owner essentially to the state, saying from the property owner, hey , I'm willing and interested in building housing on my site. And if the city reasons me and puts me in the housing element, I will be building housing. So but we have not reached out to any of these these other shopping centers to inquire yet. The other areas that we're looking at, of course, and have been talking about over the years, Park Street, Commercial District, Webster Street, Commercial District, and then, of course, our medium density residential areas throughout the city where there is additional capacity to add housing. Next slide. So none of this has to be decided tonight. But we will have to start making decisions over the next 18 months. So what we're suggested in the staff report to the council is that we we'd like to set up a series of meetings with the council and then three in the next six months. Tonight, December 1st, really was designed to talk about educate ourselves about the regional methodology. And it's fantastic to have Randy here tonight to help answer questions about that. Then we'd like to come back in February or March, February, preferably in the next couple of months, and have another workshop with the council where we talk. Focus more on Alameda. Focus more on, okay, let's make some assumptions about what our arena might be. We can assume 3000. We can assume 5000. It doesn't really matter. What we would like to start talking about with the council is where do we as a community and where would you as council like to think about adding housing and using that sort of preliminary list as as a starting point? And then in the summer come back for a third time. We hope by summer of 2021 we will have the final draft number that Randy was talking about from back. That is the appeal period that he mentioned. At that point, I think the council has an opportunity to make two decisions. One is, does the city of Alameda want to appeal their number? And if so, what is our argument for appealing it? And secondly, provide direction to staff and the planning board on how you want to approach the housing element. UPDATE Because then the staff and the planning board need to get to work because we under state law need to be complete that work and all the public hearings and be back to you. City Council ideally in the summer or very early fall of 2022, so that you can have your final public hearings and adopt the. Housing element for the next round. So with that, I think that's the last slide. Laura And yes, it is. So that concludes the presentation. And staff as well as Mr. Chancellor from a bag MTC are here to answer any questions that you might have and any thoughts or direction you have for staff going forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Rentschler. Very informative presentations. So Council we have, we've, we've read the staff report and which was kind of summarized by Mr. Thomas. So what would you like to know? I should stop and ask if you have any clarifying questions of either of our speakers, and then we'll see if we have public comment. And before coming back to counsel comments, any clarifying questions about anything in these presentations? Kelso. Brody. I just wonder if we'd be able to. I mean, I personally like to hold my questions till after public comment. Is that. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anybody have any clarifying questions that they want to ask right this minute? Otherwise saying, is that okay? Councilmember de SAC, you're you're kind of off center, so I don't see the hand that was raised. But yes. Councilmember Diaz, like. Well, first of all, thank you very much to staff. Also, I just want to say thank you very much to Randy Rentschler for coming out and giving a presentation this evening. I think the question that I have is because there's a jobs focused of within the formula. Is there any possibility that if it if either the economy changes down the path and and the job projections that that we thought that we would be on are not just temporarily but but systematically altered. You know, could we then alter? Could any city, including the city of Alameda, then alter perhaps downwards its housing number if there are systematic changes in the larger economy with regards to jobs, but also in terms of changes with regards to jobs, not just systematic changes. Let's suppose a city, a jurisdiction, decides that they don't anticipate having so many jobs in the future. Could that then also trigger a reassessment at some point of of the numbers that have been allocated originally makes. Mr. Read So you want to take that or. Mr. Thomas Either way. I was looking at Randy. Yeah, no, I'm happy to. I was too. So this work, it's a really good question and like a lot of things with Reena, because it's been going on for so long and had so many participants, that question has been asked a great deal, particularly. So, you know, given this very unfortunate environment we're going through right now, I think the very best answer I can give you is that it's very doubtful that this administration in Sacramento will change that number that they're giving not just to the Bay Area, but to the Los Angeles Basin and to San Diego. As you as you may know, over the past number of years, the arena laws have been strengthened significantly through acts by the legislature. And except for KOVR, I think a fair person would have assumed that they would have been strengthened even further this year. But Kobe just took out the oxygen out of the air out of Sacramento. So I think the best way to answer that question is that in the last ten years, we, the Bay Area, has produced about seven times more jobs than housing. And that even under the worst economic scenario and look, a large unemployment drop in jobs is not something people usually cheer for. But even if that were to occur, that the state is so far behind in housing and the current administration, as you know, from from listening to them, talks this line regularly that I think it's very, very doubtful that AMAG or the L.A. Basin or anyone else will get a set of numbers different than what we're dealing with right now. Thank you. Thanks. So I was going to say very much the same thing just from my policy committee with the League of California Cities, Housing, Community Economic Development. We are so under housed as a state and we we have a lot of catch up to do so. Yeah, I think these numbers will hold conservatives. I have another question. Okay. Quick question. If you if you know the answer to this, that'd be great. Suppose we go through the Rita process and the state says, you know, you have to do 4900 and that the city and everyone else buys into that. But suppose as we're looking for places to find housing, that we could only come up with 3700 areas. So the question is, are are we credited for the fact that we greatly we found 70% of what we should have or so and and is any penalty. Correspondingly calibrated. If that question if you get that question. I think Mr. Thomas wants to answer that. I don't. I, I can take the first shot at it and Randy can correct me if I misspeak. But essentially that the the way this works is and I just want to clarify, I know, you know, this counts more days. So I go for the public because we often hear the public, you know, criticizing a bag as like the bag numbers, a bag doesn't create the numbers. They and they don't have the luxury of reducing the regional number there. They have the terrible job of of trying to distribute this very big number among all the cities. So the but to answer your specific question, no, that the threshold is either you either pass the green light or you don't. And if you don't, what happens is we the way the process works, we submit our housing element to D before we bring it to council for final approval to find out whether they determine whether it is in compliance with state law or not. Meaning, did you meet your number or didn't you? They will tell us whether we have, you know, accomplished the the the target or not. 75% is not 100% right. So in that case, we should anticipate a letter from them saying, no, you haven't done it. And what that means is they don't certify our housing element even if the council approves it, which means we don't have a valid general plan. And if we don't have a valid general plan in the city, in the state of California, then there's all sorts of consequences for a city in California from not having a valid general plan, which I won't go into all the details. But and those those those consequences aren't calibrated as you are suggesting, like, hey, you can metered 70 70% so discount the penalty it's either you're either it's either black or white. Thank you. Well, and as far as the consequences of Mr. Thomas, I mean, some of the more glaring ones maybe having to do with loss of funding for. Yes, I can just just to give you just a just a flavor of what what that means when you don't have a valid general plan. Over the years, with the strengthening of the Rena process has also come a strengthening of the penalty process and the incentive process. So many state grants for open space like the the major $2 million grant we got for Jean Sweeney, part of the original construction. We only got that grant because we had a certified housing element. If we didn't have a certified housing unit, we would not have been eligible to apply more and more transportation funding. Open space funding, affordable housing funding is is preconditions. Like if you don't have a certified housing, you don't even bother applying. The other issue is if you don't have a valid general plan, you don't have the basis for your local land use decision making because as you know, every decision the council makes and the point where it makes you have to make a finding is consistent with your general plan. Well, if you don't have a valid general plan, you can't make that finding, which makes us very vulnerable to lawsuits. And in those cases, if we have that problem and go down and find ourselves in that situation where we're out of compliance and somebody challenges our decision making abilities, the state and the courts can take over that local decision making authority from us. Ex Mr. Thomas okay, conservatives have another clarifying question before my question. But during the years when we are out of compliance, is it correct to say that development did occur in the city of Alameda? Now it can continue to occur. The question is, will somebody try to stop us or take our decision making authority away from us because we don't have a valid general plan? Thank you. Hey, if there are no further clarifying questions for our staff and Mr. Rentschler, do we have public speakers on this item? We have three right now. Okay. So as long as there are only three and in fact, if we only go up to five, right, they can each have 3 minutes. But if it's six or more, it goes to 2 minutes. It's seven or. Seven. Okay. Okay. So let's go ahead and start with their public speakers. Rob Halford. Good evening, Mr. Alfred. Good evening. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Yes. Great. Great. Good evening. Mayor and members of City Council, thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight and thanks to the guests for an informative presentation. I'm here to share my viewpoint on this item as an Alameda resident. The result of the measure measures evoked in a high turnout election stated clearly that Alameda citizens want new housing development to be taken up in a controlled and measured way. As part of this approach, it is logical that as a community, we should seek to ensure the allocations we are given for new housing, are optimized for our city's best interests, and take into account the more unique factors that affect us here. Although several important factors informed the allocation methodology, the factor of safety is particularly germane to it to our city as a highly populated item and in standard Alameda parlance, I mean that to include the entirety of Alameda. Let's not be scolded for excluding Bay Farm Island and an island that possesses few means of ingress and egress. As we all know, in the event of an emergency, we are particularly vulnerable to mobility issues. As such, I hope that you, as elected officials and administrators, will proactively ensure that this factor is appropriately represented in our response to challenge the air bag methodology. Alas, and importantly, this message from your constituents is decidedly not an attempt to diminish or devalue other criteria such as equity. Nor is it motivated by a desire to stop the development of new housing. Rather, it's a request to make every effort to ensure proper weight is given to all the factors that are relevant to Alameda in order to produce an equitable allocation outcome. Voters spoke by a decisive margin in November. It's time for city leaders to show us that you are listening. In Alameda, it's time to work together in good faith as a community to develop a plan that understands and reflects the reasons why 25,000 citizens voted as they did. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Halford. Our next speaker. Carmen Reid. Good evening, Mr. Reid. Good evening. Hello, Madam Mayor and City Council Members, thank you for this opportunity to make a public comment. I would like to address the issue of our arena allocation and I respectfully request that the City Council and staff look for a way to reduce our expected numbers. Other cities in the tri valley area, such as Pleasanton and Dublin, are proactively pursuing a reduction. Alameda should do the same. Alameda has a unique geography within the context of the Bay Area. We have limited egress and ingress and are prone to sea level and groundwater rise. Please consider the safety of our residents. Please also note that any effort to reduce Rina, as it has been mentioned by Council member Knox White, is not an attempt to reduce equity, but instead an approach for a fair solution for our population of 80,000. Based on the physical constraints of the city. And lastly, given that four City Council members, council member Vela, Council Member Oti Mayor Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White supported Measure Z, a measure opposed by 60% majority of voters, creating some unease and concern that the City Council no longer adequately represents the city. The citizens of Alameda. We would appreciate a public and explicit statement from individual council members that you promise not to pursue or accept personal financial benefit from the construction of new housing. In Alameda. Is that something you could do for us? Please consider this request. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Ms.. Read our next speaker. Delores Keller. Good evening. Is Kelleher. Can you hear me? Can. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And Council. I'm a 30 plus year Alameda resident, a member of Apes and active in the No on Z campaign. Since January's Planning Board, I've become more conversant and increasingly more concerned with the actions of the City Council and the Planning Department in regards to Article 26 Density Limits and Preservation in Alameda. I'm also concerned with environmental and equity issues, but do not believe that one set of concerns excludes the other and that this needs to be viewed as a zero sum game. I had hope that with the defeat of measures, the Planning and Council might begin to address all of these concerns in a truly collaborative manner with involved citizens and civic minded groups fully engaged. However, in less than a month since the election, the majority of council appear to be doubling down on finding a way to eliminate Article 26, despite the vote rejecting Measure Z. In early November, I sent a comment via email, as did others, to urge the City Council to advocate for reconsideration. Of the. Option, a methodology used to determine the Rena one that would better balance opportunity and resource factors with natural hazards. Factors represented in Alameda as a small island city. I was dismayed to see that the council in a 4 to 1 vote not only did not advocate for reconsideration, but directed Mr. Thomas to send a letter in opposition to Tri-Valley request for change in lauding and supporting the current AB methodology. During the November 17th City Council meeting, Vice Mayor Knox White seemed to interpret, seemed to interpret without any factual basis. The defeat of Measure Z meant voters wanted the city to abandon the overlay to meet our obligations and so potentially set up a legal showdown with the state. This seems to me a very thinly veiled attempt to subvert. The will of the voters. Voters who are and would have been fine with the status quo, including the overlay of city council, had not put Measure Z on the ballot in the first place. In my opinion, this sort of reasoning, if turned into action, would only cause more distrust, more division and standards, failure of duty to represent the majority of elements. This is the very reason that Article 26 is in the Charter. I urge you reconsider any such machinations and do the work necessary to both honor the will of the voters to preserve the unique character of our city and also fulfill our community obligations. In my opinion, this is best done in a classic Democrat crowd, a compromise in which each side gains by winning some of what is deemed important to them, while sacrificing something to the other in order to together to serve the common good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms.. Kelleher. Our next speaker. Jay Garfinkle. And evening, Mr. Garfinkle. Hi. Hi. You know, if the numbers that have been presented and process has been presented was correct, it might be reasonable to try to comply. However, there are internationally known experts, demographers and other and planners who have demonstrated that the 400,000 units needed is not correct. California's population is stagnant and is seen to probably decrease over the next several years. This will make the Air Bags Reno project totally irrelevant. In addition. I followed the Rina methodology process for a while and. Early on. Hazard, natural hazards and safety was considered one of the elements, and this might have addressed Almeida's concerns. Since we have a number of such issues related to sea level rise, egress, ingress. Lack of independent water supply and any number of other factors. However, for some reason, the Methodology Committee decided to ignore the natural hazard and safety issue completely. So Almeida's unique issues are not concern considered. The methodology that they come up with came up with is a sort of one size fits all communities. While individual communities around the bay may have a number of issues. The numbers have been the number thrown around has been around 4900. I believe that this is a an incorrect calculation and it may be as high as 16,000 additional units that we would have to build in order to reach the required low and very low income level units. Madam Chair, you are a bag representative and you did not push back on the methodology. You simply accepted it. And I think it's very clear that the methodology is faulty. If they don't consider the hazards. Natural. Hazards and safety issues, I think all of you elected officials, really, if you really want to represent the interests of the residents of our city, you absolutely have to challenge the current methodology plan. It's been proposed that there's no hurry. However, as at each, every few months, another step is carved into. Thank you, Mr. Garfinkle. Your time is up. Our next speaker. We now have above seven speakers, so we will shift to 2 minutes. And the next one is Rasheed Shabazz. Mr. Shabazz, good evening. What have we done with Mr. Chavez? It looks like we aren't able to put him in. So let's see if he can update his zoom and we'll call Tricia or Spencer. Oh, you know what, madam? Great. That's a good reminder. You might want to just show everyone. Everybody needs to be on the most current version of Zoom in order to be promoted to speak. So Zoom puts out a lot of updates, so it's hard to stay on top of that. Please just try and update that zoom and then you'll be able to speak. Thank you. So much. Spencer is next for 2 minutes. All right. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Wonderful. Okay, so I wanted to use this opportunity to ask a few questions, and I'm not looking for answers at this time, but I think it's something that staff and our city attorney can be thinking about. And in fact, I want to commend Mr. Rentschler for his presentation as well as Mr. Thomas. Mr. Renshaw had referred to the Bay Area being a jobs machine over the past and I'm not sure how many years when he, I believe it was seven times increase or something like that. But I would be interested in knowing in regards to the city of Alameda, where are we in jobs? Because with my understanding, we've lost car dealerships, we lost the former base. And in fact, that we have had a housing imbalance in regards to having jobs decrease over a certain amount of time. So I would be curious to know where the city of Alameda is in regards to this. I'd also like to know in regards to presentation second unit, does that include a use or what is the definition of second units that's being used in that chart? I've also heard that other charter cities are challenging the state's authority, is my understanding, for instance, the city of Pasadena. And I'd be interested in knowing our city's response to that, what they think of it. I'd also be interested in doing other reasons that other cities are challenging the numbers. For instance, are any of them an island for bridges in a tube, though elevation and, you know, other factors so that we can have all this information for the community when we're looking at this. So thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker. Um, Delores Kelleher, has raised her hand again, but perhaps somebody else using her log in plans to speak now. Oh, no. She's lowered it. Okay. Yeah, we just get when went through. I just didn't know if they were sharing. So then Kathleen Sullivan. All right. Good evening, Miss Sullivan. Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Hello. Thank you. Hi. People have addressed the concerns of getting in and out of the island. I would like to address the concern I have of traffic within the island. I find it odd that there is going to be new units in South Shore Center when Otis and Park Street seems to be closed down to one lane in the in the current city plans. I don't know how fire departments are going to be able to serve the community if traffic is backed up. And it will be if you put another 800 people into South Shore and continue to squeeze the streets. I won't I don't have time to read it, but I would like to call attention to Article 13, Section 35 of the California Constitution, which says in part, The protection that the public safety is the first responsibility of local government and local officials have an obligation to give priority to the provisions of adequate public safety services above all. So I like to see that part of your obligation to protect us, to be able to get the fire department, to get to my house, to allow an ambulance to get to the hospital. That's my concern with putting more and more housing on the east side in the gold and the Bronze Coast South Shore area. I just don't think those numbers can be supported. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Sullivan. Our next speaker. Drew Dara Abrams. Good evening. Hey. Hi. Mayor. Vice Mayor, council members. I already sent perhaps a bit of a novel over email, which I won't rehash here other than to comment on the topic of the arena numbers and thank the folks at a bag and city council for starting on this big, long process that I know is being repeated in many cities throughout the Bay Area with honestly the same unique complaints being made everywhere. So I just want to speak a bit, frankly, and say that I think these these numbers are are eminently doable. I would like to see Alameda not just. Well, honestly, I would like to see Almeida embrace Option 80, which a series of NGOs around the Bay Area have helped to shape and are promoting for equity for environmental concerns and economic concerns. Some council members have spoken pretty positive for positively about this before, and I think it's worth repeating that these these goals are are being squared. And to play a zero sum game is not just mean, but is actually running counter to some very valid environmental goals, economic goals and equity goals that the city should be pursuing, the region should be pursuing. And I'd like the city to be a part of that. Thank you very much for doing the hard work that's going to be spread out over a few years to make this happen. Thank you, Mr. Dara Abrams and our next speaker. Ashley Loren Lord. Good evening. Hi. And thank you for the opportunity. I just wanted to ask for clarification. When Mr. Thomas was showing that potential opportunity areas for where we can add those numbers to make up the gap, I didn't see any discussion of the lower income versus the above moderate income, and it seems like we're on track to potentially well exceed the higher income housing but failed to meet the lower income portion. And I just wanted to get some clarification around how we would proceed planning with that in mind and any discussion of whether we're intending how we're intending to change that, that right down between the two. Thank you, Gordon. Our next speaker. Rasheed Shabazz. Mr. Chavez, there you are. Good evening. Go right ahead. I'm awesome. Now that I've been in power to speak. It gets you happy. Thanks for the upgrade. Even though I won't get an upgrade in time. All right. So I just wanted to first say thank you to all of the the council majority that. Put Measure Z on the ballot. Because it enabled Alameda to have a conversation that is long been stifled or suppressed by the status quo. I'm actually one to be a little weird tonight, and I want to read a portion of my undergraduate thesis where I talked about I talked about the Clayton Guyton and Madison Henderson settlement. And so this is from Alameda is our home. Chapter nine Pages 155 to 161. Available on UC Berkeley website. And it starts off with a quote from Mike. Rawson, the legal. Aid attorney who sued the city of Alameda by filing the suit. Guyton and Henderson hope. To eliminate all city policies that limit the ability of the city to fulfill its obligation to. Provide housing for low income families. They also hope to educate and go at least part. Of the way towards changing attitudes of some city residents who would see Alameda as the exclusive province of middle and upper income homeowners. Now, there was a tentative hearing or preliminary ruling in which the city that a judge forced the city to. Have any land use decisions coming towards a judge. So to force compliance, the plaintiffs asked the judge to enact a portion of the housing element law that would allow the court to spend the city's authority to issue. Building permits for single family, residents and duplexes. As well as subdivision maps. And so on June 5th, 1989. Judge Michael Balakian also has ruled that the land. Use. Policies discriminated against the poor, and he. Ordered the city to revise its. Housing element. And until then. For 120 days, the city could not accept grant applications for zoning changes, variances or subdivision map improvements. And so every. Request had to go to. Ross Rawson. So I just wanted. To share it and encourage you to read that. Online. Thank you, Mr. Chavez, and our next speaker. We have no additional speakers. That was the last speaker. With that, I'm going to close public comment and we'll come back to the council for your discussion and any questions you had of our Mr. Thomas, you're Mr. Redstone, that you deferred until after the public speakers. So, Councilmember O'Toole, do you want to start because you deferred your questions earlier? I appreciate that. I can wait. You went away. Okay. Did I try to. Formulate my. Questions? Okay, well, formulate a way, because I see Councilmember Vella stand up, so why don't you go next? And I want to thank both Randy and Andrew for the presentation. I was listening the whole time. I was putting my son down to sleep, so I figured people do need to see that. Yes. But my question is, we know that these are our allocated numbers to the region. So what happens if we go or if a bag decides to go with the alternative methodology? Right. So the units potentially decrease here in Alameda. But but where do they ultimately end up? Mm hmm. So we have done an analysis about that. In fact, that was voted on at least three times through various processes at a back, including at the executive committee. What it basically does is shift housing further into Santa Clara County is what? That's the tradeoff. What you see mostly, although Alameda gets caught up in the math, it mostly shifts numbers from you probably recall that honeycomb chart. So you just imagine things shifting towards Santa Clara County in southern San Mateo County and into the city of San Francisco because it's a jobs heavy formula. And some of the units also end up in Oakland, correct? Now they do. Yes. My next question is so it's not that they just to kind of paraphrase what you said, it's not that they they leave the region. They might leave the borders of the city, but they stay within the region. Correct. Correct. So instead of 25% of the population of Santa Clara taking 30 some odd plus percent of the housing. And again, this is in round numbers. You also mentioned Oakland. The formulas do lots of things because it emphasizes jobs and doesn't emphasize furthering fair housing. You get to see shifts in various quadrants around the Bay Area is what the numbers do. Okay. And my next question is in in in terms of calculating and the jobs factor, we're not taking into account work from home relative to that, correct? That's correct. And there was a study, I believe, from 2010 to 2014 that in the Bay Area grew by 350,000 people in Alameda County, grew by 100,000 during that period. And we were the fastest growing county. Is my understanding in the state, I know that that some of the questions have been about estimating population growth for growth moving forward or stagnation. Can you comment kind of looking back at what's happened with the population of the region in Alameda County? So I can't answer the Alameda County question off the top of my head. I can answer the question about the Bay Area in total. So last time we did this number, but everything's jobs driven. That's just the way life is like we like it or not, right? And it's about access to jobs. So even though a job isn't in, let's say, a community like Alameda because of Alameda access and we have all sorts of numbers on what that access looks like, you know, the February votes being an example provides you easy access to jobs in San Francisco. So it's a complex picture with 101 cities, mostly small ones. We're not there's no way you put a job in a house in that, because that's not what life is like. Life doesn't look like that. But trying to answer your question directly, the amount of job growth that took place in the Bay Area over the last, let's say, five or seven years outpaced the entire estimate that we had for job growth for like 25 years. That happened so rapidly. So that's how you're seeing higher Rina numbers. They're all they're making up for many lost years through changes in state laws, but they're also reflecting something that has occurred over the past decade or so. And you, of course, have instances like my household where my my partner works in the South Bay, his office is in the South Bay, but he works within several hours of there and might be going to job sites all over. And my office is in the peninsula, but I my my territory is all of northern California in Nevada. So I think what you're saying is that there's various complexities depending on who's in the household and as well as the different types of industry growth and how that's all connected. Is that correct? Yeah, it is. And look, I mean, you're identifying things and everyone identifies this because the Reno process is imperfect at best. You know, it's been widely disliked for 60 years. I think the legislature has decided to do it because. The real the real questions behind housing are so difficult to solve. What they've kind of tossed around on local government is kind of what's occurred. But that's common, like the legislature does this kind of stuff all the time. So the complexities of what you're discussing are complexities we try to capture in our processes, but it's never going to be spot on and perfect. It's just not. And to your point earlier in the methodology, it takes into account a number of different things. It's not looking at one factor, although it is looking at the job growth relative to demand for housing. Correct. And particularly this round the vote that that the bank board took, in particular this round was seeking to to find more housing where the jobs are in Santa Clara. And look, you can imagine the impact on our transportation system. I mean, everyone a lot of people just expect that it's normal that we seek to raise billions of dollars to build barge extensions and highways, when really the problem we have is people live far, far, far away from where their job is. And if we can, the way we had we meet our climate objectives, frankly, at this point is to try to get people to live closer, to work with control combustion engines. That's the answer. So part of the complexity here that is behind the arena numbers is is is all the things dealing with transportation and the investment behind it. And there is a ton of background noise going on that's incredibly complex. Thank you. That's all from me right now. I just want to chime in and add that you're right, Mr. Rentschler, that jobs are driving a lot of this in proximity to jobs. And that is a good thing. We need to to factor that in. It is also opportunities, opportunities to live near good schools, to live where there are resources like libraries, like parks. And, you know, we we had an earlier item just before this one about I subcommittees on police reform, which are really part of a larger national discussion of why some communities have been impacted so much more by things like police violence, but also like COVID 19. And it a lot of it has to do with where you live. So the equity component also factors into it. And then you are right that rehab, is it popular with anybody? But the reason that the State Housing and Community Development Department has to do a housing allocation for regional governments around the state is that everybody would say not in my backyard and the housing crisis just continues to get worse. So, you know, trying to to put it a little bit in perspective to see where we fit into the the bigger picture. Casper Rodeo tickets are going to go up just. Yep, thank you. And I appreciate you calling on customer viola so I can have a few more minutes to percolate time. First of all. Thanks, Mr. Bunch. There. I see you have Alameda over your shoulder. So that's going backwards. Andrew You know, always informative. So I'll put you guys on the spot and you can pick who's going to answer. So we've heard a lot of comments and we received a lot of emails that kind of say that we are a unique city. I mean. Are we the only one that makes that argument, or do other cities make that argument? I want to ask you, are we really all that unique? Of course. To you ask it in the other way. 101 cities, of course. They're all unique. Of course they are. But look, we're also look, we're also very much the same when you look at a town like Alameda and you have the geography that we have and the bridges that we have, it's very obvious to come to a conclusion about about restricted access. And it's probably less obvious if you live in Contra Costa County and you got a fight a half an hour on just one main road, Ignacio Valley Road, to get to one freeway or in Alameda, we have an entire ferry system funded by the toll payers on the Bay Bridge work. No one in Contra Costa County. Well, I guess Richmond does now has that, but not in central Contra Costa County. We have access to AC transit. We actually a pretty good bus service. When when you think about all this and our technical people go do the math on this and they do do the math on this, you come to a couple of conclusions. One Mayor Ashcroft mentioned was that Alameda County is one of those communities that can provide people with a better life. We have good schools. We have a safe community. We have a good community relative to many of our peers across the Bay Area. And also, technically speaking, while it's hard to grasp this, we have very good access compared to many, many of our neighbors across the Bay Area. And so this feeling that people have, that we're somehow unique, I'm sure everyone's special, but you're not that much different than everybody else when it comes to hazards. Hazards were discussed at great length through this process, along with access, along with equity, along with transportation, and on the hazard side. But the big hazard and there's a state law and this has to do with wildfires and this notion about trying to keep people from going off into that interface on wildfires when it comes to climate change discussed at great length, we have $20 billion in our plan to mitigate for climate change, which will take care of a great deal of the problem for some foreseeable part of the future. But, you know, climate change is going to probably affect I-5 more than it's going to affect many roads around here, because that water drains through the estuaries across the Bay Area and those, you know, Solano County, 80, that's probably the biggest, scariest place. Highway 37 going between Vallejo, but that's in big trouble. So we have a lot of company, a lot of company on the issue of hazards across the Bay Area and across the state of California. Oh, Andrew, I'm sorry. No, I just going to add to Randy's thing. I don't have his regional experience. I just have local experience in five different East Bay cities and every city I've worked for. We always felt we were unique and we always argued that, you know, and it was often it's always, you know, my experience was transient. Oakland, Berkeley, Union City, Albany. We always argued transportation. We were uniquely constrained on transportation. So, you know, as Randy said, it's we're more similar than we are different. Thank you. And I think that's the challenge when you're listening to Alameda resident say, look, we need to challenge the number. We need to you know, it would be crazy not to at least try and that there's no resistance to trying. What I struggle with is, okay, so what's our argument like? What is the argument that the units shouldn't be in our in our city, but they should be in a neighboring city? I mean, that's the argument we need to make if we're going to challenge what not just that we can't accept them, but where should they go? And that's where I, I personally am struggling. Like, how are we going to make that case and what is our argument going to be? And Randy just explained, like, it's going to be tough. It's going to be very tough for Alameda to make a convincing argument given the nature of the region and the nature of Alameda in that region. So just for the sake of argument, let's go down that path. So, I mean, first of all, this 441 176 I mean, that is a zero sum game. If you take one unit away from Alameda or Emeryville or whatever, it has to go somewhere else. You know, we're not basically saying, all right, we want to reduce this 441000 to 2 X and then we're all going to kind of have to do less housing. Right? Right. Right. Okay. So and then, you know, I mean, how many. How often are these allocations appealed? 101 communities think they're unique and 75 of them feel them. I mean, what's really the likelihood that it's going to change? So, Councilmember, look, we can provide you with the exact details of that. Off the top of my head, I know a handful of communities have appealed. There is very mixed success on this. That might win on the margins in a couple of places. But I think I think in this case, it'd be better for me not to wing it here and provide you with the exact information so your council can can make the decisions that you wish to make. Okay. And then I think the next one probably for next couple are for you, Andrew. So we had this discussion about, you know, boat works for, you know, terminals and and, you know, my recollection is those are in passing housing elements. I mean, what's the success rate of of winning that argument that even though we put these because my understanding is if it's in one element, you can't just re-use that as availability or reasonable capacity in the next element, because otherwise people would just keep putting it down the line. Right. So, I mean, if. Well, first, what is the chances that we're going to be able to include those? And if we don't? I mean, the answer is obvious, but I'd like to hear from you. I mean, what can we do about those? Um. Yeah. However many units. 700 or 161 180. Good question. The gist to the question. Yeah, it's a it's a great question, Councilmember o.T. The laws on this have changed since we did our last housing element. And as you said, the logic of the law makes sense. And it's I you think of it from the state's perspective. Don't tell us the site is available. If you told us it was available eight years ago and it didn't get developed, I mean, something must be wrong. It must clearly not be available if it sat there vacant for eight years when you said it was going to be available. So so no, we're not going to accept anymore. The strategy that that that I will recommend to all of you is that we embrace that concept with some like for a boat works for example it's we listed it before we acknowledge yes you are right that didn't get developed we discovered a problem and then our city council in 2019 or right in the beginning of COVID, whenever that was 2020. Took a whole series of decisions in cooperation with that the property owner about works to make this project basically to UN leadership to UN constrain it. So please pretty please accept it because we really believe we honestly believe with this change. And you know what I, what we did last year or eight years ago, I mean, in some cases, we provided actual letters from the property owner saying, yes, I am available. I thought if this goes forward, I will be building housing on the site in the next two years. And, you know, I'm hoping that with that kind of support, we will be able to get a site like Boat Works Counted, even though we counted before. If we don't if KD rejects it, it's it just makes our life a little bit harder. It's another 181 units. We need to find a home for somewhere else. Now, that being said, that 580. Right. And then Arsenal terminals is another another 580 where, you know, we have the same problem. We do plan to come to the council in the near future to see if this council is would be willing to reconsider the Tidelands exchange, because that's that's why that site has been remained undeveloped for the last eight years. It needs that tidelands exchange. Okay. And let's chat a little bit about, you know, Article 26 because basically by applying reading of it, it basically prohibits multi-family housing, right? Right. And it limits density to 21 units per acre. So, you know, let's just assume for the sake of argument that, you know, the state can override that with their density bonus. And let's also assume for the sake of argument that maybe a multi-family overlay may not comply with our charter. And, you know, to vote to put it in would be a violation of the charter. So can you explain kind of walk us through maybe mentally or visually what it would look like based on Article 26 as is written state density bonus, accepting that it's just a fact, no multifamily overlay because there's questions about whether it may be legal and what that would look like in Alameda to meet this 4800 unit. Requirement of Rena, the work that your question is, what does it look like if we don't do a multi-family overlay? Well, that's the assumption I'm asking. You know, assume that maybe a multifamily overlay may let's just assume, for instance, that it may be in violation of the charter because the charter is pretty clear. No multifamily overlay. There's no state preemption on multifamily overlay. There's state preemption on state density bonus. Yes, that's right. I think that the let's I don't think it's an assumption. It's pretty clear. Like state. Yeah. The the issue is. The state says you need to show us how you are going to provide for all income levels. So in this way, this could say this question came up from one of the speakers like, I don't get it. Like, how are we going? It seems like even if we find the land for the 2800, we're going to be short. Because I think what she was saying is that you only have a 15% inclusionary requirement. So how are you going to get all those affordable? The state says you need to show us how the land that you've made available is going to provide for all income groups. And it gives us a couple options. Option number one, give us a study and show us with empirical evidence that if you just build on those sites with the zoning that you have. And the land values you have and the cost of living that you have, the cost of housing that you have in your community. That when somebody builds that project under that zoning, there's units that are available that are that are affordable to all income groups. Obviously in the bay area that is just not possible to do unless you have some way since our are lower income categories is about 50% of our total arena. So how do you ensure that? That many units are made available to to to to those income groups. You can either say you can you show maybe you in some small town out on the Nevada border, you say, well, look, here's the market rate for these units and here's some documentation. See, people can afford them that that might pass muster with the state. Number two, you can find some other way. And the city tried this in 2003. Like, we'll just subsidize everything. We we were going to use redevelopment money. We're going to just throw a lot of money at the are affordable housing need. Our affordable housing need was much smaller in 2003 for that round than it is today. Much smaller. And then the third option is the multifamily option. This is the option that we utilized for the last two housing rounds. What state law says is if you. You can show us how you're going to. How your zoning works. But we will make the assumption at the state level that if your zoning is high density and it allows multifamily by right. And what that for a city of our size if it's 30 units or more per acre measure. Remember is only 21. So and measure says no multifamily housing at all. State law says if your zoning shows that you permit multifamily housing and it shows that you provide high density housing through a minimum 30 units the acre. We will accept that because we believe that that's the kind of zoning that facilitates more affordable housing. So if you don't do the multifamily overlay again in Alameda, and this is one of the decisions that we want to sort of make as a with or get direction from the council over the next few months. Like what direction? Which of these roads do you want to go down? If we don't do the multifamily overlay that leaves us with the two other options, I don't think we will be successful arguing that single family development in the Inner Bay Area in Alameda is affordable. That's not going to work. So that sort of leads to a third approach, which would be a very expensive. Raising, actually. Laura. We can hear you now. While the weather may. Make that surface crash and Ashley juggle two surfaces at one time and got it all fixed. So she's amazing. Sorry. You are amazing. I was going to text you and say sorry. That was. I hope I answered your question. Councilmember Oh, yeah, I almost said that was amazing. Andrew But okay, thanks. So I'll just, you know. This is my last meeting on this. So, you know, I appreciate I'd like to see going forward as a member of the community because now I get to be critical without taking accountability . It would be kind of fun. Now what it's going to look like like are we now going to get like 100? You know, is the density going to be 100 units per acre, you know, a given lot? I mean, because that's what the state law is. And I would just like to see the practical implications as a member of the community on, you know, what our constraints are because there's these two immovable forces, right? There's our charter which says what we have to do in black and white. And then we have, you know, the arena requirements. So, you know, and I don't put a lot of faith in, you know, the state allowing us to push back. I work for the state, you know, I know where they're coming from. The video put out a report in 2015. Talk about why do we have an issue. Randi, you mentioned, you know, supply hasn't kept up with demand and they listed the reasons. And number one, community resistance to new housing. Now, if that isn't one thing that I've heard in the last six years, that's that's pretty much a lot of it. You know, the use of Sequoia to kind of delay projects, you know, local financing structures that incentivize commercial versus versus residential. And, you know, we have this problem here, too, you know, limited amount of vacant land. So it'll be interesting to see because we can't go this way anymore and nobody wants to go this way. But, you know, it'll be interesting to see. So I just want to make one point. Before I turn it over to other people. I mean, there was a lot of discussion. Today about the voters and respecting the will of the voters. And I get that. I mean, I understand that. But, you know, 12 years ago in our charter, we reaffirmed what's in our charter. 12 years ago, the voters of the state of California fairly overwhelmingly added something to the Constitution of the state of California. Section 7.5, Article one. And it basically read, quote, Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, end quote. The voters did that. And if the voters got their way, I wouldn't be able to be married today. So just because the voters put it in there doesn't make it right. And to me, the fight for housing equity, the fight for housing justice is not over. It wasn't over in November. Just like Prop eight, the voters decided it was okay to discriminate. The courts came in and said, Sorry, you can't do that. And now everyone has the right to marry. So before we start harping on and going back to and basically holding, waving that flag that the voters said we should do it, the voters said, should we do it? You know, the voters are always right. I respect them. I respect the decision they made. I will walk away in two weeks. But, you know, the arc of of justice bends towards the arc of the moral universe, bends toward justice. Right. So eventually we will have housing equity. Eventually, we will provide the housing that we need to meet our demand. And it may not be this year. It may not be next year. But, you know, I'm in for the long haul and I'm proud to be on this council that is move the ball forward. And that's all I got to say on that. Thank you. Council member Odie, who would like to go next? Vice Mayor next week. So I have a couple of questions and then a few comments. I just wanted to just kind of clarify my understanding of I don't remember Vandy or Randy and I'm going to call you Andy and you can decide what I'm talking to handIer in Andrew or Randy. Andrew, this allocation, you said doesn't solve the the housing crisis. Not only does it. I just want to confirm my understanding is it doesn't it doesn't catch us up to where we need to be. Right. Like this is the first year, my understanding this is the first tranche of many very large tranches of housing allocations that are expected over the next multiple housing elements to catch us up to a place as a state. Is that fair? I think that's that's probably a fair judgment of the future then other judgments of the future. Yes. Although it's always hard to predict your. Okay. But even if we were to if the economy collapses, we still have a housing crisis and a need for housing. Even if jobs go away. We still have pushed people out in Detroit to live in Tracy and commute in and we should be having those folks live here with us. I just wanted to I think you kind of answered this, but again, just clarify what I heard, which is there is no state requirement for a city to provide a 30 unit per acre multifamily housing overlay. That's a discretionary action that a city can take. But there are other actions we can take to meet that same need for affordable housing. Expensive actions. That's right. It's one option that the cities in its discretion can use, and it's provided under state law. To illustrate how you're accommodating the lower income categories. And stipulating agree agreeing with your concept that they're not going to believe that just building housing is going to be affordable in the Bay Area. We're not going to make that case. That would not be a good use. But the other one, which is we could fund the affordable housing, which is where the 30 units the acre issue comes in, is not a violation of our charter. No, not that I know of. No. The charter says no. Multi-family housing? No, no. Residential tenancies over 21 years. S.A. State says if you allow multifamily and you allow 30 units, C.A. will will give you a pass on that. Yes. So we can meet the housing element without charter violations. And then the last question is, because we're going to thank you. You've done a great job of identifying at least the low hanging fruit. 2100 units to the acre. Even if we put a 30 unit to the acre multifamily overlay that still gets us somewhere near 3000 and still almost 2000 units short of our current allocation. If we start, you know, let's say we drop a 30 acre down Park Street, we're not going to be able to say that all those lots on Park Street are available. We might be able to say 5% of them are or something like that. And so we could drop multifamily overlays over the entire city and make that case. But but I guess my point is, like, we're not going to be we are going to be able to perfectly spot zoning unless we have actual available land. And the next step is going to be that we're going to have to serve zoning in very wide swaths of the island, large entire areas of residential. If we wanted to use the multifamily overlay to try to meet of 30 units the acre. Yeah. I think there's there's there's really two we have to be thinking about sort of two goalposts. One is the immediate one in 18 months, which is we need to get a housing element that will say, you know what, if you cross the finish line, good job, you've shown us available sites. And I think if you think about Park Street like rezoning Park Street for multifamily housing with multifamily overlay, great. We could do that. The question is, what is the realistic capacity? That's the second question. That city. Well, well, what's a real estate capacity? Because it looks fully developed to us. Like, where do you think this new housing is going to go? Why would why would truck tuckers ice cream go away? Like, what makes you think somebody's going to build housing there? So I think we would have to combine it with some type of legwork that we do with the Business Association and all their members, like who on this corridor is interested in building housing over the next eight years. Because we would like you to step up and you know, can we tell KD that your site might be available? You know, CVS is one that jumps to mind in my mind right across from city hall. That's an ideal site. We have some sites down on Lower Park Street, so we might have to rezone, but it still is to our benefit to rezone the whole corridor, even if. To cover properties that are not identified is available. So we tell a CD like we think we have available, we're doing the whole quarter, but we think we can get 200 units over the next eight years because these five property owners step forward. But remember, we have to we have to report to the state every year. And this is the other part of state law that's also tightened up like every year we have to report. So we're constantly getting adjusted and or being are tracking our progress. So if somebody comes along after the housing element is adopted and builds an extra 20 units on a site, we didn't imagine because we put an EMF. Overlay. That's going to that's going to help us in the housing element process, not necessarily at certification, but two years later. And that's going to be very important. So the idea of doing zones with EMF overlay, even if we don't, you know, as opposed to just like we did eight years ago where, you know, Ron good Toyota just a teeny little site, got an MF overlay for 410 units like that. We may not take that approach. Right. And so if we can't find enough land to put the MF overlay over and get to 4900, you know, once we've gone to an MF overlay of 30 units, we're violating the charter. There's no reason we couldn't look at just doing an MF overlay of 60 or 120 units in key places, because we might decide that actually , you know, we've heard traffic is a major concern and it would be better to build housing on park and park and Webster Street and not build a whole bunch of single family ranch homes across all of the rest of Alameda Point, which is probably what we would have to do to be compliant with our charter and build the housing we have to build. I, I agree. I think, you know, we've been sort of in thinking about this and the shopping centers are a great example like. It would be useful to sort of just talk about the shopping centers as a group. Like what shopping centers do we want to sort of target? Let's pick two or three, then let's go talk to this property and then let's talk about them. How many units do you think you could actually do if you wanted to do it? Let's say it's a ten acre site and they say, you know, I could do a thousand units. All right. Well, that's 100 units, the acre. We need a thousand units on your site, so we'll put an MF overlay on your site that says your zoning is 100 units the acre because we're trying to get 1000 units on your ten acres. That's our goal. That's what we want to do. So, you know, 30 acres a unit, 30 units, the acre versus 100 units. The acre is in my book just as much of a violation. I mean, if you're. The charter says 21, right? 30 or 100. They're both not 21. And now we get to 4900 at that point. Probably does. Well, I think yeah. I mean, I think. Do you have the land to get to 4100? Absolutely. The question is, which land do you want to use and how dense do you want to to to build on each of those properties? Right. Okay. So so thank you for that. That was all very helpful. So for me, I just want to first off, just appreciate the the very concise and useful presentation on a very complex issue, probably one of the best presentations in terms of just concision and also really walking everybody through through how this all happens. Yeah, I think for me, there's two issues that we're talking about tonight. One is related to Rina and in the housing allocation, you know, and we've received a lot of letters asking why didn't we challenge our allocation to a month ago? And the answer is because there's no allocation to challenge at this point in time. We said we liked the methodology. We didn't necessarily say we liked the or we approved of the actual number. And, you know, for me, I think that, you know, I am I continue to be open to looking at how we might be able to make a case, as you laid out, that I think is defensible, whether it may not be accepted but defensible, and also honors the equity issues and things that we highlighted as a priority for housing here. And so, you know, I think as we I greatly appreciated Steph's kind of for meetings kind of over the next six months timeline that really does allow for this conversation to happen. And I think that we should be looking at seems from your presentation in that under Article 26, we can probably find a way to make to to accommodate 3200 units if we build on every single possible generally available form of piece of land. And you know, I personally, I would have liked to have seen parks and other things in some of those areas. But, you know, if we're going to honor the charter and whatnot the way that we have sworn to do, I think we need to at least look at what that looks like and that we should at least be open to considering that as a path for how we kind of challenge the numbers and ask for for reconsiders our appeal the numbers and ask for reconsideration. Now, I remember the original Alameda Point plan that had 3220 2200 homes or 1800 homes, a camera. Exactly how many was it? Had a single row of single family homes between the between the the hangars in order to be in measure a compliant housing plan. It was from a from a design standpoint, terrible. I wouldn't want to live in that neighborhood. But, you know, if that's the rules we follow, those are the fold, the rules we've been given. I think the second question we have is how do we certify a housing element? Because that's where we get into we have not used the multifamily overlay to accommodate a huge number of units. We've used it in the past because it was a way to accommodate affordable housing units. And I think that we, you know, after this vote and whatnot, it is really important for us to at least remain open to a path forward that doesn't rely on the multifamily overlay and relies on what I would say is the good faith arguments that we need to be prioritizing and building affordable housing. And since funding is not, that is the issue with that I think that a way for us to remain very consistent and compliant with our charter and also meet a housing element law, at least from an affordable housing standpoint, is rather than using a multifamily overlay , which is challenging to begin with and we are using inclusionary law that doesn't as Mr. Jordan pointed out, we're going to build a lot of market rate housing in our affordable housing is going to lag behind. We should be looking at what it would take and to fund that affordable housing and make that case, I think that should be a part of the conversation. Again, I think, you know, I'm not driving a specific outcome, but I do think these are things we need to be talking with our community about as we move forward with deciding that. And then, yeah, you know, lastly, I really appreciated the idea of having the conversation considering the range. I think the bottom of that range is 3200 because that's a measure a compliant and consistent with the staff presentation up to probably the 5000. And you know, for right now, I think instead of making a decision, I think we should remain open to how we can have that conversation with our community, with the new council that's coming in in two weeks, etc.. But anyway, I just wanted to thank everybody for the, for their time that that presentation was fabulous. I'm really excited to have this conversation. I think, you know, the staff report does a great job of laying out both those paths to the arena path and and allocations, but also the how to how are we going to get to our housing element? You know, I am doubtful that after everything I've been through on the council about charter violations and whatever else, that I'm going to be quick to jump into violating the charter in terms of how we meet our housing element arena allocations. But I think we're going to need to get closer to what those numbers are before I'm going to be able to make a decision on that. So thank you very much. Thank you very much. And that's why Councilmember Dissected. You want to go next? Right. Well, thank you. Leading up to November three, the residents were basically faced with a choice in Measure Z. A yes. On Measure Z meant an abandonment of the status quo regulating residential development in Alameda. On the other hand, no one measures the zimet keeping the status quo when it comes to residential development. And on November three, residents voted overwhelmingly. Frankly, in no uncertain terms for maintaining the status quo. At the heart of the status quo governing residential development is Alameda is growth control tool of Article 26 of the City Charter, which was adopted in 1973. Modified in 1991. And reaffirmed in the year 2020. At the heart of the status quo is also. To work arounds that allow in limited circumstances the types of multi-family housing supposedly not allowed by Article 26. These two workarounds, as we've discussed tonight, are the density bonus law, which we have on our on our books and the multifamily housing law overlay law, which we also have on our local books. Since 2012 we have in limited. Targeted and very strategic areas built multi-family housing, basically apartments and condos using the density bonus law and the multifamily housing overlay law. All of us on city council here have in one way or another supported this housing, these housing since 2012, even if they are counter to Article 26. The way that I see it is let us continue to fight. To keep our air bag housing numbers as low as possible as befitting an island like Alameda. But let us also build respecting the status quo of Article 26 growth control and a limited, targeted and strategic use of the density bonus law and the multi-family housing overlay law. In rejecting measure a the people in no uncertain terms said the city council must keep to the status quo approach when dealing with residential development. That approach that we've employed since 2012, we should fulfill the will of the voters. We should also work closely with the voters. We should take seriously the concerns raised by persons who were involved in the No Manzi efforts, as well as those who voted for them. I have no doubt that if their concerns are not seriously taken, the housing element will probably be put to a vote of the people. We can do that. So. People are concerned about a multi-family overlay on. Horror of landing? Well, there's not going to be a multi-family overlay on horrible landing. There's not going to be a multi-family overlay on the Horror Bay sports facility. And there's not going to be. There might be a multifamily. There's not going to be a multifamily overlay on South Shore Center. Those areas just are not strategic as they do not. They are not conducive to transit planning. So if we're gonna do multifamily overlay or density bonus in conjunction with Article 26, I think the people will definitely be looking for it to be continue to be used in a limited, targeted, strategic manner. If we have to bring the housing element to a vote of the people, well, then. Then, you know, we'll cross that bridge if we have to. But right now, I think in the aftermath of November three, 2020, I think the people have clearly spoken and they are encouraging you to work with the residents of Alameda in keeping our housing numbers as low as possible and continue to figure out meeting our housing needs within the status quo approach that we've used since 2012. Thanks. Thank you. And before I calling anyone and I'm not going to go back to people who have spoken before until every one of the councils had a chance to speak. But we have to do some housekeeping because it's 1055. So if we're going to go past 11 and we do need to. You can in there. Yes, Madam. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to go to midnight. Keep it within this day as we like to do. And I'm fine. I know that we have one regular agenda item left and then the stop waste update. That item item nine has been moved. We do okay with anything. Let's end before midnight of my like it's 1155. Could we vote to go to 12 5510 1155 instead we practically vote to go to the second as it begins over. Bilbo's seconded by Councilor Woodside. Madam Cliff, May we have a roll call vote? This council member dissolved? Yes, not quite. Yes. Odie. Hi. Vella. Yes, Mayor. As the Ashcraft. Yes, that carries by five. Thanks, everybody. Did you finish? I guess he did because he left it. So, Councilmember Bella, I'm going to call on you next. Thanks, Madam Mayor. There's a lot of talk about these mandates from the voters, and I think I'm going to respectfully disagree in part. There were a lot of measures on this ballot. And one thing that we know is that people tend to vote no when they don't understand or when they're overwhelmed with kind of what's before them . So I don't necessarily see this kind of mandate per say, existing. I also don't know how that reconciles with the fact that I was the top vote getter in the history of the city and and very pro housing and have been unabashedly so. And so I you know, what I do think is very clear, based off of the communications that we've received from from what I've heard from public speakers and what I've heard at various forums is that there's a lot of confusion around what people thought they were voting on. So I do hear that we a couple of things. One, that people don't really understand the numbers. They don't understand the housing element. They don't really understand what the charter allows us to do or not to do. They don't understand how different developments have come about or the density, how we've gotten the density, where we've gotten it . They don't understand how affordable housing is funded. They don't understand what the process is when we actually go through approving various projects. So I think that that that what's very clear to me is that we do need to have these informational sessions. We do need to have a number of meetings. And we do need to bring people along and have these conversations. What I don't want to do is to talk to the ideologues who are going to create a scenario that's essentially on I just infeasible. And I think that there's a few issues that have been presented that I that I am concerned about. So I do think we should have a conversation, for instance, about how does affordable housing get funded. And if we if if we want to to say here, we're going to do 100% affordable, what sort of bond would we have to do or measure? Would we would we have to do and fund locally? And how would we go about doing that? And what is the public support for that? That might require a little polling, for instance. I think we need to have a conversation of if we follow the charter. And I want to be very clear that I do not intend, by any stretch of the imagination to violate the charter. But but if we follow the charter in the purest sense, what does that give us? What does the where is the density? What does that map look like? And if that means that we lose commercial and we lose park and we lose these other things, what does that mean? Because I think that it's very disingenuous to say, where's all of our job creation? But, hey, you can't have housing density. You can't do these other things. We have to talk about these things not in silos, but as they all come together and. And frankly saying that we're unique because we're an island. Manhattan is an island. Please, people, let's stop talking about we're unique because we're an island. San Francisco is a peninsula. They have bridge access and limitations as well. I think we are looking at safety. That is one element. We're looking at transit. We're looking at the environment. We're looking at a number of different things. But we have to look at them all together as a composite. This isn't a situation where we get to be climate deniers or say that science doesn't matter. We have to look at what we know to be true, which is that the population has grown, that the demand is here, and that regardless of what happens, the fact that we have been planning essentially through ballot box has gotten us into the hole that we are in. We are here because we have voted on these different things to stop. And finally, I've heard a lot about we need to represent our needs and we need to ask for these numbers to be lower. I don't just think it's about finding a way, as Andrew said, to justify the reduction. I think it's also about thinking about the unintended consequences. I am very concerned of this NIMBYism that is saying I am such a NIMBY that I don't want a few hundred units in my backyard. Go ahead and put them in my driveway, surround my property, put them at my front door so that I can even get out of my house. Because these units are not leaving the region. We are we are talking about a composite of thousands of units. Then going along the 880 corridor along in Emeryville, in Oakland, in Newark, in places that we all traverse and that we all go to. And there are several members of this council who work off island or who have to leave the island for work. You're talking about impacting that sort of transit, impacting those emissions. I mean, there's there's huge ripple effects there. So it's not a zero sum game. Yes. For Alameda, but it does create these other problems. So we can't argue regional traffic and transit issues and then say, hey, just it's just a few units because it's not it's regionally changing where these these units go and there's a huge impact to us. So I thank you for the presentation tonight. I look forward to continuing this conversation and trying to bring people along as we have it. Thank you, Councilmember Avila. I'm very well said. Council. Councilmember o.T? Yes. Thank you, Senator. I'll be brief. I won't use all my 3 minutes. But, you know, I think it's one thing to kind of look after an election and kind of. Have your own impression on what it means, you know, and talk about, you know, where you thought people voted and why they voted. But it's another thing to kind of restate the theme of the election and, you know. That we were voting on something and it was clear because it was it. I mean, I pulled up the the ballot arguments for and against. I didn't see anything that basically said, if you vote no, you're going to keep the status quo. And if you vote yes, it means you want to get rid of the status quo. In fact, the argument against said if it's repealed, the council by a simple majority of three votes can amend residential zoning to allow city wide home demolitions, increased density, greater heights and less parking, resulting in massive overdevelopment and terrible traffic. Well, that's not the status quo. Sorry. And if there's any attempt to kind of twist why people voted, you know, that's fine. But if there's an attempt to rewrite history and say, what were the arguments that were made? Because I got every single flier and I didn't see it wasn't an argument about status quo versus not status quo. It was an argument about keeping Measure A in the charter and not keeping measure. So one last point. I mean, look at the charter. I mean, it says there should be no multiple dwelling units and there are some exceptions. It doesn't say, you know, it it says the maximum density is one unit for 2000 square feet and then it list a few exceptions. And in those exceptions, it doesn't say unless council decides they want to pass legislation to allow multi-family overlay in violation of this charter. It doesn't say that. So I think we proceed at our own risk. If we decide or you decide in the next 18 months to pass an ordinance that basically undermines the will of the voters reaffirming a part of the statue that's black and white like less than two years later. I mean, basically I just pulled a random section out of the charter, three dash ten. No real property of the city shall be leased for a period in excess of one year or so, except upon the affirmative vote of four members of the City Council. We couldn't pass an ordinance that basically came up with some exceptions on that. That's what's in the charter. And 26 dash, 126 dash to 20 6-3 are in the charter. And you may want to rewrite why you thought people voted for it.

