Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 7

AN ORDINANCE relating to automated fixed camera revenue; amending Ordinance 124230; and amending Section 5.82.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_11212016_CB 118848

Agenda item 11 Constable 118 848 relating to automated fixed camera revenue. Committee recommends the bill pass. Agenda Item 12 Council Vote 118 838 Relating to the Animal Feed Ordinance, the committee recommends the bill pass. Agenda Item 13 Council Bill 118836 Increase in the Fee for Marijuana Business Licenses Committee Recommends the bill pass agenda 914 Council Bill 118 835 Relating to PET Licensing, The Committee recommends the bill pass agenda item 15 relating to fees charged by the SEAL Center Department. The committee recommends the bill pass. Any comments from the chair? Please call the rule on council. Bill 118848 This agenda item number 11 Herbold Johnson. Whereas O'Brien. All right. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. President Herald. Hi. Nine in favor and nine oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please call the roll call on the roll on council. Bill 118838. Herbold I. Johnson is. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzalez, I. President Harrell All right. Nine in favor. Nine opposed. Bill pass in show senate. Please call the roll on counts. Bill 118836. Herbold. Johnson. Maurice. O'Brien. So aren't. Bagshaw Burgess Gonzalez President Herald I nine in favor and unopposed. Bill pass and chair of Senate Please call the roll on council Bill 118835 This agenda item number 14. Herbold. Johnson. Whereas. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess by Gonzalez. President Harrell. Nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passed and the chair was silent. Please call the roll on council. Bill 118841. Herbold II Johnson Suarez O'Brien. By. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess I. Gonzalez, President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passes in the chair with signage. Get the clerk second. Catch her breath. And Wall Street Council. Rather agenda items 16 and 17. The short title of those two pieces, please.

Recommendation to request City Manager and City Attorney to draft an ordinance to prohibit the assembly, disassembly, sale, offer of sale, distribution, or offer of distribution on public property or public rights-of-way of bicycles and bicycle parts, under certain conditions and with certain exceptions; authorize the Public Works Department to work with the Police Department to remove bicycles and bicycle parts following notice of violations of this prohibition.

LongBeachCC_02132018_18-0134

Councilman Austin. Motion carries. Thank you. Number 17, please. Communication from Councilwoman Price Councilmember Super nor Councilman Andrews Councilman Austin recommendation to request the city manager and city attorney to draft a bicycle chop shop ordinance. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you very much. I want to urge my colleagues to support this item tonight. Bike thefts are a major problem throughout the city. And in looking at the bike theft data from all of the four divisions of our police department, it's clear to me that bike thefts are definitely underreported citywide. That's especially true in my district. One of the things that we have found and let me go through some of those numbers. So in East Division in 2017, we had an average well, we had about six between 6 to 22 bike thefts a month during the calendar year and west, there was about 1 to 3 in north , 1 to 9, but usually it hovered around 1 to 3 and in south between 1 to 10. If you talk to the residents at community meetings, it's clear that bike thefts are much more prevalent, especially along the ocean and our business corridor as well. We encourage bike and pedestrian activity. It's it's really important. I think if we're going to be a city that's promoting bike infrastructure, that we do everything that we can to deter bike thefts, but also to penalize those who might be using stolen bikes as a method of currency by creating bike chop shops. So that's what this item is about. We have found that there's a clear problem throughout our parks, our beaches, our sidewalks and our parking lots with multiple bikes and bike parts strewn about. It wouldn't stop. This particular ordinance would not stop anyone from working on their bikes individually or take doing emergency maintenance in public. But for those who are dismantling and selling multiple bikes in public spaces, this ordinance would make such activity illegal. Applied with similar this. This particular ordinance should be applied with similar logic to the ordinances that we have that don't allow the dismantling of cars in city streets. You can't remove, for example, the transmission of a car that's parked on a street the same. The same should apply with multiple bikes. It's important to note that this particular ordinance would not affect any illegal business operations who conduct programs in public or permit bicycle related events, including swap meets and any established bike repair stands, of which we have several along the coast in the second and third districts. I ask for the support of my colleagues on this item. This is a problem that I think our police department is seeing more and more of when they are out in the community, especially when they are in places where there appear to be abandoned items in the form of encampments there. You always know when you're going to be coming up upon abandoned items because you'll see bike pedals, bike frames, wheels, things of that nature as you walk up to an area that seems to have a lot of abandoned property. So I ask for my colleagues support. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sabrina, thank you. And thank Councilwoman Price for bringing this item forward. I'm happy to sign on to it and support it. And for all those who email us and call us and tell us, you know, we used to have a bicycle licensing program locally. Yeah, we will definitely do that. We will have community events, probably. Councilmember Price and I will do one together. We share a two and a half mile border and that will be the spirit of this is let's get these registration numbers on these bikes logged in and give the police a hand in solving these issues. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. And I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward. We've actually been working on a similar item with staff as well. This item. To be clear, does not address increasing the number of registrations, does it, Councilmember? No, not particularly. But I did bring an item about three or four months ago asking for a bike registration program to be reestablished in the city. Great. I have a lot of questions and ideas around the bike registration program, so I think we can work with public works as we have been and PD on ensuring that we we have legal operations, that we are trying to certify them and encourage them to do an increased bike registry. I also wanted to ask let's see 1/2. This item came up fast, which I like. Can somebody from staff describe to us what happens whenever a bike is picked up, whether it's in pieces or it's a stolen bike that we retrieve? I'm not sure if that's PD or Commander Griffin. Thank you. I used to live there and Craig bang on. Okay. I. Signed up. That's what it means. Good evening. Sorry about that. We're trying to clear it up here with Mr. Beck and myself. When we, the police department. Take bikes, we take it into storage, and it's held for 30 days until somebody can. Claim it is basically what what we do for. Storage and. Bike parts would be the same. It'd be. As abandoned. Property. We would take it. For that reason. And so what happens after 30 days? It usually goes out to auction. To auction, yes. It's I guess one of the ideas that came up in my office was, is there a program where we can have these bikes go back into a youth program like L.B. Capp or something like that, were able to get these bikes into youths hands that might be disadvantaged and not have access to a bike . So there is the bikes 90800 program that has had an opportunity to utilize some of the unclaimed bicycles. The program has been gone for at least five years. Yes. So that was a program that was done in the past. Right now, we do work with some of our partners to deliver more newer bicycles. There's a great partnership with local bicycle shops where they deliver bikes to some of our elementary school kids and our middle school kids. It's a fantastic program, but right now we don't have the connection for the collected bikes going through a specific program where you're actually teaching youth how to build bicycles and bicycle safety programs. And then at the end of that, they actually have a bike that they've worked on. Seems like a great program we should try to put together. I know that's a bigger item than this, but I'd like us to just explore what we could possibly do to reconnect that, and we can do that in some staff meetings over the next couple of months. Yeah, I think that that's that's it for now. I think whenever we come back with the bike registry item that we can work together to make that productive. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Yes, I. Am firmly in support of this item. I want to thank the councilmember price for for bringing it forward and happy to sign on and support. We witness this type of activity happening all the time. I live next to a park and I see these these actions happening. I can only wonder where these these bicycles are coming from. And I think, you know, by putting some sort of conditions in place, I like the fact that, you know, disassembling and multiple bikes in public is, you know, I think I think that's an obvious, obvious sign that there's something something awry there. And this gives our officers a little bit more to to work with in terms of tools. I am concerned with with obviously, the the Prop 47, because I don't know that that, you know, the bicycle therefore reaches that threshold for for a real crime. And so maybe you want to speak to that as well. Sure. So the individuals who are disassembling the bikes wouldn't actually be charged with bicycle theft if, in fact, it was proven that they stole the bike and the bike's value was $950 or more. It would be a felony. It would fall out of Prop 47. But if the value of the bike is $950 or less and the individual is charged with bike theft, so they're caught in the act of stealing the bike or they've admitted to stealing the bike. Or there is a witness who comes forward and says they stole the bike. So the police have some indicia of criminal activity that it and it's the bike is under 950, then it would be a misdemeanor. This particular ordinance as as it's requested at this time and again, this is going to go to the city attorney's office . They're going to do some research, hopefully on best practices and other cities that have bike chop shops, what which ones would pass constitutional muster, etc., and it will come back to us. The actual request right now is that it be penalized as a wobbled let, which means it could either be an infraction or a misdemeanor. And the whole point of that is not really to punish people per se, because as you've said, we're not looking at a crime that reaches the threshold where this person is going to get any sort of custody time. I mean, even for a misdemeanor, 180 days or less, the L.A. County jail is releasing people on the same day, whether they received one day or 180 days. So we understand that this isn't something that's really looking to penalize. However, if an individual is charged with assembling or disassembling bikes, running a bike shop, chop shop, then the individual will have the opportunity to hopefully go through the process where now we're going to have clinicians in the jail as part of our new efforts with the city, and that person could be linked to services. What I have found with bike. Chop shops, and certainly not everybody who operates a bike chop shop is addicted to drugs. I'm definitely not saying that. But what I have found is in talking to individuals, reading multiple police reports, is that bike parts are stolen or sold as currency for drugs. That's the common most frequent currency for drugs. And so if an individual has a substance abuse problem, then hopefully we're able to get them in the system and root them to services as a term of their probation. So as a term of probation, they would have to do some sort of diversion program or have a stay away order from the place where they were storing the bikes, or see the clinician go to L.A. County Health Services, whatever the case may be, to get the services that they might need. Thank you. And so my my hope and the reason I'm supporting this is I hopefully deter that activity in and to deter thefts in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. And yes. I want to thank Councilwoman Susan Price, because the fact that I really realized the enforcement of this ordinance could aid and possibly reduction and recover stolen property. And thank you again for this item. But thank you, Councilman Durango. Yeah. I also want to express my support for the sale of my I've been seen as I drive around Long Beach that there's always this assembly of individuals around some bicycle. And I was wondering what was going on. And, you know, every time I pass by there, I see an exchange of bicycles taking place and tubes and wheels and all that kind of stuff, you know. So I was I was somewhat amazed that they were doing that. They were so brazen, actually doing it in parking lots of liquor stores and markets. And so I'm glad to see that this ordinance coming up. I want to commend the councilmembers for putting this forward and I totally support it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yeah, I just had a question for PD. Do we have the numbers or stats on how many of these bike thefts are actually associated with with drug situation ers? Yes, ma'am. We do not have those numbers. The majority. Of the time that we're. Responding to these bikes, they're not reported stolen. So our hands are tied in what we can and cannot do and some of the questions we can or cannot ask. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Larry Goodin. I bring the hammer down this way. First of all, I get Sacramento involved and to anybody guilty of it. We'd have to spend 10000 hours of community service. But the key is getting Sacramento involved. Let them start earning their payroll, their money. And again, I'm very serious. 10000 hours of community service. Thank you. Thank you. Next week, a police. Rather repeat the name of Jesus. Tell my. Thing around. So see me. Yeah. This is a good thing because I got three of them taken in the last year and a half. But I thank you. But I propose you do a set up like those fake cars and everything. They got. Me over on Carson and cherry hours. And I wasn't in it 15 minutes. There's somebody over the L.A. Fitness watching, and they've taken bikes. Left and right. To the point where. People parking their bikes on the inside. So do set ups, put. Them on them, wire things, then. They're going to come for that. But they've even getting lax. It's like they got a minor sore. So you're gonna have to. Do set ups and a lot of them cats. Are doing drugs is apathy was going down. Check the canals it go straight. Downtown that's the whole thing I'm sick of my bikes get mad I got taken. By the motel six by. What's that. A cafe next to it. Yeah. The load of cafe. Was that. Yes. I'm glad. Get out there. Do. This is a good thing. Don't take it waste 954 Grand theft now is not 409. It's not. Fun anymore. Why not? Okay, so anyway. Yeah, this is a good thing, so. I'm not going to drag this out. Why is she still here? Janine Pierce. All right. I got off topic. Okay, well, just keep it on top. Okay, good. Keep me on topic. I like the bike thing, but I like an. American bike system, not a communist bike system. Okay, no communist bike system. This is real good. And Jeanine still got to go. Thank you. Thank you. Make speaker, please. Hi. Curtis Kaiser. I'm a resident in support of Councilwoman Price's proposal. I've gotten a bunch of bikes stolen. I think the city has done a. Great job of starting to build out an infrastructure so that bicyclists feel comfortable, excited to go around the city. But it's disheartening when you see all the chop shops going around. So I think this is a real step in the right direction. I appreciate it. I would recommend or request that we have a lower number than five. We I sometimes see five or more, but I more frequently see two or three. And so if there's any way for us to have an ordinance that penalizes. People who are doing two or three instead. Of five, I would appreciate that if. You're a broken down and your friend's broken down and you're legitimately fixing your bike or one or two, you should do the trick. And I thank you very much for doing this. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Seven words, and so did Democratic Socialists of America, Long Beach. As a criminal defense attorney, it goes against everything that I believe in, to support the addition of a criminal an additional criminal offense into our municipal code. However, after reviewing the proposal from Councilman Price, it is obvious that this misdemeanor offense or wobbler, it strikes the right balance between the rights of the homeless of homeless residents within Long Beach and the interest of other residents. I urge everyone to take notice of the care and concern the Councilwoman Price has taken into crafting this ordinance, ensuring that there is no way to make sure that this new law could be challenged on the basis of having an illegal, discriminatory effect or impact. However, the precision of this ordinance only highlights the existing sections of our municipal code that would not stand up to judicial scrutiny if they were to be challenged in the courtroom, in the courts. As I first told then Vice Mayor Garcia in 2014, Long Beach was for code sections. Chapter 10.18, Subsection 040 Living in prohibited women in vehicles prohibited Section 9.4 to subsection 110 capping and in certain prohibited areas. And Chapter ten, subsection 30.090. Special Regulations Against Camping Overnight. All these laws were designed and enforced in a manner that leaves our city vulnerable to a potentially crippling civil suit by homeless advocates. Our police department and city prosecutor's offices are also ill equipped to handle these sorts of cases on their own. By their own admission, their sole tools for assisting homeless people that they come into contact with, involving administering citations for infractions or misdemeanors. To actually solve the problems of chronic systemic poverty, we need to radically restructure the entire society by written by rebuilding a shredded social safety net and obliterated workers rights movement. But for the purposes of triaging the problems of the homeless homeless people here in this particular city, we need to provide direct financial assistance to these individuals in the form of increased general relief from the county and indirect aid from the Health Department and county social services. Social and social worker agencies. Prop 87, for example, was a wonderful law that removed the social stigma of felonies from thousands of people enabling, enabling them to reenter society and contribute positively to their communities. It is time of the Council continue this trend away from criminalizing people at the bottom of society by directing the city attorney to remove the aforementioned sections of the medical code and to direct the city manager to provide an assessment of all available funds to see what money can be redirected to the Health Department so they can take the appropriate role at the head of a comprehensive anti-poverty program here in the city of Long Beach. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Nick Russo. I'm here representing my employer pedal movement, which is local bike services facility. We operate the bike station downtown Long Beach, as well as the interim operations of the bike share system. And we just wanted to voice our support as pedal movement in support of this measure. I think like other speakers before me have noted, it's obviously a huge problem and we see that every day as clients come in, you know, remarking on their stolen bikes, which, you know, as much as we appreciate the business, it's a really unfortunate situation to encounter. We share many of the concerns that homeless advocates or other advocates of low income communities may have with ordinances like this. But I believe the care that's been put into crafting the proposal does mitigate that issue. We would also just like to recommend a certain language in the proposal that states something more specific other than just bike repair stands. We are in the process of rolling out a program for basically mobile bike facilities throughout the city. And while we are a valid business licensed in the city of Long Beach, we just feel that because these facilities will be taking place often in parks and other public spaces, that it may potentially negatively affect our business. That being said, because of the considerations built into it already, we're not concerned about that. And I personally would just like to voice my support of this because before I was a resident of Long Beach, I was here visiting and bought a bike and had it stolen during my trip. So luckily it was at the end of my trip and I was able to use bike share along the beach. Thank you. Next week, please be here. Good evening. My name's Maureen Bailey, and I'm representing the Belmont Heights Community Association, and we just like to share our support of this proposed ordinance. In our view, it takes a reasonable method, another tool in the toolbox to allow our public safety folks to kind of make it uncomfortable for this type of commerce to take place. And the fewer places that the commerce can take place, hopefully the fewer times that bicycles will be stolen and chopped up and then resold. So we've got to chip away at the problem if we do want to be a bike capital. And I think we're well on our way. Our district has two bike boulevards. They're well-used and we'd like to see more people on their bikes, of course. And we really appreciate our councilwoman taking the lead on this. She listened and we appreciate that the the the ordinance. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you and I appreciate the public comment. I guess my question is to the author or Councilmember Price when one of the speakers mentioned how we got to five or more. Can you can you explain that? And and would you be amendable to this? Absolutely. And I appreciated that comment as well. And I have a note here. The reason we chose five, really, it's an arbitrary number. We researched other similar statutes. And I know that our city attorney is always very prudent in his administration of the laws. And I wanted to make sure that we put us in a position where we weren't exposing ourselves to potential liability. So one of the things I was going to ask as part of this motion is if we can look at reducing that number to two or three, because that's an excellent point. You know, if you're helping your friend with their bike, you've got to. Anything beyond two. We've got an issue here, at least enough PC for the police officers to ask why these people have more than 2 to 3 bikes. So I think that's great. Yeah. Thank you. I think that's great as well. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you. And the final thing I was going to add, I was going to make the comment about the number of bikes and also for the city attorney, if it's possible for us to think about wording, that's a little bit broader in terms of the type of apparatus that would be available for individuals to work on their bikes to include the types of stations that we talked about. So if we could have something that was more broadly classified as bike repair, facility, stand or station as opposed to just a bike repair stand or station, and that would encompass a more structured bike infrastructure that's designed to allow people to to pull up and have their bikes worked on. So obviously, we want to make sure that we're not going after pedal movement for infraction violation or any other facility or organization that's similar to them. But I want to thank the residents of the city, especially the third district, who came out tonight. I do hear a lot from you about this issue. This is something we've been working on for a long time. And I want to thank our public works department and our police department because they helped shape the language of this particular proposal. So thank you. Thank you, members. Please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and take public comment right now. So we have five speakers so can reside. Larry GOODHEW, Lee, Richmond, Charlie, Jim Oberst and Somer Hanson. So can you up in Larry and Lee, if you could, you know, be prepared to come next.