A bill for an ordinance amending chapters 14, 34, 37, 38, and 42 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to restructure the weapons code, properly categorize and clarify certain offenses involving minors and non-weapons offenses, prohibit non-serialized firearms in the City, and make conforming amendments. Amends chapters 14, 34, 37, 38, and 42 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to restructure the weapons code, properly categorize and clarify certain offenses involving minors and non-weapons offenses, prohibit non-serialized firearms in the City, and make conforming amendments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-8-21.

DenverCityCouncil_01032022_21-1493

Ten Eyes Council Resolution 21 Dash 1512 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Council Member Clark, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1493 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Council President. I move that council bill 1493 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to amend. Thank you, Madam President. I move the council bill 21, Dash 1493. Be amended in the following particulars on page 14 after line 23, insert the following. Section 38, dash 131 effective date. Section 30 8-1 17 Unlawful Possession of Dangerous Weapons. Subparagraph B shall become effective upon final approval of the Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Proposed Rule 2021 ah dash zero five concerning regulatory definitions of firearm framer, receiver and frame. Or receiver. Or. October one, 2022, whichever comes first. And on page 14, line 24, strike section 38, dash 131 and replace with section 38, DASH 132. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the amendment. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you again, Madam President. First, let me say what this amendment does not do. Because there was. Some discussion about that. Earlier today and over the weekend. This amendment. Does not delay the prohibition on the manufacture or homemaking or sale. Of uncivilized. Firearms. Those would be in effect immediately upon the passage and signing of this bill by the mayor. What it does is it sets a date certain for enforcement of just the prohibition on simply owning such a firearm for. Those. Who as of tonight already legally own one vides. Time for the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms. And Explosives to. Adopt a pending rule which was put out last year by the Biden administration. In I believe in May public comment closed on August 19th of last year. Which is just four and a half months ago. And adoption is anticipated later this year. That would give a legal pathway. This rule would give a legal pathway to serialize these firearms legally. But this amendment also sets an end date on the ATF process on September 30. Not that we can require them to do it by. September 30, but if they don't, then this goes into effect. The public comment period. As I said, closed last August. Takes about a year. It might drag out longer than that. And that's why we've added the date certain. If they don't act. By September. 30, then October 1st. This last provision goes into effect. The tolling period here is. It's unlikely to cause any. Harm because. Anyone possessing an unsterilized firearm, a homemade or. Or some other such. As a piece that they might have assembled, they're unlikely to follow. Our ordinance before. October anyway. And if such a weapon is used in commission of a crime, which is the aim of this this ordinance, to be able to confiscate them and and reduce their use in crimes. It can still be confiscated if we find it between now and October. But the immediate. Effectiveness of this. Prohibition will mainly impact law abiding owners by not giving them a runway period on which they can make deliberate decisions on how they want to proceed. Do they want to. Dispose of it? Destroy it? Do they want to just render it inoperable. Until the ATF acts? In other words, there's this chasm there. This amendment bridges the gap in the current bill between making the law law abiding Denver residents overnight lawbreakers by this Friday, and the point when ATF would have given them the pathway to making that legal right now in an ATF rule to serialize these firearms pending. We have this chasm between the bill and the enactment of this ATF rule that would allow these owners to comply so that Denver's law abiding owners deserve for us to give them this bit of runway so they can make informed decisions instead of requiring them by the end of this week to destroy, dispose of or render inoperable a currently legal firearm they may be using for their home defense. They could, for instance, they could make it. Inoperable, but decide to go purchase another firearm for their. Home defense to replace it. Or by. September 30th, they. Could continue to use this one that they may have. This is a very reasonable accommodation for Denver residents who have obeyed our laws and want to continue to do so, but who need us to give them the space to do it with deliberation. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. We've got Councilmember Ortega. Thanks, Madam Chair. Madam President, first, I want to thank Councilman Flynn for making the change to his amendment. I had the opportunity to call over to ATF, our regional office, this afternoon, and try to get some additional information. Also, there was an article that was written in the Hillsdale College that was actually published in The Daily Signal and. As you would expect, there has been pushback on this being done as a rulemaking measure. Some people believe that this should be an act of Congress, not through the rulemaking process. So my concern initially with Councilman Flynn's amendment is that there's no guarantee that the federal government will take action by this summer on this particular rulemaking that has already closed out the public comment period. And so I think this is a reasonable request to have a date certain by which that provision would would have to be complied with. I was trying to get information on. You know, there's there's very clear language in the draft rulemaking about what will happen moving forward for anybody trying to buy parts and make their own weapons, as people have done, you know, for from, you know, a long, long time. But what happens with folks who have a weapon that does not have a serial number and that's, you know, where can they go to get a serial number inscribed and make sure that it's not conflicting with somebody else inscribing a same serial number on on their private gun that they've made or, you know, that maybe is an antique considered an antique, you know, weapon. So I will be supporting this amendment tonight because I think it is important to have a timeframe spelled out. But I also think it's important to give some timeframe and clarity to people who own their own guns to get a serial number inscribed on them. And really, the most important part of this is when a weapon is used in a crime. That is how law enforcement is able to track down either where they purchased it or the ownership of it. And so I think there's value in this legislation moving forward. But I support the amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President. May I have a couple of questions for the city attorney's office? I think, Mr. Devine, you willing to come forward? And as you come to the microphone, if you will, introduce yourself and tell us who you represent. Sure. Hello, council members. I'm Reggie Ngubane. I represent the City Attorney's Office Prosecution and Code Enforcement Section. Thank you so much. Is it currently legal for people to possess fully uncivilized weapons of any kind? Right now. Yes. Unless the weapon has been unless that weapon has had the serial number removed, obliterated or destroyed. Individuals that might currently be building these weapons once they have built them, they are allowed to possess them. However, they can't sell those weapons or transfer those weapons to other individuals. Those are privately made firearms underneath the underneath. ATF. And you're saying this current law, not not the proposed legislation that we're looking at right now, the current law allows somebody to construct for their own use and not to transfer to anyone else a fully unsterilized weapon. Correct. And so just to drive it home, someone could 3D print a receiver without a serial number. And that is legal under current law. Correct. Okay. Is it. There was a comment earlier about how this language may prohibit pepper spray. Does the city attorney's office have any thoughts or comments on whether pepper spray would be outlawed with this proposed legislation? It would not be. So what our what the bill does is actually is the same as what is currently written in our ordinance. It would prohibit the use of an object of a noxious substance or carrying of a noxious substance with the intent to defeat crowd dispersal measures. So if I were walking around with pepper spray in a in a, you know, at a protest and cops were trying to break up the protest, and I want to mace the cops. That would be illegal. But if I'm walking around with mace just to protect myself with no intent to defeat crowd dispersal measures, then that's totally legal and would still be legal underneath our ordinance. Okay, so the clarification is to defeat cloud this crap. Excuse me. Crowd dispersal methods. Not for self-defense methods. Correct. Okay. One last question for you just to give you an opportunity, because we've heard from the amendment sponsor. Do you have any, um, you know, do you have a response from the city attorney's office, have a response with the addition? So I know that you send us an email saying that the attorney's office opposes the amendment, but what about with the addition of the, um, the expiration date? Thank you. Yes. So we would still be in opposition to that amendment. Our main concern really is one of. Of public safety. Even with that date, ten days, ten months out, what we've seen and what we have explained to counsel is that these ghost guns are proliferating exponentially throughout the United States. Back in 2017, 2016, we saw 1650 of these weapons, up to over 8000 of these weapons throughout the states. In 2020, we can only imagine that that number is going to increase in the ten months. That is our effective date. Their effective date will now be. And while we appreciate and understand the fact that there might be law abiding or hobbyists out there that might be making these weapons for a lawful purpose. In the same vein, there are probably and we know there are individuals that are out there making these weapons for ulterior ulterior motives. Right. And not just law abiding hobby. Those hobbyists sorry. Those hobbyists could also be children. Those hobbyists could be individuals that might be subject to extreme risk protection order. Those hobbyists might be felons. Those hobbyists might be individuals that pursuant to a court order, can't have a weapon. And what this amendment will be doing is saying, well, as long as you built the weapon before today's effective date, you can still keep it. In which case, the individuals that we don't want to have the weapon, which is a main purpose of this ordinance, this bill, stop them from having those weapons, can continue to hold them . So. For our for our purposes. You know, we've we have we are proposing that this ordinance be effective much sooner than ten months. And while that's better than the indeterminate amount of time that the ATF will, might be or will be promulgated, we still think that we should be moving much quicker on this issue in Denver. Okay. And thanks. Thanks for the context. You mentioned a few different categories, excluding including people subject to extreme risk protection order or a red flag. They cannot possess any firearm, including a homemade or hobbyist built firearm. Is that correct? That's correct. And a child can. Is there an age limit on owning a firearm? Can can can someone four years old or eight, 12 own a firearm? So there are limits that are placed on the ages of individuals that can purchase a firearm. And that's different state by state. So I'm not completely sure what Colorado's age limit is off the top of my head, but if they are under that age, they wouldn't be able to possess a firearm as well. I mean, my I guess where I'm my thought process is it might already be illegal for some of the categories you mentioned to own any firearm. Well, there are other. And that's true. And I understand what your point is. I think for our purposes, though, is that we don't want to wait for Denver police, too, to find out that a crime is being committed before an individual is found with one of these weapons. To the extent that we can make this an unlawful act right now, individuals will be put on notice. Kids will be put on notice that, hey, I can't just go online and and buy the parts for one of these weapons and then make it myself right now, because right now there's nothing prohibited prohibiting them from doing so . Okay. Thank you, Chief Thomas Hart. Would you like to add anything? You don't have to. I don't want to make you come to the mike. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you, Councilperson. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And also want to bring in Erica Rodgers. I know, Erica, you had your hand up and so we brought you into the cue. Didn't know if you wanted to respond to those questions as well. Oh, thank you. Council President. My colleague Reggie has answered them fully. I just wanted to make myself available since I'm calling in from Zoom. Thank you. All right, great. We'll keep you in the queue in case we need you. All right, Councilmember Hines, you good? Okay. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for either Chief Thomas or the city attorney. Can you. Can you take one of these ghost guns and add a serial number to them? Because I heard that in Councilman Flynn's comments just now. So is there a process? So maybe backtrack if we were to pass this ordinance tonight and it went into effect on Friday. Would there be a method where people could take these ghost guns or whatever you want to call them and be able to have a serial number placed on them? Or because of because this would have passed, would it suddenly be illegal and we could find them or whatever the consequences would be? So that makes sense. That makes sense. So that's a great question. And the answer is yes, that right now. All right. Let me the answer is not yes. So if the ordinance were to go into effect, say, you know, I'd say today, because I just can't I can't predict the future on when the ATF rule will be promulgated. If the ordinance were to go into effect today, individuals that had one of these weapons that did not have a serial number. And I'll just say that that was not required to have a serial number. There might be antique firearms out there that never had a serial number on them that were produced back in the 1800s that aren't required to have a serial number on it. That's not what we're meant. That's not what we meaning to get at. But individuals that might have built a weapon, you know, yesterday, their weapon would become illegal today if this ordinance were to pass and it would be illegal until the ATF rule that provides a process for these individuals to go through the serialization process until that process has been laid out. And so our office contacted a number of like gunsmith or licensed gunsmith, licensed gun dealers to see if there is a process. Now, see, I could I could I bring my gun in today and get a serial number on it? And these these folks told us, no, that that they would not be able to put a serial number on the weapon because they aren't authorized to do so underneath the current federal regulations. Okay, that makes sense. So one last question for you. In the during committee, you presented other municipalities or states that have passed this legislation. If this were to pass today, as you say today, are they in the same boat that we would be in, that they're their constituents and their residents with their would be illegal intel? The ATF makes a pathway for them to have a serial number. So that's not necessarily just. Not necessarily. Each of those different jurisdictions. Have drafted their. Laws. We're going to go into some of them have been challenged over those. And ask you to. Sort of stop. None of them are written in. Quite the and. Laws. They also have differing instruction. So the one thing that would change for any jurisdiction would be that we're. Not getting your full answer. I'm sorry. It would be great if you could reintroduce yourself and then start over as far as your answer. Sure. I've turned my camera off. Maybe that will help. So I'm Eric Rogers with the Denver City Attorney's Office. And I was explaining that different jurisdictions have. Drafted their. Prohibitions or regulations just a little differently from each other. However, the thing that would apply across the board is if the Department of Justice adopts a final rule that allows privately made firearms to undergo a process for sterilization that would apply in all of the jurisdictions. Okay. Thank you. And I'll just add on just a little bit. Thank you, Erica. There have been some state jurisdictions that have instituted or promulgated sorry that have enacted some legislation that would essentially prohibit these weapons. However, these states have also authorized their attorneys generals offices to provide for a serialization process at the state level. So in those cases, they don't have to go through the federal regulation, federal regulatory process. They can go through their state attorney general's office to get a serial number on those weapons. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Soy. You're. Thank you, Madam President. I am not in support of this amendment tonight. I think that we have an extraordinary gun violence problem in our city. And I think that while I appreciate the discussion and I appreciate Councilman Flynn bringing this forward, you know, we have to act. We certainly can't wait for the federal government to act. We've seen that over and over again in a number of different high profile issues like tobacco, where we've been waiting since 2007 for promulgated rules. So I think that it is irresponsible for us, especially on a night where we give a moment of silence to five victims who lost their lives to gun violence last week in our city. For us to amend this at all and I'm not in support of it tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Just as a reminder, Reggie. The tolling period in my amendment is not ten months. It's nine months. Until. October 1st. And the the. Weapons that were involved last week were not these types of weapons. Just to respond to Councilman Sawyer. These are, by and large, homemade weapons, firearms that hobbyists and and enthusiasts might have assembled and might be using for home defense. And this amendment simply creates a a bridge that might not even take them all the way to the ATF rule. That's why we put a stop date on it, but gives them time to deliberate on how they're going to respond. To the ordinance as opposed to. By Friday morning, having to get. Rid of them or render. Their home defense firearm inoperable. So. Reggie, do we know we like to be data driven? Do we know how many of these unsterilized firearms we have encountered outside of the commission of a crime? We do not have that data. Or Chief Thomas, would you know how often officers might have encountered such a weapon other than someone they might an officer might know and have been at the house? Right. But outside of the commission of a crime within which we can confiscated. How often have we encountered these weapons other than that? Thank you for the counsel for. The question comes from the division chief, Ron Thomas, within our police department. Sitting back with the director of our crime lab, he has indicated to me that we actually have seen these types of weapons very few times so far in Denver. How many, I'm sorry. Very few times in Denver. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Reggie, when you were responding to Councilman Hines, you outlined a. Scenario that perfectly illustrated why my amendment. Is is appropriate. This bill will make these firearms illegal. Not tomorrow. But after the mayor signs it and it's published, I think. By Friday, I guess. And but they could these very same firearms would or could be made legal after the ATF adopts its process. I've crafted my amendment to give an end date to that so that it doesn't go on forever to satisfy the need to actually respond to these to the issue of ghost guns. But tell me, does the city attorney's office have an opinion on what the city expects a law abiding owner of such a firearm to. Do on. Friday? If this were to pass an amendment unamended so. A law abiding owner could still go through the process of purchasing a firearm, going through a background check and having a firearm that has a serial number on it. They could also obtain a frame or receiver that has a serial number already on it and build a firearm that way if they are hobbyists. Just anecdotally, what we're finding is that these and this is for these individuals, it's not their their only weapon. The hobbyist is is interested in building a gun. They probably already have a gun and they probably already have a weapon. They they know the ins and outs to the weapon themselves already. So I don't I'm not sure if it's a non-issue. I think it's an issue that we can't we can't really put a number two on the opposite side. We also can't put a number to the individuals that might be hobbyists, but certainly still shouldn't have a gun as well. Okay. And obviously, all of that is hypothetical as correct as is so much of our. Speculation on that. All right. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And I'll go ahead and weigh in. I don't have any questions for you, Reggie. Take you off of there. And thank you, Erica, for chiming in on it. I guess what really troubles me is this amendment allows someone who maybe has had a weapon that has been passed down generationally, they are circumventing the background check process that we have to make sure that whoever is possessing a firearm. Has had a background check and we know a little bit more information. We can track that weapon. And so I will not be in favor of the amendment this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please. CdeBaca. I. Sawyer. No. Flynn. I. Herndon. No. Hines. No. Cashman. Ortega. Sandoval. Yeah. Torres. No. Clark. No. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. I'm sorry. Close the voting and announce the results. We've already done that. Seven days and four eyes. Seven nays, four eyes. The amendment fails. Council Bill 21, Dash 1493 is on the floor for final passage. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1493. Do we have any hands raised online? All right, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 1493, please. CdeBaca. No. See the Barca. Apps that. No. Sawyer you any? I. Clark. I. Flynn. Ah Herndon. I. High five Cashmere. High. Ortega Sandoval. I. Torres, i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One day, ten Eyes. Ten Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1493 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Department of Financial Management and the Economic Development Department to explore the feasibility of deploying tools and resources necessary to ensure retail businesses and restaurants can successfully and safely reopen.

LongBeachCC_06092020_20-0514

Q Thank you. We're going to do item 21, another COVID related item. Communication from Councilmember Richardson Council and Zendaya's Councilwoman Mango Council Member Urunga Recommendation to request City Manager to explore the feasibility of deploying tools and resources necessary to ensure retail businesses and restaurants can successfully and safely reopen. I have a motion by Councilmember Richardson and a second councilwoman, and Bay has concerned Richardson. Sure, I'll be brief. The reopening of our economy. The economy is coming in pretty, pretty quickly. A number of our businesses, although they are excited about opening there, there has been a number of things that folks are uncomfortable with. And we need to add the tools and resources to make sure that people have a plan, resources to open safely. That means technical assistance on how to reach some of the standards put out. In terms of occupancy. It means offering certain tools like online digital queuing systems to make sure that we reduce the waiting and barbershops and things like that. So a number of examples are outlined in the motion. I've talked to this with city staff. I think we can do more to make sure that our businesses are prepared to reopen safely in order to limit the impact and the spread of COVID 19. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Van De has. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson, for this item and very supportive of the item. Councilman on Mango. Thank you. I also am very supportive of the item. I think it's really important that we use all methods possible to help businesses get back open so that our residents can resume their jobs so that they have a solid income. And I would just encourage us to continue to look at all options. Thank you. With that roll call vote, please. District one. I district to. I. District three. I. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. District seven. District eight. All right. District nine. Hi. Ocean. Thank you. We still have four more Kogan items, so we'll try to get through these expeditiously. Item six the small business loan program. Madam Court. Madam Clerk.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary for a Management Agreement with Long Beach Center, LLC, for the maintenance of City-owned property at 185 East 3rd Street, commonly known as Harvey Milk Promenade Park and Equality Plaza. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_12112018_18-0931

Thank you. Consent, please. We're not going. We're not doing six on consent. But everything else on consent. Any public comment on consent signal, please cast your votes. Motion carries item six from consent. We pulled. We do that one item, please. Yes, Mr. Geisler. Well, we just I don't think we're getting a report. I think we want it pulled. Right. We have to, like amend that. Correct, John? There's an amendment on the floor. Okay, so let's make the amendment on the floor. Mm hmm. An honorable mayor and members of the city council. Yes, essentially the agreement reads as submitted, except for a single item relative to the reporting of and a quarterly calendar by our management partner. We are withdrawing that requirement as a part of the agreement. Otherwise, everything else as is submitted in the council letter, is still consistent. I think any public comment on the change of the agreement? Please catch Vice Mayor Andrews. Yeah. No, I think she's I think she's good. Please cast your votes. Okay, we're going back up. 818, please.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record and conclude the public hearing; Adopt resolution approving and adopting an Addendum (EIRA-02-21) to the General Plan Land Use Element and Urban Design Element Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (PEIR-SCH# 2015051054), in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, and making certain CEQA Findings and Determinations relative thereto, including a finding that the adopted General Plan Land Use Element PEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall apply; and that no new or different mitigation measures are required; approving the 2021-2029 Housing Element of the City’s General Plan; and authorizing City Manager, or designee, to submit the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for its consideration and certification; and

LongBeachCC_02082022_22-0143

Thank you. Now here we have our first hearing, which is item number 16, I believe, which are our general plan amendments. So let's go ahead and get right into our hearing. I'll ask the correct to introduce the item. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record and conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution approving an addendum to the general plan. Land Use Element and Urban Design Element Program Environmental Impact Report Approving the 2021 through 2029 housing element of the city's general plan and adopt a resolution to submit general plan and ordinance amendments citywide. I'd like to. Report I'm going to go ahead and introduce our staff and our I believe that our assistant city manager Mysterium, is going to be doing the report. Yes, Mayor and Council, I'd like to introduce Patricia Defender for who will make the staff presentation for this public hearing. Thank you. Hi. Good evening, Commissioner. Sorry. Council members. Mayor. Vice Mayor, can you hear me? Okay? Yes. Yes. Great. All right. I had a little bit of an issue logging in, but as long as you can hear me, that's good. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor, council members. I'll be providing this presentation on staff efforts related to the general plan housing element update Since this Council confirmed the plan back in November, staff have made a number of non substantive technical edits to address feedback from the State. Housing and Community Development Department and staff is back before you this evening seeking formal adoption of the plan prior to resubmitting for final state approval. Next slide, please. As you may recall from our detailed presentation in November, the housing element is a required element or chapter of the city's general plan. It establishes a road map for accommodating projected housing units, demand for existing and future residents over the next eight years. It sets citywide goals and objectives and policies for housing and shows how the city will meet the demand for housing at all income levels. Per state law, the plan must be updated every eight years and submitted to the state on a prescribed schedule. The city must demonstrate that it has sufficient zoning capacity to accommodate the regional housing needs assessment or arena allocation for Long Beach. This allocation is approximately 26,500 new units through 2029. And this number is almost four times larger than the city's allocation for the last housing element cycle. The housing element must analyze the current and future housing needs of the community, identify housing resources and constraints to building housing, and propose a housing plan for the next eight years with specific programs and actions on how that plan will be achieved. Next slide, please. So this slide just provides an overview of the timeline. Thus far, the city has been working on the housing element update since early 2020 and released an initial draft plan in the summer of 2021. That draft plan was submitted to the State Housing Department and the city did receive formal feedback on that plan from the state. On September 17th, 2021. That was the initial formal feedback which outlines the requirements, the required changes to the document prior to certification by the state. On October seven, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt the general plan housing elements that's before you and approve the Environmental Impact Report addendum that was prepared for the plan. On November 16th of 2021, the City Council considered the proposed plan, including the revisions that were made to address the Housing State Housing Department feedback. At that time, City Council confirmed the proposed plan and provided direction to the Department of Development Services to finalize the plan and submit it to HPD for. A second round of review by way of just a brief background. Extensive community feedback and input would inform the goals and policies and programs and other facets of this draft plan and that that outreach and engagement was summarized in the November 16th City Council letter. Details were provided there on the input received and how it was incorporated into the plan. On January 18th, 2022, the Housing Department provided a second round of feedback outlining a much smaller number of issues and edits to be addressed. Most were technical in nature, as I mentioned previously. That is primarily related to additional analysis that supports the site inventory and fair housing analysis. The final plan and technical appendices are what is before the Council for Adoption this evening. And upon action. If the City Council adopts, then it will be resubmitted to the Housing State Housing Department for final review and certification. Just a few sort of legal notes for the Council to be aware of. In September of 2021, the State adopted a 1398 that law. Because of that law, the city is required to have housing elements both adopted by the City Council and certified prior to February 11th of 2022. That's a statutory deadline or be subject to new requirements, including a requirement that rezoning consistent with the site inventory be accomplished within one year rather than three years. While the state housing the state housing Department has not issued guidance about how they will enforce this law. Most cities have been unable to meet the certification deadline with the changes instituted by that new law at the very late stage. But by having council adopt this plan this evening prior to the deadline, staff hopes that the state will make a favorable interpretation and find the city's housing element to have met the statutory requirement. And staff will be working with the state to demonstrate that the city has made all best efforts to meet the changing deadlines and requirements of the new law. So after tonight, again, HPD will have 60 days to review and certify the plan after it is submitted. We submit to the state. If if it is found that the city is out of compliance with the deadline, it is required and is required to complete the rezoning of properties within one year by October 15, 2022, instead of three years. This will create some level of hardship. This is more stringent requirements that would pose significant challenges to staffing resources and would hamper the city's ability to conduct community outreach related to the city wide geographic rezoning program. Even though the rezoning would be consistent with the adopted general plan, community engagement and technical analysis to tailor zoning to respective communities has been a part of this process thus far, but that would be made much more difficult if it was required to be done within the one year time frame. And there are also. Challenges related to funding. Several federal, state and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility criteria, and recent state law creates penalties for noncompliance. So staff will be continuing to work with the state to achieve compliance and certification. Next slide, please. To quickly summarize steps the subsidy staff has taken thus far to achieve HDD or Housing Department certification. The first round of feedback from HCV was addressed in the plan that was brought to the Council in November and subsequent to the November Council meeting, it was submitted to the state and as I mentioned on January 18th, the city did receive the second round of feedback and made a number of minor technical edits. AICD asked for additional analysis to support the site inventory assumptions and to demonstrate how the site inventory strategy is projected to address and begin to ameliorate fair housing disparities in the city and thus fair housing and how the fair housing goals of the plan will be implemented. Specifically by looking at how the inventory impacts fair housing indicators, including access to housing in high resource areas, mitigating placement and making place based investments in low income communities. The letter also requested that the city update programs based on that analysis and show how such strategies will improve fair housing conditions when paired with identified sites. And again, all that feedback has been incorporated in the draft that is before council tonight. And I'll go over a few more of the specific changes on the following slide. Next slide, please. So most of the changes since the Council started plan last were focused on additional data and analysis, such as those listed on this slide, and include estimating the number of housing units in need of replacement based on the age of the city's housing, stock and data and analysis of how often and by how much developments do not maximize their building potential. The changes also involve clarifications on previous analysis, such as whether transitional and supportive housing is currently allowed in the updated zoning code, Title 22 zone and what the parking requirements are for things like congregate care facilities . Refinements to actions and objectives. Actions of actions and timeframes of certain programs to make them more quantifiable, specific and measurable, such as the example shown on the slide here and shown with the changes shown in blue, are representative of the types of refinements to the programs that were made and that are similar to refinements that you saw last time we presented. The staff presented the plan to you. Next slide, please. So in particular, additional analysis was focused on the site inventory and the fair housing assessment, specifically on how the site inventory is expected to improve and or exacerbate fair housing conditions. And more information will be provided on this in a little bit later in the presentation. Additional analysis to support assumption. The assumptions used to develop the site inventory, such as the likelihood that sites would be used for 100% commercial use rather than housing. The likelihood of non vacant sites being developed with housing and what potential impediments to residential development are. And to demonstrate that small sites and lot consolidation are not impediments to housing development. So generally speaking, all of this additional data and analysis is to support the fact that the sites, inventory sites really are feasible for development and that they are likely to be developed with housing in the time frame of this plan. And the plan appendices in particular were augmented with additional information about that, essentially shared local knowledge and identified relevant factors that contribute to the city's fair housing issues and experiences in achieving high achieving housing goals. So, for example, more information and community feedback was added from the framework of reconciliation, the draft race and suburbanization context historic context statement, which is being prepared currently the 2016 Housing Assessment of Fair Housing and the city's success in in the last several years in implementing the housing goals identified in the Mayor's Affordable and Workforce Housing Report . Next slide, please. So the next several slides are data heavy, but they are intended to just convey what some of the quantifiable outcomes of the planned site inventory are, which are supported by the plans, policies and programs. This slide shows how the site inventory sites and participated units or committed units are distributed among state defined, high, moderate and low resource areas, which you can see on the map on the left. That map shows what areas of the city fall in each of these categories. The high resource areas are shown in the shades of blue. Moderate resource areas are shown in the darker green shades, and low resource areas are shown in light, green, shade and yellow. The site inventory sites are shown on this map in the dark stuff that you see on the map there. The data on the right represents the important strategy that the city has put forward to help address patterns of segregation by focusing new low income units in high resource areas and more higher income units in low resource areas. You can see that the data on the right show overall a disproportionately high number of percentage of site inventory units in lower resource areas. But that is in part explained by the fact that those areas are where some of the highest transit access is located, and again, that there are most there are the most moderate and above moderate or market rate units focused in low income areas as well. And conversely, there are low income units in high resource areas. Additionally, many of the low resource or high segregation poverty areas, like I mentioned, are near transit and locating housing opportunities. There help align with the city's climate goals of priorities of prioritizing housing near transit and reducing carbon emissions. And it also addresses prevent future displacement by directing additional housing where residents are already living. So just to point out very quickly, some notable stats from this table, which have a lot of numbers when looking at the distribution of units as a whole. Just over 50% of the units are in the high and moderate resource areas, and just under 50% of the units are in the low resource areas. But when you look more closely at the numbers, it does illustrate the mixed income strategy. 19% of the lower income units are in higher resource areas as compared to just over 9% of the market rate units. And 38.2% of lower income units are in the low resource areas. Those areas that are near transit and proximate to job. 61%, almost 62% of lower income units are in the combined high and moderate areas as compared to just under 40% of the above moderate or market rate. Conversely, 54% of the above market rate units are in low resource, high poverty areas, as compared to 38% of low income units. And this distribution allocation of higher percentage of a above moderate income units in low resource, high poverty areas ensures that these areas will be more mixed income in the future and addresses concerns about concentrated poverty and segregation. Next slide, please. So this this slide more specifically looks at the racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, which are called recap. You can see the map on the left shows the site inventory with the blue dots and it's overlaid with the with these recap areas that are shown in yellow. As a reminder, the map on the right hand side shows in green and then the circles within the green areas, the areas that are most that have that are transit priority areas and have the highest quality transit, in particular in the black circles, which is where the inventory is focused most. Again, the table shows how more higher income units for the site inventory are concentrated in recap areas, and fewer number and percentage of lower income units are in those areas to help begin to reverse some of the patterns of segregation. Only 10% of the lower income units are in the recap areas and nearly 90% are located in non recap areas. And similarly, nearly 40% of the moderate income and mercury units are located in recap areas. Helping again to make sure those areas become more mixed income in the future. Next slide, please. Finally, this is the left data slide, which shows how the site inventory units compare to total units citywide, putting the distribution of units into a sub regional and historical context. You can see the city was broken down by zip codes into six subregions listed on in the table. Those subregions are north, central, east, south, east, downtown and west. For purposes of the data analysis and at the request of the State Housing Department, the table shows how many site inventory units and what percentage of the inventory are at each of the sub areas. You can see that west, south, east and east are underrepresented in terms of proportion of site inventory units compared to existing housing units. While North is proportional and downtown and central are overrepresented. You'll remember, of course, the high quality transit map on the last slide, which explains why more of the new housing is focused in downtown in central, which are served by the highest quality transit. The bar graph on the bottom of the slide puts all this into historical context. While there's still some over and under concentration of housing by area, some areas had very specific historic developed historical development patterns due to a combination of market forces and governmental policy at both local and national level, which has resulted in the distribution that you see represented by the bar chart here. When taking a long view of the site inventory, the distribution of the site inventory is an important step in making the city's housing stock more equitably distributed among the subregions of the city. Next slide, please. So it was noted earlier that refinements were made to the programs of the plan. The most significant refinements were made to programs related to the fair housing strategies and strategies to affirmatively further fair housing there. Cuts are shown here on this slide specifically, and additional refinements to actions, objectives or timeframes of certain programs were made based on the additional fair housing and site inventory analysis that I just ran through, the data that that was just shared. And so the the changes are shown here in blue. Some specific examples for is more specificity of geographic focus such as housing production of A2 use in high resource areas, which is shown in the first row there. There other examples are a commitment to have to do targeted programs such as home ownership assistance and tenant right to council program to ensure low income communities of color have access to these resources and services. And those are the two middle rows of this table. And finally, a program was added, program 7.3, to do a mid-term evaluation of the housing element implementation, to assess the overall performance and progress on as it relates to the fair housing goals that I talked about in detail. Next slide, please. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and this state's equal guidelines, the city prepared an addendum to the previously certified program Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the general plan land use element. Update Housing element builds off of the vehicle's policies and strategies and provides a more detailed road map for creating sufficient capacity for needed housing in the city, including through the zoning code, amendments and rezoning of properties that are on the site, and how the elements inventory, which will be reasoned in alignment with the LME and will implement the values that are EUI, which is the land use element of the contemplated and anticipated buildout of more than 28,000 housing units and the housing element. Rina goal as you know, our allocation is 26,500 units, which is within the framework of what was anticipated by the land use element. The housing element update and the rezoning of specific properties do not result in any physical improvements that were already analyzed, and particularly because this is a planning action. These are planning actions that are consistent with value and intended to comply with state law, identify to identify a plan to meet the housing needs of the city and to implement the zone change program. That is a an actual program of the land use element. And it's important to note that future discretionary development facilitated by the implementation of the housing element would be subject to project level score review as appropriate at the time of the project that the projects are proposed. Next slide, please. So this concludes my presentation. The recommendations to council are listed here on the slide staff recommends consistent with the Planning Commission action. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Environmental Impact Report Addendum er a to 21 and adopt the 2020 129 general plan housing element and staff will resubmit to the Housing Department for final certification by the State upon action by the Council this evening and implementation. As you know we discussed in our in some detail and the November presentation is underway and has been underway and the slide just demonstrates some of the actions that have been taken that have implemented the housing element even while we've been updating and preparing the update of the housing element. With that, that does conclude my presentation staff is available to answer any questions and we do have our consultants on the line who have joined us and are available to answer questions as well if necessary. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. We didn't and we will go on to any public comment that we might have. If there's any members of the public that wish to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or press star nine. Our first speaker is Leona Libra. Hi. This is Lianna Noble from Libra. I live downtown Fourth and Pine. I am speaking behalf on behalf of Long Beach residents empowered as part of the Housing Justice Coalition here in Long Beach. And I'm not going to speak on the details of the content of the plan. Rather, I want to refer you to a letter that you've received from all of us and make the point to you that from a community perspective, the way in which it was possible for community based groups to are accountable to their constituency is primarily renters and people of color. The way in which we were. Recruited and worked together with the Development Services staff was a new experience. As. Radically different from the debacle of the land use element? And to me, what it proved, and I hope the Council will consider this it proved that it is more than possible for community based organizations and their constituents to make very real, concrete contributions in a process. Thank you. Your time. Is over. Our next speaker is Brie Larson. Good evening. Great presentation. My name is Brie Larson and I represent the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters. We are a labor union representing over 50,000 carpenters to live in six states, including California. And we have a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and addressing environmental impacts of development projects. Individuals, members in the Southwest work, live and recreate in the city of Long Beach and surrounding communities and will be directly affected by the project's environmental impacts. City should require a use of local, skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community, economic development and environment. The city should require the use of workers who have graduated from a joint labor management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on the job experience in the affable craft which were required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program who are registered apprentices in a apprenticeship program and approved by the state of California. Community benefits such as local hire a skilled and trained workforce requirements could also be helpful in reducing environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the project. Local higher provisions requiring that certain percentage of the workers reside within ten miles or less of the site project and reduce the vendor trail. Here do talking about. It. Our next speaker is Susanna sime. Hi. My name is Sam and I'm the executive director of United Kimberley Meeting and I want to thank the city for partnering with CBOs in the Housing Element Plan. The CBOs that we were able to engage and build the capacity of is Long Beach, Miami toward Lake Agency, Miami to immigrant rights, coalition, labor, my Girls in Action and UCC. And together we were able to host a joint community in which we had over 120 community participants. And we also were able to engage committee members in public comment at planning and City Council. Individually. Our organizations were able to do outreach and education through social media workshops and training in English, Spanish and Canadian do these engagement efforts. We were able to prioritize community residents and their priorities around housing, which you have heard us share in the past. Overall, I want to continue to urge the city to engage the community in meaningful ways from the very beginning of city planning processes so that our committee recommendations can be included and that these changes can be made to these plans. Specifically, I urge the city to continue to engage it in the consolidation plan and any rezoning plan processes that are moving forward in our communities. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker, Stephen Donohue. Can you hear me? Just right here. Yeah. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor and council member. My name is Steven Donahue. I'm a member of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Local 562. I work and recreate in the vicinity of Long Beach. The city should require projects to be built utilizing local and skilled and trained work forces, local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements . Reduce construction related environmental impacts while benefiting the local economy. Thank you for hearing my message. Thank you. Our next speaker is tonight Kemper. City Council and mayor. I'll be concise. We you know, you should if there's any biblical scholars in the room, should read the book of Jeremiah, in which the protagonist warnings for the destruction of the city of Jerusalem were unfortunately left unheeded with respect to the air. Thank you for the presentation, Miss Patricia. You know, historical context wise, I didn't hear the term redlining referenced explicitly, which is why these transit hub areas are so remarkably transit focused because the land was purposely maintained as blight in order for the development that we see today. With respect to this general plan, we have to put teeth and have prerequisites, contextually speaking, before we even have these development projects come down the pipeline. There needs to be mandated. Low income and affordable housing. There's a there's an agenda item later that you guys are changing the definition of what affordable rent even looks like in the city. Chapter 21.67 In the Municipal Code. You guys are changing that in the agenda item later. Mark my words, these kinds of developments are going to push out black and brown and Asian people and low income poor Caucasians out of the city. We need to make. We need to mandate prerequisite affordable housing. Thank you. Your time is up. Our next speaker is Ailsa Chang. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Ailsa Chang, District five resident and Long Beach Forward Staff. I want to start by thanking staff from the Development Services Planning Bureau, especially Patricia Defender for Allison Spindler, Ruiz and Alejandro Sanchez Lopez for their tremendous, tremendous work and leadership over the past two years of the housing element process. Now, as a result of years of tenant and housing, justice organizing and as a result, as you heard from others of the city's investment and community based organizations to engage in capacity building for the first time ever, the housing element incorporates critical community led housing justice solutions that reflect the needs of the people and the people of color. Renter Majority. Such community wins include program 5.2 to implement various tenant protections, including a program to allow substantial remodels while minimizing displacement program. And 6.8 on Community Land Trust and Program. 7.2 to establish dedicated rental housing staff slash division within the city government. Despite, however, the significant progress, the housing element still does not go far enough to advance and invest in housing justice solutions, including, as you just heard from the staff presentation, fair desegregated housing. Born from generations of racist policies and market practices. I want to turn quickly to the community engagement process. While which forward is grateful to have been one of the CBOs to partner with the city during the. Thank you. That concludes your public comment. Our next speaker is Gabriela Perez. Good evening. My name is Gabriel Perez. I'm an organizer with Land and Lobbies, Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community. The stories and experiences we've come across from community members have made clear that the programs incorporated the housing element are significant victories for working class voters of color. Program 6.5 in particular, which implements tenants rights to council, is a huge win for monolingual residents like my earlier Breda, as well as working parents like Calvin Warren and Reynoso, all of whom face the threat of eviction and will now be more empowered to navigate a confusing legal landscape and advocate for themselves and their families. That said, the city still has a way to go to ensure that Long Beach residents are protected by a proactive, comprehensive and just approach to housing. Moving forward, this means a housing element process where CBOs that have trust and relationships, marginalized bipoc communities serve as critical, positive partners with the city, especially when involved from the very beginning of city processes and a housing delivery process where engage in marginalized communities and land use planning processes is mutually supportive and beneficial instead of extractive and tokenizing. This means meeting the immediate needs of people by collecting and sharing resources and potentially offering direct services such as rental assistance, application support, housing counseling and legal assistance. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ruben. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor, Little Beach Council members, thank you for your time. Thank you for the presentation. My name is Ruben Minerals and I am as well a union member from the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters. So I just come to you, the panel here today, you know, off script, just with an open heart and humble mind. I work and live in Long Beach. I'm currently involved in marine construction with the Port of L.A. and Long Beach. And I just can't express to you enough the importance of local workforce, skilled and trained workforce. We definitely all know the challenges of logistics, right? When with the rail, the freeway, 710, 110. So we come to you, you know, with numbers and just want communications, transparency, be involved and again can express how important it is to having this local and trained and skilled workforce. Our apprentices are dreaming in the field, doing a safe job, doing a good work, beautiful product, put out skilled craftsmanship, and that's only going to help the logjam. Like was mentioned earlier with suppliers just, you know, the highways and byways again. And just please take my words. Thank you. Our next speaker is Natalie Hernandez. Hello, councilmembers. My name is Natalie Hernandez and I'm a ninth district resident member. I'm speaking to support the adoption of the City of Long Beach housing element in the housing need. Summary data shows that Long Beach is a city of 61% of renters, with black and Latino renter households more likely to be rent burdened than white renter households and having the highest rates of rent hardship in a city that is majority renter, there should be more programs that assist first time homeownership, like establishing the Homeowner Assistance Program with Recovery Act stimulus funds. I can personally speak to the barriers to homeownership as a next resident. My family and I were in the process of buying a home for about all of 2021. One barrier was constantly being over bid by all cash investors in our Long Beach flipping properties. I was even overbid by Zillow. I see in the housing element there's no policy guardrails to limit investor speculation. And another barrier I haven't seen addressed is incentivizing sellers to prioritize first time homebuyers. More work needs to be done on the barriers mentioned, but I hope the Down Payment Assistance Program proposed in the elements will be one tool to give local residents a pathway to homeownership. Though the housing element needs strong and swift implementation, I fear the suggestions put in the element are already being outpaced by the Long Beach housing market, controlled by investors and realtors. The city needs to actively work with local realtors to ship local renters to be first time homebuyers. And the city needs to continue to work through this so that we will stop being a city of renters and workers and won't have to keep talking. Our next speaker is Luis Flores. Yes. Good evening. My name is Louise Flores with the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters. Look, 22 and I just want to say that, you know, I believe in that you should hire, rein in your workforce that we provide through our union. And also, you know, if you hire local hire, it would diminish the pollution in our city. And also, I believe that if we live here, which you work here in our city. You know, bring more revenue to our city and reduce our traffic as it is. You know, I live here then we in. All the pollution that we get from that and also the refineries around. So I believe that if we live here, we shall be the first to work here. They'll be all. Our next speaker is Myron Walden. Hello. This unmarried woman. I am the immediate past president of the Long Beach Great Panthers. We are advocating for seniors in Long Beach, and therefore, we are concerned most about affordable housing for seniors. And we see that there are mentions of seniors and disabled, but we are concerned about some certain things that can be done to improve what is generally has some very good things within the plan. We find there's no provision, for example, for multi-generational housing. We see that there's nothing there about LGBTQ people. We like very much the fact that it mentioned no net no net loss. However, there's one provision within that one thing that's happening within the senior community that we're very concerned about in terms of loss of affordable housing for seniors. And that's among the high housing where the contracts are up and speculators are buying what the housing and therefore converting them to market rate. We are concerned about this issue. There would be, therefore, a net loss of affordable housing for seniors, and we would like the city to get involved and come up with plans to alleviate the problem of loss of senior housing, affordable housing. Please think about this as an issue and don't leave it to HUD, to this to the federal government. Think of innovative. Times included our final speakers, Melody Osuna. Evening. My name is Melodie Osuna, and I'm an attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles through our Long Beach community office at 601 Pacific and clinics at the Long Beach Courthouse, LeFlore is deeply invested and committed to justice for the people of Long Beach. As such, we take a great deal of interest in the city's housing element and its impact on poor and low income residents of Long Beach. We appreciate all the hard work and effort that went into developing the housing element over the past two years. We genuinely appreciate the attention the city has given the developer to developing a robust housing plan that addresses the needs for tenants. We look forward to working with you on developing and implementing these programs. Many of these programs, such as technical assistance for Community Land Trust and expansion of the inclusionary housing requirement, have specific target dates in the next few years, and we eagerly await the opportunity to help develop these policies on their scheduled timelines. Others, such as the rental housing division, are more aspirational in nature, and we hope that the city remembers that and the housing element and also that they remember that these legally mandated objectives and timeframes over the next eight years as we work together to make Long Beach a safer, healthier and happier place for tenants of all income levels. We do have certain reservations about the assessment of fair housing and what this plan does plan to do. And we hope that the city takes more. Thank you. That concludes public comment. That concludes public comment for this item. Well, thank you. I appreciate all the comment. We're going to continue the hearing that we have. I'm going to have counsel deliberation first. So if you want to speak, please make sure that you queue in. Let me just get to the queue really quick. I first up, I have Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I want to take a moment to just thank staff. We've certainly come a long way as a community. You know, I was around the last time we did this, I believe I was Councilman Neal's chief of staff at the time. And it was a very different experience. We didn't have community coming forward saying thank you for including us, very different experience. And you know, what I saw in terms of the consultative process between HCB and Skaggs last year as president? It was it was you know, it was a little tense as we were discussing Rena and disagreements. I'm glad to see that you've had a better consultative process here with our original plan. Here's our feedback. Here's we're responding to the plan. I think that's helpful. That's helpful. That's going to help us to get where we need to go. I think more more globally here. You know, I think it's important for people to understand what it is we're doing. You know, cities need to plan for growth. Growth is going to happen. Demographic growth will happen whether you plan for it or not. The question here is where the growth is going to happen in a haphazard way. We have over crowded conditions, folks living in cars, overcrowded in homes, or, you know, living in motels and on the street, or whether we can plan in a healthy and safe and smart way for growth and accommodate the growth within our city. And that's what the goal of this plan is. You know, the good thing about it is we plan for it. We protect ourselves. One of the kids, through something down the stairs threw me off a little bit. So, you know, we plan for it. I think that's a good thing. We can advance economic development, create jobs. But one thing we definitely need to do and we've done a lot of strategies in terms of inclusionary housing and other things include include including here. But it will be hard to develop the affordable housing without a dedicated source of revenue. We still haven't replaced it. We know we used to have it with redevelopment. We knew we to invest $45 million a year into that. And we're doing a lot of other things. You know, we're squeezing as much from the term as you can. But the truth is, we just can't compete with the scale that's needed to keep them affordable. Premier housing, great housing, we'll get there. But as it relates to affordable housing, we have to continue to work to find dedicated source of revenue and some of the middle income housing stuff and all that. That helps. We have a lot more work to do. I also think it's important to know that, you know, we've got projects today that were held up because of the entitlement processes. We have to make it easier to get projects approved. I've got a project on Artesia on Artesia Boulevard right now. Smaller project was the first one using up plan zoning. And, you know, they're being required to go well and beyond what I would have expected them to be able to do. We have to just keep in mind that we are in a housing crisis and we have to build housing and we're going to have to be flexible . We have to be more in our in our in all of our processes of getting approvals, get housing built. And so that's what we certainly need to do. I think the downpayment assistance and homeownership programs are incredibly important. We're funding a pilot recovery plan. I think that's important. I like that we have a mid-term evaluation on this. I think that's good. And so I'm generally supportive of what I have today, what I hear, what I see today. So I'm happy to make the motion to support staff recommendation. I think it's certainly timely. We need to get this done. And one question. I know that we have we've done a number plates. We have the idea of zoning. We've done a number of things downtown, uptown, midtown. What's actually left to do? What areas of town actually need to be? What zoning needs to be updated? I'm really curious about that. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Patricia Defender For the record. So currently we're working on the central Long Beach area. So you may have heard us talk about the Anaheim Corridor zoning implementation program. That is the Anaheim Corridor, some area north and south through the central area of the city. We still have to work on the West Long Beach rezoning in West Long Beach, and it's just going through and all of the places where the land use element changed the place type, we have to just go back and ensure that the zoning is consistent with that place type. So it's generally in there's some areas within continuing the plan, right? The plan north Long Beach, the phase to the west, Long Beach, Central, Long Beach, there's some areas in the east side looking at the the founding contemporary neighborhood place type and developing, you know, low density residential zones that are more commensurate with that place type as well. So there's still a lot of areas of the city that we need to evaluate and read them. Just a thank you. Thank you. I have the second by Councilwoman Allen. Ank you. I'm mayor and I just want to thank staff for the presentation today. I appreciate all of staff's hard work on this, and this is important for our city's future. And I enjoyed seeing the progress unfold. This updated housing element gives a roadmap for accommodating. All of the help you need and also guide our future decision making when it comes to housing issues. I really am impressed with what we have today. We are prioritizing housing production for all income levels, including those with special needs and improving housing affordability and preserving existing affordable housing, and also promoting fair. Housing options. For all of our residents. So I really appreciate the community outreach and the incorporation of feedback on this plan. I think that has been a really important role that what we're seeing today and I will be supporting this item. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I, too, will be supporting this item. And I want to thank Patricia for an excellent presentation. I have a couple of questions that I wanted to talk with you about. Just couple of because I know these questions have come up in terms of our our radar numbers. What do you think is contributing to us being able to increase our housing production in the way that we have? I mean, I know that I'm familiar with some of our specific plan CCF and the downtown plan and others that have allowed for additional housing. But what are other factors that are contributing to our ability to be able to make progress towards that 2029 requirement? Thank you for your question, Councilwoman Pryce. So as you noted, our specific plans have made a huge difference in particular and more recently, the Southeast Area Specific plan, which accommodates 2500 units. I think, to answer your question, streamlining the environmental review process by doing the program level eyes and tearing off of the the program level. I.R. for the land use element. Do you facilitate the housing production by streamlining the process for the environmental review? That's a significant way in which housing units are facilitating the development of housing units. Some some programs going forward are looking a little bit more as site plan review thresholds. You may have noticed some of the programs in the plan that look at both site plan review thresholds and can they be increased in order to allow more projects to go through a more administrative review process for things like design? Applying objective design standards is going to be important going forward and taking advantage of some of the state streamlining as the 35 we had one SB 35 project in the city recently that qualified for that process, which is a process that if it meets various criteria, it can go through a more streamlined review without hearings, but through a staff level review. So those are some of the ways in which those those housing can be facilitated by the things that we're doing. So is that the streamlined process? Is that because it reduces the turnaround time or the time that a developer has to wait? Is that okay? All right. So basically, it's it's facilitating more housing production within the timeline of between now and 2029, because we're shortening the time that people have to wait for entitlements. Yes. We're doing everything we can to do that. You know, from the entitlement process itself to the environmental review process and taking advantage of different in sequence streamlining. Okay. Can you talk a little bit about I mean, I just reading this article about only 24% or something like that of Californians can afford to buy a home right now in California, which was a shocking number. So can you talk a little bit about down payment assistance programs? And you know what what we're doing, I'm I'm hoping and I'm assuming that we're being as aggressive with those programs as possible and that we're leveraging all state and federal resources. But maybe you can talk to that a little bit more. Yeah, I believe that. I think our deputy director has and our housing staff have a little bit more information on the homebuyer assistance program. But I believe there's a program there's money available through the Long Beach Recovery Act, too dedicated to providing the homeowner assistance program in the calendar years of this calendar year in the next calendar year. Believe that a dollar amount is about $3 million. And this is Christopher Terrence. Patricia is correct. There is $3 million in the Long Beach Recovery Act that will go to first time homebuyer down payment assistance. And, you know, that will not, um, you know, that will help hundreds of families that want to help thousands of families. But it will be incredibly significant to those who we are able to help through that program. That's kind of going through the procurement process now. And families should be able to apply come January of next calendar year. We also have a state program, which is how we do programs like Habitat for Humanity, and we're looking at funding kind of there are homeowners that may have very low incomes, but they do own homes they bought at a time those homes were more affordable. And we're looking at how can we help them build 80 years on their backyard, which would provide additional rental housing in the city, but also provide an additional income stream to those low income homeowners? We received a grant from KD to do that. So where we can gather funds, like I just mentioned, we're able to intervene directly into the housing market. But the most important thing we can do in terms of homeownership is having a robust supply of housing. So that means, you know, producing housing units in general to the degree that we can get rent increases under control, that gives people more money each month to save towards a future home purchase. And then we need to find the right mix of carrots and sticks to make sure that that we're building condos in the city as well, because, you know, a single family home and you look at the price of a single family home in this city and throughout California, that's not going to be a first purchase for for most folks. But to the degree that we can build condos that maybe are smaller or they those could be available at a much lower price point and at current interest rates at a price point that's probably commensurate with your rent. So that could provide a lot of great options for first time homeownership. And that's all part of the overall housing strategy we have here in the city. And then the housing element is one piece of that. But there's there's other pieces that, you know, we want to continue down that road that continue to make improvement. Thank you so much for that. I appreciate it. I think my head's pretty much up. So all of you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sara. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank staff for just really your hard work in getting the housing element plan to this point. I appreciate the effort and policies taken to include community voices in this, and I hope that you'll continue to do that as we will be able to get report back on how things are progressing on a periodic basis. That's what I know, that we're not going to get everything we want in this plan. But what I do hope to have is a periodic follow up to see where we're at a meeting. Our goal on a yearly basis to also, hey, what, what can we learn from what's not working and catch that and see what we could do to improve it for the following year. You know, one of the things that I'm wondering is, you know, we we we try to make sure that we create a housing element plan that will develop housing for all different income level. But I'm wondering, how do we collect data and how we're helping to address our homeless numbers? Like how are we are we, you know, at the end of the day, I want to make sure we're also helping people to get home, becoming homeowners, getting into affordable rent. But I also want to make sure that we're decreasing our homelessness number. Is there a way for us to see if by meeting our rent, a number were also able to decrease our homeless numbers as well? Thank you, Councilman Ciro. You know that there's a whole continuum of care infrastructure in the city that's charged with providing those kinds of services. And we work closely with them and the housing authority to to, you know, implement all of these plans and to track numbers. And we do have to do annual reporting each year on how we're progressing and in developing housing units and how, you know, the site inventory is working. And we can certainly try to look at additional data points that we can include in that process that can help us understand how we're making significant strides in addressing with this as a result of the housing that is being developed through that. And of course, there's the the programs around permanent supportive housing and shelters, all the things that the the many different ordinances that the council has adopted recently. And the plan cumulatively tries to address those issues and those concerns. Yeah, thank you. I really appreciate that because I do know there is a fine line and how where development services track you know that the number of people getting housed as far as making sure there is, you know, units available and that they're being built. But I think that it's really important that if we could make sure there is a connection to our Health and Human Services numbers, I know that we don't track people going into long term housing or even if it is short term. But I think that that I want to make sure we're painting a whole picture about how we're housing people in addition to making sure that we're increasing housing. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Councilman Ringo. Basically very simple. I think that's a wonderful job and doing there in the analysis done. I think that value, as we know, is a very stressful process that we went through four years ago. And to get to this point, this is a it's a good indication that we've made a lot of progress. Still a lot of work to be done, obviously. Our numbers have not gone down. They've gone up. And we still need to be aware that we still are challenge with our housing. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Jan De. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you very much to staff for all the hard work that they've done on this great presentation and throughout the time in bringing that up. I know it's been eight years, eight years. That seems like it's an eternity to some, but as many of you know quite well, time really flies. This is why it's critical that we act now to address. And yet we saw at the same time that long term solutions. What got us to this situation and where we are now was a combination of the past decisions, of past agendas, of past decisions and standards. What we need to build for the future is that desire, and what we deserve is a new and long way of looking at things, especially when we're coming together with community. I think that is the main thing. Making sure that our agenda is equitable and that our visions raise humane living standards for all. That is exactly what this housing element presents as hope for a better tomorrow, in which housing will no longer be a dream or a necessity, but actually a reality. And I have a lot of hope for that with the housing element. It is going to take a lot of work and it's going to take an intersectional approach to getting there. But I know that here in Long Beach, we as a community know what work is all about and we're willing to put in the work. So thank you to every single community member who showed up and participated in the process by voicing your needs and concerns and guiding the development of this housing element. I'm excited for the future of the cities of Thrive and I support this item wholeheartedly. Thank you, Constable Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I share of most of the sentiments of my colleagues already expressed here today. Obviously, this is a this has been a long process, one that I have been part of from the very beginning. And I'm very proud of the document that is actually before us. Obviously, our need is great for to build housing and our goals are our aspirational. We need to build 28,000 new units in the next ten years. That's that's significant. So this decision, this housing element is a huge step forward. This housing element will help to give us strategic direction and clarity for future housing development in our city. It will certainly. And one thing that I'm really pleased to see with this document is that it has taken an integrated approach to community engagement and outreach. Because mentioned in this work several different types of community outreach forums where they extrapolated public input related to housing, put it to this and that consideration and I think that is very important, shows that our city staff is smart with their time and resources, but also is listening to our constituents, listening to the people of Long Beach . And so this document is comprehensive. Looking at the housing plan, I'm literally seeing just about everything that this council has voted on related to housing in terms of our values and direction in this document. So with that, I, too, am happy to support this 100%. Thank you so much. Thank you. That concludes council comment. I'm going to say a few comments and then we'll go ahead and go to the vote and close the hearing. I just wanted to thank the the staff for really the incredible work I'm putting the document together. It should be noted that if you look regionally and how housing production is faring in our neighbors, I mean, Long Beach is certainly ahead across the region. Whenever when when you're looking at population and versus the amount of housing units that we're creating. I think we cannot forget that that in Long Beach, we should always strive to ensure that housing is a right for everybody, that it's accessible to all people, regardless of income level. I think the council has worked really hard to change in the last decade of our approach to housing, whether it's been through inclusionary housing policies or that's been through protections and new protections for tenants and renters, whether it's also been through the amount of affordable housing that we're building, which I'm really proud as a great to see, particularly go along the downtown corridor along midtown, along Cambodia town. Are you going to see a lot of great housing projects and development that's happening and much of it affordable? And I think that's really a testament to not just the staff work and the community work and the community work, but a lot of organizing around housing that has happened in the last ten years. And I remember I was just thinking at first, one of the first meetings I had with now Councilwoman in the House was when she was a housing advocate and I was on the city council and she was advocating for housing policies ten years ago. I think believe you're on the board of Housing Long Beach Councilwoman. And I remember that very well. And so many folks have been involved in this work for a really long time. So I do want to thank everyone that's been involved in housing. Your voices and organizing and advocacy and advocacy has really made a difference, I believe, and has made us have better housing policy, more inclusive housing policy. I also want to thank so many partners. I think when you look at a housing element like this and the progress we've made, it's it's easy to not think fully about who's been at the table. But we have worked with incredible housing developers and partners, both on the nonprofit side, as well as, of course, private developers that have built significant amounts of housing. Whether that has been the affordable projects, we have some of our new middle income housing projects that are starting to come up and our market rate projects. I have been one and not everyone agrees all the time, but I think that we should be supportive of all types of housing all the time. A unit of housing is is good housing. We know that we need all types of housing in this community, particularly focused, of course, on housing that is affordable to folks. But we are we are I believe also the research is very clear which which I think tells us that any type of housing development actually overall helps folks get into housing at all levels of income because it's just an additional unit that enters the marketplace. And so we got to continue that production, not just in Long Beach, but across across the state and across across the country. I want to add that the this housing element reflects some really significant policy decisions the Council has made, especially, I would say, in the last 4 to 5 years around protection of renters. I think about some of the decisions that were made, not just to build affordable housing, but to preserve housing that has been traditionally affordable. Some things to remember that when when the city steps in to preserve a unit of housing, there is a cost there's a public cost to doing that work. And and it's an investment that the city decides to make. Well, we hear all the time we want more affordable housing. Think we all do. Someone has to build that housing. Someone has to, in many cases, subsidize that unit for a period of time since the housing unit can actually get built. And so it is a complex system to get affordable. Housing is not easy to get it developed, but thanks to the federal government, the state county support, city support and the work of our commissions and our city. I want to thank our community investment company. That commission or housing groups that have come together to support this work have really done. It really fantastic job. And so I just want to thank everyone. Lastly, just moving, looking forward. It is great to see all the housing that is currently under construction and I would just encourage us to continue that work. We should not be afraid or we should not be reactionary to looking at opportunities for up for us to up to zone appropriate areas across our community. We've had that discussion in the past. It's been difficult sometimes, but we have as a as a city up zoned much of the city, whether we're talking about certainly the downtown or we have up zoned midtown. We have done a lot of zoning across the northern part of the city and even in East Lombard recently with what we went through with our or Southeast plan there, there was a housing up zone that we did there. And so I am encouraged that the city has supported a smart and as they call it now, a gentle density and commuter phase where it's been appropriate. And certainly there are communities where where we're built out and we have historic neighborhoods and single family neighborhoods that folks deserve to have their neighborhoods preserved in a way that is historic and that is there for their families. And and that makes sense. But we have so much of our city still where we have opportunities, I think, to to develop and to build more housing. And and certainly that's something that we should continue to support. And it looks like where there is success in this work, thanks to our city team and looking at these numbers, I hope that those numbers continue and I hope that we continue to to create strong density, especially in our downtown and our long along or our Midtown transit corridor. There's so much more opportunity to build really great housing. So thank you to staff for this. I know it was a long presentation, a lot of council comment, a lot of community comment, but it's a really important topic as it relates to housing. And so thank you for all the great work. And there is a motion any second by Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilwoman Allen to approve and close this hearing and move forward. So I will do a roll call vote when the clerk is ready. District one. I district to. My. District three. I. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. By District nine. I. Motion is carried. Thank you. That concludes our hearing. Now we are going to go to the regular agenda and we will be hearing. The first item, the instructions for my agenda here. We will be during our first item, which is going to be item 17, please.