A MOTION making an appointment to fill the vacancy in the position of state senator for the 36th legislative district.

KingCountyCC_01072016_2015-0535

The minutes are before a scene of discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay motion. Kerry's minutes are adopted. That brings us to item four on our agenda. This is proposed motion 1215 535, which would fill a vacancy in the state and the vacant position of state senator in the 36th Legislative District. The vacancy is due, of course, to the election of our colleague, Council Member Cole Wells, now representing Council District four. Councilmember Gossett. Might you put the motion itself before us? Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this time, I would like to propose that we adopt motion number 2015 0535. 2015 0535 is before us. I thought the since the state senator is a partizan partizan position and since Senator Caldwell's is a Democrat, the state constitution requires us to choose from among three nominees recommended by the King County Democratic Central Committee. Three nominees have been recommended for consideration, and I believe that two of them are with us this morning. The nominees, in alphabetical order by last name are Liz Campbell, Rubin, Carlisle and David Kaplan. Mr. Kaplan on the phone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. And for your information, everyone else is Mr. Kaplan is joining us by phone. And, Mr. Kaplan, you are already part of the audio system. So anything you say that is make two mikes throughout the chamber. Mr. Kaplan has informed us that he's out of state, attending a business meeting this week and therefore is unable to join us in person. But he is joining us by telephone today and will speak to his candidacy or his interest as well. And we'll begin with a brief staff report. Nick Wagoner of our central staff is staffing the issue. Good morning, Mr. Wagner. Happy New Year. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The only thing that I would add to what you've already covered is that in accordance with the state constitution, the King County Democratic Central Committee has nominated Mr. Carlisle, Ms.. Campbell and Mr. Kaplan for the Council's consideration, and they are listed in the committee's email to the Council in order of preference based on the vote of the precinct committee officers. And that vote was 172 votes for Mr. Carlisle, nine votes for Ms. Campbell and four votes for Mr. Kaplan. Written information on all three nominees is included in the meeting packets that were distributed to council members in advance of the meeting. That's all I was going to questions of. Mr. Wagner. All right. Committee members have had an opportunity to review the recommendation of the King County Democratic Central Committee, together with the written materials that but and we have found that a key part of the process is an opportunity to interview the three nominees. I'll start by inviting Ms.. Campbell, Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Kaplan to make opening statements of no more than 2 minutes each, then to answer questions from council members and of Ms.. Campbell. You're welcome to join us at the table now as well, please. I think it would be first of best if we hear from the opening statements of each nominee and then have a chance to have questions and dialog to assist nominees and timing of their opening remarks and the answers to questions we have in front of me a light that will be green for the first 90 seconds, then yellow for 30 seconds left. And when the red light comes on, we'd suggest your time is up. My notes also suggest that you don't have to use all of your allotted time. Well, we'll go in alphabetical order by last name, starting with Ms.. Campbell. Bruce Campbell. Good morning. Good morning, Joe. How are you? I'm well, thank you for having me here. So I want to say first that I was very honored. It was actually Representative Carlyle. And I talked and and he asked me if I would like to put my name forward, if I were to be nominated by the present coordinating officers to join him up here. And I'm I'm very grateful for that opportunity. And I, I agreed to do that. And several police and coordinating officers volunteered to to nominate me for the special appointment. And there were there were two in particular who I had go ahead and do the nominating. And the second being, because they represent most of what I do within the Democratic Party organization, I think, and that's what I was the most proud of. And so that was that very young man who's African-American, who I've been mentoring and and who has become a precinct coordinating officer as as part of his process, becoming really politically engaged and working working with the party and a woman whose background is somewhat similar to mine and needed to leave a marriage and is is now a single mom. And being PCO is is quite an opportunity for her. For the most part, I, I tend to be very, very active recruiting people in empowering people and mentoring people within the community. I tend to represent a. Place of being liaison between the fine grain of what happens in a community and how it reflects upon the legislation that that is borne of it. And I get along pretty well, actually, with Representative Carlisle, and he knows that he and I talk a lot sometimes, and that is because there does sometimes exist a disconnect between the 30,000 foot level of legislation and how it plays out on the street. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Carlisle. Good morning. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And me, thank my good friends Liz Campbell and Dave Kaplan for their citizen engagement in this process has been very meaningful. I'm really honored to be with you today. I want to start by expressing my deepest thanks to Council member Wells, who is just not only beloved in our community, but really is a wonderful successor to our good friend Larry Phillips and just really is as a wonderful voice to this council. I'm also pleased that Councilmember Banducci is first meeting as well. So thank you so much. I've had the great honor of representing our district in the legislature for seven years. I've served as chair of the Finance Committee. It's been a great honor. I've learned a great deal and grown a great deal and been very instrumental in working on some of the largest issues around public education, around higher education, around tax policy and writing budgets, environmental policy, and many other issues. And it's been an extraordinary opportunity to engage with my community. I live on Queen Anne with my wife Wendy, who is a physician at Ballard, Swedish, and my four children who attend public schools in our our city. And I've just really enjoyed connecting on a very deep level with the citizen activists of our community. And serving in the legislature as a citizen legislator is, I think, incredibly powerful relative to keeping people grounded in real issues affecting real life. So it's been a great honor to serve in the House. It is an incredible honor to succeed. Council Member Cole Wells and I very much appreciate your support and I appreciate this great honor. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Caplan. Yes, it is indeed an honor and a privilege to participate in this process. I do apologize for not being there in person. I am at the Consumer Electronics Show down here in Las Vegas. I live in the world of technology. And of course, this is my primary trade show. Every year at this time. So I really had no choice but to be here rather than there. I am one of the few Democrats in the 36th District who's not running for Congress. And and and I'm delighted that Reuben is one of the others. I think it's very clear that the will of the voting precinct committee officers in our district are aligned behind Reuben Carlisle, and I look forward to hearing the announcement of his appointment to the Senate. And I think that's all I need to say this morning. But again, thank you so much. And I think Blaine was let go. I'm having blanking on the name, but whoever reached out to me and set this up so that they could be on the phone with you this morning, I do want to say thank you. Mr. Wagner. We like Mr. Wagner to me. Because he's a nice guy. All right. I want to thank you. I want to thank all three of you for stepping up and being part of the process. I myself was at one point appointed to the Senate from to a vacancy in the state Senate as a House member and came before this very council in this process. So I find this to be vital and informative on both sides and would open it up to questions from my colleagues for any one or all of the nominees. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for all three of the nominees, and it's a question that I often ask prospective candidates for public service as legislators here in our state, whether it be at the county or the state level. And we're supposed to use these times to get a deeper sense of the ideals and ideology that guide prospective candidates. I mean, this is not a question about disproportionality within the criminal justice system. In Washington state, nearly 19% of all the men and women. Who are incarcerated in our state prisons are black and and our total population is only 3%. That's pretty significant disproportionality nationally. The figure is 2.3 million. And all the jails in the country and about 45% or 900,000 are African-Americans. So what do you think are the causes and what at least at the state level can be done? They get more? Or what do you think if anything needs to be done to address this problem? Are we staff. Sabbatical? Whatever order you deserve? Yeah. Okay. So I'm really glad that we're opening with that question that that's exactly, I think the key. In in Washington state really exists in racial disparity. And nowhere is it more obvious than in the criminal justice system. It does exist in every system in the state, but it's just easier to see in the criminal justice system. And there are some things that we that we have been doing. And I think we're going in the right direction. And I want to continue. And one of them is I voted to legalizing marijuana. We had a situation in the state of Washington where 59% of the arrests and convictions, jail time families decimated for cannabis were African-American . In a situation where you've got 7% of the population, 59% of the arrests were African-American, primarily male. Clearly, this was part of a racist system. This was a set up. And we're trying to reduce that harm. We're trying to reduce that disparity at the state level by recognizing that when we have state level laws, that implementation means an impact that has that much racial disparity. Then we can go ahead and say that law is racist and change it. We can say that that that's something we're going to do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councilmember. The issue I would say that I have in the past, in all of the years that I've served in the legislature, I've been the prime sponsor in the House of Legislation to replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole. And the two things that drive me to that position are, one, my own personal religious conviction. And two, is a deep acknowledgment of the systemic reality of disproportionality in our criminal justice system. And as I've studied that issue and learned more and more about it in terms of the death penalty throughout the throughout the entire criminal justice system, the implications are extraordinary and profound. And so I have led on that issue in large part because of the disproportionality. I think the one ray of hope is that I think that there's an extraordinary movement toward a tipping point of public attention from the presidency on down that is really bringing this issue to the fore. And, of course, your many years of service have led in King County on this. But I think we're at a place where there's a consensus among the parties that and others that we really need to step up to sort of not only rethink our entire infrastructure, but the wraparound services around parole and other sides of that. So I think that that your attention and many others have really changed that. I think the state is behind the county and some other organization institutions in its thinking, but there's definitely been a profound change the last few years, and I think we are now reaching a point where there's some bipartisan consensus to really address some of the core issues. Thank you. Oh, no, that third person. Mr. Caplan. Oh, well, of course, I agree with what's been said by Mr. Campbell and Mr. Carlisle. The only thing that I think I could add is that, you know, having grown up on Mercer Island, having made some mistakes in my younger days, I know what it's like to get in a jam in our people, give you a second chance and and not mess up your life. And I know that that's because I lived on the island. My dad knew the police chief, you know, all the things that go into being a by product of privilege and frankly, wealth. And I think we're way past due for sentencing reform, particularly in the context of nonviolent crimes, and particularly in the context of what happens to people of color in all states and I think throughout the country. And I think it's shocking that we even have to have this conversation in a progressive state like Washington. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, welcome. Good to see you. First of all, I'd like to thank the Democratic Party for doing the process fully, legally and completely. It is refreshing to see that we are actually abiding by the law and how this process works. So thank you. And the process that we're doing now represents all the citizens, whether they be Democrat or Republican or independent. And I really want you to know that I appreciate it for all of the citizens that you have fully complied with, that the process is supposed to work. So that being said, good job. Thank you for being here and being willing to serve. And that's really important. And David, thank you for taking the effort to be here by phone. And you're welcome. You don't need to return my phone call. This is it. That's great. So good to meet you. So here's my question. King County is the economic engine of the state, and yet we get treated sometime in Olympia as the dog to kick. Or. Whatever. Maybe a bad analogy, but sometimes we're not well-liked out in Olympia. I'm sure you might have heard that as remember once or twice. And yet we're the economic engine. We're trying to be forward thinking. We're going to be able to do really great things that the tone we're winning awards nationally, and yet we are stymied because of things that happen by some of the decisions we're having. About 6000 new residents in this county per month, but we are getting continual reductions in funding formulas that used to be 60, 40, 60 coming to our court doing the work. 42 The state got flipped the other way. 4068 We still have to do the same amount of work. That is difficult. When they say they changed the definition of an unfunded mandate so that as long as they get more money than the year before it. An independent mandate that could be a penny. And yet we now have whatever 50 new duties to do. How are you and Olympia going to help us as the county is supposed to carry out what you want us to do? That's what we want to do. More and more, less money is coming here with more jobs to do. What are you going to do to help us as a county? I'm happy to take you first and thank you, Councilmember. I would say I really appreciate the issues and I put a sort of a lot of work into this. First of all, in my role as chair of the Finance Committee in the House, I committed an entire year of work to look at local, city and county finance options relative to local options. Local authority. Look at the property tax base. Look at the 1% limit. And look at the revenue sources, both from a revenue share, from transportation and other categories all the way through the new source of revenue associated with marijuana. But the the deeper undertone of the growth in costs that you have and the limited revenue, given that tax base, I think really opens the important policy question around how can we strengthen our partnership with other parts of the state to acknowledge that the 1% limit is incredibly structurally difficult for counties? Cities have a portion of you know, of course, and of course, counties are sort of stuck in that middle ground. So I think there's a very legitimate challenge associated with when we look at the 1% overall constitutional limit of property taxes. How could we rethink that? My central position has been and this is popular in some areas and quite unpopular in others, my central position has been most of the taxing authority has migrated to special purpose districts and my position has been that the county should be the central entity that controls most of that taxing authority in partnership with the entities that want to utilize that. But if you look, for example, just for the sake of the conversation at the King County Library system and many other systems that have their own revenue sources, I would make an argument that the county is sort of the fiduciary governing entity that probably makes more sense for those special purpose districts to have some stronger line of authority. So in my previous or my role as finance chair, I've spent a lot of time on that issue. I think revenue sharing is important. We're up to about $575 million in revenue share from all the different sources, much as some of that goes to the counties, but a lot goes to the city. So I think the reconsideration of the balance between cities and the counties and state is the work on a financial side that the legislature has got to do better. And I think we have not been successful in this area. So you may make a follow up on that quickly. Sure. Thank you. So I think that your idea is important, and especially when it comes to the junior taxing districts deciding how much more taxing authority they want to take. We have no authority to say in in one case recently, one of the junior district, one of $0.07. But by them taking the $0.07, it kicked off other junior taxing districts to get zero. And we have no ability to say these junior taxing districts, which included a hospital, a fire district and a cemetery district would get nothing. And we have no authority to stop that. So that's something that I think falls right in line with that. And the other problem is that the formula for unincorporated roads was devised 25 years ago. At that time, they devised a report that was 600 and I think 38 pages telling what needed to be done 25 years later . That is still not done. And we are still using the broken formula that they knew was broken 25 years ago as a temporary placeholder. So if you could help us with that, we would be very happy. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Caplan. Well, first of all, I want to apologize because I'm on a cell phone and there's been a little bit of static on the line. But if I heard correctly, the question is about tax reform in general or specific to the locality. I'm not clear. Specifically to King County being able to have enough of the revenue we give to the state back to us so we can actually do the job. Well, all I can say, in addition to what's already been said, is that our view I'm one of those people who pays being attacked every quarter, whether I'm profitable or not. I'm one of those people who watch as my property taxes go up every year because as I think grew and pointed out, I'm constantly being asked to vote for good things that we need. And, you know, I do believe that the county has a very specific transportation issues that need to be funded and. I'm not quite certain what else to say. We're way past due for tax reform in this state and way past due for some spending reform in this state. And I know that Rubin will take a leadership position on those issues. This coming year. My turn now, please. Okay. All right. So. So it's a it's a good question. King County is the economic engine of the state. It's it's the county that produces the most wealth. And that and that wealth is spread throughout the state. And that's part of being a donor state. We're kind of a donor county in terms of Washington state, a lot of times where. Where the tension comes is between the city of Seattle and and the county. I guess I'm thinking specifically of things like lead expansion and, you know, that's that's a major cost saver in the end . And then to have their biggest about who's going to put up the money for for just a little program expansion into King County and through the sheriff's office for training things like that seems silly to me as a citizen. I'm wondering if the legislative delegation from the district can. Very specifically, you asked what what one could do from this seat and beyond. Legislatively, there is always the option of acting as liaison, acting as negotiator. And I think that the county system and and those who are in executive positions in the city could, in fact, sit down with the state delegation, and we could talk about how the balance works and how the balance looks in the end. Places where there are overlap. Seemed to me to be low hanging fruit where we could move maybe $0.02 back. And as you said, $0.07 matters. So that's that's I think one way to just get a little bit of of revenues shift the tiniest bit of just kind of staunching the bleeding for the county and and beyond that. Yeah. Maybe there needs to be a shift in the burden in creating the taxes in the first place. Maybe cities need to stand up and say, okay, we're going to go ahead and do a B.A. tax and be the bad guy because somebody does, in fact, have to pay. We have to pay in. And then we all get everybody drives on those roads and we all know that they need to be improved. However, from the state Rivlin, I'm going to ask you. It seems to me. That there are some transportation packages that go through the state that involve new highway money. And it seems to me that taking out an old, bad, unincorporated King County Road and putting in a new road that works could count if just maybe one or two sentences was added. And I know that you are really good at adding sentences. Thank you. Councilmember Caldwell's. New question. Yes. I have a follow up question to what we've been discussing about the county being the economic driver of this state. And in fact, King County is home to about 40% of the state's jobs and produces nearly 50% of the state's economic activity. And we know this again, it's been very difficult for some legislators from the rest of the state and their constituencies to seem to accept that. And oftentimes, as I know personally, from having been in Olympia for a long time, initiatives that benefit or would benefit King County gets stalled in the state legislature. So we know that. But how will you go about dealing with that in the legislature and working with legislators from other areas of the state to be able to convince them that the county's initiatives are important to them besides our constituencies here? Did I get. To do this one? Sure. Okay. So. So I don't think that I'm going to suddenly come up with a really great, brilliant new answer that you haven't already tried. Oh, but I. I can mention the things that I think worked the best. And I think that the first one, the most obvious one, is trading. What do you want? Here's what I want. And. And I would like to trade with you. I will support you. You support me. That's how it works. Because we're all here together. And the second is one that, you know, this is going to sound somewhat juvenile. I call it field trips. I am I am really a big proponent of you. Take me to your county and show me show me what it is. I will I will go there. I will spend time there. And I'll start helping you in a very personal way. And I will start sending what I have. We have resources here that we can use there. And it's not just dollars and vice versa. I want field trips for for folks from other counties that might be further east in Washington to come here to King County and see what it is that we're doing here. We do an awful lot and we share an awful lot. And I'm not completely sure that all the all the counties know really what's involved in governing and running King County. And I would like to share that with them. And I would like them to understand we're in this together. And I think that sometimes that falls apart. And my biggest two things are always trading and sharing represented. This question of, of course, is goes to the core of a lot of the challenges in in Olympia. I've been a an activist on the issue of opening up the data. And I do that because I think transparency of how the money flows in our state on the tax side and then on the spending side is actually transformational. Interesting. So I've had the Office of Financial Management for the last number of years develop the data in one place that puts out where the money comes from and then where it goes. So the whole concept of there being eight counties in our state that are net contributors of of dollars and there are 31 that are net recipients. That gets politicized a bit and it gets seen as a sort of a poke in the eye one way. But the data itself is actually very powerful and it shows how the money flows. I've had some incredibly thoughtful and enriching conversations with with Republican colleagues in the cafeteria and others really going through the data and talking about how the money flows to Benton County or to Iowa or wherever. And there's actually a spark of really sincere and authentic interest in that conversation. And so, for example, the rural sales tax credit about 28 or so million dollars per buy, all we're really doing with that particular program is lowering the amount of the state sales tax in rural counties. Well, the conversation I've had with colleagues has been, well, what if we took those dollars and applied them very directly in terms of spending into rural economic development, very targeted, very real, and not just sort of evaporate into state government and to a person, they've all said, you know, that actually would really make a really valuable difference if you think about spending those types of dollars. So I've really had a good time bringing that table and that data to the table. And now the Office of Financial Management has institutionalized that. And they they release that data every year because of those requests that I did. And of course, you see graphs and charts that come out from different newspapers and things, but it is interesting and I think it's really helped change the conversation a lot. Mr. Kaplan. What can I add to what has already been said? Advocacy, transparency, clarity and a little bit of compromise. Some of what's been going on in state government, it seems like through the years there's been an effort to keep it secret from state citizens. And I think when we understand things holistically, we come up with better answers. And it's one of the reasons that I think we have and will be a great senator, because those are the things that he has made a priority in his role as our state legislator. Thank you. Further questions. Council member Belushi. Yeah. I just want to add my thanks to all of you for participating in this process and the local district and the King County Dems. It looks like it was a very thorough process and very well done, very collaborative and has resulted in some excellent candidates. So I'm really pleased to have this be my first meeting to be having this discussion with you all. As you all know, and I probably don't need to quote it to you, but I will. The the state constitution says that the paramount duty of the state is to make ample provision for the education of all children within its borders without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste or sex. And this will be the big issue when you arrive in your new role. So I'd love to just hear you talk a little bit about where you see this issue going, how we're going to meet that obligation. And, you know, coming from a place of meeting the obligation to everyone without breaking the things that are already working. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on that topic. Thanks. So I appreciate the question, of course, very much. At McCleary and our state's paramount duty goes to the core of of the work in the next year or two. And of course on the reality is, is that we have reached a point where our ability for the state to assume the compensation of our state's teachers and ensure that local levies are not being required to fund that base level of salary, that that or that salary is extremely expensive. And we've gradually slipped, of course, now to a point where Seattle and other many other districts in in King County have a very high local levy rate. The core value proposition, of course, of local levies is supposed to be wraparound services and enhancements and modifications relative to sort of customized learning at the local level. We have a huge structural problem, and the fact of the matter is that the work of the governor and the legislature recently to try to come to some degree of consensus of the elements of a grand bargain is struggling, and it's struggling because of the elements of a grand bargain incorporate levy issues. And the issue of equity is very important to that. So I think it's fair to say that this is job one. It's fair to say that we have to have a very serious recognition of the need for compromise of the elements of a grand bargain. But I also think we have to acknowledge that it is simply unsustainable to think that we're going to put an overwhelming majority of our effort into lowering local levies. Meeting the spirit and the essence of McCleary without additional resources that would compensate for those districts that would see a reduction in local levy, but no commensurate increase in salary in in education funding. So there are the elements of a grand bargain. Issues around levy reform are very important to King County because of the fact that most of the local levies have reached, you know, 25, 28, 32%. So we are not going to get to a place where we can lower local levies to 15 or 20% without substantial new state resources, so that it becomes a very legitimate policy conversation around what the options are for that. And I've been knee deep in this issue, worked very hard in the House, and I very much think that this is the work that we have to do in the Senate and onward. Okay. So so I come from a place or a mindset or a background or something that I always thought that when the state Supreme Court said to do something, that you did it. And I was kind of shocked. I was really shocked that the legislature and really part of the legislature would turn to the Supreme Court and say, no, make me. I was I was I took a lot of of nerve, I think. And here we are, the whole state kind of held hostage by that moment. And I'm not really impressed with with how the back and forth as has gone. And I'm thankful for the leadership that we've had in the 36th District. Our delegation. Senator Cole Wells. Representative Carlisle. And then when Representative Todd time came in, I have has held very fast on McCleary being our paramount duty to fulfill the catch in your question was without breaking anything. And I just had a call the other night from a colleague who's whose work is primarily on the human services part of childhood and who had been lobbied to to please give over and make her primary focus be funding McCleary no matter what. And she had to say not if you're going to take it out of here. And I think that that is really important because there are some things that we are not going to take that money out of cuts, hit human services first and then education. So we're not going to take more money from Human Services for in order to fulfill. McCleary The thing that I have looked at as the most attractive has been capital gains tax to go ahead with capital gains and to make sure that McCleary is fully funded. Yes, it is our paramount duty and that is going to be the first thing. Last legislative session was called the three M's and one of those M's was McCleary. It was mental health, marijuana and McCleary, and we didn't quite finish any of them. But McCleary really is the outstanding it's it's the elephant in your room. And I know that we're going to send Raven back and he is going to close some more loopholes and he is going to find some more money. And we, I hope, are going to do what the state Supreme Court tells us to do and fully fund McCleary without breaking anything else. Because if I have to go another legislature legislative session saying we didn't meet our obligation with McCleary, but at least we did not break anything else, then that is what I live with. Mr. Kaplan. Oh, I would just add that know, going back to one of the earlier questions, when you spend revenue wisely, you don't need to ask for as much upside. And if we had sentencing reform, if we had, you know, a different path for young people and nonviolent offenders, I think we'd free up significant amount of cash. But we cannot take the money that we need to fund education from the very things that create the safety net and the infrastructure that allows us to move forward as a state with compassion and with a rational game plan. So, yeah, we need more revenue. I agree with Liz that the capital gains tax would probably be the most palatable at this moment in time. But I do think there are areas where we're spending money unnecessarily and we could redirect some funds. Thank you. Thank you for the questions. Seeing none. We have the motion before us and we would need a amendment to address line 11 in the motion. Is there Amendment Council member Carl Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to make an oral amendment to include the name. Please. So we mentioned. So this is my first time. You're doing great. To include Marilyn Carlyle as an appointee to the state Senate. Thank you. An amendment has been made to add the name Reuben Carlisle to the blank online 11 in the motion before us, appointing Representative Carlisle to the State Senate discussion on the amendment. Councilmember Lambert, did we. Move that ordinance to start with? We did. Okay. There's back this. Councilmember up the grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this where we comment on the. The selection? This is final. Please be boring. This is adding represent Carlisle's name to the blank. I would like to speak in favor of the motion. I had the chance to. Serve for a number of years with Carlisle in the State House. And the good thing, I think the public is well served when the senators are House trained. Oh. I never thought I. Was going to share. I never told this before. An old dear friend, Senator Ken Jacobson, once said he knew I was a basketball guy and he was talking about the difference between the House and the Senate. And he said the House is like college basketball. The coach calls the shots. You have this big team mentality. And he said the Senate's like the NBA. No one tells Kobe Bryant what to do. And I think Rubin may be a good fit there in that he not. Only was excellent team player, but he's also, I think, stood out for being an independent thinker, for being someone who is willing to question, not hesitate to. Bring independent analysis and question assumptions. Whether it was the state data center. Whether it's tax policy, you name it. He's been willing to stand up not only for his constituents, but for the people, the state. Of Washington, and bring. Intelligent, independent analysis to the questions before them. And the Senate. Is very fortunate, and I wish you well. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate you all coming up through this process. That can be daunting running the Pico Gantlet to get to here. It's almost as tough as that actual campaign sometimes, but I suspect you didn't have any problem coming through. And I wanted to show some bipartisan support for your appointment. You've you've always struck me as somebody who's got your heart in the right place. And, boy, you know, you're speaking my language when you're talking about special purpose district reform, and you get all of these different districts are raising their own taxes and not paying attention to what's happening on the $5.90 cap. And we saw it here a few years ago in the Library District, maxed out statutory authority and suppressed the flood district. And so we had to run around paying fire districts not to levy their rates. And so that's something we got to keep our eye on. And the answer's fairly simple, but it takes an enormous amount of political courage to make those reforms because you're messing with special purpose district funding. But keep up the good work. We look forward to partnering with you here at the local level to help you as we fight those and other battles. So I wish you the very best and I want to commend others for their participation as well. And you got a good audience to get some of your. Views out as well here. So anyway, I look forward to voting for you and working with you in the future. Thanks. And my apologies to the maker of the motion for not calling on her first council member, Coles. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a very meaningful vote that I'll be taking, given that I have so much admiration for Representative soon to be Senator Robin Carlisle, as well as Liz Campbell and David Caplan. I don't know if you're all aware that we had over 200 PCOS participate in, I believe at the actual meeting at which and votes took place, there were 197 and something on that order. 92, one, 92 and we had, I believe, the highest number of PCOS in the state and the highest number of registered voters and voter turnout in the state. So what this amounts to is that we have a very active district and they get involved, they get engaged. And I am really thrilled with the caliber of the three contenders for this seat. Really outstanding. And the other reason that this is very meaningful to me, of course, is that I'm voting on my successor. And we, of course, don't lay any claim to having a lifetime important seat in the Senate or the House or county council. But I was on this I was in the legislature for a long time and just had just been completing now my 21st year in the state Senate. So that's significant for me and I don't let go lightly. I think, frankly, that I have resigned it and that there was a lot of emotion involved with that. But I think that I know that Reuben will be outstanding in the role as state senator for our 36th legislative district, and I have no doubt about that. I just wish I could peek into the caucus meeting that that that rule. And you will do terrifically and God bless the Senate in what would be very good hands. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And kind of any councilman down there to. Yeah, because I'm just kind of adding to what you said in relationship to Drew and his margin of victory. The percentage is as wide as my margin of victory when I run for office. With him and what he's been able to accomplish in his district. I look forward to support you. But I want to add that Liz and David are extremely accomplished and safe and we have our way to continue their their involvement in their district as well as broader politics, because we can use their talents to really. All right, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciated Gene Caldwell's comment about lifetime tenures with how the Senate and perhaps the county council. But I may agree with two of the three I. Oh, oh, yeah. Yeah. I had the privilege of being in the state senate for 20 years, and I say this unabashedly. The 36th District, House and Senate has always been one of the best represented districts in the state legislature. I say that without question. It's always had a vigorous group, whether Republican or Democrat, believe it or not, there were some Republicans at one time, and I told my colleagues the only Republicans left safe in Seattle are those in the Woodland Park Zoo. Elk. And I'm sorry. There's. Thank God I had a chance to meet ruined through a phone call he made to me because he wanted to hire somebody who had worked in my office. And we had a great conversation. And he was fortunate enough to hire that person and that person was fortunate to be a mentee of yours, and you did a great job with them. He's now in the private sector, working hard for his community in the 36th District, and that was Matt Gausman. And so anyway, I join with my colleagues. It's been a great conversation we've had today and I look forward to working with you as you represent this district in the state legislature. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to compliment all three of you on how qualified you are and your passion for good public policy and caring about our citizens. So thank you for that. I agree with Councilmember at The Grove that having senators or House change is a very good thing. I think it helps us ensure that that the debate between the Rotunda are not too far away. Remember, once we actually had a line across the rotunda and we all held hands, so it was clear that that is a passable space. So I think that's really important. And I want to say that I appreciate the transparency that you've brought to the legislative process and especially to finances. I think it's not that we don't as a county, want to help other parts of the state, but not to our citizens budget. And it's gotten in place now where I believe has come to our citizens detriment. And there are some ways of compromising that certain things are in better shape in different parts of the county. Keep moratorium on taking our money and our for instance roads get to look at good is quality based on some standards and the rest of the state and then we can go back to a different formula. But I think we really need to look at how much more we can share before it hurts us so badly. So I really appreciate your open communications and I look forward to it continuing as a senator and I know you have all of our cell phone numbers and I'm happy to receive calls up to 138. And please know that you're working hard. Thank you. She was telling me to AM just 20 minutes ago. Well. For the comments on the amendment hearing and others in favor of the amendment, please say I opposed nay motion that the amendment is adopted. The motion, as amended, is before US. Councilmember Dombrowski. Technical amendment on line for the correct the name of Senator Jim Caldwell's to strike the I and replace it with me. Oh yeah we will the I believe the clerk will take care of that for us. Indeed. Very good. Thank you. Further discussion. I'm final passage. If the clerk would please call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Counselor. Double duty by Councilmember Dombroski by Councilmember Dunn. I remember Gossett. I always thought well, I was never remember either one more of the girl councilmember by my count. Hi, Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Chair. Votes no nice, no notes, and then excused. Thank you. By your vote we've given a do pass recommendation to motion 2015 535 and we will expedite that to the full the special meeting of the full council at 130 today. Do they have to come back? They're welcome. They're welcome to be here for that. They're not required to be a council member. Lambert I just want to be sure that they take with them our agenda so that their, their first assignment is with and I think you that very much. Yeah. All right. They all. Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. We appreciate your participation, and you're welcome to hang up. Thank you. At any point you wish. Thank you. All right. And that takes us to item five on the agenda. Proposed Motion 2015.