Order for a hearing Regarding the Boston Public Schools Transportation System. Councilor Mejia rule 12 was invoked to include Councilors Lara and Murphy as co-sponsors.

BostonCC_06082022_2022-0725

Talking about 0725 Council on Me here offer the following order for a hearing regarding the Boston Public Schools Transportation System. The chair recognizes. Counsel me here. President Council, President Flynn. You see why you're so dope. Thank you. I appreciate Your Grace. Thank you. And I want to thank my colleagues. But well, let me first read this, because I need to know who my co-sponsors are. Right. So thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to suspend the rules and ask an ad counselor, Laura and Counselor Anderson to join me as co-sponsors for the Special Education 144.07. OC 40724. Counsel Vara and counsel Fernandez Andersen are are added hearing no objections. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to read the second one that I am 40725. I would like to suspend the rules and add Councilor Lara and Murphy as co-sponsors. Hearing. No objection. Counsel O'Hara and Counsel Murphy are so out of it. Okay, great. Okay. I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to do this with both. I'm going to have a little bit of technical assistance here. But really quick with the audit for the Boston Public Schools Education Services and return on investment. This is where I believe the moment in time that we've been talking about as it relates to Boston Public Schools. This is where we have an opportunity to really lean in and support through real, meaningful partnerships with the council and our in our ability to help support and hold ourselves and the district accountable to providing oversight that will ensure that the money that we are proving to be spent are going to be spent and that we're going to see the return on those investments as it relates specifically to the budget and the supports for special education services. You know, according to BEPS as of October 2020, there are about 11,350 students aged 3 to 21 with disabilities, 21% of our total enrollment enrolled in special education programs and BEPS. The f y 23 recommendations budget for special education was over 351 million. Many advocates and administrators agree. At this point, it's not a question of resources. We are a resource rich, poor, coordination, poor. And students across the district are not having many are not having their IEP met and IEP needs met. Staffing rates making it difficult to provide a full range of services. Transitions at the top. Making it a bigger challenge to provide strategic vision to help support and provide care and services to our students. And so we're failing this hearing already because the conversation on how we support our special education students cannot begin and end with a budget. Like, really, this is where I oftentimes believe that we fall short. I look forward to this conversation and to working alongside my colleagues who both have been fierce advocate in the education space. And then the last thing that I'll say in terms of transportation, I myself, as a parent have gotten over 25. Notifications between January to me that my daughter's school bus was either going to be delayed or not going to show up at all. Luckily, I have the resources and a village that helps support me, but I also have received countless of communication from other parents with their frustration and their level of just. A contempt for the way we are doing business as it relates to the transportation situation. We spend roughly 10% of our entire budget on transportation and over 110 million and a half Y 23 alone. That's over 4 million that we spent last year. And we're bussing fewer students than we did last year. The Boston Public Transportation team has struggled with hiring bus driver retention problems, which have led to bussing being late or not arriving at all. And we also have seen how this has impacted our out of school athletic events. It is clear that we need to take a deeper dove into the transportation without all the flashy PowerPoint presentation and jargon. This conversation needs to be live beyond the budget season, and I believe that if we could really do this work and lean in and figure out how we can be partners and being able to help hold BP accountable, but also hold ourselves accountable to their success, then only then will we really be able to move the needle. So I look forward to joining my colleagues in this robust conversation, and I look forward to the President's recommendation on what happens after I speak because I choose to that point. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Here on docket 0724, the chair recognizes counsel Lara. Counsel Lara, you have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. And in the. Interest of time, I'm only going to be speaking once on both dockets. So at this point, everybody here on the council and people across the city have heard me speak in support of not only our Boston public schools but. Against specifically state receivership. Naming specifically that I believe that Mayor Wu. The city council, the incoming superintendent, and soon. The elected school committee should be given the opportunity to fix the problems. That we have. In our schools and really do the work to make them joyful places of learning that we know that they can be. This is a moment for the Council to be in solidarity not only with the parents, the students, the teachers and the administrators and VIPs, but also with the mayor's office and stand against state takeover of our public schools. And for me, solidarity is a verb. So I consider this to be an all hands on deck project. And, you know, my colleague. Council, Flaherty often. Says that we need to have both hands on the wheel. And this is the moment where we need to have both hands on the wheel that if we're going to pass this budget and we're going to make sure we're asking to be given the opportunity to do the work that we have to do, the work that we have to make sure that our schools are functioning at the level that they're supposed to, that our investments are going in the places that they need to, and that we, not the state, have the opportunity to come up with the solutions that are going to be necessary for our children. My son Xavier is autistic. He's a special needs student at BIPs. He's six years old going into first grade and similar to my co-sponsor, Councilor Mejia. Oftentimes the bus is late or it doesn't show up. And I'm grateful that I have a car that I can drive to school. But everybody here has had to pay the price of me being late to a hearing or not being able to show up at all because of it. And so I am in support of our public schools, not because I think that they're perfect, but because I know that we are going to be able to come up with the best solutions possible to fix those issues. As one of, I think only two people on the council that have students who are currently in the decisions that we make here very, very much directly impact me and my family. And so I want us to be thoughtful and I want us to be gracious, but I also want us to put both hands on the wheel, which is why I'm excited to do this work with Councilor Me. He has the chair of the Education Committee at the helm. Thank. Thank you, counsel. Laura, the chair recognizes on docket 0722 for counsel Fernandez Anderson. Counsel Fernandez Anderson. You have the floor. And thank you to the original co-sponsor on this docket and my co-sponsor, Cancellara, as well. It is incredibly vital that we provide first class, high quality special education services. However, for us to know the nature of these problems, whether the money being put towards said programs and services is being well spent, we need more information. We all have anecdotal story stories that great of great successes or horrific failures in this area, and those are not to be dismissed. But what is needed is a comprehensive, concrete breakdown of services, provided the costs of services provided and the positive impact or lack thereof, and that the student acquired by accessing the services. And I say this knowing that we cannot analyze this data in a vacuum, for there are a variety of socioeconomic issues that are influencing and impacting our youth. But it is imperative that we gain a better understanding of what services our youth are being offered. I thank you again, the original co-sponsor, and thank you and look forward to this work. Thank you. Thank. Thank you, Counsel Fernandez Anderson. The chair recognizes Counselor Murphy. Counsel Murphy. You can call President Flynn. So our office gets countless calls and emails from concerned parents that their children are being stranded at bus stops. We get these calls several times a week. We have 22,000 students on busses each day. Yet on average, 2% of these students, around 442 children are not picked up, forcing them to arrive late or miss school entirely. That may seem like a small number, but one child is too many to be left at a bus stop. To make matters worse, most of our students that are on busses and have 1 to 1 monitors are on IEPs in our ESL students. These vulnerable students benefit the most from our schools, but with our transportation problems, we fail these students and the families. This is why I am happy to co-sponsor this motion for a hearing in regards to the Boston Public Schools Transportation System in hopes that this ongoing problem is not only addressed but also starts to get solved so that our students and families don't have to lose out. I also want to mention that we also have heard in the news and many calls our office also gets about the busses in the afternoon that are stranding our very few students who participate in athletics and they're missing sports. And other teams also have to forfeit games because we're unable to get our student athletes to events. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Murphy. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? I would like to briefly state that. I think this is an important fold. Both are important hearings, especially services for special education. In our public school system. You know, I wanted to highlight my sister's. My sister's son also has a special needs child. Out of, out of out of Burning Tree. And I know the critical role. That special education plays in the lives of families. And I also know Counsel Laura has been exceptional. On this issue as as all my colleagues, including Councilor Murphy, to educating, educating so many children. Um, and I highlight my, my nephew because my, my parents have watched him for about three or four days a week, usually when my sister's working, but they're not able to do it anymore just because of their. My my parents have not been feeling well, but I, I do know the incredible role that parents and grandparents play in educating our special needs children. And our parents and parents like console are they're really unsung heroes in our city of of the love and compassion they provide. So many, so many children recording, including all of Boston Public School teachers as well. So I just want to highlight the incredible role families play on this issue. So. On Docket 0724. Would anyone would anyone like to add the name on 1.0724? Please raise your hand, please. At Council of Royal Park and Religion Media Murphy to cheer Dawkins 0724 will now be added to the Committee on Education. Mr. Clarke, we're going on 20725. But I. Think. It's a. Oh, yeah. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. And on talking 0725. Please raise your hand. If you'd like to be added to. The. Council BLOCK Council, Royal Council. Fernandez Anderson Councilors and Council Councilor Murphy in the Chair. Councilman here. The chair recognizes. Councilman here. Councilman here? Yes. You have the floor. Thank you. President, I have to stand up and thank you. I just wanted to ask if it's possible to put it into the Government Accountability and Transparency Committee. Because what I really want to do is start moving a lot of the conversations that we're having about the budget and supports and BEPS to the post audit. And that is what the committee is set up for is to do to talk about post auditing and transparency. And so I just would like to advocate that that specific these to dockets are more in regards to transparency and accountability, even though they're education related items. So I just want to ask if that would be possible. Okay. Thank. Thank you, Councilman, here. We did discuss earlier that it could go to either committee. But having heard the recommendation, we will assign it to your committee. Councilman here. So government. Mr. Chair, please assign it to Government Accountability and Transparency Committee on seven. On on the docket 0724 in on docket 0725. Okay. We are. We are on. Okay. We're on. We're on two personalities. Mr. Clerk, please read docket 0727. Duncan number 70727 Council of Flint Full Councilor for an end of.

Recommendation to approve the First Substantial Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Action Plan to obligate new Program Income in the HOME Investment Partnership program for activities that create affordable housing for low-income households; Authorize City Manager to execute all necessary documents with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development related to the First Substantial Amendment; and Increase appropriations in the Community Development Grants Fund (SR 150) in the Development Services Department (DV) by $4,000,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03102015_15-0200

Item ten is a report from Development Services recommendation to prove the first substantial amendment to the fiscal year 2015 Annual Action Plan to allocate new program income in the Home Investment Partnership Program for activities that create affordable housing for low income households. Authorize City Manager to execute all necessary documents with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development related to the first substantial amendment and increase appropriation in the Community Development Grants Fund in the Development Services Department by 4 million. City Y. Councilmember Andrews? No, I'm just moving on. There's been a motion and a second. So any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item ten. Seeing none. Oh, Councilmember Austin. Sorry. Sorry about that. I'd like to get a staff report on this. Sure. $4 million seed funds. Amy, Barack. Thank you. Vice Mayor, members of the city council. We received an unexpected largesse this fiscal year through the repayment of a loan when the Northpoint apartment project was sold as a condition of the original loan upon refinancing or sale of the project. The city's home loan was to be repaid so that we were repaid $4 million in December. That was a significant amount of money that we had not accounted for. And so we needed to amend our action plan with HUD. What we have done since then is also take that $4 million and we will be dedicating that money to the anchor project at Villages at Cabrillo, which is a veteran's shelter project that has been entitled by the city and is moving forward and is under construction. However, we still have to amend our documents to show that we received the money and that we also are disbursing the money as well. Thank you. So the North Point Apartments, I do have some some some familiarity with where there were that is I mean, obviously that's in the eighth District. And we are we looking to transfer all $4 million to the the Veterans Home at Cabrillo? Yes. And and are there any I mean, how do how do we reach that conclusion and why? So the responsibility for funding affordable housing projects has been delegated to the Long Beach community, an investment company by the city council. And so they manage the the city's affordable housing program, including the home loan program, which is a federal program. Under the HUD Action Plan, we are required to account for significant deviations in our revenue or expenditures. Since the Northpoint was sold, we received those revenues. We were also at the same time, the Long Beach Community Investment Company was considering a request by the villages of Cabrillo for a significant investment in their project as well. So that's how that that came about. And were there any other housing projects considered? We consider new housing projects monthly. The home program is very, very specific on what they can and cannot fund. There's a lot of restrictions related to it. And because we had the ability to fund this project with restricted monies, we took advantage of that opportunity. Right. Thank you for the report. Thank you. Members, cast your vote. Motion carries six zero. Item 11.

Order for a hearing on Government Accountability, Transparency, and Accessibility of Decision-Making Protocols in City Government.

BostonCC_05182022_2022-0642

Docket number 064 to cancel on me here or for the following order for a hearing on government accountability, transparency and accessibility of decision making protocols in city government. Did she ever recognize this councilman? Here, Councilman. Here you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And I'd like to add Councilor Tanya Fernandez Anderson as an original co-sponsor. Council Fernandez Anderson is so supportive. Thank you. If you've heard me speak before, you know that you've heard me say nothing about us. Without us is for us. And it's something that I said a lot when I was first running for office. And it and it was meant to remind people that we can't let the people who are in power close the door on us when it comes to decisions and choices that they make every day that impact our daily lives and lived experiences. I thought as a city councilor that I'd be able to get in here and learn that the decision making protocols and bringing that knowledge to the people. But even now, as a councilor, I struggle to grapple with how decisions are being made. And I'm often notified that something in the administration is happening after it has occurred. Cabinet Appointments Department hires are made without consulting US. COVID ARPA dollars are being spent with little community interaction. KBA decisions are being made in opposition to popular support for certain projects, and in one study conducted in collaboration with our office, we found that nearly a quarter, a quarter of respondents said that they strongly disagree that their voice was heard to represent it and policy decisions. This is a problem, but it's not a problem that's unique to one mayor or one city council or one department. We have systems and structures in place in our cities that pre-date all of us, that determine how we make decisions and how we must collaborate in order to make those decisions. But those systems routinely leave the voices of the people out. And so that is why we're filing this hearing today. We need to get to the bottom of how decisions are being made here in the city of Boston, what systems and structures are in place that force us to make decisions that way, and what structural changes or even changes to the charter need to be made in order to ensure that the voices of the people and that's all people are being heard. I look forward to this conversation and learning more alongside my colleagues. I really do appreciate my favorite nerd in the policymaking space, Jacob Blake Hawk, for his relentless advocacy in getting us to this point. I really do believe if we're really serious about changing the way we do business, that's going to require us to look at how we are functioning. I know that I have been incredibly disappointed by the number of things that have come across this council, and I've been forced to vote yes or no on things that I haven't had much of a voice in. And I have a responsibility to my constituents to making sure that we're creating the type of structure that allows us for us to really. Represent them in their voices. So I look forward to the hearing and my colleagues to participate. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel me here. The chair recognizes Counsel Fernandez innocent. Counsel Fernandez innocent. You have the floor. Thank you so much, counselor. President Flynn and my original co-sponsor, counselor. Me here. Thank you so much for partnering or adding me to your. Yeah. That the. So the councilor. So the council needs access to all relevant information eminent from the city government. Right. And the issue here, I think, is that if there's no if there's not one streamlined process, then things are can get, you know, sort of contrived or we lose trust in this paranoia. And we talk about this, these processes that include us, we talk about I've heard my council colleagues talk about equity and being what being that we know that certain thing or certain moneys affect a certain population and pulling on our heartstrings, beautiful presentations and all of that should be followed with good intentions and of course implementation of action. However, if we're not working on a transparent platform, if we're not if we're not doing that together as as my council colleague, Sister Maria said, if it doesn't if it's not with us, then it's not for us. So I strongly, of course, agree and support this and look forward to the work. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Fernandez. Innocent. But anyone else like to speak or or sign onto this matter. Please raise your hand, Mr. Kirk. Please add Counselor Arroyo, Counsel of Brad and Counsel Coletta Counsel Fernandez Andersen Counsel Clarity Counsel Elara Counsel and Counsel Murphy. Please add the chair. 2:00 064 Cho will be assigned to the Committee on Government Accountability, Transparency and Accessibility. Mr. Clarke. Please read docketed. 06430643 Council and me here for the following resolution Opposing State Receivership for Boston Public Schools.

A letter dated October 24, 2016, from Brendan J. Hanlon, Chief Financial Officer, in keeping with the provisions of Section 20-93 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (the “DRMC”), notifying of the Department of Finance’s intent to issue Airport System Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A and Series 2016B, for an on behalf of its Department of Aviation, in an amount not to exceed $308.5 million and $115 million, respectively, for the of purpose of refunding various series of existing Airport bonds.

DenverCityCouncil_10242016_16-1008

The delegation will be returning on October 27. Straight. See no other announcements. Presentations. Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations? None. Mr. President. Communications. Madam Secretary, do we have any communications? Yes. Dear Counsel. President. In keeping with the provisions of Section 20, Dash 93 of the Denver revised Mr. Code, DRC, I'm hereby notifying you the Department of Finance's intent to issue airport system revenue bonds series 2016 and Series 2016 B for and on behalf of his Department of Aviation, an amount not to exceed 308.5 million and 115 million respectively, for the purpose of refunding various series of existing airport bonds. The series 2016 bonds will be issued as fixed rate senior lien obligations with final maturity of 2032 series 2016 bonds will be issued as floating rate notes with a final maturity date of 2031. Neither the series 2016 or 2016 B bonds will exceed the original term of the bonds being refunded. City has, by ordinance designated the Department of Aviation as an enterprise within the meaning of the TABOR Amendment to the Colorado State Constitution Series 2016 and Series 2016. B Bonds are special obligations of the city for and on behalf of the Department of Aviation, payable solely from and secured by applied to the net revenues of the airport system. Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the city will be pledged and payment of the series 2016 and 2016 bonds keeping with the intent 20 Dash 93 Plan B The Dear Emcee President of Council will be notified promptly of any material change. Company attachment contains a more detailed description of the financing. I do not anticipate formally communicating technical changes in the financing. Sincerely. Brendan J. Hanlon Chief Financial Officer, Manager of Finance.

Recommendation to request City Manager to report back within 60 days with a report on how other cities with similar environments address coastal parking challenges as well as a review of the feasibility of residential parking permit programs to address the problem of non-residents parking in residential neighborhoods near our coastline, and the possible residential use of beach parking lots.

LongBeachCC_02142017_17-0091

I item 16 is from Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Pearce and Councilmember Angle recommendation to request the city manager to report back within 60 days with a report on how other cities with similar environments address coastal parking challenges. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I want to thank my colleagues for signing on to this item. This is a really important topic that we often get questions about for those of us who represent coastal communities. Parking is obviously very impacted in some of these communities and oftentimes people will ask us why other cities are able to offer preferential parking permits while the city of Long Beach does not allow those, other than the ones that are grandfathered in for homes that are located within a certain distance to the coastline. So what what the request is, is to have the city manager's office cause a report to be generated that will educate us on the parameters of preferential parking districts in coastal zones. Hopefully, the report could also cover some of the issues, regulations, limitations and opportunities that we have with beach parking lots in regards to residential parking access. And I think this would be a this hopefully could come back not just as a report, but perhaps not just as a TFF, but perhaps a report from the staff as an agenda item. Because I think this is a question that we often get asked, and it would be good if we had the same consistent information. So I'd really appreciate that. And I want to thank my colleagues for signing on and ask my other colleagues to support this item. It's very important to the residents who live along the coastline. Thank you. Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank Councilmember Pearce Price for bringing this forward. It's very important that we brought this was brought up before. And as a member of the Coastal Commission, I raised the fact that there are some other jurisdictions up and down the coast that have these kinds of issues. And I say now to this item in support of having that kind of a study done in support and report so that we can make sure that Long Beach is on the right track and on the right side of of the Coastal Commission. So I would hope that city staff will be coordinating this report with the Coastal Commission staff to come up with a report that will show what we can and cannot do within the coastal zone in regards to not only residential parking but also overnight parking, which is the the major concern that is being raised in this item . So I'm in favor of moving forward with the study. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other council comments? Councilman Pearce. Yeah, I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to Councilmember Price for bringing this item forward and really working with my office ahead of time to kind of draft the the item. I know that parking is something that is intense for our communities and it's not very easy. And I also wanted to thank all the work that the staff has already done on this, and I really look forward to the item coming back. And so just thank you for this being a good process for the an agenda item that's not necessarily easy for everybody. So thank you. Any public comment saying none of the papers say I write. Okay, then hippos. Motion carries. Next item. Item 17 is communication from Councilwoman Price recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund in the Legislative Department by 25,000 to attend 12, offset by the Council District three. F Wise 16 office budget surplus.

Recommendation to request the Economic Development Department and Long Beach Small Business Development Center to implement Elevate LB Business Academy, a pilot program to assist businesses on 4th Street and Broadway to thrive and continue to be a part of the vibrant Long Beach community; Increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Economic Development Department by $10,000, offset by the Second Council District One-Time District Priority funds transferred from Citywide Activities Department for the Elevate LB Business Academy; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $10,000 to offset a transfer to Economic Development Department.