AN ORDINANCE relating to emergency communications; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget; transferring positions from the Seattle Police Department to the Community Safety and Communications Center; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_05242021_CB 120065

The Report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Agenda Item three Council Bill 120065 An ordinance relating to Emergency Communications amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget. Transferring positions from the Seattle Police Department to the Community Safety and Communication Center and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed with a divided report with councilmembers Herbold and Lewis in favor. Councilmember Gonzalez opposed and councilmembers Morales and Sewell abstaining. Thank you so much. As chair of committee, I will address this item. This legislation itself moves both the PEOC and the 901 dispatch out of the police department and into the new Safety and Communications Center. As mentioned this morning, I am bringing an amendment to this bill which was posted with the agenda. And so what I will do first is I will move to amend Council Bill City Council Bill 12 0065 as presented on Amendment one of the agenda. And after I have a second, I will describe that amendment. Thank you. At this time. I'm calling for a second. There's a second. Thank you so much. So the amendment itself alters the bill as introduced and as heard in committee. Again, the bill, as heard in committee, moves both the post and the 911 dispatch out of the Seattle Police Department and moves both into the new community safety and communications venue. This amendment will ensure that we are only moving the 911 dispatch out of the police department and into the Community Safety and Communication Center. And we are maintaining the peals in speedy until a later date. I believe we're looking at bringing this up again sometime before September. And so with that can I will move Amendment one and if I could get a second to Amendment 1/2. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment One. Are there any comments or questions about this action? I am. Okay, Councilman Mosqueda. Oh, thank you, Madam President. Madam President, pro tem, I appreciate you doing this. And I just wanted to note the importance of you taking these steps today and look forward to the future conversations. But I think that this is a smart move for now, and I know there will be more conversations out, but I just wanted to thank you for the approach that you're taking with this topic in today's discussion and look forward to continuing to engage with you and various members of our city family and members of the public, as well as we all remain committed to that, to the goals that we talked about last year. And those details working out those details is really going to matter in the next few months here. So thanks for all of your work here and look forward to engaging in the next steps. Thank you so much. Any other comments on the amendment? Councilman Morales. Yes. Thank you. I do want to thank you as well for this approach. I am hoping to have additional conversations with folks. I think, you know, last week Councilmember Lewis indicated some real discomfort with trying to walk a line between or really get between two different unions in the city. And our I think it's really important that we have a clear understanding from the different perspectives of our city employees. You know, why they think one is preferred over the other. I have not been able to have those conversations yet. And so I appreciate the opportunity to move forward with the 911 call response and to get my questions answered. A little more time to get my questions answered about the the parking enforcement side of this equation. So thank you for pulling that piece out. Absolutely. Councilmember Lewis. Thank you. Madam President, pro tem, I made my comments this morning during a briefing, but I think for for the record, for the afternoon meeting, I should just briefly mention as well, similar to the sentiment Councilmember Morales expressed, that I think it is always hard for us as a as a progressive, pro-labor council when two members of our broader Labor family have different views on a policy, although I would say a common interest. Right. I mean, there's unanimity that this we want to move this work function out of speed. There is some dispute on exactly where we're going to send them. And I do think that this would benefit from some additional time where we can use our relationships and in our appreciation of service for both Protec and for the parking enforcement bill. To better understand a way to resolve this and equitably and in a way that doesn't divide the labor movement. So I do appreciate this approach. And and I think that this time between now and the fall will be productive and resolving this in a good way. So thank you so much. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, I want to just take a moment to express my sincere appreciation for the efforts of those to engage with this council, both back in in September through November and sort of the development of of their worker led mission for how they can play a role in reimagining public safety in in the city. And as and as well their their continued engagement even today as we consider this legislation and look forward to ongoing conversations moving forward to see if we can reach some agreement on on these really important policy issues. With that not seeing any further questions, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment One. So on. Yes. Strauss. Yes. LEWIS Yes. Morales As was Sarah Peterson. Yes. Council president, pro tem. Honorable. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you so much. The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the amendment amended bill is now before the council. Are there any further questions or comments? Councilmember want. Thank you, President Pro-Tem Herbold. I will be voting yes on this bill, but I just wanted to make some comments about where I feel the things are. This bill moves the positions from the Seattle Police Department's employment roles to the employment roles of the new Community Safety and Communication Center. In the past, Seattle's political establishment have pretended that this is the demand of the Justice for George Floyd movement and conflating completed it with the real demand to defund the police. In reality, and this is overwhelmingly an accounting mechanism. As I said, I'm I support this, but I think we have to be accurate in characterizing what it is with parking enforcement. There is zero change in the function performed by the city staff who are engaged in it with the 911 911 call center. Some community members hope that this is the first step to creating a community safety structure where police are not always dispatched when there's situations like mental health emergencies. However, that continues to be an aspiration for the future, and this bill that the council is voting on today only changes the accounting lines. So as I said, I will continue to support this bill, but I do not agree with the attempts, ongoing attention conflated with defunding the police. In fact, there is a danger actually when it is described as something akin to the demands that the Black Lives Matter movement brought forward last year. The right wing pretends that police do not have the money to fight crime when in reality these accounting being changes. Although nothing about the number of police officers in Seattle and the amount of policing in Seattle, the only changes in the name of the department signing the paychecks for these some departments. I'm concerned that the mayor may try to increase the police budget for 2022, claiming that she is only returning it to its normal level when in reality that would be a massive expansion of the police budget because these accounting breaks have moved major expenses of formerly move them off the SBT box. I will vote yes on this legislation, but I urge Black Lives Matter activists to remain vigilant to stop the political establishment from misrepresenting what is done by these accounting transfers. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Swan. I'm not quite sure if Councilmember Lewis, you have your hand up again. Yes, Madam President. Pro tem. I did just want to come in and say, while I appreciate Councilmember Swan's characterization, that, you know, that this is going to change how these employees are paid, there are more significant structural changes that come with the transfer that we're doing under this provision. I mean, the 911 dispatchers will now be under civilian command and control in a new department that has an interim director in the new communications civilian department. I do want to take advantage of this opportunity to maybe just foreshadow Madam President pro tem, the work that our offices have been doing in collaboration with providers, with the Defender Association and with other jurisdictions and cities through the the Sprint team process that you discussed during your comments at council briefing this morning that those conversations have new life breathed into them in terms of the realm of possibilities by this transfer of the dispatchers being under civilian command and control and no longer being under the control of a sworn police captain, which was the previous arrangement that we are ending with this vote today. So I just want to indicate that while it is the case that a lot of it is a technical and accounting and administrative change, there are some real considerable changes in terms of who the dispatch is accountable to and what the incentives of that bureaucracy are and what the policy remedies can be on the future of how we do dispatch by the change we are making today. That does represent a very structural shift in our ability to re calibrate and re hook up our dispatch apparatus to things that are not police response systems. And we are taking that first step today and look forward to continuing that work over the course of this year. Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis. Any other comments on the bill or. We request the. I'm calling it the roll. I'm not seeing any requests for comment or questions. So with that, with a part, please call the role on the passage of the amended bill. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. S mosquera. I. PETERSON Yes. Council president, pro tem HERBOLD. Yes. Seven in favor, nine opposed. Thank you so much. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Thank you so much. Item number 13, we've moved up from the amended agenda so that we can hear item number 13 directly following the related item that we just voted on . Item number three. Clerk Will you please read the item 13 into the record?

Recommendation to receive and file report on the actions taken at the Metropolitan Water District Board meeting held on September 9, 2014.

LongBeachCC_09232014_14-0777

We have a report from the Office of Vice Mayor Susie Lowenthal with the recommendation to receive and file a report on actions taken at the Metropolitan Water Board District meeting in September 9th. Circuit OC Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Just briefly wanted to mention that Assemblymember Rendon was here to discuss Proposition one, which is the Water Quality Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. And one of the items that the Metropolitan Water District took up at its September 9th meeting was to approve support for that measure and to convey that to the legislature. But the summary of the remaining parts of the meeting are there as well. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second public comment on the item. CNN, Please cast your votes. Motion carries seven votes and one abstention. Keir Starmer Let me quickly go, Mr.. Mr.. City Attorney. I know we had a we just need a can we can call for a revote on the real briefly. Yes, I tried to uncool myself. Okay. Okay. Please cast your vote again. Thank you. Councilmember Andrews, you realize it was so controversial. Motion carries eight votes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to I know that the suggestion is related to do a report out on the closed session. So let's do that quickly. Then we'll go back to the agenda. Mr. Parker. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the City Council pursuant to section 54956.9 this evening in closed session, City Council authorized the settlement of the case of Rockwell versus City of Long Beach by a unanimous vote of 8 to 0 to. And the settlement includes injunctive relief to make a number of minor structural changes instituted over the next five years at Queen Mary and the payment of $80,000. Thank you. Thank you. And now going on to number ten, Mr. Quick. To report from the office of Councilwoman Susie Price, Councilwoman Stacy Mango and council member Roberta Ranga with a recommendation request at the city manager. Report to the City Council within 30 days, identifying the fiscal impact of a search associated with waiving the business license fees for a new business hit for the in their first year.

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on the implementation and launch of the City’s new public-facing calendar system. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06152021_21-0554

Thank you. We are going to move on to item 26, please. Report from City Manager Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on the implementation and launch of the city's new public facing calendar system citywide. Mr. Mayor. Members of the council, we do have a presentation on this. This is a really exciting development that we've been putting into place, and it's ready to go live about how to really show a lot of the great events and meetings and ways to engage with government. This has been a big priority for this Council, especially through the Strategic Communications Plan, and I'd like to turn it over to Kevin Lee to walk us through the presentation. Thank you, Mr. America, honorable mayor and city council members. I'm happy to be here today to share with you an update regarding the city's new public facing calendar system. That's a launch in just a couple of weeks. As you are aware, the city launched a five year strategic communications plan in March 2020, just days before standing up the Joint Information Center for the COVID 19 Response, which is still in operation today. During the pandemic response, we were able to accomplish many things in the communications plan, one of them being the city calendar system. Now, with things opening up, this is the perfect time to launch the calendar. In the communications plan. The calendar is under the strategic focus area of local public engagement, with a goal of making a more well informed community and an objective of increasing awareness of city priorities. Projects, programs, initiatives, services, events and meetings. The current calendar we are replacing has some challenges. It's a legacy based calendar that the city migrated into the CMS in 2017 with the update to the city's website. So while it served its purpose at the time, it has some limitations. For instance, it lacks advanced functionality and limited filtering options. It's not that dynamic, interactive or shareable, and you're not able to receive notifications. Jump forward to the new calendar and you'll see so many benefits and enhancements for the public. There is a simplified homepage access, which I will talk about in a moment. New options and features. It's user friendly, very intuitive and dynamic. There is a refined navigation, an integrated notification options and advanced filtering options as well. And let me touch on language language access as well. People will be able to use Google Translate throughout the calendar as a quick way to get information in any language. However, we will also add a standard in language message on event pages that lets the community know that if they need more information in their language, they can reach out to the staff contact. Also there is a feature that allows community members to note they will require onsite interpretation at a meeting. Further, we will now have the ability to add characters in other languages, such as command directly into the calendar, which was impossible before. And for a staff, this calendar really had a customized look. We were able to still keep the look in certain departments like library services and development services while integrating the back end. And it's easier for staff to maintain. For instance, you can now enter a multiday event really easily, which before you were not able to do so. As you may be aware, under the current Events tab on the city website, there are two calendars, a special events, one and a meetings and notices one. This isn't necessary and can be confusing. With the new system, there will just be one department. Calendars are automatically integrated into this master calendar on the. Homepage. And basic structure and event details are provided upfront for the convenience of our community. And you can now navigate the calendar from home page or access the full calendar by clicking more events. With the new calendar. There are there are several views, all depending on how each individual would like to view the calendar. The eye catching tile of you. What you see here is the default for desktop. However, there are three additional views people can choose. The month and list views are a bit more traditional. And then there's a map view as well that allows you to see events on where they fall within the city on a map. This view is default for mobile to ensure an optimized experience. With the new calendar. There are also several ways to search for events and meetings. You can search by calendar name, for example parks or libraries, event type, for example, career workshop, community meeting, or even age based types as well. You word search. This is self-explanatory. But I do want to note that these key words don't have to be put in the back end by staff. The calendar is actually searching the contents and then proximity by zip code. If someone wants to know what's going on nearby then. The event page will now be full of features. Obviously there will be an event description and image and contact information will be required in case the community has additional questions. You will also be able to share directly to your social media pages and place right into your personal calendar. There is also a shareable QR code for each event. There's also an RSVP option as well. And within that option, a calendar administrator can include an option for a community member to sign up to speak at the event if there is a Q&A session. Also notable is the notification features. You will now be able to subscribe to a calendar or an event and receive notifications via text or email when a new event is added or if an existing event has updates. If you're really into it, you can sign up to receive notifications regarding all events and meetings in the city that are on this calendar. You can also customize when you receive notifications. For instance, if you can get noticed, you can get notifications upon each new event, or you can receive notifications on all events added in a week . I want to call your attention to the fact that council members will be able to receive notifications when an event is added within your district. You'll likely already know that they are coming, but this can give you more details and also you'll be able to share these events as they pop up. Just some information on the administration. Oversight really falls in the Office of Public Affairs and Communications, which is my shop, and we'll make sure that the calendar is being used across the department and then also the Technology and Innovation Department. They'll be there to make sure that functioning properly, properly and for training. There are trained content authors in departments and legislative offices, and content is expected to be provided in full and follow the city calendar guidelines, which will be available on the city's intranet. What's next? We expect to launch the week of June 28. This gives departments time to populate their events on the new calendar. We will send out a press release. Social media across departments will integrate it into our Go Language newsletter, the city's on hold message, the city's homepage and all the this calendar is really intuitive. We are working on a how to video to help those along that might need a little extra information on how to use it. Before I close, I'd like to recognize Sal Rodriguez in the Technology and Innovation Department and Jonathan Garcia in our public affairs office for the excellent work they've done on this project. That concludes my presentation, and I'm here to respond to questions you may have. Thank you. I believe there is no we have no public comment for this item, so must go to the council. We have a motion by council and I'm going to second advisory. Richardson Councilman Mongo. Thank you so much. I have waited so long for this item to come back to council. When I first brought forward this idea to the city, it was unanimously supported but not funded, and it went in years where we continued to hear from the community. Request after request to know when things are and how to not schedule nonprofit fundraisers on top of citywide events, how to better coordinate resources, and to really have a central place where all postings were the unification of notification to constituents to be able to score. Subscribe to the things you want to know about. While we are in the infancy of rolling this out, the potential is endless. I want to thank Kevin for his relentless pursuit of this. The poor guy has had to have dozens of meetings with me going in and out of every component of this and what the public and the future with the public can see, how they can engage with it, and how they can really see what they want from the city through this process. I see this having endless potential in terms of not wanting it to be overcrowded, but to really be able to click on and click off anything. If you want to know when the Grand Prix is, every single Grand Prix for the next five years that we have a contract for should be on that calendar. Every Christmas parade, every event on piping, every event in uptown, every single thing could be here so that citywide resources are not stretched too far, but also so that nonprofits can coordinate better with us, so they can know when they can have access to a street fair or an event. And then furthermore, just the standardization of an ability to see when things are happening. When is enrollment for soccer? When is enrollment for our summer programs at the Nature Center? All of those dates are possible to be here in the future. It's just a matter of ensuring everything's in one place. Then, as a person who enters our city, as a young member of the community who's interested in work source opportunities, you can subscribe to those. Then, as you transition to a mom, you can look and sign up for the list related to enrollments for 3 to 5 year olds in Parks and Rec library. You don't have to go to the library website, then the Parks and Rec website and then the Nature Center website. It's all in one place for your convenience. I think this will really help constituents be more involved when we have citywide initiatives or policies, whether it's the land use element or short term rentals or any of those things, and community meetings are posted. You now can search for which community meeting makes the most sense to you and not rely upon council members individual emails. I often get calls I can't find the email that you sent out last month that had the date of the upcoming such and such meeting. Now there can always be a link to the citywide calendar that has all of these things. When bringing this item forward. I had a vision that really came to me through discussions with leaders in our city and leaders that continually struggled through an informal network where they would among themselves, whether it was a group of moms or a group of nonprofit leaders, work together to really keep their own calendar. And this will eliminate that. And it will also give instantaneous updates to anyone that subscribes to any particular event of a move. So when things change, when dates change, when things move, we'll be able to know and notify people appropriately. So I cannot tell you how excited I am for this. The future is endless. I love to see us get to a point where nonprofits who've gone through appropriate training and within certain limitations could also use the tool to engage the community on some of their more popular events, maybe even the convention center. Any convention that's open to the public. How great would it be if you're a Long Beach resident and you said, Hey, I didn't know we had the fishing convention. I'm into fishing. Not only did I sign up for the Fishing Derby at Eldorado Park, but I'm notified. Did you know of these other fishing events in our city? And then really take those warm leads for residents to be able to be involved in every aspect of our city. I really think this is a component of of the full integration of a 24 hour city hall. And I just cannot tell you how proud I am of our staff. It has not been an easy path, and I want to just say thank you from the bottom of my heart. I don't think you know how many people you're going to impact and their ability to be involved is just it's really, really life changing for for people, especially busy people and busy moms. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Allen. Yes. I also want to say thank you to Mr. Lee for your presentation. This is an exciting idea, and I too have wanted a city calendar for so long. My staff attended one of your training sessions and they really appreciated the simplicity and the ease of the platform. Having one centralized calendar that is searchable and compatible with social media and other platforms is something that is really going to resonate with the public. So I really liked when you talked about all the notification features. I think that is really great. I know I'm definitely going to appreciate it. It's just a great tool for people to know what's going on in the city and all the great events that are happening. So I do have a question. How are you going about just getting the word out that we have this tool now? Yes. County Council Member So when we launch in a couple of weeks here, the week of the 28th, we will be sending a press release out on social media as well across our city department. So we'll make sure that every department starts pushing this information out. We'll be integrating into our newsletter and things like our on hold message at the city. And then we will also be working with we have a email list of community groups will be pushing it out through there as well, which reaches a lot of people in the community. Thank you very much. Just great work. Thank you. I think I'd passed over a vice mayor Richardson, who had the second, actually. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And, you know, I mean, this is this is incredible. I hope folks I hope folks use it because it can be tremendously impactful. You know, it's a big it's a big deal to do an integrated calendar publicly. I mean, it will make all of our jobs a lot easier. And one of those things, we're a big city, but we're really not all that big. We're kind of a small town and everyone wants to support everyone's events across the whole city. This is one tool to help make it happen. Councilman Mongo I remember it has been a long time. I remember when you brought this forward and we all talked about how useful it would be. And I think it shows sometimes how long it may take to get something done, but is just as exciting when it finally happens . So thank you for your leadership in bringing this forward and bringing this forward. And and I look forward to making sure that our our, you know, all of our districts begin to engage with this citywide calendar so we can support each other's events. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Councilman. Sir. Thank you, Mayor. I also want to thank city staff Kevin and your team for working so hard on this and Councilmember Mongo for being such a strong advocate for a calendar that works for 24 hours and to be effective and efficient in the way that we coordinate our work. I am so excited about being able to subscribe to the calendar because I live like as Councilmember Mongo as a busy mom. I live off of my calendar. If I am, if it's not on my calendar, it's not in my you know, I'm not aware of what's happening or, you know, it's not on my radar to go to. So I appreciate so many of the features and function and are so excited that there will be an ability to access that in other languages as well, which is so crucial to ensuring that all members of our residents can access them and understand what's happening. And that I also have had a few of my staff already attend the training, which has been great so that, you know, I appreciate being on a council member coming in with this system set up so that we can best organize and also inform residents about this as well. So thank you so much. Thank you, counselor. Moms and dads. A huge thank you to to you, Kevin Lee. Mr. Kevin Lee, thank you so much. This is phenomenal. Thank you so much. Council member Mango for keeping added and pushing for something so amazing like this. Increasing the level of communication between our Long Beach community and our city is something that I am very, very passionate about. I think that tools like this and like this new calendar system offer us the amazing opportunity to do exactly that. And I know many of the residents have expressed interest in being more involved and receiving information about local events and volunteer opportunities. And I'm so happy that all of that information will will all be in this one place, in this calendar. So thank you. Thank you very much for your hard work, because I know it took a lot of hard work and a lot of years to actually develop something like this that we all can benefit from. But we are going to reap the benefits here on out and I'm just so excited. I can't wait for this to launch out and to launch and I am super excited to share this with all of my residents as well. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. The comments of my colleagues reminded me of a small thing that happened along the way. This item started so long ago that it was not common for you to receive a note from, let's say, your favorite sports team or your favorite Netflix series or whatever, where when they send you the email, you can click on it and it literally adds it to your own calendar. And whether it's something where we say, I want to see all the volunteer opportunities for park cleanups at the park near me, or I want to see all the low income resident workshops that help me fill out the forms I need to get up my feet, whatever those things are. I just want to give an additional thank you that though the path has been long and a long path along the way, the continued support of staff to make adjustments so that by the time that it was released, it wasn't already antiquated and out of date. And so thank you for that. And I just can't wait to see all these things pop up on my calendar that I can subscribe and unsubscribe to in the bottom. I'm just so excited for the things that this can do for our community. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second members. Oh, actually, I understand you have an announcement about Councilman Price. Yes. All council members currently participating in the meeting are in the council chamber. I will stop the the roll call vote and proceed with voting via vote cast for the remaining items. Thank you. Members, please cast your votes. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. Next item, please.

AN ORDINANCE related to solid waste management; adopting the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan as a revision of the 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; amending Ordinance 14236, Section 3, and K.C.C. 10.25.010 and Ordinance 14236, Section 12, and K.C.C. 10.25.100, adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 10.25, adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 10.08 and repealing Ordinance 14236, Section 4, and K.C.C. 10.25.020, Ordinance 14236, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.030, Ordinance 14236, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.040, Ordinance 14236, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.050, Ordinance 14236, Section 8, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.060, Ordinance 14236, Section 9, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.070, Ordinance 14236, Section 10, as amended, and K.C.C. 10.25.080 and Ordinance 14236, Section 11, and K.C.C. 10.25.090.

KingCountyCC_03042019_2018-0375

And with that, we'll move to item 21, which is the adoption of the 2019 Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan. This plan has had a lot of regional and council discussion over the last several years and was passed out of the Regional Policy Committee last week when he sue, who is here to present the staff report on behalf of herself and Tara Rose Mr. Who. Good afternoon. Thank you, Wendy. To who council staff. Tara Rose is the primary author of this document and she did really an awesome job. So I just like to only take credit for any errors that you might find in the staff report, so. That can be arranged. Thank you. So proposed ordinance 2018 0375 would adopt the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan as amended by the Regional Policy Committee. This is the first update of the plan since the 21 comprehensive plan, and it sets the strategies for managing solid waste in King County for the next six year planning period with consideration of the next 20 years. So turning to page 63 of your packet. I'll just talk very briefly about the comprehensive plan development process. The development and approval process for the comprehensive plan is governed by state law, county code and interlocal agreements with the partner cities. Developing this plan has involved coordination with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee. Its work, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, includes representation by interested citizens. Waste Management Recycling Group or excuse me. And Waste Management and recycling groups in this work is made up of partner city representatives. Both of these groups are charged with advising the county on solid waste planning and policy setting, and both of the advisory committees have issued advisory notes expressing support of the plan. The plan also requires a public comment period and CPA review as well as Department of Ecology review. Turning to page 64 of your materials, just to highlight briefly the approval process, the per the into local agreements with the partner cities. The plan is adopted when it's approved by the King County Council and also by cities representing 75% of the population of jurisdictions that are party to the ALA. So after the council approves the plan, it would then need to be approved by some number of of the cities that are participants in the system. Then after that, the final plan would be submitted to the Department of Ecology for formal approval. And if there's no questions, I'll actually move to the analysis of the plan on page 70 of your staff report. So at the bottom of pick 70 and on to page 71, there's a very high level summary of the contents of the plan. There's an introductory chapter. This chapter doesn't contain any goals or policies or actions, and so it's not further discussed in the analysis portion of the staff report. Chapter two focuses on the existing solid waste system. Chapter three covers forecasting and data. Chapter four is focused on sustainable materials management, and this chapter focuses on waste prevention and recycling. Chapter five talks about the solid, solid waste transfer and processing system with some discussion of the transfer network planning in Northeast King County, which I know is a topic of interest. And then Chapter six focuses on landfill management, solid waste disposal with consideration towards the long term disposal of the county's waste. And then Chapter seven focuses on solid waste system finance policies. So turning to page 72 of your packet, I'll start with chapter two. As I mentioned, this chapter focuses on the processes, infrastructure and programs that comprise the existing solid waste system in King County. And it sets four policies related to the existing system policy. Yes, one recommends that the existing combination of public and private facilities remain in the future. As you're all aware, the solid waste system is a mix of public and private facilities and partners. There's an inner local agreement with 37 partner cities. Under that agreement, King County is responsible for the transfer and disposal of solid waste. The cities are responsible for managing solid waste handling within their jurisdictions. And generally speaking, the city's contract with the private sector for curbside pickup and transportation, and then for recyclables and construction and demolition waste. Those portions are operated entirely by private companies. So again, yes, one recommends maintaining this existing combination of public and private partnerships. And this policy is consistent with previous policy, including the 2007 Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan. Turning to page 73, the next policy in this chapter is S2, which recommends continuing and working with the division's advisory committees. The Cities in the Solid Waste in our local forum, which under the I L.A. it's the Regional Policy Committee policy is three identifies incorporating principles of equity and social justice and a solid waste system planning, which is consistent with other county policies such as the Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan, is for considers climate change impacts on sustainability when planning for facilities, operations and programs, and that is consistent with the county's Strategic Climate Action Plan. And I'll talk more about some of those elements as I go through the through some of the other chapters. So turning to page 17 for the next chapters, Chapter three, which focuses on forecasting and data. This chapter addresses policies and recommended actions focused around monitoring and reporting largely related to collecting, reviewing, standardizing and reporting data to support future planning and decision making for the solid waste system. These policies and recommended actions are consistent with other adopted policies related to solid waste. And I would just note that all of the policies and recommended actions in this chapter broadly address gaps within the current data collection processes, and so relate to standardization and and other actions to try to try to ensure that the data and forecasting methodologies are able to inform and support that policy making work. So at the bottom of page 75, this portion of the staff report talks about Chapter four, Sustainable Materials Management, the policies and recommended actions in Chapter four to support a goal of zero waste of resources by 2030, with an interim goal to achieve a 70% recycling rate through a combination of efforts in priority order that includes waste prevention and reuse, product stewardship, recycling and composting in beneficial use. And so some of the key policy themes in this chapter are around planning, implementation and infrastructure improvements. Mr.. Who if we can interrupt. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I have two questions. I want to make sure I heard what you said a minute ago about the gaps in in the data. What is that, chapter three? Yes, that's in part three. So how long have we known that there were gaps in this data? I'd like to defer to the division and happily answer that. Question when they come up. I would like to know if there's gaps in our data. I would prefer that they not wait for a plan to do that, but they bring it to us separately and say, you know, this is what we want to do for our data because we shouldn't be having gaps. And then on page 75, a goal of zero waste resources by 2030. And we can't even keep up with our goal of 50% right now. And the agency put out a report in the Normandy report about a year and a half ago that they intended to have a no not intended, that the the calculated calculation would be that we would have a 50% recycling rate by the year 2040. So I don't understand why we're looking at a 70% recycling rate, which is what we've been saying all along. But we've only been getting to 50 and I think it's 53 or 56. And then in the Normandy report, the calculation was put at 50. So it's really hard to get data that makes any sense if every time, which just gets. The problem in chapter three. So can you tell me why they're saying that they're going to achieve a 70% rate by 2030 when that's not what they wrote in the Normandy report? Well, so actually, council member, it does say that they would support a goal of zero waste of resources by 2030 with an interim goal to achieve a 70% recycling rate. And I will note that I was going to get to this later. But the Strategic Climate Action Plan, which the council has previously adopted, actually sets a deadline of 2020 to achieve that rate. And so there is a little bit of a difference here in that this plan doesn't actually repeat that they're going to make that deadline and instead specifies that it's an interim goal. But I would defer to solid waste to talk more about what their plan is in terms of that longer term goal of zero zero waste of resources. Was just confusing when the Normandy report says that it's going to be 50% all the way out to 2040. But one report says that to 2040, we're going to get 50. And that's what you can calculate on. And in this report to 2030, we're going to get 70. So I agree with what you said earlier, that the calculations are issues. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would you like a solid waste staff to come to the table at this time in order to answer questions as we're going through? Mr. Mclauchlan, we can invite you forward now. Good afternoon and welcome. Thank you. For the record. My name is Pat McGlothlin. It's my honor to serve as your director of Solid Waste. And with respect to the questions on recycling, we have for some time had goals of reaching a 70% recycling rate and have made good progress over the years but have stalled. So we have looked, with the help of our cities and our regional partners and identified a roadmap that we believe could restart our recycling engines, if you will. But it will take very certain policy actions, not just by the county, but by individual cities who define the service levels and the recycling programs across our region. And if, as a unified body, we adopt those policy actions and these are outlined in the comprehensive plan, then we can obtain a much higher recycling rate. But for the purposes of planning, we've not assumed that to be a default planning factor. We've used a more modest recycling rate. Our current recycling rates about 54% in our region, which is good. And we're not assuming that we're going to hit to 70%. We're going to keep it as an aspirational goal and again, promote certain actions that are outlined in the plan, working with the cities to take a more harmonized approach . And and if we're successful, I'd like to believe that we will be successful. That will reduce the amount of waste that we have to put through any of our disposal options in the future. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Sure. And I think just speaking or writing. Councilmember Goss, did you have a question? Yeah. Councilmember Gossett. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for Mr. McLoughlin. On the 57% aspiration. But we had 54. Okay. Why would 70% be aspirational if we know or we think we're not going to achieve it? It's just something that worked for we did the same thing for, you know, affordable housing. We have an aspirational goal. We hope that we get close to achieving it, but we don't know yet. But I wanted to ask how when we set goals for 70% and someone raised questions that we'd never gone above 50, why would we just say that's the aspirational goal? Is that not an intent to achieve it? No, we are intent on achieving a 70% recycling goal. We've taken off a date specific buy, which is going to happen because it is reliant upon both you as a council taking certain action to effect the service levels in the unincorporated areas. And each of our 37 member cities also have to take independent action to change their service level approach for recycling. And so it's it's a complicated task ahead of us. We have laid out multiple strategies that will get us there. And we believe that these strategies will work. And in fact, we know they will work because various municipalities in our region have deployed these recycling strategies with success. So we see that they work, but they haven't been deployed across the county consistently. And again, it's going to take independent action by each of the municipalities in order for us to achieve a 70% goal. And that's going to be challenging. And so we took a date off of the plan and left it as an aspirational goal. And we will continue to to push ourselves as a regional Solway system to get better and better. Okay. Thank you. Council member. Lambert Thank you so. Yeah. I think you were at the meeting in Mercer Island where we had all of the waste haulers there, and we were talking about chain of sawed and they said the purity level of the current recycling rate is a 10% impurity level. And in order to be sold in China, it has to have a 0.5. So half a percent, and we're at 10%. Every single person there said unless there's a change in the bin sorting system, that is not possible to happen. And when we asked about the bin sorting system, which is what we used to have, they said it would make a difference in all the bins in the entire county. How many truck loads there had to be and their trucks. So when you say that there would have to be some independent action. Oh, my goodness. It would have to be a total revamp. So tell me, what city has done a 70% recycling and what they're doing? That isn't part of what I just said. You raise some very good points and I don't have the city listing in front of me to to share with you, but I will certainly after this meeting, provide you with a city by city account. But I can express cities who have taken action, such as the city of Renton, who have changed their garbage service to every other week and kept recycling and organics collection that every week. And it has driven increases in their total recycling. That's an example of a strategy that has successfully been deployed to achieve higher recycling rates. The challenges brought forth by China's import policies are real. But I think what's important to realize is that 86%. Of our recycling tonnage is not affected by the China sword. 86% is not affected. It's really the mixed paper and mixed plastics, which is about 14% of our recycling stream which have been impacted. And we've been fortunate that our private haulers and processors have found alternative markets for those materials. But it has certainly been difficult for them, and they have reported significantly lower commodity prices for those items. And I think that's something we have to keep in mind in our recycling programs going forward. But again, 86% of our recycling tonnage is being processed and here domestically and being put back in to our local economy. At what purity level? The the contamination rates that you cited are approximately accurate. Thank you. All right, Mr. Hill, I'm going to ask you to continue in and with an eye toward that in you present the staff report asking members to limit questions until you're done to clarifying questions about the staff report you were giving and then open it up for more dialog with Mr. Mclauchlan. Okay. Sure. So on page 76, I won't get into too much detail here, but there's a detail in each of these paragraphs about the types of specific actions that are recommended related to planning. For example, Mr. Mclauchlan referred to on policy work that might need to be done, such as regulations for green building in construction waste, or policies to make recycling convenient for mixed use and visitor facilities. Those are just some examples, as well as policies specifically related to implementation, such as improving public operations and sponsored events, developing a process to amend the designated recyclables list and so forth. Various infrastructure improvements. Just as an example, developing infrastructure to increase food, scrap recycling, or considering service improvements in unincorporated areas, and then education programs such as programs in schools, providing technical assistance to external agencies and so forth. So just to give an idea of the range of recommendations related to improving recycling. And then as I briefly noted in response to Councilmember Lambert's question, the policies here are consistent with the county code provisions, including the Strategic Climate Action Plan. Although, as I noted, the Strategic Climate Action Plan establishes a deadline for 2020 in terms of achieving the 70% recycling rate, whereas Mr. McLaughlin has spoken to the rationale for why this plan doesn't include that particular date. So I'm going to actually move you to page 80 of your staff report and move to Chapter five. This is the chapter that addresses the county solid waste transfer and processing system, and it does so focused around two themes infrastructure, which the current infrastructure includes eight transfer stations and two rural drop boxes and then environmental sustainability. There are policies in this chapter that essentially call for recommending building and operating transfer facilities using green building and sustainable development practices. I would note that the policies, most of the policies here reflect past decisions around modernizing the county system. The most notable policy in this chapter is the recommended action one Dashti, which calls for siting and building a new Northeast transfer station and then closing the station. And with that, I'll turn you to page 84 of the staff report, which talks about the fiscal implications of of this particular recommendation. So as you're all familiar, the transfer station network is supported through the solid waste rates because most of this network is already built out or is in the process of development. The only transfer station policy recommendation that's incorporated into this plan that has an impact on rates is the decision about how to proceed with capacity in Northeast King County. The draft plan analyzed three options for the northeast area and estimated a total cost per ton, including both operating and capital cost in 2029. And those three options are shown in the middle of page 84, as is the total station would have a $2 and 39 cent cost per ton, whereas the northeast station would have a $13 cost per ton. And then a combination approach would be a little under $10 per ton. The plan does note that only the new Northeast Station option would meet all six key level of serious criteria which our time on site cycling services offered vehicle. Average daily handling capacity space for three day storage and the ability to compact waste ensued. That is the rationale that is discussed in the plan for moving forward with that recommendation. So turning to page 85, Chapter six focuses on landfill management practices and solid waste disposal. This chapter includes policies around operating theater, hills and the closed landfills to meet or exceed relevant laws and standards, and also for updating the debris management plan in coordination with state and regional authorities. So those are focused around the current disposal practices. And then there are also policies for long term disposal policies, D2 and D4 and these direct the county to maximize the capacity and lifespan of the Cedar Hills landfill through further development and also to plan for disposal after its ultimate closure. In order to ensure that there's no gap in service, recommended action. 1-d proposes not specifying the next disposable disposal method in this plan and recommended action. 2-d provides for continuing to evaluate disposal technologies and to regularly update the county's advisory committees. I would note that the two alternative disposal options that were considered were waste, export and waste and building a waste to energy facility. And then I would actually turn you to page 86, which focuses on consistent consistency with adopted policies and plans. So policies D1 and D3 which call for operating questions. Councilmember Dombroski Thank you, Mr.. The Solid Waste Division pays rent for Cedar Hills to the General Fund, and that issue was litigated and the county prevailed. Does that rent obligation cease once we can stop using it for filling, or is it go on in perpetuity given the presence of the landfill on the general funds land and and if that's a legal lead, debatable thing that you want to answer here, that's okay. But I'm kind of curious to understand the fiscal impacts of these issues around Cedar Hills to our general fund, because I don't think it's an insignificant rent check. Meg Moorhead, strategy communications and performance manager for King. County Solid Waste. I believe. That the rent would no longer be paid if we. Stopped using it as an act of landfill. And what do we pay in rent annually to the general fund? We've been the solid waste. I would have to get back to you about that. Yeah. Yeah. We don't have that number with me. Okay, that's important. It seems to me, for not only decision making today, but planning, because our general fund is quite constrained. I mean, we hunt and peck around for $25,000, sometimes or less. Right. So it's I believe the rent check is in the multiples of millions per year. Mr. Hu. Okay. So on page 86, again, the first set of policies call for operating theater hills and the closed landfills to meet or exceed laws and standards related to public health and environmental protection. And so that is consistent with adopted policy around the plans for long term disposal policy. D-2 and part of Recommended Action one D Support Maximizing the capacity and lifespan of the Cedar Hills landfill through further development. Policy decisions over the last decade have been based on analysis indicating that keeping the landfill open for as long as possible is the most economic alternative for waste disposal. And there's a policy draft for I'm now on page 87, which supports not siting replacement and landfill in King County, and that is consistent with the previously adopted policy in the 2001 comp plan and then recommended actions one D and 2D support not specifying the next disposal method after Cedar Hills reaches capacity and closes in order to be able to account for technological advances. And instead, these recommended actions call for tracking and evaluating other disposal technologies for future feasibility. And this represents a departure from adopted county policy, which currently expresses an intent to initiate waste export into the next disposal method. So the policies today would say waste export is the next disposal method. And this plan essentially leaves leaves open what the future method will be. So turning to page 88, I'll just very briefly highlight that the plan does talk about in terms of environmental considerations, greenhouse gas emissions for the three disposal options, and those are shown in table one in the middle of page 88 with essentially with this page 88, with annual greenhouse gas emissions that are comparable for further development of Cedar Hills and waste export, and then significantly greater emissions for a waste to energy facility. Sorry, Miss Chair. Can I ask a little bit about that chart on page 266 where materials that your staff report is summarizing? Page 88 is where I'm speaking. From your reference. You're summarizing the report? Yes, I'm looking at tables 6-1 comparison of key disposal option characteristics further develop Cedar Hills $41 a ton. Export out of county landfill 55, waste energy $136. And then the emissions which you were just talking about, further developed Cedar Hills, 91,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, about the same for export, and then 1.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year on a waste to energy. That right, a factor of almost 12 or 13.13. Yes, we use the regulatory models that we obligated to use. These are from the Environmental Protection Agency. And these numbers that you see here for landfilling are easily calculated. We report these regularly to the Department of Ecology here in Washington State, and the estimates you see for waste to energy were actually calculated by the hired third party experts who presented that study. You got two models. You got the EPA's warm model, which is not the one I was citing, but the numbers are different, similar in terms of scale. But then you've got the EGR TI EPA model. So that's two ways of calculating the same question. I ask you this. If you if we were to adopt the waste energy model, could we meet our council mandated direction to you to be greenhouse gas neutral by 2025? Or is that something different? This would substantially add. Challenge that effort? Yes. Yeah. Okay. I mean, this I'm interested in that. Having worked on that legislation to make you guys be carbon neutral or emissions neutral by a certain date, you stepped up and committed to it. So and I'm looking at these options. Cost is important, but the emissions profile of the technology we're choosing is important to me. Don't interrupt. I want to interrupt with a administrative update, and that is, given the length of this conversation and in my management of the meeting to date, I'm letting Mr. Evans and Ms.. Sanders know that we will be postponing the conversation about the equity and social justice workgroup for the legislative branch to our next meeting March 18th . With my apologies and Mr. Kim. Thank you. And with that, we'll continue our work on the solid waste plan. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to respond to Councilmember DEMBOSKY. The Kyoto protocols, the first country in the world to comply with the Kyoto protocols was Germany, and they have ways to energy plants. And one of the things they told me was that the reason that they thought they could comply was because their waste to energy plants were so much better for the air that that's how they felt that they had made their protocols. The warm model. When I was back in D.C. last year, as you may remember, I went and visited with the EPA and they are updating the calculations of the warm model. So we'll be seeing coming out fairly shortly. The calculation that was just discussed from the Normandy report was based on a formula that was given to them by the department. So they did not let you say that. So in the new study that's being done, this is going to be redone so that we have a more open discussion on that topic. Thank you. Mr. MCLOUGHLIN, if you need to. I just have some supplemental information to an earlier question. The rent payment for Cedar Hills in 2018 was slightly over $3 million with. And to continue the staff report. Mr. WHO? Thank you. Just making a note of that. Okay. So as Councilmember Lambert alluded to, the plan talks about fiscal considerations related to the capital costs of both waste to energy and waste export. But as Councilmember Lambert noted, the council did add a proviso which the entire text of that proviso was provided on pages 91 and 92 of the staff report in the 2019 2020 budget that would fund a study that would look at both of those options in detail, both in terms of the operating and capital costs, as well as the environmental impacts. And that process is currently in procurement right now. And so that that work is expected to be completed in October. So turning to page 92 of the staff report the solid waste system financed this portion of the staff report is on page 92 and the policies are generally around assessing customer fees and supporting the keeping fees as low as reasonable while recovering the cost of the system and upholding system priorities and then managing rates through smaller, more frequent increases and then also broader financial planning. Several of the recommended actions relate to the management use of certain reserves and funds. And I would just note that the the policies are are consistent broadly with prior adopted actions as well as the county's comprehensive financial management plan or policies. And I would just note that there are a couple of recommended actions for F and 11 F described on page 94, which suggest consideration of alternatives to the current rate structure and for managing solid waste rates through smaller and more regular increases. These are new approaches for the solid waste system, but I would point out that in adopting the plan, neither of these represent specific proposals and would require further council action at a later date to actually implement any of that direction. And so that concludes my remarks. Unless you have any questions for me specifically, otherwise, I'd be happy to defer your questions to the director. Questions of Mr. Who? Questions of the department. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. The amount of time that cell H will be available has changed from 2025, from 2028 to 2025 in some papers. Which is it, 2025 or 2028? Landfill capacity is estimated to be available through us till about 2028. However, when you identify the sources of that capacity, the newest cell, which is Area eight, will be consumed by about 2025. And so to get the additional two and a half or three years, we'll be looking at going back at older portions of the landfill and putting additional layers of waste on existing portions of the landfill within our permitted limits in order to get until about 2028. So I have a letter letter here that I can distribute everybody from the Department of Ecology establishing the baseline greenhouse gas emissions that have been ordered to be mandatorily phased reductions of the greenhouse gas starting in 2035. Are you familiar with that order? It was the letter that was sent to you. Yeah. Let's see. It was sent to you by Ben Blank, the Climate Policy Section Manager of the Department of Ecology. And I'm assuming it was this year. Oh, yes. December 18, 2017. If familiar with the letter. Not specifically recalling the letter. Well, anyway, basically what it says is that in 2028, Cedar Hills lanta will be a county for nearly 100 metric tons of CO2, which is 33% higher than what would be allowed under the ecology mandate. And because between 2013 and 2016, emissions at Steiner Hill have continually increased. So the the amount we're supposed to have is about 70,000. And we appear on one of the list of 150 most polluters in the state. So how do you plan to comply with the mandatory reductions, which is, I believe, in the first couple of years, 1.7%, but then it I think reduces to 1.4 later on. How are you going to make those targeted reductions? We have begun that work already through modifying our operational protocols and exploring alternatives in managing our gas collection system. So the use of daily cover, the early implementation of our gas collection system when we're designing or actually using the cell at its earliest phases. And as I said, exploratory methods around refined control of the gas collection system are all making a very measurable difference in both the quality of the gas that we're able to collect. Because, remember, we're not just collecting and then destroying this gas. We are now having it converted into renewable energy. And so we're very, very conscious to not have gas just horribly emitted into the into the atmosphere. Of course, we don't want that even more. So we want to be able to create a renewable fuel with it. And we've been very successful to increase the amount of renewable fuel and the quality of that fuel through these operational practices. And we are continuing to explore ways to even drive those numbers higher. And so we'll continue to do that. And I think that will in turn reduce the accounting of greenhouse gas emissions under EPA's regulatory model. So the clean air rules are going to go before the Supreme Court on March 19th. So if they uphold the clean air rules, don't you think it would be smart for us to wait before a major planning document and talk to the courts since it's only a couple of weeks off made a decision? So we know if they can comply. Well, these these rules, these models that we're referring to are the same models that allow us to compare and contrast waste, export and waste to energy, to local landfilling. And what we know is that local landfilling has the least environmental impact, particularly in terms of greenhouse gases. So providing we continue to operate with excellence the way that we are and pursue better practices and manage our waste locally there at Cedar Hills, we'll be in the best position to comply with any such order. So today's newspaper on B3? Yes. Had a whole top page. Rising methane levels are worrying the scientists and in this article for the first time. Normally they say that methane is 28 times worse than CO2. But I've been hearing from scientists in other places in the world that that is a low number. And in today's paper, our Seattle Times says that it's 32 times more dangerous. And so I think that this is a really important issue. And in the documents that we've been looking at, you're saying that you collect about 90% of the methane coming out of sea, out of Cedar House, which then ultimately means that there's 10% that is not being collected. And I haven't seen any calculations to what that 10%, that 10% comes out to. I have other questions, but I'm going to take them off line. The one thing that I want to also say is there is great concern to me that the solid waste advisory committees, which we had a gentleman come in and speak to, unfortunately know he's still here. Those are one of the few, maybe only public tests, public meetings that are not taped. So there's no way when people call me and say the minutes do not reflect what happened at the meeting, including my own dearly departed staff that we all knew and cared about. We come back from the meetings and say, You know what was in the minutes from the last meeting when I remember hearing. And so that's why I asked you to see if we could start taping those meetings so that I could see if the minutes jived with the the minutes. And as far as I know, you're the only committee that doesn't have audio, and that is of great concern to me. I just want to put that on the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to hearken back a bit to the testimony from several people who are concerned about. Our. Waste to energy and whether or not we can achieve our goals. One of the things they said is that they do not believe some of the ones who said they are scientists or they know scientists that if we add eight years away, if we go back to 2000, 2000, 28, they don't believe that the landfill is adequate enough to haul all the garbage that will come. It was very helpful to me to hear you say just a few moments ago that we probably will be filled by 225. But the last three years, we should be able to add something to our older landfill areas that would allow us to take another 300 tons of garbage . What was that that we'd be adding to this area that would allow us safely to continue to dump a lot of garbage in there for three years. And it's an old part of our existing. System. Yeah. If we don't have a new cell ready by 2025. Then new cell with an audience. Right. So. So to go back. Area eight is our newest cell will begin placing waste in an area eight later this year. Okay. And these are all projections, right? These are all forecasts of predictions based on the economic and recycling figures. As best as we can plan for that cell will last till about 2025. Okay. And providing that we are going to continue to landfill here in the county is as has been proposed. We have the ability to go back to other areas at Cedar Hills that have not been fully closed and put additional layers of waste on top of those cells. Those cells have gas collection systems and leachate management systems in place. Okay. And those are available to us. It does not buy us a tremendous amount of capacity. We actually need to get busy very quickly on developing a full cell, what we call Area nine, in order to ensure that we have no disruption in service. And the area for those last three years of already existing waste areas. Does it involve putting some material on top of the current material that would then take the garbage in? Yes, sir. Because they seem that residents seem very concerned that the environmental impact caused by that is going to be deleterious to their health. But we hear that a lot, but we also hear a lot from the and this industry. Is that out there that they don't grow compost? Yeah. No, no, no. Asphalt. What's it called? And this. What kind of energy? Lakeside. Yeah. They say the same thing about Lakeside and the sand, and I'm neither spot. Do I see what the nature of the concern is? Because we've consistently get it about what we're planning as well as what Lakeside is planning. So I'm hopeful in Buffalo areas I'll be able to get some additional information to help me appreciate that we can make it and why it is that the residents are so confident that neither will work. We'd be happy. Your part. What what's your response? Well, we believe that expanding Cedar Hills not only provides a local solution, but we can do so while being a good neighbor and being attentive to the concerns of those around us. You know, I look back at 2018, okay, at the Puget Sound Cleaning Clean Air Agency, the records for odors. Okay. Zero complaints were registered from Cedar Hills. Is that right? Not a single complaint. And I attribute that to the operational practices that we have in place. The fact that we cover the waste at the end of each shift at the in the evening, and we cover that waste to prevent the emission of odors or landfill gas that we have staff onsite 24 hours a day, seven days a week to immediately respond should there be the recognition of an odor or a concern. And and we're out in the community regularly. We do odor checks six times a day driving through those neighborhoods so that we can identify an odor without having to be called. We do it. I know that we got some equipment. We actually have specially trained that. This sounds silly. I'll admit they're called nasal rangers and work. And they use they do use special equipment to calibrate their nose and to be able to identify the idea. The key is to not just identify that there is an odor, but to know what type of odor it is and what the intensity of that odor is. And this is a standard by which we operate, and then we get to the root cause where at all possible. Certainly if they're related to our own operation and we're responsive as best as we can to the concerns that are raised. But I just thought it would be important when you think about the regulatory body of the Clean Air Agency here in the Puget Sound area, know we've got a tremendous track record that was just for 2018. You can go back in previous years and, you know, less than a percent a year in total reports of odors. So I think it's a testament to the work that's being done up there. And and look, we will still be responsive to the neighbors interests and the concerns. You know, the regional aquifer is not at risk from our operation. We are not contaminating that regional aquifer. The water is cleaner leaving our site than it is coming on to our site. We actually monitor wells all across the landfill. And keep in mind, there is a Superfund site, Queen City Farms, just to the south of us. And when we measure the quality of the water coming on to our site, it's problematic. But by the time it's processed through our landfill and it it's naturally moving underneath our landfill, it's cleaner than when it came on. And it meets or exceeds the standards for federal drinking water. So we do take our environmental responsibilities seriously and will continue to do so as we consider the options for developing our landfill further. Thank you, sir. Mr. Magoffin, could you speaking to from the previous question about some of the concerns expressed by the community. Can you speak to us about the outreach you've done in the community and any meetings or events? Thank you. Yes, I would love to do that. We we have regularly for years, over a decade have hosted and continue to host semiannual community meetings. We invite our neighbors out into the community and meet with them on a regular basis every six months. In fact, April 30th is our next community meeting and we said we've done that for over a decade and those have been very, very good, healthy discussions. We had the opportunity to participate in Councilmember Gunn's town hall and have very open, real dialog with the community about their concerns and their interests. We held in preparation for this comprehensive plan the beginning of 2018. Really the entire first quarter was open into interacting with the public. We had a 60 day public comment period. We hosted a online engagement tool to interact with those who perhaps couldn't come out to a physical open house. And we continue just in the daily activities of running our business. It's not uncommon for my deputy director, for instance, who spends a lot of time up at the landfill herself to go and meet face to face with the neighbors and go to their homes and talk about the concerns that they have, or sometimes just go to coffee and talk. And so we have a continual commitment to be available and responsive to our neighbors, both in a structured and unstructured format. And one of the very good things that Councilmember Gunn administered a little while ago was the introduction of a a place at the table, if you will, for a representative of our neighborhood from the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill to be on our solid waste advisory committee. And in fact, the advertisement for that is going out this month. And we hope that through that advertisement and through our semiannual meeting that happens next month itself, that we'll be able to bring one of those voices around the table to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee to even benefit from continued and a higher level of engagement and representation. Thank you, Councilmember Dunn. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good dialog on this, Pat. Thanks for coming today and your comments on this. I, I really appreciate your coming to that town hall, I guess it was almost a year ago now, give or take ten months ago anyway, something like that. And I, I decided to do a town hall because of the growing sort of interest and concern about the landfill and the continuing expansion of the landfill. And I sent out a postcard and Tommy might remember was there about 300 people showed a big number for a town hall, at least at this level of government and, you know, very interested in the work you did. And and, you know, walking into those town halls is it's a little bit uncomfortable. I mean, because, you know, there's a lot of folks who are fired up and there's a distrust that exists between citizens and government. But I think by the end of it, you and I had sort of, I think, defang most of the concerns or criticisms or distilled them down to, you know, what sort of legitimate words based on bad information. And and I heard I just heard your call to summarize some of the public outreach you've done, which I appreciate . And and it's actually my my sort of whole pitch today is not for solid waste to do more public outreach, because I think you've done quite a bit, and that town hall was part of it. It's actually for my colleagues to hear that public outreach for themselves, they get a little bit a little dose of it today and they've had a little bit in past meetings. But, you know, you know, we preside over as a county an ever shrinking number of regional services and for a variety of reasons, they've shrunk. But one of the things that is one of our core responsibilities is handling garbage. Solid waste is one of them. Obviously, wastewater is another one. And it's really important and all of that good stuff that I've thrown away since I was a child, most of you have as well has ended up there in District nine, right in the middle of my district, right next to the one of the country's largest composting facilities, and right next to a proposed cement plant. So you can understand why asphalt plant. Scuse me. There is a difference. You can understand why there's a lot of concern out there. And sometimes these issues are conflated. But we are talking about expanding a major landfill. And so I guess what I what I'm here to say is sort of bouncing this off to my colleagues is, first of all, I hope we don't vote on this today. And second, I would. He's going to call on either the chair of the council or perhaps chair a committee of the whole, either in total or at least a delegation of members to consider coming out to District nine, somewhere near the landfill, to hold a hearing, to just hear from folks who so many of them are living paycheck to paycheck, just like everyone else. And hard to take off work and come down here in the middle of the day just one time. It's such a significant regional issue, which is what we're focused on to hear what they have to say in advance of us taking a final vote to pass this out through full council. So that's what I'm asking for. I did commit to doing a town hall again on this subject this spring, which I plan on doing. However, if we can have a hearing and it would probably be part and parcel together. So that's my thought. And I wanted to make the ask, but I certainly hope at least we can hold the vote today. And I'm asking. Please pretty please. Well, thank you. Councilmember done, Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so, you know, when the citizens come in and speak, they have said over and over that they've made calls and complaints. And then one of them even said, I've complained. But then when the statistics come out, they don't say anything about our complaining. And so it would be interesting because it's hard when you say, you know, call the EPA. You know, who do you call the EPA? Even getting an appointment for me, an April to go visit with them again is difficult. Who do I call? Eeny, meeny, miny, mo. It's a big place. So I can understand why. They may not know, but I understand that many of them have begun calling the police department and the fire department to complain. So it would be good to find out from our police and fire department they're coming because they are getting because we should know how many citizens are calling and complaining because they said over and over when they've come to public testimony. So and then there's been conflicting information about the I was told that we couldn't get some data because people wouldn't let them on their property. And when I told the people, if you really want to know if you know what the things are on your property, you should probably allow those meters on your property. And they said, nobody's asked me to put it on my property. So, you know, I think it would be good to go out to the people so that when, you know, there's two sets of answers to the same question, their opposite, at least we can get some clarity because someplace between this answer and this answer is the correct answer, and I'm not sure where that is. So I think that something this big and something that, you know, we're talking about this on a 20 year plan. This isn't a 20 year plan. This is a 70 to 100 year plan. This decision is going to be a long term decision because if we don't have an asset that belongs to us in the year 2040, when all the cities can decide whether they want to partner with us or not, we are going to have a very big decision and I don't think it will be pretty at all. And so I was here for the for the end at the last major plan and was able to talk to the county employee who's now retired as of a month ago on how that all went down. And sometime you should go to coffee and hear all about that. So I think it's a great idea to have a meeting where we're talking to the people and we're also smelling the very thing that the people have complained about. Councilmember Bell duty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. More than nature of comments, if, if, if our colleague needs some additional time to work up potential amendments to the plan, I think we should find a way to do that, whether that be in committee or in between committee and council, because the IT we are making a long term commitment. I ran for office in 2015 when the last plan aspects of the last plan were a hot topic, the last I should say the last proposal, because it didn't go anywhere. The executive branch has proposed more than one updates to the solid waste long range comprehensive plan since 2001. We are many years past due having a long range, solid waste, comprehensive plan. They've conducted studies, they've done outreach. I can tell you from the city point of view where I used to sit, there was a lot of engagement with the communities and there were of course the negotiations around the solid waste of the solid waste contracts with the cities. We have commitments and an obligation to make sure that we have a long range plan for how we're going to collect, transfer and. Ultimately dispose of all of the solid waste that this very large county generates. I feel that there has been more than enough review of our long range options. There may be differences of opinion about which ones we should select and how we should transition to another future beyond Cedar Hills. There will be a B on Cedar Hills, but I think that the issues are ripe. I think they should be put before us, and I think that we should move to a vote. If not today, then relatively swiftly, because it's really time. And I want to say the suggestion that I heard at least twice today that it would be too scary or too uncomfortable to sit in the community and hear from them . I dare any one of you, my colleagues, my my dear, respected colleagues to trade stories of community meetings that we have sat in and been yelled at and how big they were and how angry they were and how important the issues were, because they're always big, important issues. That's why the emotions are high. Emotions are high because these are people's lives and it matters to them. Of course, we're capable of doing that. But let me ask you, to what end to the end of an amendment that will change the plan? I mean, we got to legislate. And what are we going to. What is the what is the alternative? We've done listening. We've done outreach. The as as has been said, the department has done a tremendous amount of outreach this time and last time and probably times before that. So I'm not sure where it's going to say, let's pause and do more process, pause and do some legislating. Okay. But I think it's time to be moving this towards a narrowed set of decision points that we can take up, debate and vote upon so that we can get our job done, which is to have a long range plan that meets the economic community and environmental needs of this county. So I'm ready to move forward, but I understand if people aren't in need a little bit more time, I could I could understand that. But not to just throw the whole thing wide open and go back to interests. We're past that. We're well past that. It's time to start moving towards decisions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Member Bill G. This is the first time that the com planet solid waste comprehensive plan has been discussed at the committee. The whole I hear interest in making sure that we are moving forward. I hear that a request that we not vote on it today in particular. And I do take to heart the point Councilmember Belushi made about working on amendments. And it is my desire and my intent to make sure that we do that kind of work in committee to the best of our ability. Is there an interest in holding this in committee and taking this up in our next meeting, presumably with amendments to be considered? That would be two weeks from today on the 18th of March. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, As chair. Could staff help us understand, were there amendments here how that would work with respect to the Regional Policy Committee, which has heard this a couple of times and advanced it forward, do we have to go back over there or is there a way that's been amendment to the plan? Are there are there notions that could be done in the recitals, perhaps, of the adopting legislation that don't go back? Or is it we change it back, we go. Oh, if if this committee or the full council were to drop an amendment such that there was a new version of the legislation that the Regional Policy Committee had not considered, the full council couldn't actually take that up. It would have to go back to the Regional Policy Committee if, for example, if this committee were to pass an amendment creating a new version, it would be version three that would go to the full council. The full council could take up version one, which is the transmitted or the transmitted ordinance than plan. It could take up version two, which is what's right before you right now, the version that came out of the Regional Policy Committee, it could take up either of those and it could pass version one with six votes because it's not the version that was recommended by the Regional Policy Committee. It could pass version two with five votes because it is the recommended version by the Regional Policy Committee. Or if it again, if its choice was to recommend version three, that would have to go back to the Regional Policy Committee. Okay. Well, two comments. One, we got some work to do in our charter on this process, maybe to make sure we collect regional input, but be able to govern on a pace that's, you know, maybe a little faster because we run into this a lot. But to I guess I'm I'm sympathetic to Councilmember Dunn in the interests of his neighbors and in his district there. It it's not pleasant to live. Sometimes thanks to this facility, it's despite our decent track record. Just you're next to the landfill. It's not nice, but Councilman Belushi makes a pretty compelling point that we've been working on this in my six years here at the council. And I don't think anything I haven't sensed that there is a major alteration to the plan. The language in the plan that would garner five votes on an executive signature. Right. That's important. I think the plan, I guess, you know, I think it does a good job analyzing. I'm comfortable with the general approach of of completing Cedar Hills to the best extent we can from an economic and environmental perspective. I think we're real short on time, actually, real short on time to figure out what happens after Cedar Hills. I mean, it's not that long. I think I threw out a potential ten year, you know, facility siting. If you were to do a garbage burning plant, it could be longer. We could look around and see what they're taking, but planning for even waste export will take time and those options are all in this plan. So those colleagues, I think, that say, well, I like this particular solution after Cedar Hills or this one, I'm not sure why adopting this plan forecloses that. I guess I don't see that it does. So I'm I'm prepared to support the plan when my colleagues are ready to do it. I voted for it in the Regional Policy Committee, and I've listened to folks carefully and I read it, and that's kind of where I'm at. All right. We are going to hold the current planning committee. It will be on our agenda for March 18th. It will be the second such substantive item on the agenda following the report from the Equity and Social Justice Work Plan of the Legislative Branch. Knowing of no further business can be before the committee. We are.