LongBeachCC_02112020_20-0128

Motion carries. Item nine Communication from Councilmember Pearce Recommendation to request the Economic Development Department and Long Beach Small Business Development Center to implement Elevate LBE Business Academy and increase appropriations in the General Fund Group and the Economic Development Department by $10,000 for the Elevate LBE Business Academy. Give us a motion the second there's there's one member of the public wants to speak also Councilmember Pierce. Okay. Yeah. I'd like to talk a little bit about this. I know John is cued up. We're really excited. It's $10,000, so I do. That's a lot of money coming from my divide by nine. So I do want to take a moment because I think that all of the council members will probably want to do this in their district. So Elevate LBE Business Academy is a pilot program in the second District that will give retail establishments the opportunity to stay competitive and profitable. While understanding different challenge of the media distribution. It also allows for some insight for brick and mortar as long as as well as online sales, along with funding expansion among many other areas. So really, we know that in the second district we have Fourth Street and we have Broadway. And often we talk about supporting our small businesses. We've had a number of unfortunately, of small businesses leave for Street in the last several years, mainly because of issues like their rent increases or access to capital. And so our staff is working on access to capital issues. We're working on some other issues around speculation. But one of the biggest things is making sure that our small businesses that really are people that really work seven days a week in their shops have all the tools and resources that they need to be able to succeed and expand their business. So I'd like to turn it over to staff to talk a little bit about it, and then I'd love to hear from the public. Thank you. Honorable mayor and members of the city council. Thank you so much. A few months back, you recall that we received a report from Cal State Long Beach about some of the perceptions and confidence from their Small Business Monitor survey. And one of the challenges that the small businesses said that they faced in the coming year was challenges related to finding customers and retaining customers, particularly in this new environment with online, retail and other competing factors. And so in conversations with Cal State, Long Beach, as well as our Small Business Development Center at Long Beach City College , we were able to find some really good resources and package them as part of this Elevate Long Beach Business Academy. So this will be a pilot, of course. All of the funds associated with the city council district whose contribution here will actually go into the businesses. They will receive many grants to help them with business licenses if they graduate. They will also have the option of making a video that will be used for marketing and promotion promotion for their business if they graduate and there will be a for a class to about 2 hours each class a four class series taught by a consultant who has experience working with businesses throughout L.A. and Orange County. And so we want to thank you. This is a good example of, again, the council hearing about some of the survey data that small businesses report and then finding a way to pilot some solutions. And so we'll hopefully be able to come back to you in just a matter of about 60 days with our goal of 20 graduates, get some feedback from their their results and then hopefully see their taxable sales increase in the coming year. You said it, Mrs. Councilwoman Price, you want to speak on this item? Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. The Small Business Development Center is an amazing resource if you don't know about it. They're headquartered in the fifth District and these classes are typically much longer. And so I think that this is a good transformation, not just for. The business community, but also for the sbdc to hear the feedback from the community that six weeks, 12 weeks, it's just too long. And the amount of time they want to kind of accelerate through the program. I think it's also really important to note that we have a lot of advisors at the SPDC. The advisor who's going to be teaching this class is like a nationally acclaimed. Renowned retail expert. So if you are in anything that sells to a customer base, this is an amazing opportunity to have this up close. And expertize, expertize like this can cost upwards of 250 to $400 an hour of advice and guidance. And it's being provided for a very, very nominal fee, if not completely free. And then once you're plugged into this network, there's also several other additional complementary services that come to you via the advisors. So just a great program that's been alive and well in the fifth District for. A couple of decades. And really through this feedback has taken on a transformation. So I look forward to the feedback from this new group of individuals to see how much better a four week program is than the traditional system that the entire country really operates under so long, which is again on the cutting edge on the front of changing the way we think about training our businesses. Councilman's in the house. I just want to say congratulations on this item. Council Member Pearce This is something really that excites me having a lot of small businesses in the First District along Pine and Long Beach Boulevard, Fourth Street, all the small businesses, the town that we have. This really excites me. So I'm rooting for this program. Thank you. So I can't find any comments. It's good to know what I need. Some ammo. Unfortunately, I have a business. Unfortunate bonito, so this obviously appeals to me. I would just like to know from the city as there is already a small business center in the fifth district. Has the council images acknowledged if we can add another incent incentives? I'm speaking as a business owner on one of these corridors specifically. I mean, it would be great if the city would work with us, you know, in terms of the tourism board and administer the directory without, you know, you know, these are things that, you know , not to differentiate, but like, you know, as a quote unquote millennial owning a business. You know, I have different priorities than the generation older than me that maybe we might be a little bit more east of Fourth Street than me because they're more strictly retail. They're more brick and mortar, the brick and mortar business model. Whereas most of my business exist on online. I think that issues more of like communicating to, you know, in widening the niche of people who know about my business, which is why, you know, be great, maybe, you know, I don't know what that building is on on Long Beach Boulevard. And first, a nice orange building. Whoever is up there, you know, whenever they come to the performing arts center and the Terrace Theater, like these kinds of people and the convention center, you know, for a specifically is related conversations there are these conventions there. It would be great to have some kind of a report just to add it to the program. You know, obviously when this passes, I'm going to apply for the program just thinking of ways that assist us, because I don't particularly need help with the Internet. I know that there are businesses that exist that do, but, you know, just adding, you know, make it a more wide range. But I support this. Thank you, Councilmember. Pearce, also, since I have one minute left, you know, being a business on fourth in Bonito in the second district, you know, you check us out 1029 East Fourth Street play nice. It's a community space. Thank you. Thanks. And I I did want to say that you did mention and I just wanted to be real clear for anybody listening is if you do graduate you get your your business license fees waived. To clarify, we don't waive business license fees, but the grant funding, the grant being provided will pay for one year of business license fees for the graduate. So that's the mini grant that's associated with successful completion of the program. Thank you. And then tonight, also, in case you don't know yet, my staff can help coordinate any conversations. John is also an excellent resource to connect you to other people in the city. And then my team, along with John's team, has been going down Fourth Street in between Alamitos and Cherry. And before my term is up, my hope is that we have our own business improvement district right there. And so hopefully you can help our team really do that and make sure that it's the right fit for that part of Fourth Street. So thank you. Thank you. We are have a motion. And second, please cast your votes. And Susie's a yes. Oh, she's back.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District for relocation of the Delgany Interceptor Facilities. Approves an intergovernmental agreement with Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (District) for $8,689,506 in District funds and $1,735,762 in city funds for a total agreement amount of $10,425,268 to replace the existing Delgany Interceptor sanitary sewer system from the right of way for Interstate 70 on the south end of the National Western Center (NWC) to the existing siphon inlet structure on the north end of the NWC, in Council District 9 (20184618). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-22-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-11-18.

DenverCityCouncil_01072019_18-1463

12 nis one abstention. Councilor Bill 1530 has been defeated. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman Brooks, if you want to go ahead with your comment on 1463. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. This contract is A and a, B, C, National Western Center, IGA. And many folks have heard me talk about the the Doug Gagne interceptor and this. Doug, any interceptor is a drainage project except the drainage pipe is out on land and this pipe is just going right right next to the river. And so part of what we talked about into C in the National Western Center is river revitalization. And this has been something that the community has wanted for a long time. This has been something that we've been asking for for a long time. And I just wanted to highlight it and actually bring up Gretchen Holloway and also whoever wants to come up from NWC. But Brad Dotson, I know we've talked about it as well to come up and just share a little about what we're doing here. And I think we have some of our partners here to to talk as well. So. Good evening. Members of city council. I'm Gretchen Haller. I'm the executive director of the mayor's office of the National Western Center. I will speak for just a moment mostly to introduce Micky Conway, who is here with me. Also Jim McQueary, who's in the audience both from Metro Wastewater. Mickey is the district manager and a huge partner in this, as is Jim as the chief innovation officer. And what this bill in front of you tonight allows is really the opening of the river at the national western campus for use. So there is a dual wastewater pipe structure there. This agreement is one of the most significant partnerships that we have made on this campus, and it would not be possible without the creativity and innovation from the Metro Wastewater folks to provide the funding, the resources, the heat from those pipes. It both moves the pipes off the river, provides heat to allow us to bring forward energy to our campus. It also provides a bio filter that the community has been asking for to help reduce some of the odor from the pipe. So it is a win win win on this bill. And I cannot thank our partners at Metro Wastewater enough. And Mickey Conway. Thank you, gretchen. Mr. president, members of the council, i appreciate. You having us here. For those who don't know who Metro Wastewater is, we are your wastewater treatment provider here in the metro area. We have 22 member municipalities who make comprise the district and we're a regional entity. Denver is our largest member. Ten of our board members are from Denver and our newest board member, Councilwoman Sussman, will be joining us at our next board meetings. We're really excited about that. This has been a really innovative opportunity. Rich process. We found a win win for for the NWC, for Denver and for for the district. And so we're able to move this infrastructure, improve it, work on odor and as Gretchen talked about, allow for access to heat to take heat out of the sewers, which can can heat large areas of the natural western center and also lowers the temperature of the effluent that we put back into the Platte River, which is good for river ecology. So I really appreciate Denver and National Western's. Willingness to work with us on this, and I appreciate our time with the council tonight. Thank you very much. Councilman Brooks, anything else or you. Know, I just think this is another great example of a great partnership and how it works for the people and of the people for the city and county of Denver. So thank you so much for your partnership. This is a $10 million project getting done in our neighborhoods to reactivate an incredible river. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Is there somebody from Public Works that can answer a question on this? Oh, sorry. I can try. So there's this. It just so happens that this comes up relative to a conversation I was just having about certain facets of the IGA and the timeline of delivery. Is this on time? Was there a anticipated date when this would be, I guess, acted on in a how are we relative to that date in the IGA, if there was one. Sorry. We this is one of the infrastructure components that we had hoped to deliver. We have sequenced it within our horizontal construction program so that it aligns with the construction of the rest of the statewide infrastructure. And we are also looking to it as a potential feasible component for future phases of development. So within all of the anticipated construction, it does fit within our timeline. So it within the NWC timeline or within Seed's timeline or within the IGA timeline. So the IGA timeline corresponds to the construction schedule that we have for the campus. This really does not have an interface with Seedat at all. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Brooks, thanks for calling this out. There are a few things I'm really excited about tonight, and this is one of them. When I remember when I was at Greenway Foundation and the first rendering came out of this area and what was possible because this seemed like an impossible task to get this buried, it presented a six foot tall sewage pipe that would have prevented people from accessing the river as an opportunity for art and a mural. And I remember I was I was almost passed out from that one. So it's exciting to see. I really appreciate Brad, Gretchen and everybody, all the hard work that went into this because this is this is absolutely the right thing to do. And I know it wasn't easy. And so to get here is very exciting. So thank you for calling it out. Councilman Brooks, you. Thank you. All right. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? Councilman Espinosa, will you go ahead with your comment?

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

LongBeachCC_01192021_21-0021

Thank you very much. Let's go ahead and do item 29, please, briefly. Item 29 is a communication from Vice Mayor Richardson. Chair of the State Legislation Committee recommendation to approve the 2021 state legislative agenda as recommended by the State Legislation Committee. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. I have a motion I have a second about Councilman Price. Just quick remarks. Vice Mayor, briefly, chair is updated. Our State Pledge Committee agenda to reflect two things. Notably, if you folks probably remember the State Lands Commission came down during measure us and talked about the legality of state lands when we take action and we committed to engaging in a discussion with them and you'll see that reflected here that we're going to continue that that discussion with state lands and try to find some resolution to some of the discussions have been positive, but we're going to try to try to continue to ensure that staff has the ability to continue those discussions. And it also just updates recommendations from the Racial Equity Reconciliation Initiative, which is just a big theme of the city council meeting . So those are two things to note. Thank you. Councilman Price, anything? Yes. I do have something I'm trying to find the exact language for. I believe it is on page three. There is a reference here or somewhere in there. I saw it in regards to the Tidelands Fund. I was wondering if maybe Councilman Richardson or the city manager, whoever has been involved in this conversation, could talk a little bit more about that. Sure. Sure. This is vice mayor. So so there's there were questions about supporting ongoing collaboration with state lands. And so we just wanted to make sure we reflected so. So there's a link, a line to support ongoing collaboration with State Lands Commission and the state legislature to support new funding options and supports the priorities. It also is intentionally vague because it keeps it keeps it doesn't call out titles. It talks about state lands, pipelines, port, upland, all of those state lands. And so we just, you know, it's intentionally vague and offers an opportunity for our government affairs team to engage with state lands who brought forward this issue and continue discussions. But that's generally what it is. Okay, that sounds good. Thank you for that clarification. My only request would be as part of this motion that it is city staff that's engaging in those discussions. And to the extent that any of the enterprise funds uses the limitations of those funds as discussed, the council members from those districts be included in those discussions. So that's my only request. But I'm not sure that the state lands agenda dictates who's a part of it. I know they're changing who the committee members are, so I would just have that conversation with the mayor about making sure that I'm sure you'd have a seat at the table. But also, I would just say that staff is very good at making sure they protect the city's interests, parklands, all of those things. And so as they continue discussions, that's always the priority. So perhaps just say, you know, make sure that our interests are protected and stakeholders are engaged or something like that. That's I think that's. Really great, really great suggestion on what language I could use. Maybe I can just turn to the city manager. So let me ask the city manager. Have the discussions with state lands thus far included council members, specifically our city staff? So this is just in its infancy. This was an idea that was kind of floated and discussed as part of Measure U.S.. That kind of started with some council discussion and staff are getting plugged into that. So there has not been any type of formal negotiations or discussion on this. This is really something that we're asking for your direction on. And then staff would be taking that lead role in having that discussion. Okay. And when you say it started with council and staff was looped in, what does that mean? I think the vice mayor was speaking to that, that this is an item that he had had some initial discussion with on state lands, and then that he asked staff to, you know, start taking it over. So that's kind of the process that we're in place. And staff would be taking it over at this point. Not even the State Lodge Committee, but staff, correct? Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you. I think just just to add to that, too, I think all of our pledge committee at the end of the day, the state led committee and our positions are managed by the staff. And so I think that the staff will be able to regularly update the full council as to the progress of the committee . And I know there's a lot of members, so I appreciate the conversations and of course everyone is interested in the outcome of all these issues. So thank you for that. And please do a roll call vote unless there's any to. I don't I don't have any public comment to you. Yes, we have. Dave Shukla. Good evening. Despite the expressed support for this item and for the update of many of the changes that were made over the past few weeks, including to me to get more precise about the states obligation for future cleanups with the olive oil. And just as a general point, as we saw earlier this afternoon from the study session on reconciliation initiatives that went wrong, a lot of these issues that are local control, that are economic development, that are sustainable and livable and predictable or whatever city reduce down to the same sex relationships between the same handful of players. And to what degree the public does or does not have access to the implications of those decisions. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for the roll call. But please. Councilwoman Sun has. All right. Councilwoman Ellen. I cancel them in price. I had some insurance. All right. Councilwoman Mongo. I as a woman. Zero I. Council member muranga. High. Councilman Austin. I. Vice Mayor Richardson. All right. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE approving grant funding allocation for projects funded through the WaterWorks grant program, Round 2, in accordance with Ordinance 18261.

KingCountyCC_12072016_2016-0459

And move on to number six. This is ordinance 2016 0459, an ordinance approving grant fund allocations for projects funded through the Water Works Grant Program. And this is round two. And so Mike Reed is our staff and that's would you take this away? We begin on page 81. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so this is 2016 0459 and has indicated that the staff report begins on page 81. This is, as you've indicated, the second round of grants since the restart of the Water Quality Grants program. You recall that there was a legal process that resulted in the confirmation to the courts of the eligibility of our wastewater rate funds to support these water quality grants. The Council did approve legislation in 2015 and 2016, establishing a grant criteria providing for grants, ranking committee with representation from a variety of interests, including from each of the Council districts, as well as providing for staffing and administration. And I will note, by the way, that I've seen a matrix of the, the, the grant ranking committee. Four of the positions on that grant ring committee are vacant from, from district. And so we would encourage councilmembers who have not yet made recommendations for names for that committee to do so. The council the council did approve an initial round of grants in the in July of this year. This is the second round of grants completing the cycle for the 2015 2016 biennium. This round of grants includes, I should say, as I went through, identified a number of themes and and characteristics of the grants, a number of things jumped out. So first that there are a significant proportion of the grants that are from non-governmental organizations, including the YMCA is a Youth in Action program, the Allenwood Community Waters Program, the Mountain Town Greenway Education Project, the Environmental Coalition of South Seattle's Environmental Stewards Program. The Seattle Tilth Watershed Stewards Project. In addition to these non-governmental association and community groups, there are projects from our governmental partners who are participants in the region's wastewater system. These includes a Redmond's street sweeping for water quality proposal. Seattle Public Utilities has a proposal that is is recommended to monitor water quality in injection wells that receive effluent from green stormwater infrastructure projects. Bellevue has a project for stormwater retrofit. There's also in this package and an emphasis on education projects. And so the Island Wood Project I mentioned earlier is a community wide project that educates students about political pollution prevention, encourages them to propose solutions to local runoff problems themselves. There is the The Sound Greenway Education Project, which provides hands on education to about 4000 students, which includes classroom sessions, field investigations, the service learning stewardship opportunities are sustainable. Seattle's project, which is referred to as the Green Duwamish Project Design Laboratory that involves providing South County teachers an opportunity to design and test curriculum relating to local water quality and also to facilitate student led community impact projects. Diversity is a value that jumps out as you look at the various projects here. So the YMCA is Youth in Action Project is intended to provide hands on experiences to diverse students addressing environmental needs in the home communities of these these students. The Wood Project I mentioned the community wide project. It's an emphasis on a diverse body of students to whom they provide an educational experience related to water quality. The Environmental Coalition of South Seattle Project provides workshops on pollution, CSOs and water quality to a multilingual, multicultural group of participants. The other key theme that I noted was that these there are a number of the projects which provide which identify specific water quality problems and provide remediation to those problems. And so the Redman project is a street sweeping for water quality project. These are focused. This project on the next one are focused on our urban creeks and streams. In this case, in the Redmond case, the concern was to show how frequent street sweeping was needed in order to achieve the health of a local urban stream. In the case of the UW Bothell Upright Bothell Campus Project, North Creek apparently has a steam stream for which there's been identified as a significant fecal coliform presence in the stream, which has been traced to a large quarry which is on the campus of that that university. And so the project proposes using small rolls of a bio filter filtration material, which is embedded with mushroom bodies. And these mushroom bodies would would be placed such that water is channeled through and sorry, after it's traced to a large what I call a rooftop cross, all the cro. Yes, yes, the famous in the north. They go back and forth every day. It's a big murder of crows, you know. A murder of crows. It's a murder of crows. They're murdering North Creek. Now, your district councilman, Roderick Bauer? No, your district. My mike. It's not my quads, Michael. Mediation NYC. Oh, which I believe refers to mushrooms. These are this bio bio filtration medium is embedded with with mushrooms or fungus, which is intended to filter the stormwater as it's channeled through and over this medium. So that's what that refers to. No. It wasn't. I would like to thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know if you're the right person, Mike, to ask questions about some of the thinking behind the decisions to what are you able to speak to some? And there may be questions that are sort of what do you call rhetorical questions to make a point, you know ? Sure. So we do have Elizabeth Louden here, who's a water works grant manager. Maybe I'll ask her to come forward at this point to answer specific questions. So one of the questions that piggybacks that so when you're answering his question, my answer piggyback to that, I'm looking at the percentage of education there is to on the ground, actual studies and work, and it's a very high percentage. So was that high in Brown in round one or is this inordinately high because this round two. Good morning, council members. My name is Elizabeth Loud and I'm the water quality, the water works grant manager. And so for this round there were a a higher number of education projects and that was discussed by the grant ranking committee and higher than the previous round. And they felt that they wanted to fund recommend for funding the projects that that were strongest and that were best at meeting the criteria of providing benefit to water quality and demonstrating a connection with wastewater treatment division responsibilities. So they did note that there was a high number of education projects and they felt that those were the best projects out of the 39 submitted to meet the criteria. Go ahead and at the gross question. Sure. Thanks. And we preface my remarks by saying I'm one of those who has struggled to find someone to represent District five on the committee. And I feel like I've paid the price for it a little bit in the sense. And so this is somewhat of a leading question. But to what degree was geographic equity considered as one of the factors? And the reason I ask this is a comment as much as a question, and it's not you. It's a committee of folks, but you might be able to offer some insight to it is that in South King County in particular, there's little to no there's a couple of kind of broad projects that got a little bit of money that serve all of the the county. But there seems to be a lack of investment in South King County and in particular, Council District five. At the same time, we're sending a quarter of $1,000,000 over to Kitsap County, to a large, well funded environmental center. And the committee passed on funding a King County Environmental Center doing a similar project in South King County at a fraction of the cost. Why would what benefit in the rest of your fare? QUESTION But what do my constituents get out of this? And I guess is and do you know the rationale for sending the money over to Kitsap County instead of investing in environmental education programs here? And then to what degree do you think the committee members took into account geographic distribution? That's not your decision. So I recognize that. But you might be able to at least offer some helpful insight and. Sure. Yeah, I know. I'm happy to answer that question. So first of all, the funding for the island would proposal is for work that would be happening with the Seattle school district districts. It would not be going to Kitsap County per say. So as you may be aware, Island Wood does did merge a number of years ago with another nonprofit called Home Waters, which works in the city of Seattle. And more than half of their programing is outside of their base on Bainbridge Island. So they do a number of programs around King County. And so I think that addresses that issue that it is a large dollar amount and it was something that the committee considered. They do scrutinize the higher ticket items carefully to see if there is a regional benefit. And with this with the island, what project they the committee saw a benefit to being able to implement to develop over the course of three years develop and implement curriculum on a very large scale because the Seattle school district is the largest school district in Washington state with the hopes that this curriculum could be shared with other school districts in the future and that the lessons learned could be shared with other entities who are doing similar projects. So hopefully that answers the the I. And what piece of the question and in terms of geography. So I mentioned the committee does look at fit to criteria and what there's there's a process where they have several meetings where the they will read all of the application materials and do individual scoring. And then we look. At those preliminary scores and then have long discussions about them. And so some of the other factors that go into play, sometimes they change their ranking based on discussions because there may be an aspect of a particular proposal that they weren't aware of or something else that that they'll learn through the discussion process from other committee members . And in addition, they do look at geographic distribution as well as other factors. So they're looking at types of projects. Is is there they're looking at the whole portfolio of recommended projects are that are there are a diverse number of types of projects. Is it diverse geographically? Have they they they had a preference or recommendation not to fund more than one proposal from the same entity in in a single session. And I'm trying to think if there are other factors for distribution, but they are looking at distribution as well. So a clarifying follow up. So do you know the extent to which and people disagree over how to allocate money all the time, but it's nothing new. But the notion that the whole county's paying in rate payers throughout the county, we want to make sure we get ahead of it. You know, water doesn't follow political boundaries, but the extent to which we want to make sure that. Generally speaking, the communities they're all paying in get a return, get to see these dollars put to use in their can, you know, in their community and is a political lowercase p kind of lens on things. But I think it's real and a democracy, you know, those that contribute, you know, you try to share the costs and benefits broadly and in an equitable way. So I wondering if it really got down to that level of analysis of looking simply at a map and say, okay, are we covering all the county? You know, what percentage of dollars are going to, you know, one big city versus others or are we catch in the northeast, south and central parts of the county? And then the second part would be to what degree? You know, sometimes capacity makes things more attractive. You know, and a lot of our grant programs, we've looked at kind of the social justice inequity, where organizations that already are well funded or have the ability to put together more competitive applications at this level. Were that where some of the committee members able to dove in and move an application didn't appear as competitive on the surface, if it's coming from a smaller organization or a newer organization, was there the ability to dig dig a little deeper and account for some of those institutional advantages that some of the big players have? Yeah, those are those are excellent questions. And so, first of all, the percentage of money there was a look at what areas I had projects represented. They did not consider the exact dollar amount per district or per area, but they were looking at is do the do the does the portfolio of of projects that are recommended for funding represent all parts of the county and they felt that it did. This one did. Yeah. Yeah. I like the South King County. Sure. So the South King County I Ecos Environmental Coalition of South Seattle so there. Wasn't any direct us to what. Page. Oh 82. Seattle is not South King County. So right. So yeah well that's. I mean has the word south in it but that's South Seattle. Sure. Yeah. And, and Ecos actually works. So. They're not limited to the city of Seattle. So they're working with they're working with different community groups. I don't know if you consider Tukwila part of South Bend County. Yeah. I'm sorry. The chart, what it's throwing me is there was the, the project location was listed or my chart. Now. Is Seattle on. Okay. That's okay. So one that would help with that. Yeah. Clarifying that. Okay. Not everybody has the information that you have, which is unfortunate. We should all have that chart. Well, especially the following I requested. Oh. Okay. Well, it would help overall informed on this. I can make copies of that if you'd like. You know, even now I. Know that we have a whole lot more time to get into this, I'm sure. No, no, I'm having the same feeling you're having. First of all, if I can jump in with you too, on this, I feel like there's a lot of silo work being done right now. When you look at the BRIGHTWATER mitigation account, which obviously is not this account, but it's the same agency, there is so much money going into broader mitigation account for education and for training and for all kinds of things. For education, it is an an inordinate amount of money. So we have an account for that. This was supposed to, in my mind, be for on the ground projects and experiments. So we would have more research on like one project you talked about was like street sweeping for water quality. So we would have some good information on how you do that. And to me, that's what these projects were for. What am I going to learn to make it better for water quality? And so I'm a little surprised by the delineation here. And secondly, in the same venue as what Councilmember other Grove was saying, there is not one project on here for the local government in this county, not one. And it's almost half the landmass of the county, I'm sure. Yes. Councilmember by right that I think this. Issue should be brought up again at another meeting because they come from the Grove and you have raised some issues that I'm particularly interested in. I know it comes from I wrote that GROSS predecessor was particularly interested in geographic representation, and you and I have represented both ends of the county. So I would in light my mindful, the fact that the third district we're supposed to have started 20 minutes ago and that you're always going to come after the flood district to say, I would recommend we hold this issue after the new year, because I would like to have everybody have a spreadsheet and everybody has the same equal distribute. Both paper, as well as perhaps a good understanding of the distribution of the funding around King County because they have a cross before they raised it. It's okay. It's okay. We don't have a clue. I think you're absolutely right. Councilmember McDermott was also showing that the chart doesn't really show clearly what communities are involved in which. So I think we need better information on that. And I'd also like to get information back on the amount of money that is being spent, an education out of the BRIGHTWATER funds through the Brightwater education account and how many classroom hours we are doing up there on that, because that was what that was supposed to be for. So I think we. When you're done. Okay, I think we need to hold this one and get better information, delineate it by area and get information about the Brightwater education account. And then we will hear from Council Member Dombroski around chair. Couple of things to stay here. I think Councilmember up the grove meant this, but he used the word countywide and I think he meant within the sewer service area just so everyone's on the same page, because the Councilor Lambert's comments seem to indicate that, again, we were done countywide. But I think we're all understanding that these projects need to be in or connected to have a nexus to the sewer service area or benefit to the service area where the rate payers are, because that's the source of the funds. Correct. First line second point to keep in mind is I believe that this is kind of remember when we and this council took the rate vote, we took the rate vote to add the water works funding to the sewer rate, wholesale rate. And we set up a process to have half council designated and half committee recommended subject to council approval within the committee recommended a random reform bill which we all supported. I think we all support it, but to add some additional district representation to it, right? And so that's where we are working on getting that stood up. And Mike, I think you noted that to address some of this geographic balance, which was important to me and as you can see why it's important to everybody on the dais here. This, I believe, is what you've called the second round of the committee designated projects. So we've had one round that's come through, right? Correct. And this is the second round. So as we sit on the dais and look for geographic balance and project balance, I think if you could help us by getting the members the totality of the projects around one, around two is that makes sense. So sure, there may have been some funded last time that might balance out this round if people saw them. And we just can't remember that. Right. And Councilmember Domestique, I might note that at this afternoon's Regional Water Quality Committee, there is going to be a presentation which will include actually both round one, round two, and I'll look to Sherman to confirm that it will also include the the council directed projects as well. And I correct. Yes, that will be the council director projects. I don't think that's a fair comparison. It's our job to do those. And but this time this committee recommended half. I think the points being made about balance are good because the ratepayers, countywide or not, came up with answers are paying it. Finally, I kind of want to echo Councilmember Lambert's issue. I think she's raising about kind of some of the education pieces. And I've been interested in making sure that this money that is designated for water quality be spent on water quality, improving water quality. And I understand how education you can make an argument that education of our community to be individual stewards of our streams and wetlands and rivers and lakes can have a value. I get that. But it is to me more tenuous and further away than a direct investment in in-stream and in water body projects and improvements. We got into a little bit of trouble on this before in the cover litigation by funding, you know, salmon celebrations and things like that. And I personally think we need to be very careful and steer clear of that and make sure that we are keeping our word to the ratepayers about making sure that these dollars go for water quality or projects and programs that have a true and direct nexus to improving water quality. That is the Metro mission from what it was formed by the voters. And when we stray away from it, we get into a little bit of a trouble. So finally, I don't remember who adopted the criteria that the committee is using to measure this. Was that was that an advisory committee itself that adopted that or did we approve those here at the council? I just don't recall we did. So there are criteria listed in the implementation guidelines. Yes. Good for yourself. Yes. As folks look at this issue, I think it's important that we go back, remember that we adopted the criteria. And as part of that, we said, hey, come to come in. We want council approval on the recommended projects. And that's for this very reason to make sure that the community is balanced in its distribution of the funds and true to the criteria that the Council has adopted. So just some big picture. No. And may I add one point. And in the implementation guidelines, it does list education projects as one of is an example of the type of project that could be funded through this through this grant fund. So and at the time, I was concerned about that because I also knew about the other Brightwater accounts. And I think, you know, in, you know, when we do everything in silos, you know, it's easy to say and it is round two and this is much more on that one education piece. But I think for the taxpayers, we want to look at globally what we're spending and make sure that we know what we're spending over that category and making sure that we actually have some documented science that helps us to make good decisions for the future. Like I like that one example that was cleaning the streets so we can do that better. So I think it's a good idea to take this back and look at it again, maybe have any harm. I don't know. Is there any harm in us holding it till January? Well. It's okay, Sharman saying no problem. Okay. So I think let's have some offline meetings about this. We can talk with council member at the Grove and others that are interested council member about duty to do night. Me. Yes, I, I wanted to say one thing and I have been in the place that councilmember up the group finds himself in with regard to any number of grant making works that we do, not just water works but others that go through this kind of a process. And and I have found up until this morning that I usually look at the list and feel exactly the way councilmember up the group felt, which is that, you know, my district pays an awful lot into all of this stuff. In fact, in some buckets we pay more than any other district and we don't see it coming back to us. And that's okay in a sense. I mean, there's got to be a balance, there's got to be a level of balance it but none of them individually are going to look like we put a dollar in. We got a dollar out exactly like today. I feel very happy because there's one project that's clearly within my district and another that probably slops over into mine a little bit. And that's nice. But I'm. I will. Yeah. And Councilmember Dombrowski advised me every time I say something like what we just heard, you know, I felt the same way my first year on the council. And I was told that if you watch over time, there's a kind of an evening out that naturally happens. I haven't been here long enough to see that yet. Today I feel a little bit of evening, but I support very much as looking at the fuller context as as Councilmember Dan Malcolm and you, Madam Chair, pointed out, there's there's a broader context here for these particular kinds of programs, and I am very happy to see that and assess that. So I support that direction. Thank you. Thank you. And as as one of nine members of local government, that is every day. And so I feel the pain. Councilmember, just briefly, I appreciate Councilmember Valdez's comments. I and with one exception, I don't think it naturally occurs. I think we have to build oversight and systems that make sure it occurs. And that's why, for example, on this project, I ran that legislation to make sure council members could have a representative on the committee, because without it , it's not by intent. It just, you know, people look out for their neighbors if they're at the table and if you're not at the table, you're dinner, someone may not look out for you. So that's what we're doing here today. Great. So we were I'm happy in early January to meet with anybody that wants to meet with me on this topic, and then we'll bring it back probably the end of January. Thank you. Thanks for the good discussion, everybody. All right. We're going on to the next proposed motion, 2016 0548. There's the motion approving the third quarter 2016 expenditures for emergent needs and anticipated project costs. Summary Report Provided Prepared by the Road Services Division. The Road Services Division.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending Ordinance No. C-6646 providing for a change in establishing an advisory body, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06022015_15-0491

Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending ordinance number c6646. Writing for a change in establishing an advisory board. Read for the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. Mr. City Attorney. Vice Mayor. Members of the Council. This ordinance comes back to you at the request of the City Council to amend the Bixby Knolls Business Association to make it consistent with the other bids. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Councilman Austin or Councilwoman Pryce. Would you like to address it? So moves. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on Ordinance 23? Item 23. Seeing Nonmembers Cast Your Vote. Motion passes eight zero. Item 24. Also an ordinance.

Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Elizabeth Rush and Kirstin Van Cleef as Members of the Public Art Commission and Reappointing Simon Chiu and Brendan Sullivan-Cheah as Members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee.

AlamedaCC_09032019_2019-7152

And do we have the members of our public art commission and in the audience. Yes, I think they're both here. Yeah, come. On. That. And so we just we're looking for a council is we have a resolution to a point. Elizabeth Risch. Hi. And you you look familiar. Elizabeth Risch and Kristin Van Cleef as members of the Public Art Commission. And and then we also have members of the RAC. I will take that separately. So so anyway, I always want to be sure to thank the wonderful people who apply for these commissions. These women are so talented, you would really enjoy meeting them. And we are just lucky to have them willing to share their time and talent with the city and and help make our city more beautiful. And so so what I'm looking for is adoption of the resolutions, appointing Elizabeth Risch and Kristen Van Cleef as members of the Public Art Commission. So move to. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor. I know NS opposed. You abstained, right? Yes. The motion. The motion passes unanimously and our city clerk, Laura Weizsacker, will have you signed your certificates. And thank you so much to see you again right here. We're going to take it. Do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties you're about to enter? I do. I do. Yeah. Yeah. You may I make some exceptions. Thank thank you both. And while our Public Art Commission commissioners are signing, I want to explain, it's a little bit complicated about reappointing members of the RAC, our rent review advisory committee. So we have two members who have been serving, Simon Chu and Brendan Sullivan cheer you up. Spoiler alert. For those of you who have read the agenda items, this council may vote to no longer have the RAC because it's been supplanted by some other changes we've made in the rent ordinance. Nonetheless, there is a RAC meeting next week because there are still some outstanding items for them to hear. Now really, they could just continue to serve on that board until their positions are filled or until it goes away. But I think it's a little nicer to go ahead and reappoint them because their first terms came up. They've served faithfully and they're willing to serve again. So if that's okay with the council and if it's okay and I do, I have to I have either of the commissioners here. Ms. isn't here. I don't know if Mr.. Chu and Mr.. Either of them are here. Neither of you. Okay. Well, we thank you for your time and service, but could we adopt your resolution appointing them or do we have comment so moved. I like it. Okay. So we have a motion in a second to reappoint these to RAC members all in favor by anyone opposed or abstained. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. We're moving on to item six. The public hearing to consider adoption, a resolution adopting a mitigated negative declaration, mitigation, monitoring and reporting program and climate action and resiliency plan.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an amendment to the existing grant agreement between the City of Long Beach and the County of Los Angeles to provide bioterrorism preparedness and public health infrastructure development, to extend the term of the agreement from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2015, and to accept additional funding of $919,328, for a total grant amount of $2,817,484. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0532

Motion carries eight votes. Yes, 1414 is a report from Health and Human Services. It was the recommendation to authorize city manager to execute agreement between the city and the county of Los Angeles, to provide bioterrorism, prepared preparedness and public health infrastructure development for a total grant award of $2.8 million. The second grade has been in motion in a second. On the side of any public comment on the item seen on Mr. Wesson, this is a pretty important topic and is a big grant. Do you want to give us a quick update so we can have a quick report from Cheryl Barrett, one of our health department bureau managers. Good evening. Members of the City Council. This grant is something that we get as a recipient of funding opportunity direct from the CDC to L.A. County. We have been partners in this endeavor high as a regional effort in terms of increasing our capacity as a local health jurisdiction in responding to public health emergencies. Your health department will be the lead in terms of mass prophylaxis effort. And in particular, the funding that we're getting. This time around is. Really building our capabilities. For our public health laboratory and additional surveillance, as well as our community. Resilience effort to take part in an overall regional approach to community disaster recovery and also increasing the number of volunteers that we have in terms. Of surge capacity for those. Emergency situations. Let's remember your anger is. Thank you. Having worked at the Health Department and having been there with some of these exercises that the that they do in and the emergency preparedness totally supportive of this. It's another example of how our health department provides a wonderful service to the city in providing the safety for its citizens. And I totally support this. Seeing no further comment here. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the Council on item 14? Seeing none of members cast your vote. I'm a yes. Yeah. Would you please cast your vote? Motion carries eight votes. Yes. Item 15.