Recommendation to Provide Direction on the Provision of Housing for the City’s Unhoused Population, Including Emergency Housing, Transitional Supportive Housing, Permanent Supportive Housing and Prospective Homeless Housing Projects. (Community Development 10061833)

AlamedaCC_11022021_2021-1404

Seven is a recommendation to provide direction on the provision of housing for the city's unhoused population, including emergency housing, transitional supportive housing, permanent supportive housing, and prospective homeless housing projects. All right. And I know you've got a presentation and I'm seeing some community development staff showing up, so. Ms. MAXWELL We have Community Development Director Lisa maxwell. Are you leading off on this? I am leading off on this. Welcome. Thank you so much, Madam Mayor and city council members. I'm Lisa maxwell. I'm the community development director for the city. And I'm here tonight seeking direction from council for various options available to the city to provide much needed housing for unhoused community members. At this time, Alameda has no beds or housing options in our city to offer our homeless neighbors. But importantly, we currently have an opportunity to address some of the housing needs for unhoused Alameda. And as a result of the availability of a significant amount of funds from a number of important sources, the federal government has made American Rescue Plan Acts of ACT funds available to the city, and the city has already received $14.5 million of that and will receive the second tranche next year. The City Council, if it elects, may use a portion of that fund to help to assist the unhoused of Alameda. The states also made homekey funds available for homeless housing. Currently, applications may be submitted for the second tranche of HOMEKEY funds, which are to be used for homeless housing. And overall, the state has allocated to about $1.5 billion that the county also has a pot of funds available. And in combination, the availability of the federal, state and county dollars presents a pretty unusual opportunity for the city to make a material difference in the lives of its homeless community members. In light of the availability of funds and the lack of housing for our homeless community members in Alameda, staff is recommending the following two options. First, we would like the council to consider emergency homeless housing at Alameda Point. This project would house approximately 30 homeless individuals and three currently vacant homes, and Alameda Point residents would be offered supportive services with a particular focus on helping each find permanent housing. If the council directs, staff will return on November 16 with more project details and seeking approval for use of ARPA funds for this emergency housing project and seeking approval of a service provider to operate that project. Secondly, we'd like to discuss and recommend a transitional supportive housing project at the Bottle Castle in Alameda. The vital parcel is on Fifth Street, next to the College of Alameda. This project would involve a ground to build a modular ground up modular building on the site. It would include an en suite bathrooms, a pet area, community rooms, community kitchens and some parking. Other details are still in development, of course. This project, this parcel is owned by the successor agency and if council directed, will again return on the 16th with more project details. Seeking approval to submit a homekey application on this project, as well as approval of the service provider and the developer for the project. We will partner with them on this particular item. As we reported steps also recommending a third possible homeless housing project and seeks direction from council tonight regarding whether it should continue to work on this potential option. What we're considering is a permanent, supportive homeless housing project at a site that's to be determined. Specifically, we're investigating the possibility of purchasing a hotel within the bounds of Alameda that we could purchase with a third with dollars from the third tranche of the Homekey project funds. When those later become available, if staff finds that this potential project on a particular site could be a viable option, then we will return to council for further direction. So tonight we're just looking for a direction on this item as to whether we should just continue to work on this further and do greater due diligence. That's my report, and I am more than happy to answer questions. All right. Thank you, Ms.. Maxwell. And I also want to note that we have Lois Butler also from Community Development, who works on homelessness response projects. So council oh, I should ask, Madam Clerk, do we have public speakers on this item? We do not have. We do now. Okay. So before we go to our public speakers, does anyone on the council have clarifying questions they want to ask of Ms.. Maxwell, or should we go to our public speakers? Counsel her desk. Clarifying question Is there any particular reason why we don't specify what the that hotel motel site is the prospect for number three. We haven't put that down yet. At council's direction, we had gone out to an RFP and indicated that we were interested in receiving proposals on the Marina Village in and we didn't receive any. We received a proposal from the Housing Authority for another property, but they're in very early stages, so we don't have that. I negotiated a written agreement pinned down yet, and we're just continuing to investigate our options and once we return, when it's a little more fully baked. Okay. Any other clarifying questions, counsel? Okay. Let's go to our public speaker. And we have two now. And the first is Karen Grace. All right. Good evening, Speaker Bay. Good evening. Mayor and City Council Staff. I am still concerned about the continuation of placing all of the project homekey projects on the West End. Currently, they're being proposed in. Key economic development areas of the West End, our historic districts, potentially in our gateway corridors and in our waterfront district. Again, I'm asking for a more equitable distribution of these projects throughout the community. My suggestions are one to choose the. Village of love for the three families, not the big whites, because they are located in a historic district fund. The 90 unit north housing project. And if the Road and Hotel is one of the hotels that's been considered, consider developing that hotel. As a mixed use mixed community gateway project, which would really benefit the West End as well, and the Western. Business. District and using the project homekey funds to help fund that development. That would be a nice food chance, I think, as you mentioned, but that would give us plenty of. Time to consider maybe not just. The road and hotel, but the coal leaf, the coal leaf hotel, which is on the East End. So again, I want to make sure. That we are looking at other areas other. Than the West End. Other than Alameda Point for these. Projects. A lot of community members. Raised concerns. About equity. About fair housing and redlining. So thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you. Our next speaker. Marilyn Allen. Good evening, Speaker Orban. Good evening. I agree with the former speaker. And I guess what I would say is that the step. Continues to view the. West End as the area to. Be developed for. Their homelessness projects. And I would be member ask them to remember that. Equity was a. Something that was brought up and that was actually agreed upon by the City Council as a. Goal. So I would ask that they keep that in mind and in the forefront of their mind, actually. And then now to something new, newer, I guess the home the road home includes. Counselors as a device. To help the unhoused individuals. Transition into permanent housing. The solution, therefore, is permanent housing. However, permanent housing does not exist, and I suggest that the city focus on permanent housing going forward. Secondly, I propose that the permanent housing does not create a slum or a concentration of poverty, but. But that it creates a community that would be where. People of mixed. Incomes live together. That would be. Where formerly unhoused people. Live side. By side with working. People, with seniors, with. Veterans, with anyone. A perfect example would be the North housing site. And I would suggest that the city partner with the housing authority on that project and rather than develop a. Slum or develop homeless, develop, quote unquote, homelessness, housing projects. I would suggest that thoughtful vision would. Would serve. The unhoused as. Well as our city as a whole. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Okay. Thank you. And then quickly have another speaker. Ryan Kennedy. Good evening, Speaker Kennedy. Hi there, everybody. I just want to. Congratulate Millie Avila on her two beautiful children. She uses them well as political props. Malia, what. Are the names? All right, Mr.. Mr. Kennedy, I. I have asked you before not to reference children. We are elected officials. Please confine your remarks to us. Our children are not elected officials. And I would also just add that this is public comment on this agenda item, which is the homelessness matter. So we will put head, put him back in and let him finish his comments on homelessness. You may continue to comment on this particular item, Mr. Kennedy. Sure. I just hope Malia ever loves her kids. God bless them. I wish them the best. Unfortunately, angel. Families can't help it. All right. I don't believe that this is actually a comment on this particular agenda item. So we will have more opportunity for public comment on items, not on the agenda at the end of the regular agenda. Our next speaker. That was our last speaker. All right. With that, I'm going to close public comment on item seven A and we will go back to the council discussion. So Council, where would you like to start? Do we? Ms.. Maxwell has laid out three different proposals. Do we want to go one at a time or do you just want, you know, more information any way you like? Who would like to start? Councilmember Not quite. I really want to thank staff for bringing this forward. You know, consistent with my last comments, I really appreciate the the prioritization of items that can get us housing and resources built very quickly. And so I want to throw a very strong support behind the Battle Parcel Project concept as well as the the de Almeida Point housing that is currently city owned and available. And also, just to add to the points that we have heard from many speakers, I think that I think that if and when we find a hotel project that works really well, I can certainly get behind that. I'm glad that it's moved to a much longer time frame because we know that it's going to take some time, but that I would like to provide some personal direction that we may be focusing those conversations not on the West End, but much more on the East End and Bay Farm to the extent that that we can , I know that these are going to be tough. They're privately owned businesses. So. Right. We're not going to eminent domain, folks, folks, hotels. But I do think it is an opportunity for us to do that. And then, as I have said through these as well, I do look forward to some opportunities to talk about the resilience centers and other services that could access some some of these funds as well, using whether it's Carnegie or other East End resources so that we're not constantly just moving everybody to the to the West and to provide the support that they need. But great work. Thank you very much. And signify also just wanted to thank Lois Fowler for her quick response to some questions I sent very late in the day, so I got them. Thank you very much. They were very helpful. All right. Thank you, Councilmember. Not quite. Councilmember Desai. Well, I just want to say thank you very much to staff for the three options that they presented. I think any one of the three provides US City Council with an opportunity to go really big in terms of delivering on the needs of persons and families who are homeless. In that regard, if I had to prioritize of the three, I certainly like the bottle option and following that I certainly an open to the big whites. And with regard to the hope of possible hotel motel site, particularly if it's in the if it's in an area zoned community commercial and particularly if it's the first thing that you see coming into the community commercial district, I think that we're going to have to not only look at this as as a real estate project for for for formerly homeless families, but also as kind of the beautification part for when you come into the area. So we can't just look at how can we convert this if should this be one of the three? How can we convert this formerly motel, hotel that might be in a community commercial district, i.e. Webster Street, but how can it convert it into homeless facility? But but how can you make it beautiful? So that's the first thing that you see coming down Webster Street or even Park Street is that you see something beautiful. So if we're going to pursue the third option, we can't just look at it as a housing project, but we have to see it as a beautification project. But, you know, any way that we're going, I think this is a great opportunity with the assistance of Washington, D.C., for us to really go big. And I certainly join my colleagues in this regard. Thank you councilmember decide this next has a her spencer. Thank you, Mayor. So in regards to the ACA, first of all, in regards to the people that need homes and who this is supposed to serve, is there is a for those that are unsheltered throughout the county? Or is it for those that are currently in Alameda? Can staff give any response to who were actually going to be able to help? Thank you. Who want to take that that you, Ms.. Maxwell. I'll start and I will let Lois jump in as well, please. I'll hear from Ms.. Butler as well. We do. We do titles in council meetings. Okay. You take. It away. There. Reminder. Correct. So with respect to the emergency housing, ah, in our focus would be on our local residents and our goal for that housing is in the short run to be able to provide some opportunities for shelter and beds for those within Alameda. And we don't see that project as being a long term project. It's a project that we can get off the ground pretty quickly and hopefully in the near future. The transitional housing project would probably be slightly different in that we would need to go through the county's coordinated care system if to the extent that we have homekey funds and county funds involved. So that would be a larger a larger pool we would be pulling from. However, to the extent we were legally able, we would love to house our residents if we did a hotel project, it would be a we're envisioning a potentially a permanent supportive housing. So that could potentially be a larger county population as well. Did you want to add anything to add Ms.. Butler? Go ahead and then mute. Thank you. So we can hear you as. That's okay. We're we're used to refer to each other as on our first name basis, and we're a friendly place. But I do. Yes. Welcome this butler. Thank you. So I was I think you you covered it when you said we will try to get our Alameda residents in there and work with the county on an Alameda preference. And can I just ask both of you just to amplify on the question Councilmember Spencer asked, so explain to us what the benefits of coordinated care or coordinated entry are. I mean, so because there is a selection process for people who are well suited to a particular resource, if I'm not mistaken to someone, I want to just pick up on that. So for each person that is unhoused in Alameda, we try to register with them within a system. And and so the county and the state require us to go through that system. If we're receiving HOMEKEY funds at the one and we're asking for help queue funds on the bottle parcel if if we go forward with that. And so what it does is it tells you a lot about the individual, what their what their elements are. A lot of the information and system is HIPA. It's confidential, but but it it tells you how long the person has been on the street where they're from. And a number of the people that are in the system, a lot of them even don't live in Alameda, but they're from Alameda would like to return to Alameda. There are others that have lived here in Alameda. Most of our unhoused in Alameda have relational ties to Alameda. Either they lived here previously or they have relatives that live here. And so our hope is that we would have a the ability. From the county to use the system. And house alameda. But this is a process that's going really quickly and we need to continue to. Negotiate different items. And that's one item we continue. To negotiate the preference option. The preference type option. Correct. Okay. So back to you. Councilmember Harris Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. So I just want to make sure so this is at the scattered sites, which is the single family homes that we would in fact, we know that that would help people that are currently unhoused in Alameda. Correct. That's our best opportunity for an expedient solution. There's three homes that are in various varying states of repair and disrepair. Near one of them, we could probably get online and available. I would say pretty quickly after the 16th. And by that I mean approximately three weeks or a month. And then we'd follow the other ones in sequence as they became ready to be occupied. But our goal is to try to get up and running quickly during the poor weather months. All right? Because. Because we don't have. Other money in there from other agencies, we would be able. To target our agents. Correct. Thanks. All right. So I want to discuss that because and I appreciate the clarification because when we see people that are unhoused in the currently in Alameda, my understanding the staff you can describe. My understanding is that the city's hands are. Options are very, very limited in what we can do because we need to be able to offer housing or allow people to remain in tents or wherever throughout the city. And so can staff describe why how that impacts the staff's ability to address people that are unhoused in the city. I will certainly begin the conversation and I will ask city attorney Sen to jump in if he feels that there's some supplements needed in place. It will give us an opportunity to offer housing to individuals on the streets, and we will then at some point have to wrangle with the fact if someone is just interested in housing , what our solutions would be. That would be a pretty complicated conversation and