Consider Directing the City Clerk to Work with the City Attorney in Crafting an Ordinance to Provide City Funding to Pay Administrative Election Costs to Reduce Financial Barriers of Running for Office. (Councilmember Daysog) [Not heard on December 6, 2016]

AlamedaCC_12202016_2016-3641

As some people know, and I know there's provisions to take care of some of these things. But if there's a small field near the build that you get at the very end, after all the all the hype of winning and all the feelings of of losing a subside, the city presents you with a bill for principle. On. The ballot. So I think. That's a significant cost. I think, again, it's worth looking at. And that's why I think this should go for. And I think it's also worth looking at the effect of of large contributions into campaigns, regardless of where they come from. And I'd like us to have a a maybe even have a subcommittee of the city council do this work. Because some of this work was done back in, I believe was 2012 by the Sunshine Committee. And I think it's, again, worth asking the question and then having I would recommend that the referral be slightly changed to have a subcommittee of the city council do this work and bring a recommendation to council. And I'd like to add that we include having staff look at an estimate of the costs. That be included. I think with any recommendation staff would it would go without saying that staff would have their usual impact to the general fund or wherever this money would come from to execute whatever the council decides to to consider. A member. I have a couple of quick comments and I appreciate my colleagues remarks on this. And for, you know, stepping in the shoes of our former council member and bringing this this referral, I have two issues. One, I am concerned about violations of the Sunshine Ordinance. If we give direction to staff on something that wasn't notice. And overhauling our campaign finance rules, I think is something that, you know, if we were going to do that folks in the community may be interested in commenting on rather than us doing it by amending a referral without public notice. So I would be against that at this point. And secondly, you know, I do have a little bit of an issue. You know, basically we're asking the city and the taxpayers to pay money. So us, we politicians, because that's what we are run for office. So instead of that 25,000 going to, you know, pay part of a salary for somebody who could help with landlord tenant issues or paying for a park person part time, we're basically asking them to pay for us to run for office. And, you know, I just have a philosophical disagreement with having the taxpayers pay for me to have the right to run for office. Because I think if if you're going to run, you know, and if you can't raise $3,000 to pay for your ballot statement, then, you know, maybe you don't have a lot of support in the community and. Member. Ashcroft, I would actually like to see a more independent body look into these questions. Perhaps the League of Women Voters that doesn't have a dog in the fight, so to speak. And I you know, I agree with my counsel, my colleague Jim Odey, that when you run for office, you do need to take into account that there are expenses. But hopefully you have supporters in the community who are willing to help defray that. But if we need to look at doing things a different way, I would like the the more, you know, arm's length independent view of an organization like the League of Women Voters if they are willing to take it on. And I actually think they've had some forums on campaign finance report reform in the past. So I, I suspect not wanting to speak on their behalf, although I am a member, but I think this might be something they'd be willing to take up. But I'm interested to hear what the rest of the council thinks. Vice Mayor What's one thing that that I, you know, have a little pause on is the fact that we did we did a review of this not so long ago. And, you know, we you know, my question would be, are we looking to override the work that was already performed and the the you know, the work of the Sunshine Committee actually looking at this matter, or are we trying to look at a new direction? You know, I was a campaign finance attorney before. And one of the things that that I do caution people on is the more rules and regulations we have, you know, campaign expenditures are considered a form of First Amendment protected speech . And so while you can you can limit contributions to candidates or or ballot measure committees, essentially the Supreme Court has held you can't cap what goes to independent expenditures. And so one of the things that I think has has really clouded the issues for many voters here in Alameda is not knowing where the money's from because there have been independent expenditures and that sort of thing. So I think getting a little more direction in terms of what we're trying to achieve and if it's something different from what we've looked at before. I also agree that having or at least starting out with an independent body and having them look at it would be my preference just because then it's really coming from the community. Thank you. So I support during this referral. I support leaving it though as the referral is noticed. And I think that that's a real clean question in regards to whether or not and after we find out what the expense would be, we should and I would say reduce the financial barrier to running for office. I think $3,000 is in fact quite a bit for some candidates. And when I at least when I was on the school board, the school board did pay that. We did not have to pay that fee. And so I see it as a financial barrier for some candidates, and I would at least be supportive of hearing this referral and getting staff's feedback on what they think the cost to the city would be. Um. Member matter. I see what you like to. I don't see that there's a majority that's willing to go farther than this. And I think it is correct in not adding additional items that weren't noticed. But I think the discussion needs to happen and perhaps in a different venue. And I don't it's my recollection, I don't recall the prior council looking at reducing the cost for Canada, so I don't think that issue has been discussed. I think that that is a new issue. I think the issue is that we looked at campaign finance reform earlier, not this particular. Issue, this issue. So I am. So did you want to make it personal? I don't know. I wasn't sure that everyone opposed going forward with this issue. So I. I will make a motion to proceed with the referral that had been member de SACS and limit it to. But the ask was here. Of finding. Exploring the city funding to pay the administrative election costs. To reduce financial barriers of. Running for office. They're a second. Doing, then that fails. And then I will proceed with five A, which is the Historical Advisory Board nomination and I will be nominating. First of all, I want to share that we had four candidates, three of whom I, along with staff, interviewed.

Recommendation to request City Manager to explore the feasibility of implementing the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Program, and report back to City Council in 60 days.

LongBeachCC_05102016_16-0408

Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Council Member Oranga recommendation to request the City Manager to explore the feasibility of implementing the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Program and report back to the City Council in 60 days. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm happy tonight to be requesting this feasibility report in partnership with residents, community organizations in Long Beach Fresh. And I know there's a number of people who have remained and hung out with us tonight for this agenda item. So thank you so much for your patience. In 2013, California passed the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Act. This bill allows cities and counties to give tax breaks to property owners that allow their vacant properties of less than three acres to be used as community gardens or urban farms with a five year commitment. And just last month, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted to implement the program countywide, which allows cities to opt in as well. Urban agriculture provides many benefits to not only those growing food, but those, but also to those cities in which it happens. These include education about fresh, healthy foods and the effort that it takes to produce it more vibrant green spaces. There's an ecological benefit for our city. Green gardens and farms help build community. There's also a potential source of modest economic development here in Long Beach. We've adopted a number of policies and legislation that support urban agriculture, agriculture and healthy eating. In October of 2014, we adopted the Healthy, Healthy, Healthy Communities policy, and one of its objectives under the Healthy Food Access goal is to encourage the use of temporary, vacant and open space for urban agriculture. In addition, last year, the City Council voted to improve and ease in the rules governing chickens, goats and bees at residents homes. We are a city that values health, sustainability, community and a strong urban agriculture incentive zone program would help support those values as well. This program would allow us to lessen blight and some of our vacant lots in our neighborhoods. And it would also give small scale farms and community gardens a better chance to thrive and would in turn benefit our communities. So I know that we've we have the existence of willing community partners to help implement this policy successfully. And I feel that it would be a benefit to our residents. So I look forward to the finding of this report, which essentially asks for exploring, exploring the feasibility and what all needs to go into implementing a policy and encourage. I encourage support from my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. I want to thank Councilmember Richardson and also primarily Vice Mayor Lowenthal. I know she's stuck with this for a long time in urban agriculture. And we finally got something passed last year. And so I want to thank her for all her leadership in this and especially the community members here. Long Beach, Organic and the lots on seventh and chestnut and eighth and Chestnut. I think I've eaten out of both lots over the few years. It's been incredible to watch these areas flourish in places that people would normally not think of putting a lot and especially putting something that you can grow organic, locally grown food from local residents here. So it's I thank you very much for sticking with this. And I think it's a great step in the right direction for the city of Long Beach as we've this is the trajectory that we've we've been on. And just to look at a report would be great. I'm looking forward to that. And I have a couple questions for city staff. Right, Larry. We'll have Larry Rich, the manager of our Sustainability Bureau. Answer any of those questions. Thank you. Just a couple of questions. Do we know how many empty private lots exist currently in our city? Council Member. Mayor and members of the City Council. We don't have a recent count in anticipation of this item. We've started working on that. So within the 60 day time period, we'll be able to report back on that. Okay. Because I also see with this, I mean, that, of course, sustainability and urban agriculture, but also just the maintenance of the lots, because I know a lot of the lots that we have are just not maintained by property owners. And it'd be great to be able to to look into that, which is kind of a larger discussion, but. Okay. And and if we I know we I've worked with Long Beach Organic, I think, in the past and connecting them with property owners. But that's just been, you know, kind of sidebar situations. But what do we do when there's. Locations that might be foreclosed or when we have to take a little bit more time in finding who the owner is to be able to even let them know that there's this incentive program. We certainly have a mechanism in place through at least code enforcement to contact property owners. And certainly when there are maintenance issues on properties, code enforcement takes the lead there so we can tap into those avenues to identify and contact property owners. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate this. And I also ask our council colleagues to support. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ringa. Thank you. I, too, am looking forward to work, especially when it deals with my area in the West Long Beach. I always describe West Palm Beach as an island where there's only four access points into it and it's virtually a food desert when it comes to the West Palm Beach area. So I hope that we're able to at least address some of those alternatives for West Palm Beach as well as, of course, other areas, obviously. I mean, that's my my district there. I would have a self in in hoping that we are able to address some issues in the West Palm Beach area. So I do look forward to seeing the report and also ask for my colleagues endorsement in support of this item. Thanks, Marie Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank the authors for bringing this forward and also for allowing us to keep progressing in this area. And as Councilmember Gonzales said, it's something that I've been working with the community for quite some time, and I want to thank them for their patience. Nothing that unfortunately it did take quite a while, but I'm very happy with where we are right now. I'm glad to have this item come forward. I know there's a desire in our community for community gardens and EB 511 would help with that, as it suggests. And we all know the community gardens offer many things. Councilman Gonzalez shared that better access to fresh foods. I like the terminology food, desert. I don't like having that terminology, but I think it's it's quite descriptive of what some of our areas can feel like. And so access to fresh foods and plants and beautification and positive environmental impacts and a sense of connection and contribution. I think a lot of times we don't highlight the social connectivity that ends up happening when someone even when someone converts their personal front yard into a edible garden and invites people to at least gather and have a conversation, and if, if and at times gather and collect things from the garden. So I'm a resident. We're all residents here. I think we enjoy, enjoy. Items like this when we're able to help our community and our residents not only beautify our landscape, but to contribute in some way to wellbeing and health and community well-being and health. And farm to table is something that. We had a very long time ago as a way of life before it became kind of posh from a local restaurant standpoint. And so I appreciate going back to that and look forward to seeing where a possible urban agricultural incentive zones program can take us. And I want to thank Mr. Rich, Larry Rich, for his commitment to the issue. I know he's been very patient and diligent as well. Thank you. Controversy or not. Thank you. I, too, would like to commend the residents for their patience and stamina and to the vice mayor. She's very modest in saying while she's worked on this, I think Larry Rich is very good with numbers. I've only been on council for a year, but I served for seven years on the Sustainable City Commission. Mr. Rich, did that come up our first year of existence, maybe 2008, that this first came to our commission, something like that. Yes. In respect to the chickens, goats and bees aspect of urban agriculture. But of course, the urban agriculture incentive zones was more recent at the sea level. Right. Same topic, just a little different nuance. So thank you, Mr. Rich. Two for your stamina. Thank you. And can I get any public comment on this right now? Please. Please come forward. Good evening, mayors, city council members community. My name is Karen Reside and I live at seventh and Pacific at the Park Pacific Tower Senior Building. And I am one of the recipients and gardeners in the community garden on Pacific Avenue in sixth. And I commend you all for advancing the mission of urban gardening for the seniors. I can tell you we have a number of people that have plots in that garden, and those plots are heavily in demand and they're accessible because they're very close to our building for those that have limited, limited mobility. I think our oldest gardener is 85 years old and she's the one that has the amazing papaya tree. And I can tell you, I haven't had to purchase lettuce in two years. And I share my produce with a number of residents in the building that don't have mobility. It makes a big difference when you're a low income senior. We heard some testimony and people in our building are living on $300 a month. So any little incentive can make a great difference in their health and well-being. And one thing that nobody mentioned was the produce this organic. And Joe Corso does a wonderful job in managing the gardens for Long Beach Garden, which makes a difference for some people with their health, health issues and the food that comes from an organic garden and natural eggs. There is no comparison to the taste in the produce which encourages more eating of healthier food. So thank you all for your commitment to this and know that it is making a great impact on the community. And Larry Rich and Suja Lowenthal, thank you for your efforts to make this happen in our community. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and esteemed members of the City Council. My name is Sasha Cano, and I am a homeowner in the sixth District and operate farm 59 in the seventh District. I'm here in support of the proposal to conduct a report showing the feasibility impact of AB 551, the urban ag incentive. I started a front yard produce exchange in 2008 shortly after purchasing our home. It quickly outgrew my porch and landed at the Wrigley Association meetings. The Wrigley Garden was hatched from this and eventually led me to start farm Lot 59. We need urban agriculture. For me, it's essential. We are in our fifth growing season at the farm and in that time we've produced over £50,000 of organic produce. Unhappy N.A. on what was an illegal dump. We have taught over 150 students in our outdoor classroom in 2015 alone. We have paid staff that are making a livable wage in the city and are able to farm for a living. We are hardworking and we connect people to where their food comes from. We've built the trend for Long Beach restaurants to be able to purchase truly local produce and use the ingredients in their kitchens. And I believe our culinary scene is thankful for our efforts. The demand is growing and we need more farms to keep up. And I support the next group of farms and farmers and will assist in their success. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. An honorable mayor and city council. I'm Joe Corso. I also live in the sixth District. I'm the garden director for Long Beach Organic, Inc. We're a nonprofit group, and we managed nine community gardens in the city. But of those nine, four of them are on private property. And so tonight, I just wanted to share our successes, the positive experiences we've had developing agricultural products, projects on empty, privately owned lots. For instance, in the Wrigley area, we have a private lot on Pacific Avenue, which was once a haven for drug dealers. Has been a garden now for 20 to 20 families for seven years. In North Long Beach, we turned an idle industrial quarter acre on South Street into a garden with room for 30 households to participate. Also, chickens, bees. It's a wonderful spot. Also in North Long Beach, the owners of a large property with horse stables have turned over what was once their front lawn for a garden that is used by adult educational groups, a church sponsored kids group and volunteers who grow food for charity. And we also get free horse manure. Finally just up the street on Chestnut at Chestnut Avenue, we have it's a tiny corner lot. It's become a charming neighborhood garden with 22 smaller plots. And so this is it. These gardens are a win, win win situation. First, it's a win for our members who have a place in the neighborhood to grow healthy food for their tables. And it's also a win for the community. When an empty lot is transformed from a local eyesore into a verdant garden, it becomes a neighborhood focal point. And whether neighbors are directly involved or not, they enjoy seeing things grow. Where once there was an empty lot. And finally, it's a win for the property owner because many folks have vacant properties that for one reason or another, they're not ready to sell or they're not ready to build on. And owning such property can be a real headache. So trash, sofas, vagrancy, drugs, these are all the things that empty lots of tract. When we turn such a property into a community garden, that headache is relieved. Even though we lease these properties for only $1 a year, the owner no longer has the worry and expense of maintaining the property. Still, it's a rare property owner who's willing to turn their land over to gardeners and farmers. We've contacted dozens over the years and gotten only after a tax incentive could be the deciding factor for someone considering such a use for their land. And that could lead to more winning projects in the city. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel I'm sorry. Speaker I saw you cued up. I'm sorry about that, please. Thank you. Good evening, honorable mayor, esteemed council. My name is Demetrius Zeigler. I'm a resident of the eighth District and I am with my partner, Kelly Johnson, the co-owner of a local small farm in town called Long Beach Farms. And we're a little bit newer in town. We've been in operation about a year and a half, and we owe a ton of debt of gratitude to the folks that will speak after me and some of the folks that have come before me. But I will say that I feel like I represent with Kelly Johnson the kind of the new face of urban agriculture. We are both passionately committed. To the principles. Of sustainability, of feeding our community and addressing a lot of the health, environmental and, let's say, social concerns that urban agriculture can can benefit. I thought I might just share a couple of quick anecdotes about my business and what I see with this movement. Long Beach has been slowly progressing along this tract of promoting urban ag in our city, and I think that this city really could become a progressive leader in the entire region as we continue down this path. So I urge you to keep keep discussing and keep pushing this forward quickly. We've been in business about a year and a half. I have a decentralized approach to farming, which means we don't have a big plot of land on which we can have the typical road crops and farm animals as such. So I have in effect in North Long Beach, about six or seven smaller parcels that we've aggregated to grow food for the people that invest with us and help us grow. The biggest hurdle to our growth has been the availability of land so far. That will continue to be a hurdle for us and other urban farmers that come into this city. But 8551 in other measures that you're considering will help promote or help promote a connection between the farmer and the land. And I think this is something that should be carefully studied. The other quick anecdote that I would anecdote I'd like to share is I have a single dad. I have a six year old who couldn't quite make it through the earlier consent items. But she's taken to field trips so far this year as a kindergarten kindergartner at Kettering Elementary. The first was to Tanaka Farms down in Orange County, where they spent a farm day. The second was to the other strawberry farm down in Orange County, where they spent a day harvesting strawberries. That should happen in Long Beach. Our children and our students should be able to drive down the street or be bused down the street here in our community to learn these great things and and provide a farm based learning opportunity for those kids. So among other things, these are these are positive benefits that may be five, five, one, and this discussion can promote. So thank you and I. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you, honorable. Mayor and esteemed Council. My name is Michelle Engleman Burns. I am a happy resident of the. Ninth district and. Really appreciate so much. I follow recs and participatory budgeting and all of our good stuff that's happening up there. We moved here three years ago. We bought a house in North Long Beach. Moved from Houston, Texas. And I can tell you that I love the city. I love the city in mayor. I'm just amazed at the things that, you know, the engine that's happening. I'm really proud of the city. We love that you love the city. I really am. I'm kind of a cheerleader. So we moved here to be grandparents. Our children started having children. And that's you know, we were fortunate. Enough to be able to do that. So the thing that I need to say to you is I just appreciate the fact that this is something that has taken a. While because this is something that was natural for me in Houston and this is what we did in the community. I can't tell you how much it pulls together the community and from the social. Aspect, but also from the, you know, the elder residents. And there's just so much that it does for the city. And I really just want. To tell you from my. Heart how much. I appreciate all of you and. What you do for our city, but specifically for this particular. Ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Hello? Yeah, my name is Ryan Serrano. I live in the first District 81 Chestnut Avenue. I was the founder of an organization called Food Scape Long Beach. And I own a business called Earth Steward Ecology. I work as an ecological consultant and landscape developer. I specialize in California native habitat and food production systems. I wanted to kind of come from the place of not maybe rationalizing the economic reasons for for supporting this kind of development, even though I think it's really clear when you look at that part of it. I want to maybe just come from the place of being a person that looks at an empty space. And I don't speculate how large of a structure can be built there or how much money, how much financial energy can be mined from that space, but rather what living finance capital, what living capital, what spiritual capital and social capital can be yielded from that space for future generations and what can be regenerated over time to be something more meaningful and more more real than than all of this infrastructure, which is, you know, decaying as we speak and has to be rebuilt and and is expensive and, you know, all those things. I think that anything that supports urban agriculture is also supporting future generations. I feel like it's it's. Especially clear that it's needed as we transition both economically and in terms of fossil resources that are left in the world, that we need to be producing more of our food rather than importing it from the Central Valley or where have you, where it lacks, among other things, nutrition, nutritional density. It lacks integrity as far as being unadulterated by chemicals that are not foods. And and it also separates people from understanding and having a sense of literacy about what they're eating. Young people grow up in the world eating animals and plants that they couldn't identify if they saw them in real life. And that's a reality in the city. And it's it's a shame that people here are inept to that. And I think it's important that people have access to opportunities to grow food. I think it's an inalienable human right. I think access to food on its own should be considered an inalienable human right along with water, along with shelter, along with all those good things. And I think that. Beyond all of that, people should have access to meaningful vocations that feed their identity more than deplete it like a lot of city life entails. I think that the work that and and the economic and food energy that can come out of supporting this kind of development. On a policy level is important for the future. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, Vice Mayor Lowenthal and members of City Council. My name is Tony D'Amico. I'm a resident of the third district. I am the co-director of Long Beach Fresh. We're the local Food Policy Council. I'm also an executive committee member of the Long Beach Alliance for Food and Fitness and a participant in the Building Healthy Communities Initiative and the Kaiser Heal Zone in District nine. So I owe a lot of thanks to Councilmember Richardson for being eager to pounce on this opportunity to move urban agriculture forward and huge thanks to council members around Gonzales and Lowenthal for signing on. So with the projects I work with, I think together those four projects have convened many residents, institutional stakeholders and dozens of local food systems leaders to identify policy priorities toward public health. And 8551 is one of them. So tonight, I support tonight's proposal for a study. I got involved in urban agriculture, growing some vegetables in a shared space as a renter in 2010, while learning about permaculture and food justice from local advocates like Ryan, who you just heard from. And it was amazing to me to learn how much the urban environment, again, as Ryan was saying, has separated us from real food, from nature and from one another. Even more interesting to me was the discovery that our city's diverse communities have a rich history of growing their own food for themselves, for their communities, and as a way to make ends meet. I've since come to believe that in order to be food secure and sustainable as a city, we need to protect the right to grow and also create more opportunities both for community gardens and urban farms. While we do have a community garden policy as a city to establish community gardens in parks over five acres, that policy has been slow to actually be utilized. And I think it's because there are a lot of barriers to growing on public land. So I think that this proposal actually opens up more possibilities for private spaces as well, and that both policies together could really help us quite a bit. And in my experience, like right now, I live near there's a very a junction community garden which is one of our largest and of course has a long waiting list. And other community gardens that are near me also are full. So while we have at least 14 community gardens in Long Beach, there's still very high demand and there's also only four small urban farms. We could certainly benefit from more opportunities to buy local produce for those who don't necessarily have the interest or the time and resources to garden themselves. So as our city continues to focus on development through high tech innovation, density and mobility, let's be sure to create space and incentives for healthy food production, create opportunities to restore our soil, and in turn, empower residents to take control of their health. Thank you very much. Thank you. Excellent. Next speaker, please. Good evening, everyone. My name is Rodney. Laura Sam. I was very excited when I saw the item agenda today and I'm very proud of my city. I started in this community as a homeless ten year old kid in the sixth District. I had PTSD trauma. I had nightmares of my mother was being too near death and suffering from the PTSD, from the genocide of the Khmer Rouge. I was too young, too poor to uneducated to ask the right questions to get the right help. So I never had any traditional help for my psychology things that I needed. But I did discover urban gardening as a form of healing. So living in crowded apartments, even though my neighbors would grow vegetables in containers, it helped me in so many ways. And I use urban gardening as a form of healing that I graduate from poly high school with a 4.0 GPA. I went to UC Riverside and graduate with a bachelor's degrees in biochemistry. And this is the first time I'm speaking at my voice. So I'm speaking from a standpoint of voice of a property owner in the fourth district and sixth district. A business owner in a fourth district. A resident in the third District and the sixth District and a founder and a director of a nonprofit called the May Center. May is an acronym. It uses meditation, urban agriculture, yoga and education to help people with trauma promote their own self healing and live a fulfilling life. And I want to congratulate my city because it has done an amazing job. I want to thank Congress or Council member Allen Austin for electing the ME Center as the champion winner, using gardening as a form of healing. We did a documentary, over 50,000 views on Facebook viewed in France, Canada, Cambodia and the states. The main center has been a site studied by Harvard Program in refugee trauma. UCI. UCLA. Cal State. Long Beach. Cal State. Dominguez Hills. And currently. We are working with survivors. For them to use gardening to heal themselves. And not only that, but earn an income. The Long Beach Community Foundation and the City of Long Beach is currently working on a $10 million grant, put the first farmers market in central Long Beach, and the survivors were able to sell their produce at the first farmers market. I see that the vacant lot is a community health issue. Thank you. Good to wrap it up. Good time's up. But please continue. Please wrap it up. Thank you. Thank you. It is a neglect of this community, of the city and by the community and by the city by supporting. Thank you, sir. I'm so sorry time that I have to keep 3 minutes to every speaker, so. Thank you for supporting this. You were giving your community a chance to transform blighted lots into healing lots. Thank you. Thank you so much. Wonderful story. I have a couple more council speakers. I just want a couple comments. Well, first, I want to thank all the the farmers and the advocates that came out. I think you guys have been so active in this movement, been leading the movement. It's amazing to see how we've grown in the urban farming movement and just the farming movement and the healthy food community that's that's developed in Long Beach. It's always been here, but it's it's I feel it's more vocal and more visible than it's ever been, which is which is really great. And you see it from a lot of the organizations, a lot of the represented here tonight. I just want to make sure, Mr. West, as we move forward, I know it's pretty clear, looking at the agenda item tonight, looking at the urban agriculture ordinance that was passed that Vice Mayor Lowenthal and others brought forward in the past , that the council as a as a body is very committed to urban farming and urban ag. I mean, there's no question. And so I think as we move forward and we look for other opportunities and we talk and we look at at Park Development and the L.A. River Restoration and the Drake Chavez connection and all these other open space Terminal Island Freeway possible decommissioning. When we look at all of those possibilities, let's make sure that we're always considering and advocating for the urban agriculture community. And they were advocating for this. It's really developing in a lot of progressive cities, and I'm really hopeful that we kind of take that to heart, because I think you've heard loud and clear from the council that everyone is supportive and interested in this. And so I think it's important for us with our new Parks and Recreation director on board, that this be a part of our park planning in the future as well as as we move forward. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Mongeau. I am very fortunate to have had a increase in allergies that brought me to the farming community. I learned a lot about local honey and then now I'm a community gardener. And as a young person whose grandparents are from the Midwest, I was raised on meat and potatoes and really the only vegetables I knew were corn and peas. And so as an adult and had the great opportunity to try new vegetables and now grow vegetables and learn about the different strains and the recessive tomatoes. And I'm looking forward to an exciting season. And I really hope that people who are watching at home consider looking into a community garden nearby, because while there are a shortage of community gardens, I know that many of them continue to pop up as our population gets older and they start consolidating farmers onto single plots because one garden can harvest for multiple families. It's been remarkable. So thank you for all you do. Thank you for continuing to share the good news of bee rescue, because we are we do have a bee shortage. And every time people post online, I see many of you posting back, no, don't call an exterminator, please call the beekeepers. So thank you for all that you do in keeping it possible to have urban AG. Thank you. Councilmember Austin Thank you very much. I just want to applaud the the advocates for being here and I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for bringing us this very this feel good item to the council this evening. It makes us feel good to to be progressive and to to move in advance and to be creative with with policy . And, you know, it's no secret it took me a little while to get there. I mean, I wasn't there all along, but I have had the great privilege of having the growing experience in my district and spending a lot of time volunteering there and supporting the efforts of that seven acre urban farm. I want to challenge each and every one of my colleagues to come out there and volunteer a couple of hours of the growing experience as well, because it's a great, great opportunity and it will really, really be an enriching process for for each and every one of you. I want to thank Demetrius and Kelly Johnson specifically for her constant advocacy. I mean, she's been a leader in the farming community, the urban farming community for for many years and is a dear friend of mine. We can't lose sight of the fact that Long Beach is an urban city. And with that. We need to balance our opportunities, opportunities with economic development, opportunities with housing and building sustainability. And so I am going to be happily supporting this item because I think this is this is forward thinking and I want to offer my support to the farming community to encourage private property owners. As a partner of yours moving forward, particularly if with any properties in my district that you identify. You can count on my support. So thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you. At the risk of admitting how much I think of urban agriculture, I want to share, at least with my council colleagues, that there is a 2007 film, British film called Grow Your Own, and it's incredible. It talks about the social connectivity and well-being that's created when communities come together. And if you haven't seen it, I do recommend it, although we're not here to give movie reviews, but it's it highlights things that we don't think about. We as I said earlier, we talk about the food, we talk about affordability. And and that is all very, very, very good in terms of our objectives. We talk about teaching our children, and I'm glad we got that one to bed, teaching our children about the origin of their food. But the things that we don't often talk about are hard to place. And our young speaker that came to us and shared that she was homeless at age ten and had been able to heal. You just reminded me that there is that healing power of tending to a piece of the earth that you can call your own. And then there's a book called The Earth Knows Your Name. So all these good things. But I do want to share with you that that that is a fascinating film. And if we really want to be proud of what we're doing, I think what we can do is see our community down the road really heal in ways that we wouldn't have been able to have been a part of otherwise. They're quiet, but magical ways. Thank you. Thank you. And Councilman Andrew. Yes, thank you very much. I just want to, you know, apply to Councilman Richardson and the other council individuals who brought this to the diocese, because the fact that I know that, you know, we talk about the salt of the earth, what he does for an individual. And I think the young lady who gave us, you know, I mean, just a such a saddening story, but what came out of it was just such a, you know, enjoyment of healing. And I just I'm sure that you'll notice that we are going to do the night market. And I sure hope that you'll really spirit a lot of that, because this is going to happen off a lot of people. And I want to thank you again for being so instrumental in a lot of things we were talking about and over agriculture. Thank you again very much. Thank you. Okay. With that, we have a motion in a second. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. And moving on to item number five, make a brief.

Grants Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., doing business as CenturyLink a nonexclusive franchise agreement with a duration of 10 years and authorization to make reasonable and lawful use of the Rights-of-Way within the City to construct, operate, maintain, reconstruct and rebuild a cable system for the purpose of providing cable television service in exchange for 5% of gross revenues. a) Presentation. b) Fifteen (15) minutes of public comment on proposal. Two minutes per speaker and equal opportunity for opposing perspectives as determined by the Committee Chair. Individuals wishing to speak must sign up in the Council conference room (3rd Floor, City & County Building, Rm. 391) between 1:00pm and 1:15pm. The order of speakers is determined by the Committee Chair. c) Discussion/Action. Grants Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., doing business as CenturyLink a nonexclusive franchise agreement with a duration of 10 years and authorization to make reasonable and lawful use of the Rights-of-Way within the City to construct, operate, maintain, reconstruct and rebuild a cable system for the purp

DenverCityCouncil_03162015_15-0083

Quest Broadband Services Inc, also known as CenturyLink, granting a non-inclusive cable television franchise. Councilman Brown, will you please put Council Bill eight three on the floor to be ordered published? Thank you, Mr. President. A move the council bill 83 be ordered published. It has been moved in second in a public hearing for council bill 83 is now open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. My name's Frank. The tone of the chief information officer for the city and county of Denver. Thank you for having me. Tonight, we're going to discuss the the CenturyLink Cable Television Franchise Agreement. This agreement is very similar to the existing franchise agreement that exists today with Comcast that was signed by Mile High Cable back in 1984. With the exception of one fairly significant difference, the things that are identical provision wise, the terms of the agreement are ten years, the amount of franchise fees is 5% of gross revenues. The amount of the peg fees is a dollar five per customer per month. Administration and regulation of the franchise are the same. Customer service standards are the same and franchise violations are the same. So I will now move on to the piece that is relatively significant between the two. The agreement that was signed back in 1984 was for the service availability piece of it was for universal coverage, which meant coverage throughout the entire city and county of Denver. The the the agreement that's here tonight is not that way. It's actually an agreement that is based on market penetration and market success. So how that would look, this agreement sort of started out actually this agreement to understand what we are trying to do here. We have a term that I need to explain, which is a remote terminal, a remote terminal as a way to provide service to homes and residents. A remote terminal is a point which is a distributor of the service and a can service in any given neighborhood, up to 4 to 500 living units. So how this service available ability breaks out within two years. CenturyLink must offer service to at least 15% of all living units within the city and county of Denver. But they must also offer at least one RTA, which is that remote terminal that I just mentioned in each of the 11 Council districts. So that 15% cannot start in one area and grow from there. It has to be distributed throughout the entire city, a county of Denver by at least one remote terminal per district. So 15% would be roughly about 44,000 living units within the first two years. Market penetration is the metric that is used for moving forward with the with further expansion. And how that works is if you have 100 homes and you provide service to 28 of those homes, then you are at 28% of your service availability footprint. The agreement today states that once CenturyLink reaches 27 and a half percent, then they would need to, after two years, continue to grow their footprint by at least one additional R.T. and every council district. There's also a piece in there. If at any point in time CenturyLink becomes the primary service provider and with a majority of 50% of market penetration, then they will then provide universal service to all of city and county of Denver. There's also a language in there about nondiscrimination, and it prohibits them from discriminating against any neighborhood on the basis of income. There's also a language that states they guarantee to commit a significant portion of their investment, which will be targeted to areas below the median income of the city. Within each of these authorities. They will also have to provide service. They must also cover one school or library, and that goes on for each of the two years going forward. How this will be monitored is through transparency within the language of the contract. CenturyLink needs to provide on demand to the city their existing service availability footprint and what their market is today. And then that will be monitored and monitored by the city. Quarterly There will be meetings with CenturyLink to look at their progress and to review that. And we also have members of CenturyLink that are here today, if you have any questions. Thank you, Mr. de Novo. David, your name was listed as staff. Did you have anything you wanted to add for the presentation? Mr. Broadwell. David Broadwell. Assistant City Attorney. I'll just answer questions as they arise. Great. I thank you. Thank you. Mr. President, members of council. My name is Jim Campbell. I'm the regional vice president for Regulatory and legislative affairs for Central Bank. Thank you so much for having us here tonight. I'm not going to repeat what Frank said. I think he did a good job of describing what's in the agreement. I would note that the requirement to add in a remote term, I think is actually a one year, not two years. So we would have to do it within one year of hitting those market penetration rates. I would be remiss if I didn't think staff for their hard work over the last nine months, they've been incredibly diligent throughout this process and David and Frank at all times had the interests of the residents of the city of Denver at first and foremost at their hearts. I also want to thank all the members of Council for participating in the committee process. Those of you that aren't on the committee were there, and I appreciate your willingness to listen to us, to us as we made our presentation. This is pretty exciting. For the first time in over 40 years, you're actually have an application from a company that's going to make a significant investment to bring to bring cable competition to Denver. And it's the residents of Denver that benefit from this. I think the studies have shown throughout the country that the incumbent operators generally behave a little bit better when you have a wireline facilities based competitor. And that's exactly what we intend to bring. We're obviously very excited about the opportunity to make this investment here right in the city of Denver. I can tell you that it's this is about innovation. This is about jobs, it's about investments. So, again, we asked for your your favorable support of this application. And I will be here to answer any questions you might have. So thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you. We have 12 speakers signed up for this today. We have seven in favor, five against. And I'm going to call the first five. You can make your way up to the first pew. Patrick Byrne, David Briggs, Cynthia Wake, Jason Peck and Sara Randall. You five can make your way up and Mr. Barron, you can go ahead and begin your remarks. You have 3 minutes. Well. Good afternoon. Members of council. My name is Patrick Byrne. I live at 1196 Grant Street in Council District ten. Speaking on behalf of myself tonight. I'm a current customer of. The existing franchise holder and don't have anything. Particularly bad. To say about them tonight. But I just want to encourage you all to vote in support of Council Bill 83 that will provide some competition to benefit all of the consumers here in Denver. Allowing a second franchisee will lead to competition in products, pricing, bundling and customer service. And I think everyone benefit from that. And from what you all just heard tonight, I think the build out terms have been really thoughtfully done and I think they'll be very fair and equitable. So with that, I would ask for your support. And thank you very much. Thank you. David Briggs. Good evening. My name is David Briggs and I live in the area on 4933 Durham Court. I'm all for competition, but how do I know I'll get Centrelink service in my area? And if not, how is that competition? I understand the Comcast was required to serve the entire city within three years. What is the time table for CenturyLink? For the contract as it seems vague on obligations to serve the entire city. And it seems that this council is not requiring CenturyLink to serve all of the within and defined time period. When will they come to my area? And what says they have? Thank you, Mr. Briggs. Cynthia Wake. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Cynthia Wake and I reside at 3779 William Street, Denver. I am a CenturyLink employee as well as the president of the Cole Neighborhood Association. Cole, of course, is located in the Great Eight, as Councilman Brooks always affectionately refers to us. I just wanted to express my support for Council Bill 83. As a resident of Denver as well as a CenturyLink employee, we're really excited about being able to offer innovative products to the residents of Denver and provide a choice other than cable or satellite service, which are really your only two options for television service right now in Denver. Satellite is somewhat cumbersome and not available to every resident. If you can't get satellite, especially if you're in a multi dwelling unit where there's some other restrictions, you really only have one choice, which is cable. So I would like to express my excitement and support for the bill, not only to make my job a little bit easier as well to provide choice to the residents of Denver. Thank you. Thank you. This week. Jason pick. Thank you. My name's Jason Peck. 901 Area. Parkway, Denver 80204. Just want to bring briefed background on this. I have testified on this issue in other cities as CenturyLink is going to. Other cities around Denver. I'm a realtor and there are some. Concerns I have specifically about this franchise agreement. Obviously, technology's very, very. Important to people who are looking to purchase within the city of Denver. They have lots of questions and this. Franchise agreement is very vague when it comes to the availability. I'm all for market competition. Okay. But I think. That the city of Denver can do better than this franchise agreement that's put in. Front of you. With that being said, the one thing I have been able to tell them, like in affluent areas, that's the first place that CenturyLink is going to go. They're going to set up in affluent areas like this gentleman here. He's probably not going to get it or he might get it. But setting up a router and each district doesn't necessarily the the citizens that should be getting the service are going to be getting the service, but they're going to be setting up in flow in areas. I want to express the concern that Denver really. Didn't do that good of a job in negotiating this franchise agreement as I've gone to other cities talking about these same concerns. It's the same agreement. You guys. Shit. You're the biggest city. You're the big dog. You should be getting a better franchise agreement. Now, while this promote equity initial build up, I did watch some of the city council meetings in regards to this. And I'm just there's just some significant concerns about this franchise agreement. And I know that a lot of you were in favor of it from that standpoint. But one thing that does make me nervous is that CenturyLink basically came out and said, well, we don't want to set a precedent. As we negotiate with other cities with giving you guys something that we might not be giving to other cities. And that's a concern to me. So most importantly, I just. Want to thank you for your time. I'm here for the little guy. I'm here for the person that might be working a second job tonight. That doesn't necessarily come here. Have a voice and I thought was important. They speak on this tonight. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Peck. Sarah Randall. And as Sarah comes up, I want to call the next five speakers Sharon Alexander Holt, Jack Kroll, Brigitte Alexander, Naomi Ramirez, and Reverend Patrick Demmer. You can come up to the first pew. And Ms.. Randall, you can go ahead and begin your comment. Hi, my name is Sarah Randall. I live in Uptown on 1801 Pennsylvania Street. I would really like to have the option for CenturyLink Cable. I think a city as forward thinking and innovative as Denver, we should thrive on competition and the drive to create better options for our community. When there is more competition, I'll have the opportunity to have improved customer service. I only have 3 minutes. I do not have the time to talk about my customer service. Problems with Comcast and Comcast consistently ranks at the bottom of of good customer service. I value competition and I do want to live in a city where, ah, I value competition and I want to live in a city where our council members do as well. So thank you for your time. Thank you, Miss Randall. Sharon Alexander Holt. Hello. My name is Sharon Alexander Holt, and I'm pleased to be here. Thank you for Mr. President and city council members. I'm the former CEO of the Urban League of Metropolitan Denver, a concerned community citizen. And currently I work with the in a position where I have a radio program that I co-host every Sunday that deals with the community, a Christian community of ventilation and education. And so I'm here because I'm concerned about, again, our community and properly being able to represent the concerns we have as we ventilate about some of the language in the contract. Well, what's good is that there's some build out going on. My concern is that the build out is not hitting the inner city the way that it should. And then there's language like significant. What does that really mean when you begin to divine what is significant mean? When will that happen? When do you feel there's a significant amount of the territory that is viewing our on the system that they would go to next level? Those are teams right now hold around what, 500 you said and maybe over two years to be a thousand. But when does that guarantee in the inner city, the communities that they too will have that build up? My concern again, because of my past and the hats that I wear, is our communities being forgotten. Are we forgetting about those neighborhoods and we're hitting more the fluent, which always goes back to that concern about redlining. And I want to eliminate that. So I'm just asking that you go back, look at the language in the contract, reevaluate it, just don't accept it as is when is there. But we need some allocated times, we need some definitive times. And that just randomness of is going to happen when we reach those numbers. When it took others like Comcast a few years to get to those numbers and our children don't have those kind of years on their side. So I ask that you consider that, and I would like to really see that a more guaranteed build out is given to us. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Alexander Holt. Jack Kroll. Good evening. My name is Jack Kroll. Thank you for your time. I reside at 2307 Ivy Street. I'm here to speak in favor of this bill. I think it will improve the competition in our city. It will bring an upgrade to current. Communication infrastructure in certain areas as well, and over time to many more areas. And this is going to continue to make Denver a popular place to live for young people moving to the city. Speed and connectivity is everything in the 21st century. I mean, if you look at the closing of certain trading floors in Chicago. They just can't keep up with. The. Trading that's going on in other cities. And if we want to be a world class city, we're going to have to have Internet and communication technologies that allow us to do that. I had a friend recently moved to a new city and he chose the neighborhood where he was going to live based off of the connectivity of the Internet and the speed of which the Internet in that area. And that's going to ring true for people my age as they move to Denver. And we need to build a system that provides proper access and is attractive to people to move to. And finally, if we do not act, we will only continue to push people to less to forms of entertainment, video, entertainment that generate less revenue for the city. Right. If there's not competition. Comcast provides poor customer service. Young people are just going to seek their entertainment dollars and spend those elsewhere. And the city isn't going to get the 5% of the revenue that comes in when I go buy my Netflix subscription. Right. And so with all of that, I thank you very much for your time and I ask for your support on this measure. Thank you, Mr. Crowe. Brigitte Alexander. Good evening. My name is Brigitte Alexander. I am a mother of two, a college student and a high school student. And I live in the community of Montebello and I'm greatly concerned about the accessible currently proposed in this agreement between the the Century CenturyLink and the City Council. As a member of this community, which is, I wouldn't say poorer than some because I'm a hardworking citizen, but I probably have to work harder than some people. I want to know what's going to be done to ensure the services that will reach me and my children, who have the projects to do, who have research papers to do, who have these things to do, what's going to be done for this CenturyLink to reach us and when will it be done? I think that what I've heard in this presentation, presentation that I heard tonight is kind of unclear to me. It's kind of vague. It's not really telling me anything that I really need. So I'm asking you as my city council people, what are we going to do or what are you going to do, should I say, to help them serve the community that I live in? And when will be this? When will this be done? Thank you for your time. Bye bye. Thank you. Ms.. Alexander. Naomi Ramirez. Good evening, council members. My name is Noé Ramirez with a strategy. We're the largest privately held minority owned broadcaster in the U.S., and we ranked number three in Spanish media in the United States. I am for choice and for competition. Let's give people what they want to watch. Comcast uses market dominance to undercut competition and limit diversity in broadcasting. As of February 19th, we were forced off there, off of Comcast. And this happened in the Denver market, Houston market and Salt Lake City market. Are huge Hispanic markets. Houston number five in the market. Denver is 17th in the United States as far as the Hispanic population. This affects the Hispanic voice. We are a window of information and a win and a voice for the Hispanic community. And as this is happening, you know, we're Comcast is definitely limiting that voice and that window of information that we provide as a straight away. This is also affecting advertisers. Over 50% of our advertisers are minority owned, locally owned businesses. So, you know, I'm definitely pro-choice and pro pro competition. Definitely Comcast has put it has put its business interests ahead of the Hispanic community and consumer. This is a David versus Goliath scenario as straight straightaways live in this right now as we speak. And when there's no competition, you you don't give people choice. So I'm definitely food for choice and for competition. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Maria Ramirez. Reverend Zimmer. And as Reverend Dimon coming up, I'm going to call the last two speakers, Nancy Ulrich and Richard Schultz. You can make your way to the wrap. You and reverend dinner. You may begin your remarks. President Herndon and to all of the members of the city council, thank you for once again allowing me this opportunity to speak to you. I have spoke to you. I have written to you. I have urged you. I have strongly allowed my voice to be spoken concerning this. And I want it to be clear. For the record, I am not against CenturyLink. I am against the language and that which seems to be guiding the proposal that the city council is accepting. And I'm I'm disturbed. I'm very disturbed as some of the others that have spoken after speaking and really sharing my heart and after they they went back and they redid some of the contract language, they came back with things like significant and I'm not sure what significant means because when we talk about our T's remote terminals, that only will reach 500 residents. And most of your city council districts have at least 25,000 residents. How can you possibly think that 500 and adding one more. If you reach 27.5, adding one more or two more or three more will not make a difference. And we elected you to look out for the little person, the affluent, those that are wealthy, those that are in great communities. They don't need your representation. They do not need your protection. I am here because I represent the voice and the political voice of not only the NAACP, but also the Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance. And I'm a pastor in my community. And I want you I beg you to really consider what you are about to. Okay? It is great to have competition. I welcome it. I like the idea that if I don't want a McDonald's hamburger, I can go get a Burger King. I like the idea that if I do not want Comcast, I can go to CenturyLink. I like that. But I want you to hold anyone who comes into our community as responsible to every ethnicity, black or brown, as you did with Comcast. What's wrong with guaranteeing that you will reach a build out that will insure all people? Thank you. Thank you, Aaron Timmer, Nancy Ulrich. Good evening. I'm Nancy Elrick, and I live in Denver and District five. I'd like to. Start my comments by saying, by taking the opportunity to say. Thank you to each and every one of you, city council people. For all the time and. Effort you put in in your office. There's a major election this spring. And there will. Be new faces here in July of 15. But thank you. And I hope that some of your constituents. Thank you also. Now, as to this courtesy hearing. The only thing that concerns one of the things that. Concerns me is has the. Contract already been signed? I have already seen. Advertising by CenturyLink and I understood they would not advertise until this the contract was completed. This kind of makes this. Courtesy. Hearing unnecessary. But the bottom line is Denver at long last has cable. Another cable provider. And not only that, this because of this new service, the Communications Workers of America will be assured of jobs for for years to come. And, of course, jobs are good for Denver and what we need. I do have a concern. That that CenturyLink might start in affluent areas. The rules changed by the FCC in 2008 allow this second entrant. To have a different course. Than Comcast had. However. I think the leadership of CenturyLink cares. Loud and clear that the city will be. Watching them as time goes on. I'm wondering if the if CenturyLink will have. To report annually to City Council. For some years, Comcast did that. And there was a way for the public to come to a meeting and voice their concerns. And the the agreement, which I understand is ten years. Then what is spire ten years from now in the spring is that I understand that should be correct. I know that members. Of CenturyLink will. Meet with the staff of the city of Denver. And I think that's a very good thing. And I would also like. To hope that someone from the public at large would be able to attend those meetings to be kind of an overseer in that process. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Horwich. Richard Schutz. Hello. I'm Rick shoots. I live in the Flat Park neighborhood in Denver. Thank you for hearing me tonight. CenturyLink has been installing new fiber optic communication equipment in my neighborhood. The new equipment supports higher speed communication technologies, cable television, and makes CenturyLink more competitive with Comcast. We. As consumers usually come out ahead when there is competition. And I support this. I do. However, the installation has a lot to be desired. CenturyLink has chosen to put four or five separate boxes at some sites. The result is that each site has a standalone Excel Power meter, a fiber optic equipment box, a DSL box, and one or two patch panels. There's at least one of these sites within a four block radius of each other. Most of the time, these boxes end up in the utility right of way strip between the sidewalk and the street, which is often landscaped by the property owner. I think the installations look too industrial and out of place in our neighborhoods. Our neighborhood also has Comcast service, but I have never seen any of the Comcast equipment or if I did see the Comcast equipment, it did not look out of place or bad to me. So why can Comcast provide service and not trash out the neighborhood with their equipment? And CenturyLink does. Another problem with the CenturyLink infrastructure is it becomes a graffiti magnet that is never, ever, ever cleaned off by CenturyLink people. This really adds insult to injury. The neighborhoods really don't need industrial looking equipment covered in graffiti. The public right away. In the public right away. CenturyLink has all the rights but none of the responsibility. I would like to question if the right of way is the best place for this kind of equipment. This equipment's foothold or sorry, this equipment's footprint is increasing in size and the number of sites. In many cases, the public right of way is the front of the homes and therefore the front of the neighborhoods. But this equipment looks like something that belongs in the alleys. Placing CenturyLink equipment in the right away might have sounded like a good idea in the past, but after seeing the reality of this new implementation, I think it was a bad mistake. Can we have as part of the conversation with CenturyLink, how can their infrastructure be more compatible with neighborhood character and not look so industrial during permitting ? Can we have better oversight where this equipment is going to be placed? And finally, at a minimum, can we hold CenturyLink responsible to clean the graffiti off of their equipment? Thanks for listening to me, and thank you for your service to the city. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions from many members of council. Council councilmember. Well, thank you, Mr. President. We've had some good questions. And Mr. Campbell, would you like to come and address some of those specifically from the last two speakers, Nancy and Richard? And why don't you start with the last comments from Richard in terms of the equipment, the you know, the looks of it, the graffiti, etc.. Would you mind addressing. No. Councilman Brown. Of the equipment that we use is actually pretty similar to what the the incumbent uses and other utility providers. Obviously when we've we've been installing equipment in the public rights of way in the city county for a hundred years now. And we obviously have to comply with all of your right away rules and regulations. And and we do that every day. If there's an issue with a particular box that we've installed, we'd love to hear about that. We've been doing it for a long time. So I'm not sure, you know, what, what the scope of the graffiti issue is. Obviously, it's it's an issue throughout the city or not on our boxes, but on other people's as well. And we certainly try and work as hard as we can as a company to ensure that we minimize our impact on the right of away . The equipment. That you're currently installing in. Plant Park? Is that for phones? Phone service? It would be for both phone, internet. And then when we have the franchise agreement would be able to do for cable television as well. So I think all three services are going through those boxes. Okay. And then getting back to Nancy's concern, she asked a very basic question. No contract has been. Signed, right? No contract has been signed. With respect to the advertising. There probably is advertising on TV that residents of Denver and Aurora and other places we don't have a franchise are seeing. When you purchase advertising, you purchase it on what's called a DMA wide basis. So when we buy it, we're buying it for the city and county of Denver as a whole. So, yes, there are those places where you'll see we can't sell the product. I've actually seen the advertising as well. We just can't sell it until we get a franchise agreement. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. We had a lot of questions about this issue in committee and actually had asked that our city team and CenturyLink go back and try to define what ended up being language that speaks to significant. And I'd like to ask either David Broadwell or Frank Dayton to describe the process by which the city will look at how we're going to ensure that cherry picking of fluent neighborhoods does not happen and that we are looking at more equitable distribution or deployment of services that will be provided by CenturyLink across the city. Well, thank you for the question. I'll respond to the process. And then with regards to the words significant, I'll leave that to David Broadwell. So what the intent is in the language of the contract, we can request from CenturyLink on demand where their service availability exists and who they provide service to. What we would do at that point then is is to bring that information, that data into what we call our geospatial system, which is generation of maps. Those maps would overlay the footprint of service availability throughout the entire city and county of Denver down to the home level. But what we will do is we'll also put on underneath it is the median income above and below. So we'll flag that and go below median income. One color above the median income will be another color. And then we'll be able to see the percentage that's above and a percentage that is below. We will track that and we will monitor the trends as they continue to grow. We've done some reference checks throughout some other cities with regards to how they monitor and what they've seen and everything that CenturyLink had done thus far. They've exceeded by by an extreme amount. So so that's how we'll monitor it going forward. And then we've got those quarterly meetings. We'll also put this information out for the public to take a look at as well on our on our website. So if we get any feedback, we could take that and consider that as well when we discuss that with CenturyLink. Thank you. David, do you want to describe. I'll comment briefly. Again, David Broadwell, assistant city attorney, the negotiation. And let me just back up for a moment. Took place over the course of June, all the way up until now. So there have been months of negotiation, most of which is centered on this very issue in terms of how specific CenturyLink was willing to be, in terms of exactly where and exactly what rate its service deployment was going to be occurring. And what you see in the final product was the best results we could achieve in that negotiation. Which one of the speakers said it's the same as the other cities in the front range and it certainly is not. There are there are multiple differences in our service delivery provisions that vary quite a bit from some of the other communities, particularly just to the south. But at any rate, that the one of the last changes before bringing the bill forward to the floor today was this we were seeking all along geographic distribution, some element of geographic distribution so that we wouldn't have services being built from south to north as they were serving communities south of Denver. We certainly didn't want to see 20 or 30% penetration of the Denver market, all in South Denver. We wanted to see it spread around town, so that's in there. And then one of the last amendments was to say, and in the course of deployment, there has to be demonstrable, significant investment in lower income neighborhoods. The word significant is is admittedly subjective. It's not a specific, measurable performance standard where X numbers of households in Y numbers of lower income neighborhoods would have to be served. But it's. Not without meaning. The word significant is used in hundreds of state statutes and has been interpreted by the courts on a number of occasions to have a meaning which, as I explained in committee, means not token, not minimal, not trivial. It has to be something beyond just a token effort in terms of the deployment in the lower income neighborhoods. It has to be substantial and above some trivial or minimal level. Does it have to be a 50, 50, 50 type of a pure, exact equal parity? No, it just has to be something beyond minimal that we can actually see and perceive and address as Mr. de Noun indicated. One of the things we've done in our due diligence is just to get a sense for other communities like Colorado Springs and elsewhere in the western United States to get a sense for what this company's deployment has been. And we're encouraged that there doesn't appear to be cherry picking, there does appear to be broad geographic distribution in the other cities that they worked, and certainly above the level of what we would probably define a significant in terms of service to lower income neighborhoods as well as higher income neighborhoods. So I have one additional question, if I may, Mr. President, and this is to the companion Bill. It's actually companion in terms of timing in which it's been filed. It's actually the the ordinance that basically addresses the role that city the city plays in overseeing of cable TV franchise agreements. So, David, can you speak to what the. I'm looking at the language here. The second. The certain provisions that City Council would have involvement in reviewing and looking at with the committee that's going to look at the enforcement of the cable franchise. Yes. And at your direction and Councilwoman Rob's direction, we brought this forward at the same time to make sure formally in ordinance council will have a seat at the table in terms of overseeing compliance with all the performance standards in the franchise on an ongoing basis, but with a new specific reference to this issue. And that is fair, fair roll out of service to lower income neighborhoods as well as as any other neighborhood in town and no discrimination on the basis of income levels of a particular neighborhood. Up until a few years ago. We had an interesting situation in Denver where cable franchise administration was entirely under the city council, but it was moved out of your purview just a few years ago for different reasons and placed in technology services in the executive branch. And when we moved it over, we kind of said from now on, franchise enforcement will be an executive branch function. Now by virtue of the companion ordinance, you're reading it back a little bit in terms of adding some council involvement again and to sitting side by side with Mr. De Doan and with his department in terms of regular monitoring of the performance of the franchisees for franchise obligations. One of the speakers referred to a broader citizen involvement in that process that is not directly addressed in the ordinance. If you ever wanted to have more conversation with technology services about having some broader citizen oversight, I'll let Mr. De don't speak for himself about whether that's something that that he would entertain as to add even more transparency to the process. Thank you. I have no further questions at this time. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Kenney. Thank you, Mr. President. Several of my colleagues asked some of the questions that I had about the fairness, as well as council monitoring. But I wanted to dig in to some of the questions that folks had about the amount of build out. So there was a lot of concern expressed about the remote terminals, which only serve 400 to 500 households, but that's not the only provision requiring buildout. And so, Mr. Dayton, if you could please clarify, if CenturyLink only built it one remote terminal in each council district and they never met the 27.5% threshold, would they be satisfying the terms of this agreement and why not? What provisions are in play? There's another provision that says they need to cover at least 15% of the city and county of Denver as a whole. If you were to put and this is all obviously rough estimates, if you were to put one remote terminal in each district, that would only represent roughly 2%. So they would actually distribute another 13. So if I may just make sure I'm understanding that correctly. What that means is regardless of market penetration, they will need to build out to 15% of the customers households in this city by the time the two years are up. The first two years. You're correct. Okay. Thank you. The second question I had is for Jim. If you could come up so to Mr. Chutes, if I'm saying that correctly. I'm sorry, Mr. Schuetz, your questions I want to get you're kind of vague in your answer. And so here's what I wanted to do, is to ask you if you would commit to contacting or sharing information with each of our council offices, with the phone number where we would report any graffiti that's on your boxes and confirm that indeed there are personnel in your company or through a contractor that are assigned to graffiti abatement. And then if you could also just share with us what, if any, notification requirements you use for property owners so that we can all be informed of what cause, you know, people who are having a box put in that impacts their property, what notice they should be getting, who they will hear it from so that we can just make sure that we understand the procedures you're using. And if we get a complaint about graffiti, who we call so that we have not you know, we're not looking at the phone number in the white pages, but we have a maintenance office or some other point of responsibility to take those concerns. Would you be willing to get us that information between now and the next. Yes, vote on this? That would be very. That's in with respect to what our internal procedures are regarding graffiti, I'm going to be honest with you. I don't know. Understand. Get it? If you can get it set after tonight, give you a short time to dig into that. We will do that. And you can call me. That's all right. Thank you very much. Those are my questions, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Can each. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. Jim, you can come on up here. I'm a very competitive person, and so I love competition. I think it's really important that we have this, especially in business. But I also want folks to, you know, start off from the same playing field. And so I just want you to answer the question, why is it so tough? To commit to universal coverage for business. Councilman Brooks is a second entrant. Obviously, every subscriber we acquire currently has a relationship with someone else. I mean, to go back to 1984 when the incumbent first signed, that's their franchise at that time, first of all, franchises were actually exclusive between 84 and 92. So when they originally signed up, the federal law prohibited this city council from signing a franchise agreement with someone else. They eliminated that in 92. And there's still no any no competitive franchises in Denver. There was one for a short period of time with a small company. So as a second entrant in any market like this and I'll flip this to the telephone side, if I may, Councilman Brooks, when we had the monopoly, we served 100% of the market and they opened up our markets in 1996. At the time, competitive local exchange providers and cable companies entered the telephone market. And the first thing that they said, including predecessors of this incumbent, is we we can't agree to any build out because there's no second entrant that would ever commit to that type of capital upfront before you have a subscriber on the FCC. And every state commission agreed with them. They had zero buildout requirements. And now here we are eight years later, and competitive providers have taken over 75% of our market share. That same truth holds for the video side as a second entrant. We we as a company and we answer to our shareholders could never commit to a $500 million billion dollar build over a short period of time entering a market where there is an incumbent with a 40 year head start in a contract. And that's sort of the policy behind why we've done this. I would point out what Mr. de Doan said, and I think David alluded to it, even though we are agreeing to a smaller number initially, and I would point out that's in two years the South Denver franchises are three. So that's 44,000 homes we have to hit. We'll go beyond that. But to put it in a contract that where we're subject to penalties, where we're subject to franchise revocation and all the the bad things with go with breaching a contract, there's really no second entrant that's ever done that. Yeah. And so in your home market, you've never done a universal covered. Let me let me ask Mr. Duncan. Thanks, Jim. Appreciate it. I mean, if you think about nationwide, what we have and, you know, obviously there's new federal laws that prohibit us from from making certain businesses do certain commitments. But if you look, is there any other second entrant who's who's had universal coverage? Not that I'm aware of. Councilman Brooks, we've seen franchises, particularly back east, with another company, a different company, Verizon, where they have agreed to a universal service requirement over a period of seven or eight years. Often it's a is that there's a set time. They have to do it. But these are franchises we saw negotiated in the 070809 time period where at least that company in some locations has agreed to do it. But we don't know of another example of CenturyLink agreeing to do it in recent years. Okay. So so let me just clarify. This was 070809 with Verizon. But since 20 1314, there's been no other company who's done that. I'm afraid I'm going to be at a loss. I haven't kept up totally with everything exactly going on. I was talking to my counterparts in Portland just this past week, but I can't say comprehensively around the country in the last couple of years that the ones I've reviewed have tended to come from that time period a few years ago. David That's okay. You can't know every single thing, so you're, you're given permission. Okay. One one more quick question. And I think, Councilwoman, can each ask this question. But I just wanted to clarify this. The remote terminals. Jim, real quick, I. Don't need to go to the gym tonight. So, yeah, the remote terminals cover how many households? About 500 homes. Okay. For remote terminal, that's in about 500. Okay. So, yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Levitt. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to follow up on Mr. Schuetz question about the the placement of those terminals and or the the switch cabinets. And I'm looking around and Kevin Magner was here earlier, but he's no longer here. So maybe I'll just sort of throw this out. You know, you get rights to operate in the right of way and the ideal location for you might be dramatically suboptimal for nearby neighbors. Whereas a slightly less ideal location for you could actually be a dramatic improvement for neighbors. I don't know what the system is for establishing that. Do you guys just, you know, put in a permit to permit application? Here's where we want to. Is there any sort of thought or interaction with public works about, you know, where would be a better location, any dickering over those locations? You understand that dynamic on display? Councilman Everett, I do not mind. Okay. Well, it's slightly less good to put it there. That's fine. We'll do that. And that would make it a whole lot better for Mr. Schrute. We're not just, you know, helping him out. We're helping. No, I understood it. But Councilman Nevett, obviously, even though we do have access to the right away as as the traditional incumbent monopoly, we don't we can't really run around the right away and toss stuff in there without talking to your public works department. So the process we're following is yours. And so I imagine some locations get approved quicker than others. I'm sure I'm not speak for our network. I absolutely imagine there has been negotiations back and forth. Hey, can you put it here? Do you mind moving it here as a result of the notification? I mean, we've got lots of boxes out there, so I can't imagine there's been a time where the city hasn't said, can you move it in the right away? And I'm sure we've agreed to do that. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. Perfect. Segway from Councilman Nevitt. I actually like so many of our council districts, I imagine every district has dealt with boxes that were optimal locations in the right away. And what I learned in the last experience in my district is the city does not require permits for boxes under four feet in height , and your boxes are getting smaller, but the holes in the ground are getting deeper. So I do think it's something that the city's got to look to as well. And I think we have some work to do in the next week on that, because the last box that went in in my district should have been run by forestry, but it was under four feet high, even though it was a five feet hole in the ground and the damage to tree roots was substantial. Now, you guys were great in, came out and changed things, but it was sort of hard to put the roots back. Oh, hopefully the tree will live. So I think that Mr. Schuetz has raised a really good question and I think I'm supposed to be answering it, asking a question here. So let me let me just ask if you would be amenable to working with the city on the boxes that are under four feet high in terms of permitting. We we will work. With you any way we can. I absolutely, councilwoman. Okay. Thank you for that. And then secondly, it's amazing how much we can talk about this in committee. And certain questions don't come up until the public hearing. This is probably for Frank de Doan in our Comcast franchise, I believe we had auxiliary legislation about customer service standards. Do we have that same those same standards with CenturyLink? I believe they're identical. But I just heard David. Yes, the customer service standards were adopted by ordinance to be applicable to any cable service provider in Denver. That's why we. Don't have to present or future. But so they are applicable and they'll be physically attached to this franchise as an attachment. And they are identical for both companies if if this franchise is granted. Okay. And I ask this because I think in the most recent Comcast franchise, we stopped the annual hearings in. So that's not in it. But what is the route for a citizen to complain about service from whatever cable provider? What how does a citizen do that? There's today I don't know the number off the top of my head, but there's a number that they can call which comes to my agency. And then we contact whoever the vendor is and communicate with them. And then we follow up and make sure that the issues were addressed. And can they do that on the Internet as well as is there a place on the Denver gov site? I'm looking. For to saw the Denver gov so I can get that information. Again. And can you track the complaints or do you track the complaints so that council, if they wanted an annual report, could could get that from you? Absolutely. We tracked them all the way through resolution. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, counsel. And we're comfortable in the mantra. Thank you, Mr. President. Like like Councilwoman Robb. I'm concerned about the customer service. I recently called CenturyLink because I needed to get service, and it wasn't a great experience. So can you can you walk me through and assure me that because what you're saying is it's after the fact. You're talking about well, you know, if somebody complains, we'll follow it and things like that. But you're sitting here asking for us to vote on on this. And I worry about how people are going to be treated through that and how many you know, how much it's going to cost and how much you're going to be bumped around. And also the wait time for them to get the service should this go forward. QUESTION Thank you, counsel. And obviously, that's your primary goal as regulators to ensure that the customers receive a good experience in a competitive environment, which we're trying to substantially increase that in Denver. Most people now will have the ability to not walk, but maybe they'll walk with their feet as opposed to call in the city. They'll actually be able to call another provider is a competitive you know, we're entering we pass now over two and a half million homes. And as I said, every subscriber we pick up currently has a relationship with somebody else. So if our customer service isn't up to speed. Doesn't that mean. That means that means when they when the incumbent built in 1984, there were no cable subscribers, they were guaranteed every mile of plant they built. Everyone that subscribed is going to subscribe to them. Now we're entering a market where they've had a 40 year head start, so if our customer service isn't good, then it's not going to be really a city issue. We're not going to do very well in the market in a competitive marketplace, so it behooves us to have the best customer experience possible. Now that being said, I'd be happy to take offline what your experience was, if there's anything I can do to fix it, but it's incumbent upon us to do a good job. Of course it is like. Of course it is. But that doesn't always happen. And I you know, I would like I would like to hear, does it need to be. Well, if you can. I mean, I think people need to feel like when they call that, they're going to be treated special and that they're going to get the service that they that they want and not have to eventually complain and do that because people work so hard. And if they're on hold for a half hour waiting for service, you know that's not right either. So do you. And also the other question, so if you could tell me how that would work. And then also, will they be calling when they call? Are they calling locally or are they calling somewhere else in the United States. On new orders, on prisms? Some of those calls, the incoming calls will be local in nature. Again, all CWA jobs, you know, we have 17 million subscribers, the incoming, as you know, 35 million subscribers. We take pride in our customer service. Have we tripped up? I, I assume we have. And we do everything in our power to fix any problem that might exist, like any provider in the marketplace. But obviously, as I said, as we're entering this market, trying to get people to come to us from another provider if we don't. Do a good job. The market's going to speak and it's not going to be a city or a government issue. It's going to be a market issue. So so right now you don't. I've asked twice for a customer service. What will it be like when someone calls? What is good customer service to me? Well, according to the the guidelines, obviously, all calls have to be answered within 90%, within 30 seconds. Obviously, then our salespeople, if they're calling into order PRISM, I'm sure they're going to try and get them to bundle as much as they can. They're going to try and offer the higher speeds on the Internet, because the more products you have from a customer, if they're you know, if if we have a customer that has two products, the likelihood they stay with us for a longer period, it grows. So we're going to be offering, you know, I hope our representatives, we're telling them all the products and service we offer, the different pricing packages, the different levels, and. I don't know if that specifically answers your question. I mean, when somewhere every conversation with a customer service representative is a little bit different when people call in. But. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Ortega's okay if I go to Councilman Lopez since he hadn't had the. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I was going to ask you a question if you. I understand some of the worries about services in areas where there they're very low income. And I understand some of the questions now. My question would be is but understanding what the franchise agreement is saying and, you know, looking at these areas, I think the council over the last so many months has expressed some desire to see things leveled out. What has been and I know I heard this in committee, but if you can remind us what has been your work or team plan so so far, what you've been able to do, where you look at going, where you're planning on locating some of these services to kind of to equalize that access to that information, to make sure that there's terminals in areas that are not just affluent. What's been some of the work that you've been doing or how have you how are you planning on where do you know where you're going to put these things? I mean, sure. How do you know where you're going to put them? I think your question I think you asked in committee, what are the factors we look at when we were making our initial investment? Obviously, one of the first is when you start out and you build your beachhead, you want to find out network, that's the least costly to upgrade. So we're looking at in part of that is density. If you're going to spend $50 million, you'd rather cover 100,000 homes as opposed to 20. So one of the issues we look at is how many homes are within an area. The video market does very well in higher density areas where you have a lot of homes where you pass more that I kind of that increases your penetration rates does does. Is that likelier or more universally? The issue or not the issue the the result, whether it's lower income or higher income as is density. The I mean, I know that's a factor, but do you see a difference? No. Councilman Lopez, I actually don't. I mean, there are there are dense neighborhoods that cover the wide spectrum of socioeconomics in Denver. So, you know, a household as a household, we want to get access to as many subscribers we can. The whole issue of of redlining and cherry picking, I understand it. It is, Frank said I it's never the claims never been made against us. We've never engaged in it. Every city we've launched in, we've made a very significant investment below the median come after the Colorado Springs and other areas. So I understand the issue and I think frankly that Staff and City did a very good job during this negotiation process to try and alleviate that concern. And I think Mr. Broadwell said it. This agreement is in fact, different than any other agreement we've ever signed. Okay. And I think the last thing if I can, Mr. President, the last thing I asked, you know, some of the work that's been that you guys have been working on, things that you've been planning, what where do you see the gaps existing in Denver and where do you plan on? I mean, I know if there's you, you probably don't want to say everything because I guess, you know, there is such thing as competition and and your own competitive bids are competitive. And Mr. Dolan has his pencil out ready to write down the neighborhoods. So. So some of the work we've been doing, you saw we announced our gig deployment recently, which is which is an Internet deployment. We're very excited to come into the Villa Park neighborhood and the whole neighborhood as well, where we those subscribers are online today . And with that service, once we have the ability to sell the video, the ability to offer that to the home, those homes will be immediate in addition to the work we're doing to upgrade remote terminals. So. Okay. So where you went into the gig areas, the cable will almost be. The only thing that prohibits us from selling cable in the Villa Park neighborhood today is this agreement. We could sell it today. Because they're capable. Because of the game. Because? Well, because the Internet speeds. We've already done the work on the head end. Really. All the neat thing about Denver, as I said, we have no speed to market issues. Once we have the agreement, we can launch immediately. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega. I'd like to ask Frank to come back up to the microphone. Frank. I know that when you talked about. This franchise being virtually the same as Comcast, I'd like you to just speak briefly to how many of our pick, not the channels, but the organizations that received funding from the franchise still exist. It's my recollection that we still have DPS, Terraria, Denver Open Media. Is there another area. As of right now that in Denver Media Services? Okay. And can you just describe how franchise fees from this from CenturyLink will actually help support those as well? Sure. Well, I mean, it's it's a fee of $1.05 per month per customer. It'll it'll be remained to see how much revenue that generates to distribute to those different groups. However, there is one slight difference that maybe David could explain with regards to multi units and how that works. But for the most part, I mean, it's still going to be distributed the same way and it will. It remains to be seen how much revenue actually drives. The one main difference is that the peg fee under the CenturyLink proposal would, in a congregate living situation like an apartment, house and so forth, be multiplied by the number of units as opposed to being charged one time 105 per month as it is under the Comcast franchise. But let me illuminate a little bit more Frank's previous point, which is it's hard to calculate how much additional revenue a major may generate because there's question is if CenturyLink gains a customer, will Comcast lose the customer? Right. And so whether or not there will overall be more video customers paying higher and paying more, claiming accumulative fees. It's very speculative at this point because we haven't been in this sort of competitive environment historically. Who knows how it's all going to shake out? Well, that may depend on how affordable the rates are. That might entice more customers that don't exist today at all. Would you address whether or not the previous position that was held by Darren Silk is going to be replaced so that as there are complaints that need to follow, these standards are being addressed that there is a point person or do you already have a point person who handles any of the cable franchise issues that come through? Actually. So it's. Thank you for that question. The actual position that Darren Saki held will not be replaced. The functions have already been distributed. So Julie Martinez is now the acting director of Denver Media Services and she'll manage that. Those inbound customer service requests and also the fee agreements with those other organizations like Denver Open Media Services. The other part that we actually incorporated under under my Spanish Control, we have a governance and compliance group that's run by Steven Corey. He's our chief information security officer. And there is an actual auditor that sits within several auditors, actually, that sit within his group, but one specifically that's dedicated to a franchise agreement, monitoring it and doing all the data analysis to ensure that. And what that does as well is it also kind of separates the two functions. So Denver Media Services actually benefits from the cable peg fees. So I wanted to ensure that there was some kind of outside oversight that was managing that to ensure that, you know, everything was being distributed equitably. So have you thought about how council plays a role in working with the IT department in monitoring the compliance? Quite honestly, I welcome it just like I do with any other technology, you know, initiatives that we have. You know, I know there's the, you know, the ordinance that's out there right now, the change in, you know, I supported 100% of your feedback is absolutely invaluable. You understand what's going on on the ground, on the ground in your and your districts. You know, I understand technology and that's that's really, you know, my area of expertize. Thank you. And I just have one last question for David. We've had some concerns expressed that Denver didn't go far enough with the work that we did on this franchise. And I would just like you to help council understand if we would even be in a position to oppose this franchise. So can you just speak to that in general? Well, the short answer is you could oppose it if you voted down if you choose to, and send us back to the drawing board for more negotiations. You have the option to do that. How much is too much? We were talking about subjectivity a while ago. The federal law says we're in a competitive franchise. He wants to come in. Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. So what is unreasonable? What would be terms that would be unreasonable? And so there's a whole range of choices in terms of how hard a bargain you may try to to drive before you say no or where you where you draw the line and so on and so forth. So the much longer answer is, who knows? You know, in terms of whether or not there's more to be gained from this deal, the thing that, you know, is implicit in everything we've been talking about here tonight is that a franchise ordinance is different from any other kind of ordinance where further ordinance says you can drive the deal. You can you can pass a law forcing people to comply with it. But this is a negotiation. It's a contract as well as being an ordinance. And as such, you have to have willing parties on both sides. And this is the best deal that we could get to as of this point and is presented to you for your action. If you were to oppose it and articulate a different way to go, that might just send us back to the table. So I do have one last question. This is for Mr. Campbell. I wanted you to clarify. If our negotiating team had asked you to look at anything other than what is on the table today. We had a brief conversation after the last committee. Yes, we did. We saw some language. I don't remember it word for word that sort of had a one for one or sort of had some capital requirements in it. And we instead came to the agreement what we'd agreed to in another franchise, which is the significant language. So we had seen language I don't remember the exact wording, Councilman, but it had some sort of one for one capital requirement that said, if you build one here, you have to build one there. And we we we you agreed to the significant portion. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other questions? Scene nine public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. I didn't have any questions because I've gone to all the meetings and really given this a lot of thought. And I do appreciate the people who came tonight. They were very succinct and raised very good points on both sides of the issue. Like all of them said, they appreciate competition. And I believe competition is a very, very beautiful word. And I'd like for Denver to have it for cable TV. Our proving our predecessors, the previous council members set up cable franchises as non-exclusive in the period that I can remember. You may go back Father wisely. They wanted and expected other companies to enter the competitive arena under basically the same rules. Unfortunately, that's not what we have in front of us today in this CenturyLink franchise. It's a tortured agreement and a long way from what those previous councils envisioned. The key issue is buildout or lack thereof. I'd feel far better if I could go back to my area and say yes. Here's a small area that will get. The CenturyLink franchise opportunity to have some competition. You guys across the street, you guys down the blocks. I don't know if you'll ever get it. I agreed to something that I don't know if you'll ever benefit from or not. Just don't know. And that is comfort comfortable to me. Government should foster a level playing field. That also is the concept the voters approved in all Comcast or other iterations of the the Comcast history franchises that they were allowed to vote on per the city charter. Now, a number of things have changed. Apparently a Boulder court case, which is last time I look, is not a decision from the Supreme Court. And so therefore not definitive. And federal legislation has led our legal team to advise us that a level playing field is no longer a viable requirement. As much as I respect our legal advisors and I truly do. Other parts of the company have followed government not picking winners and losers. One was just referenced. Philadelphia, that's the eastern city that I remember, was given a franchise to a second entrant that follows all the principles of a level playing field. The entrant was just given more time to get to the final goal of build out, which I consider to be a very reasonable accommodation and would have been jumping up and down if that had been the agreement. One of the most troubling changes our legal team recommends loses me completely. However, it flies in the face of an oath I took when I was sworn into office to follow the city charter. The charter requires a public vote to grant cable franchises. If that is no longer viable based on our legal team, Denver should have asked the voters to change that charter provision when we made other charter changes in 2012. Despite my suggestion then, there were no takers then or now. Now we have a new franchise request to grant a much sweeter deal on build out and the voters are cut out of the decision making completely. Especially where the deal being offered isn't the same as the one offered to the previous provider. The voters should have a say. As so often happens, I may stand alone on this particular concern, but the inequity of this deal. And the circumvention of voter approval required by the city charter lead me to cast a no vote tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thoughts, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, seven years on this council, I think, you know, we did. See, we're able to look at these agreements. And the first one where I think I'm fortunate enough to be able to see this process and to see a new company come into the market and create this competition, you know? You know, first of all, I just wanted to commend our council president, Chris Herndon, for representing the council on our behalf in the negotiations. But being able to really look at the franchise agreement, we want to really understand this is very new. This is new to a lot of us. You weren't around the first time mile high cable in and when it went into the works. I am I shared a lot of the same concerns. I do share a lot of concerns, same concerns that some of the folks that Reverend Denver and Reverend Denver. That's your new nickname. Now, Reverend Demmer shares. I do. I come from Westwood. I come from an area where I think there was a few areas where we were completely blacked out cable. And the only way you can get it as humanely crawl up that tower and do it yourself, which a lot of people used to do , but long gone are those days. I could tell you that right on my block off of Sixth and Knox in that area, I was in the alley throwing the trash one day and I saw a truck come by. Installing what he was saying was new Internet. And I had been living in this neighborhood for a while. I lived throughout the district. But the neighborhood, he was installing this Internet. It was a villa park. And the fact that they were already there. Installing this gig service. Now I know that in a lot of the neighborhoods I represent Villa Park struggles. And I don't like to say one more than the other, but it really does. And so it made me smile, knowing that they have access to this Internet now. Had nothing to do with the councilman living there, had nothing to do with anything except for the fact that it was an area that they recognized and needed the service. I'm happy to see it going. And, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole neighborhood and neighborhoods to the south, although also share into it, because now that there's this infrastructure there, I know it's going to grow. What's around that area? Sun Valley Avenue. Westwood, Barnum, Valverde, some of the poorer areas in my district. And I know that competition will help. It helps the consumer. It helps folks have access to information that they need to. You know, we've been working diligently with the emergency broadcast system to make sure it's in Spanish. Now, I know it's going to be in Spanish no matter where who you order your cable with. Right. It's going to be broadcasted. I know that. You know, I've seen CenturyLink and some of the areas of my district. You know, not only support the organizations in the district, but also open up new new infrastructure banking service. So, you know, I do have you know, do I think it's going to happen overnight? Absolutely not. Do I think it's going to be completely universal? Absolutely not. But I think we'll get close. And I think I feel I absolutely feel pretty confident with this agreement because I know I'm not the only council district that has folks who are struggling. And I know that this agreement speaks to other council districts. And I have already seen presence in the east side with this infrastructure. So, you know, I wanted to, you know, just on the cable side, thank you for your work and thank you for prioritizing that area town that helps me be able to look at this agreement and say, okay. I think that there's a good track record here and I'm going to cast my vote yes for it. And also because I know there's a lot of workers out there that are installing this and those are good union jobs. And I got to say, thank you for that as well, too. Those jobs are jobs that are forever. People retiring from those jobs have health care from those jobs. And I know that there's a knocking on doors. I do see a lot of your employees in my district. And so, you know, I'm a yes vote tonight and I'll be a yes vote for this franchise agreement the next time it's up. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman, can each. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to start by just thanking a number of my colleagues. This contract has taken a lot of input from this council, starting with Councilman Herndon. You know, there is not many other, if any models where you have a per council district build out. And I know that that was the result of his representation and coming back and forth for feedback from us during the negotiations. Councilwoman Ortega and Councilwoman Robb making sure that council had a role in the monitoring and the implementation of this agreement. That bill, which was, you know, really conceived of two or three weeks ago and is now being we actually council but 151 which we voted on in the block votes earlier tonight. Councilman Nevett, you know, although an unrelated issue, the question of right away and, you know, taking things wires off poles and burying them unrelated to this franchise but, you know, connected to this company. And so, you know, anyone who thinks that there hasn't been pushing on this particular contract, you know, one may not be aware or two just hasn't been able to follow the detail. There has been a number of ways that this council and the colleagues I've named and probably others that I may not just be aware of have impacted this. So I just want to say thank you to my colleagues for that representation in terms of the agreement. You know, one thing I think that both these providers are incumbent and our new entering have in common is, you know, I've had less than joyous customer service experiences with both of you as well as with most other companies. I have to call on the phone these days. I mean, it is really. And so I do I share Councilwoman Montero's concern. I hope everyone ups their game. People do still need to talk to human beings. You cannot do complicated transactions through Internet chat rooms. And so I do hope that training standards go up, not just stay the same, but go up for each of these companies. And I do hope that the competition, you know, results in better trained, more responsive, more experienced employees, because I don't think that those employees aren't trying hard. I think that they're new. They may be turning over too quickly. They may not have enough time trained before they're taking calls. I don't know what the problem is, but I do think that, you know, that that whole standard is an area that I hope that we monitor closely for all of our providers. In terms of this question of, you know, I share that customer service is one area of competition, but you know that for me, the fundamental vote on this on this agreement comes down to the question of whether I can deny anyone in the city competition because I can't guarantee it for everyone. I'm having to say that again because it's kind of counterintuitive. But if I said no to this agreement because I can't ensure that every single person in Denver will have a choice, I will be preventing any resident. In Denver from having a choice because there is no other company currently asking to provide services in Denver. And this is a really important point. If I were legislating an ordinance about the kind of service provision and the kind of build out requirements that I wanted, I would do what Councilman Fox has suggested. I would write an ordinance that said you should provide service to every single resident of Denver. But this is not an ordinance. It's a contract. I have to have agreement from another party. And so that is a factor in the kinds of things that I can deliver to my constituents and in terms of the kinds of things that I can deliver to the city. And so for me, the question isn't, could I write a perfect requirement? I'm sure I could. And I also believe that based on my team of city staff and my council president spending a year, maybe more than a year in these negotiations, I, I don't think that would result in provision of any service in Denver, because I don't know that I would have a provider who would agree to that. And that is a requirement in this situation. I can't require something unless there is an agreement because this is a contract. So that to me is the fundamental point on which I have to make my decision. And so I believe that we have pushed I believe that my colleagues have advocated. I believe that we do have mechanisms to hold this provider accountable. And I, for one, being a little bit of a data obsessed person, will be checking on the overlays and will be, you know, calling constituents and making sure that we have that accountability if we run into any discrimination related to income. So with that, I believe that it's our obligation to open the doors to some competition, even if it's imperfect. And I will be supporting this agreement tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman and Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to thank all of the speakers who are here tonight, particularly those who also came to our committee and shared their thoughts on all sides on this issue, as well as letters that we received forever in Denver. I know you wrote to us on several occasions and thank you for that input because I think that input helped ensure that we were looking at all the key points that we needed to be looking at in this process. I want to say thank you to our negotiating team that acted on the city's behalf. Would we like to see the build out more closely defined? Yeah, I think we all would. But again, I think our team advocated for the very best language that they could get agreed to. As Councilwoman Cannick just spoke about, I'm comforted by what I am hearing from our team and what we've heard from CenturyLink on what's actually happening on the ground in terms of the commitments that were made and where they're exceeding them. In many of our neighboring communities, where they're doing the build out of a franchise agreement. In the past I've sat on a couple of negotiating teams or rounds, I should say, for the CenturyLink contract. I mean, for the Comcast contract. And, you know, as as we were going through this process, I was, you know, recollecting all of those different areas that we were able to get agreed to by Comcast. And 99% of those issues were incorporated into this particular franchise. And so, again, we know that the sticking point was that 1% it was on on the build out and how how we were going to see that happen. I think with the additional language that we added to this agreement that came back to committee before this bill was filed, it helps ensure that the work that's going to be done by Mr. Dayton's team, along with the input from City Council, which by the way now will not just be on this franchise, it will also be on the Comcast franchise because it's related to the overall governing ordinance of cable TV franchise agreements. So I believe that we've got the the best deal that we've been able to work out. I'm comforted by the fact that CenturyLink does have good paying jobs for people who are union members. I think that's important for folks in our city who are dealing with increasing prices of housing to be able to afford to live in this city. And basically, I also want to thank CenturyLink when when this issue came to committee, we asked you to go out and hold at least one. A public hearing and you held two of them on the same day to ensure that we had some additional input from the public. So I appreciate that extra effort that you put into this. So I will be supporting this franchise agreement tonight. And just again, thanks to all who were involved in in bringing this forward and making it happen and looking forward to the competition. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody also for coming out tonight. I'm very I'm very conflicted about my vote on this tonight. The issue of significance was brought up by a couple of speakers that are here this evening, and that was explained by our city attorney. And I get that I'm not clear yet that significant applies to a high standard of customer service. And I want to I'm going to abstain tonight because I really I agree with Council Councilwoman Kennish about everybody needing to up their game. And my experience with Comcast was in that grade. Either it was, you know, but what is that saying? That saying that we what are the standards of customer service? And right now, I don't see any significant, compelling, wonderful, proactive customer service tonight. And I want to. Give you a time to tell me what that is. And we are on first reading tonight on public hearing. And I just want you to understand that I feel very strongly about that because people work very, very hard for their money. And and I believe that when people call that, they should be treated with dignity. They should be treated with promptness, they should be treated with respect and not bumped around. I don't think that's a lot to ask for people when they call. And I and I think that generally my feeling is when I call is I feel like I'm a victim instead of a like a prized customer. And I worry about customer service. And I just want to give you the time if you want to sit down and talk with me, because it didn't really come through clearly. And if any company, regardless of competition, blah, blah, blah, if they can't pick up the phone or when somebody calls in, they can't even do that part. Right. What's the point that the the driving force behind quality service is how you treat the people that call. And so let's have that conversation. And I just want to understand that tonight. The best I can do is abstain. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Monteiro. Any other comments on Council Bill 83? You know, I will simply add, I sincerely appreciate my council members are complimenting me for the role I had in negotiating team, but I want to compliment them because before I, I sat down with the team, I reached out to each of them and said what was important to you for you to see? And I appreciate all their comments. The vast differences that we had. So I had an understanding of how I could better represent council at the table. So I want to one thank them. I want to thank Frank Dayton and his team for the work they did as well as David Broadwell who was a part of that and CenturyLink. We've been at this for a while and to to say where we started at and where we are now are two very different points. And so I think it's worth noting, I appreciate their willingness to understand what our position was as a city and why it was important to that, because I think that is certainly worth noting. You know, we can complain about the law in regards to build out for a second entrance, but that is the law. And I don't think we should it's not something that we can be taken lightly, tends to apply the same standard when we know that we cannot. That's unfair to CenturyLink or any future entrant to to say we want the same thing that the initial interim had. When the law specifically tells us that that's something we cannot not do. I believe that the proposal before us, the franchise, does take equity into account, not in the form of a full build out, but the specifications that we are asking of CenturyLink are I definitely think are substantive. And the fact that we've noticed that any previous franchise before CenturyLink has gone above and beyond. So to think that for whatever reason they would do something different in Denver, I have not understood why people would think that. That's someone who represents far northeast with the largest city council district currently. There should be some concerns about one R.T. in each district. But I want to note that this is with the new council districts where the equity of population is equal, not the way that it is currently right now. And as Councilwoman Candace noted, you know, they just hit one R.T. and each of those district, they would be well below that threshold that they are required to hit. And so I think that's another that's another point. We have to ensure that there will be some distribution throughout all spectrums when it comes to income and other. So this is something that I feel is worth moving forward, and I would encourage my colleagues to do so. Madam Secretary, roll call. Ortega Hi. Rob. I Sheppard I Susman Brooks Brown by Fox. No. Can each i laman Lopez Hi, Monteiro Nevitt. Hi. Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close the vote and announce the results. Ten Eyes one no and one abstention. Tonight one no. One abstention. Council Bill 83 has been ordered published one pre a German announcement. The policy agenda stated on a monday, March 23rd, 2015. There will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 117, amending the Weldon Street Commercial Corridor Cultural District as a district for preservation. However, it had been determined that a public hearing is not required on Council Bill 117 related to the One Street Commercial Corridor Cultural District, because the area encompassed by the historic district is not changing. The bill only changes. The name of the historic district amends the period of significance for this historic district and adds two contributing structures to the historic district. So there will not be a required public hearing and seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Denver 365 is always available to show you the complete variety and scope of cultural, sporting, historic and family events offered in Denver and Colorado. Visit.

Recommendation to receive and file the MacArthur Park Vision Plan; Adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to allow the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust (LANLT), on behalf of the City of Long Beach, to submit a grant application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, for the first phase of the MacArthur Park Vision Plan Implementation Project; accept said grant, if awarded, in an amount of $8,500,000 in Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program funding; execute all documents necessary to accept the funds; negotiate and execute a Turn-Key Agreement with LANLT for the development of MacArthur Park improvements; and Accept Statutory Exemption SE-19-159. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_07162019_19-0688

So why don't we do that next, which is item 37, if we can get the court to read that? Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine Public Works. Recommendation to receive and file the MacArthur Park Vision Plan. Adopt a resolution to submit a grant application to the California Department of Parks, Recreation and Recreation for the first phase of the MacArthur Park Vision Plan Implementation Project. Except, said Grant, if awarded in an amount of 8,500,000 District six. Well, thank you. Let me turn this over to Vice Mayor Andrus. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I would actually. I'm sorry. Vice Mayor. Mr. Modica, do we have a staff report first? Yes, we do. The we have our parks. Our Parks Rec, a marine director here at the moment, and also bureau manager Meredith Reynolds. If one of you guys could present the presentation, this is a real exciting opportunity. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. Member City Council. We're very excited this evening to put before you the MacArthur Park vision plan. This is a project that is been part of a community process, an inclusive and multilingual community process to identify the vision for MacArthur Park, which has not had a vision plan in the past. In your packet you have the full vision plan, but just wanted to highlight a few things as we move toward this grant application and the process that was done began in January and is sitting here with you all this evening. I included some significant site analysis, park audit, walk, audit, several community workshops in partnership with the L.A. Neighborhood Land Trust, AOC, seven and Friends of MacArthur Park and City Fabric. Many of who are here this evening and through this process, we were able to identify ideas from the community that turned into prioritized ideas that turned into and coalesced around a vision plan for MacArthur. This timing was very important. I in particular, because there is an opportunity for some grant funding, some state grant funding through Proposition 68, the State Park Fund, which is due in the beginning of August, and allows for us to ask for $8.5 million to build out the first phase of that vision plan. In particular, some of the amenities of the community identified as priorities were walking path and fitness loop around the park and some expanded programmatic areas adjacent to gamba with theater connecting the building online cultural center to gumbo theater with some new area for program programing, restrooms and a lobby, an expanded playground, a relocated court, and some reconfigured parking that adds some additional actual park space to the park. So there are a handful of really great things that are included in this plan in particular, and in your packet you have that map of the concept as well as some cost estimates, next steps. And for the community, this was something that was very important that they were able to have a lot of ownership over in terms of identifying what was important to them. So if I can have all of our partners stand up, our superheroes from MacArthur Park are here. Thank you for being here this evening. They may opt to speak with you, but with that, that concludes staff's report. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you. Let me turn this over to Vice Mayor Andrews. Thank you, Mayor. I first before we get started, I just want to first congratulate and let everyone know who was involved in this process. You know, the SATs that you came out and really put a lot of effort and energy into this. And I think through all of that, we were able to come up with is, I think, an excellent plan. It's going to really benefit, you know, MacArthur's Park. So by that, I just want to thank Mr. Myatt and the planning team at the Parks and Recreation and Marine for their diligent work in bringing this vision plan to us. When we started this discussion last year, we hoped that we could come up with a good plan but make others part, and they have crafted one that exceeds all of our expectations. Of course, they did not do this by themselves. The community came forward and was an active part of the planning process. And I want to thank the Friends of MacArthur Park and the AOC seven for their participation. And they are here tonight dressed in blue, as I am myself, to show support to the park and its future. I would also like to thank Alex and the team at the City of Fabrics. I attended that. I attended their engagement and meetings were impressive by their professionalism and the ability to get people involved as we go forward and apply for the grant funding. I have the utmost confidence in the L.A. Neighborhood Land Trust and their abilities to make this vision a reality. And I ask my colleagues for their support on this item. Thank you guys very much for being here today. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Pierce. Well, I want to say congratulations to getting to this point. AOC seven. I get to share some in my district and you guys are a model neighborhood association and you consistently fight for your neighborhood. You fight to get grants, you consistently fight to make sure that you get every crosswalk that you deserve. And I'm so proud that I get to have some sharing of that with you guys. While this park is not in my district, I know that everyone has worked really hard on it and we need to improve our park system as much as we can not only expanding greenspace, but making sure that there's ample space for everybody of every ability to come and enjoy that park. So congratulations on the partnership and congratulations to to District six for getting this point wholeheartedly. Support this. Thank you. Thank you. Let's do public comment. If you're here for public comment on this item, please come forward. Yeah. I'm going to go ahead and close the speakers list. One, two, three, four, five speakers. And the speakers list is closed. All right. Whenever you're ready. Oh, Silva. They made Garcia an honorable city council members. My name is read out loud. I am a resident of Not Long Beach. I am the graduate of UCI this year in public health policy. I am here in front of you tonight to voice my absolute support for the master plan of improving MacArthur Park in the Sixth District. Even though I am living in Long Beach, I got involved a lot in the sixth District, such as chair planning, neighborhood cleanup, attending many AOC, seven meetings and other city events. With all this involvement, I really pay close attention to MacArthur Park. This neighborhood park is in a center of diverse communities, not just only the Cambodian community. A lot of children are living around this park and they need to get out of their houses to play and spend their time in the park after school hours and on the weekend. However, the environment and the aspect of the park are not well equipped to fit the children needs. We love to see our children grow in a safe and healthy environment so they can have a strong and healthy physical and mental growth because it will lead to their success in their school academic achievement become healthy, happy and productive at all. I am asking for Mayor Garcia and all of the City Council support for this matter, for our community and our children of the sixth District. Thank you. She will have something to say in camera. And I also translate her in English. So I'm committed to all loop. So I crank up location and look at the architecture architectural walk right from my nose and got the emoji. Hi. I'm lonely. Arms up. I'm waiting. Am I on your room? Canoga bottom. I know much of what I know, Paul. No, no, no, no, no. Paul. How I do it, I'm told. Hi, Nick. I'm doing them all by. Yeah, I know. AOC. Then pretty many don't make your stride in your own control. I'm below yous on cap, Robert Carson and lo yo. I look so I could look you like Garcia. And look, I was captain or John Walker. Look, all I know, pop art, pop like normal people. Morgan, he's a hack. Then go out there, run like Nelson got deep and whinny me in the circle. People are me and Captain. Follow me and call me Jack or Ryan so you can monkey with him. So I'll go along with Michael Garcia. I mean, look, Johnson got bigger, so right now we translate. She said, Hello, Mayor Garcia and Honorable City Council member. My name is right from. I am the resident in the district and I've been living in Long Beach for 39 years. I've been involved in many events such as beach cleanup, neighborhood cleanup, street cleanup, strip tree planning, and attend many AOC seven events. I support Mayor Garcia and the Honorable City Councils for the Master Plan of improving MacArthur Park in District six. For our community and the children who live in this street and to improve their physical and mental health in order to achieve a higher level of education. Uh, thank you, Mayor Garcia and the council members. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and City Council. My name is Mary Simmons. I'm super excited to be here. This is like a dream come true for me. Although I've been advocating for MacArthur Park for a number of years now, but in the last year, working on this vision plan with Parks and Rec, Meredith City Fabric, the Land, Neighborhood Land Trust and Vice Mayor's Office, it's been amazing. So I'm here just to make it short and sweet and to say, please receive and file this vision plan for MacArthur Park. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Speaker, please. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm in a cry. You made me cry. Sorry. Good afternoon or good evening. City Council members and mayor. My name is Lucille Torres. I'm a lifelong, lifelong, lifelong Long Beach resident, a parent and educator and AOC seven board member. I'm here to advocate for the MacArthur Park Vision Plan. As a child, I was fortunate to be able to walk safely to MacArthur Park with my brothers and sisters. Summer lunch and play on the rocket ship. Yes, this was my perk for my entire life. However, today I'm here as a co-chair of Friends of MacArthur Park, representing the neighbors that surround our park. Our journey to improve our park began seven years ago, first advocating for homeland facility improvements. Later, we collaborate with Sixth District to renovate our playground. Both improvements have had a positive impact on our community. Nevertheless, we knew that MacArthur Park needed more to become a central location for our neighborhood gatherings, a place to advocate for our residents health, fitness, and a place to program. To program. To program. To offer to all all ages. All ages. Sorry about that. So we continue our journey to improve our park. Researching, grants, calling, emailing. We found the Trust for Public Land, which inspired us to seek funding and resources within our community. This is truly a grassroots effort by encouraging one neighbor at a time to share their vision for a new and improved MacArthur Park. Friends of MacArthur Park walk the surrounding areas of MacArthur Park, passing out fliers, listening to neighbors concerns, developing solutions. Collaboration is a key component of friends, a MacArthur Park collaboration with neighbors, collaboration with neighborhood nonprofits, associations in our area. My Parents Association Midtown Bid My Town Inc, UCC and AOC. Seven Parks and Playgrounds are the souls of our cities and we need to treat them as such, nourish our parks, and create inclusive, plowed playgrounds for all our children that play friends in MacArthur Park, or continue advocating for more funding and collaborating with our hidden for our hidden gem, which is MacArthur Park. Please approve our vision plan in order to ensure a positive future for MacArthur Park and create a safer community for all. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good evening again. Mayor and city councilor Ailsa Chang with the Long Beach Forward. I just want to stand in strong solidarity with all of the MacArthur Park neighbors and stakeholders. And it's personally gratifying for me as a former staff member and advocate of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust to see this vision plan come to fruition. I think it just underscores the value of community based and community driven planning and development. This this is what inclusive and this is what equitable development looks like, especially in neighborhoods that face disproportionate and negative land use impacts and fewer infrastructure investments. So again, just very excited to stand in solidarity with my colleagues today in favor of the MacArthur Park vision plan. Thank you. Thank you so much. And the last speaker comes first. Good evening, Mayor. City Council, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Citizen and I am the chair of Cambodia town ing. Tonight, my boards and I are here to support the MacArthur Park Vision Plan. It will provide new walking trails that encourage healthy outdoor exercise, which help to decrease obesity and other adverse mental health impacts in our community . It will also provide the community an opportunity to experience open space and recreation. In the past three years, Cambodia count ING had to move our annual culture festival from MacArthur Park into the parking lot of the Mark Twain Library. Because the park was so either so dusty or muddy. We support the MacArthur Park region plan to include more grass, tree, a playground and outside stage. We are looking forward to more the annual Cambodia Town Culture Festival back to the park. We also hope to bring back the Cambodia Town Parade in April 2020. Therefore, we would like to request the Mayor and member of the City Council to approve the MacArthur Park vision plan tonight. Thank you. Thank you so much. That concludes public comment. We have a motion and a second on the floor. I just want to add, I thought having looked at this plan, I think the community's had a really great job. Obviously, there's a lot of community love for the park. I think, Vice Mayor, I know you've kept me in the loop in our office and the plan itself, you can tell, is very thoughtful. And so I just want to congratulate all the stakeholders and the neighbors, the folks that were involved on that on the planning side and the and the organizing side. So now it's all about implementation and the next steps, but excellent job by the community. So congratulations. And with that members, we're going to catch our votes. I also will note that Councilman Price is on the line. And so I will we will be doing roll call and she should be joining us. So roll call, please. District two. District three. I District. Four. All right. District five. District six. Right. Seven. I. Eight. And nine motion carries. Thank you graduations to the community. Okay. We had we are now going on to we have a couple more items here. Let's we're going to do public comment. Mr. Goodhew and then Paul Workman and then Andy, I believe it's passage of I apologize if I mispronounced it.

Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease with Power Engineering Construction Company for Building 166 located at 1501 Viking Street, Suite 200 at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC_10062015_2015-2067

Six G Introduction of ordinance approving at least and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease. Our engineering construction company for Building 166, located at 1501 Viking Street, Suite 200 point. Power Engineering has been a tenant at Alameda Point since 2005. We think that this is they've been a very good steward of our property, a very good tenant. They provide great jobs, union jobs. They do super creative projects around the Bay Area, including the reconstruction of the pier where the Exploratorium is. They've been a great resource to the city, providing technical expertize and reviewing and doing peer reviews of different engineering studies gratis. And they've just been really a pleasure to work with and a great tenant. And so we hope that you would reconsider the renewal of this lease in memory. Just a point of clarification, Miss Marcano. The only reason that they've been on a month to month lease since 2010 is, if you'll recall, that there was a time when we were entertaining the notion of, well, we were being considered by Lawrence Livermore Labs as an expansion area. And so that was a part of the area. But other than that, I mean, that's the only reason they're in month, month. And I would wholeheartedly support the introduction of this ordinance. And if I may, I'll move the approval at another. You can make your motion and then you can ask this question. Okay. So the question that I have is, whatever we do with site B, this is within it, right? So that so that they would. So we have to work site B around. I think the plan is that we would work around power engineering because they are such a great tenant, an asset to us. Initially we had talked about moving them to Building 167, which is in the Tidelands and the old Nelson Marine site. However, it just didn't pencil out for them to have to do all the upgrades in that building that they have already done in 166. So I think in concession for them upgrading Building 166, which you if you drive by, you'll see they completely repainted it. They've put new windows in that we would consider a carve out way. Let me ask this question then. But because they are part of site B and this was probably going to be all part of the site B discussion because they're part of site B in site B has them associated infrastructure costs as well as associated costs for the ferry terminal and the sports complex. Is the lease include covering their share of the cost? The lease would be subject to all of the fees that we are assessing to all of the end users out there. So the the CDF fee and eventually if we put an assessment district over the property, the tenant has to comply with them. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? And I would just comment that I've been out to the building. It is a pretty amazing operation that's been out there and I don't think I specified, but I was moving that we approved the introduction of the ordinance approving lease and authorizing the city. Is that the right one? Yes. The city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease with power engineering construction company for Building 166, located at 1501 Viking Street, Suite 200 in Alameda Point. Vice Mayor seconded that. All right. Any other questions? Comments. All those in favor. I. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. As seven as City Manager Communications. Did you have anything else you want to add at this time? No, not at this time. Point of order. Met a mayor? Yes. Can we do six now that it's only 1040, or are we in that book after 1030? And pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance, my understanding we cannot add any more items. It's introducing more items after 1030 or after. You can't you aren't after what you voted on at 1030 was to take up any new items, new action. Items after. 1030. Okay, do that. And then at. 11:00, you can vote to go. Past 1120 minutes. Thanks for clarifying. I think I ask that almost every time. So we don't have any public speakers for non agenda. Council referrals. There aren't any. Ten Council Communications Member J soc.

Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission and Transportation Commission.

AlamedaCC_06202017_2017-4446

A case of motion passes. Four in favor. One abstention. Thank you. And now we jump to ten B I actually. Chen is counsel of communications. Any matter of I'm going to do ten B first at this point. Okay. All right. So the duration of various nominations to various boards and commissions. Thank you. All right. Commission on Disability Issues. There are four seats. There were three that we looked at at this time that are on this list. And so I will be appointing those three. You want to read their names? This one is kind of her. And so I could pick in Jennifer Byrd and Lisa Hall. All right. Thank you. The golf commission. I'll and I'll actually I want to say, for all of these, we quite often have quite a few applicants. And these are, you know, so thank you to everyone that has applied that did apply. I know we are in a community that we have a lot of volunteers, people that want to step up. And after the interviews, speaking with the different candidates, then these are the people that I am nominating. So for golf, I'll be nominating Ron Taylor and Joseph Van Winkle. And then I'm going to jump to a library board, historical advisory board we didn't get yet. Library board. Okay. It's my understanding there's actually four seats. So the force, the four people will be the nominations are Amber Bailes, Cynthia Silva, Travis Wilson and Dorothy was more. All right, planning board. That one. I'm actually going to come back on. I didn't finish those in which everyone that applied public art didn't finish that one yet. And Transportation Commissioner Laura Palmer. All right. And that takes us to are there council comments at this time?