we'd be in consultation with the city attorney's office as well as probably the police chief's office, and imply that that is our that is our option. That is our preference is to be able to offer a bed and be able to provide that first opportunity for housing. Anything to add, Mr. Mayor? Yeah. Yes, Councilmember, I believe in just to echo what Ms.. Mesbah has indicated, I believe the city's program is targeting voluntary individuals. I don't believe the program intends to compel anyone to be in any of these locations. If I misunderstood the question, I'm happy to follow up once I get more clarification. Can someone describe the Boise case and how it impacts the city's options of what to do with those that are unhoused right now? I would think that's a question for the city attorney. I am happy to. Our Madam Mayor Councilmember. So in the Boise decision, which is a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, the court held that local agencies and really federal and state agencies cannot to criminalize the act of being homeless when there are not sufficient shelter space for folks to go to. And it is a groundbreaking decision because prior to that, there were jurisdictions that have adopted various laws that precluded folks from being, for example, out on the street, sleeping on the street a certain nighttime hours. The Court Basically how that that is a violation against the Eighth Amendment rights, your a person's Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment because that person does not have a home to turn to. And that decision remains good law today. Thank you. So I do support the scattered sites and I'm hopeful that the city can continue to look for scattered lymphocytes to help house Alameda homeless. In regards to the bottle parcel I can so that's right next to the College of Alameda. The College of Alameda now has many programs for it to help to provide services to help people either get right get education and they serve veterans. And I'm wondering if the city is planning to try to come up with some providers that then can really work with the college and help the people that are housed there? Since it's a I think it's a great location, especially if we're able to do anything to partner with the college to help provide services to Ms.. Maxwell and our Misspellings. You want to talk about the kind of provision of services we would be looking for for this this housing at the bottom parcel? Certainly, I'd be happy to know. So we will offer full wraparound services. There will be counselors available to assist with, you know, educational interest, job needs, you know, getting your driver's license back and whatever. But we'll be the person where each individual where they are. But I think that that's an excellent suggestion to have a relationship with the College of Alameda and to offer that as a easy educational pipeline to some of the individuals. So I think that's a that's a great suggestion. And we will be cultivating those relationships. And with respect to this potential project. Thank you very much, because the college has all types of services for all types of people meeting them where they are. Very I think we're very fortunate to have the college there, and that makes this a very unique opportunity. The third category on here is in regards to hotels. That is by far my least favorite because as I had heard for many, many years from staff, that's how. We get our. Transient occupancy tax. And that is a big we count on that for years. I've heard Andrew Thomas who's not here currently but talk about why we need hotels because of that transient occupancy tax and before. So I'm not interested in giving up the revenue stream because then we have to not only we have to make up that revenue stream somehow to continue to provide the services we provide right now. And we all know when you look at our financial forecast, at some point we we exhaust our reserves and it's just. I think it's critical that we continue supporting our revenue streams. I think that we could be looking at apartments, maybe those buildings that could could possibly work that then are not. Giving up a revenue stream like the transient occupancy tax that we get from hotels, which is a high, high percentage higher than a lot of our other revenue sources. So I would I would suggest looking to see if there's any apartment buildings or other multifamily housing available for the city to purchase. And we did have a caller speak to trying to partner with the housing authority. That is something that I have always consistently brought up. So I appreciate the caller mentioning that. I think the housing authority does a very good job, that they are the experts in our community and that they're really part of the city other than now, they're they're somewhat separate, but not completely, because our mayor does nominate to their point to their oversight committee. But I think that I and the equity issue I agree with the caller said spoke to that. And you know, whatever opportunities we have across the island to to look at places that the city can purchase or work with the housing authority to purchase from different revenue streams. But I really don't want to touch our hotels. Thank you. Thank you. I'm vice mayor of L.A.. I want to thank staff for their work on this and the swift turnaround. I know we've we we gave a lot of different instructions the last time. And I appreciate the fact that we were able to go out and at least get some responses to see where we can move forward. I think that in many ways there is there's no reason for us to not act right. We have to act. And I think this is a both and situation. I absolutely, you know, I'm comfortable giving direction with. Just sorry. I have a mini construction worker at home. And these days I am comfortable giving giving instruction to staff to move forward with the bottle bottle parcel. And I also would like to see more exploration into the hotel option. And while I'm disappointed we didn't get a submission from from from one hotel, that's fine. I think we have other opportunities. I would like to look throughout the city and then I think, you know, this is the beginning of much larger and longer conversations. I think Council member Knox White raised some good points about making sure that we're looking throughout the entire city, making sure that we're making the most of of parcels and understanding the need that exists and the fact that the need continues to grow. So that's that's where I'm at. I think we we can move forward. I look forward to supporting it. And and also recognizing this is still a first step. I also think and Village of Love's proposal is is really something that is worth exploring. I think they've they've done some good work providing services and everything else as well. So anyway, I would like to support moving forward with the first option with some other other direction to staff to continue to pursuing additional additional opportunities for the city to fund supportive housing. Thank you, Amy. I would also note that the city does have regulation on the construction, the hours within which construction activity can take place. So let us know if there's anything you need us to do. So I would go last. I want to thank staff for all the time and effort you've put into this, and I've had the pleasure of accompanying Ms.. Jackson, Ms.. Butler and other members of city staff on the screen here on a couple of field trips where we actually got to see in real time the difference, the truly life changing impact that transitional housing, emergency housing can make in a person's life and getting them on the road back to being permanently housed. City Manager Eric Leavitt Was it very long on the job between before and back to who was formerly a member of our staff? And I dragged him on that literally dragged on. But we he accompanied that to Berkeley to see a navigation center and a residential care center, they call it in Berkeley. And so I've also had the opportunity to see some of these providers that our city staff will be considering to to provide the services at these various locations . And there's some really wonderful, innovative and again, truly life changing things going on out there. So I pretty much love everything about that you've brought to us, I think the emergency housing at Alameda Point. Yes, let's do that. It has paid me terribly and I'm sure many of you that we do not have a single place in Alameda where 365 days a year someone could come in out of the weather and not sleep outside if they didn't have a place to sleep. We sometimes have the warming shelter. Christ Episcopal Church has been a wonderful community partner, but then their ability to provide services was curtailed by the pandemic. And so we we need to do better. And now we've had this wonderful opportunity, a silver lining from the cloud of the pandemic that we have ARPA funds and we've got more . The state came in with an amazing surplus because as we've said many times, COVID didn't impact everyone equally. So the state's coffers were very full from people who, you know, in the upper income level. So let's take this opportunity to help level the playing field some more. So, yes, love the emergency housing in Alameda Point. Also a big fan of the bottle parcel. You've got some great providers to choose from and as far as a possible hotel yeah keep looking I mean I to councilmember her sponsors point we get. Occupancy tax revenue, but not so much in the time of the pandemic and the providers who would be willing to sell or enter into some sort of a deal. They haven't done well. And so nor have they been contributing a lot to the the tax base. And the other thing to remember is we pay a lot to address homelessness. There is an amazing cost of just the, you know, helping get people into other placements and what it takes when we go out to clean up. It's not just a sweep and moving people off the pavement or wherever they are, it's finding them other resources, getting them there, just lots and lots of things, time and staff, effort as far as partnering with provider to go into, say, a hotel. And there's some really exciting possibilities. The housing authority would obviously be the last of my choices simply because there are so many more current innovative providers who are doing things just very creatively and very quickly, getting people employed and getting them connected with the services they need and bringing resources to them that the housing authority just isn't set up to do. So I would really favor someone whose specialty is helping lift people out of homelessness. And the you know, the good news is there are some amazing providers out there. So I know staff is going to bring us back some really exciting possibilities. But yes, I mean, I wish we could vote on it today, but we will, as I understand, it's coming back to us on at our very next meeting on the 16th, correct? Ms. MAXWELL Yes, that is correct. We'll be back with you on a full report on both Alameda Point Housing, emergency housing and the transitional housing on the title parcel with our thoughts on appropriate partners and suggestions there. Perfect. Thank you, Councilwoman X-Y. Thank you. One comment I've had to make on the bottom parcel. I do know that some of our research has shown that it is often not a terrible idea to provide some parking onsite for people who bring cars, etc. when a ball site person comes back, especially given the conversation we'll be having a little later tonight, I'd like to at least make sure that the staff report addresses the attention and trade tradeoffs that we have made in order to provide whatever parking is. It is ultimately a part of that. My preference is more housing for people. I think we have a home base and other places where we can find places to help people park and store their cars while they while they're here. So anyway. But I just wanted to throw that out there for. More public discussion. Thank you. Thank you for bringing it up, Councilmember. That's why, you know, one of the things we learned, I think, from our very first visit is parking is needed because a lot of these folks are working. They go every day to a job. It's you know, there's a lot of misunderstanding or a lack of understanding of what homelessness means. People can be working. There could be a two couple to partner couple working both of them jobs and just haven't been able to get a roof over their heads. But we are looking to change that. So, yes, that's a very important part of the conversation. Thank you. Howsoever Harry Spencer. Thank you. In regards to parking, I want to keep in mind also that many of these people have been living in their cars and they have a real emotional attachment. And I would hope that we don't require that they actually give up what they've been living in to be able to have a real roof over their heads . Thank you. Thank you. Another good point. Thank you. Okay. I'm seeing no further. Hands up. Again, thank you so much to staff. This is it's important and it's really exciting that we're moving forward on this. So we will be ready for you in two weeks. Thank you so much. Thank you. Bye bye now with you. Okay, counsel, you do a good job moving along. Yes. Well, I'm not going to say that could bring bad luck. So we will move on. Where are we, Madam Clerk? Item B 70. Yep. Please. Recommendation to approve a Commercial Street two year work program to improve the Park Street and Webster Street striping plans improve the on Street Parklet program. Maintain the Alameda Avenue Street Closure. Rename Resumed pre-COVID parking management fee collection enforcement activities an adoption resolution approving precast concrete traffic control, safety barricades, standards for parklets and adoption. A resolution amending the capital budget by transferring $630,350 in American Rescue Plan Act Project Funds from Capital Improvement Project See 903002 Commercial Street Capital Improvement Project See 12100 an increasing appropriations for the commercial streets CHP by 630,000 350. Take a breath. And the reason we have long titles is that we can get all of our city staff in place. Councilmember Desai, you have your hand up. Yeah.

Recommendation to 1) add language to our State and Federal Legislative Agendas to support legislation that improves working conditions for port truck drivers and addresses related issues; 2) request City Attorney to work with the California Labor Commissioner's and Attorney General's Offices to explore options to support regulatory enforcement efforts; and 3) request the Harbor and Tidelands Committee and the Long Beach Harbor Commission to hold hearings on the trucking crisis and misclassification of employees at the ports with the goal of finding solutions that protect the Port of Long Beach's proprietary interests.

LongBeachCC_02202018_18-0161

Motion carries. Thank you very much. We're moving on to item 21, please. Item 21 is a communication from Mayor Garcia, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Pierce, Councilman Austin and Vice Mayor Richardson. Recommendation to add language to the state and federal legislative agendas to support legislation that improves working conditions for port truck drivers, requires city attorney to explore options to support regulatory enforcement efforts and request to harbor and Thailand's Committee and the law meet Harbor Commission to hold hearings on the trucking crises and misclassification of employees at the ports. Thank you very much. I mentioned at the state of the city earlier this year that we would be taking up this issue in this year because it was very important to the success of our port here in Long Beach, as well as our port complex. I want to just begin by, of course, thanking the council members that are have already signaled support of this item, and that includes the Councilwoman Gonzalez and Councilwoman Pierce that represent the Port of Long Beach and the two chairs of our both federal and state legislative committees of where this issue is currently in front of and where there will be significant debate on later this year. We're probably all aware that we have an amazing port. In fact, to 2017 was the best year on record for the port of Long Beach when it comes to cargo. We're really proud of the incredible work investments that have happened at the port. We were also aware that there currently is billions of dollars under construction right now at our port complex, and this includes the amazing bridge that we're building to welcome the larger ships. This includes our new rail projects that are going in across the port. And this, of course, includes infrastructure projects to ensure that our amazing workers at the docks, those that are working the docks, those are coming in and out of the port, have the infrastructure to do their work and to move goods in and out of our ports. It's also true that about 40% of America's goods, so 40% of everything that we're wearing or go to when we go home and see in our homes comes in and out of the ports of Long Beach in Los Angeles. So they're incredible engines of economic activity this year already. The port is off to a great year and may even break some more additional records. And so there's no question that the port economy will continue to boom. We are at a at a point, though, that both port leadership industry experts agree that we do have one major unresolved issue at the port that needs to be fix. And that's the current trucking system that we have at our port complex. The current trucking system that we have, quite frankly, is unsustainable. We have long wait times that force truckers to work long hours and limits their ability to make adequate number of trips per day to make a living. That also hurts those that are trying to get their goods from here across the country and certainly those trucking companies as well. And it's important to note that there's actually a lot of great trucking companies out working at the port. Some of them might be here tonight. We have some great both large and independent trucking firms in this industry that are doing a great job of moving goods and supporting their those that work for them every single day. But we also have a situation at the port where there are many trucking companies that, quite frankly, are taking advantage of the workers. It's important that good firms have the ability to put to pay appropriate wages and that they not be undercut by others who are not paying their employees properly. It's clear to me and to many others that truck drivers at the Port of Long Beach are often misclassified as independent contractors, which results in them working poverty level wages and denies them the protections guaranteed by state and federal laws. Now, the California Labor Commissioner has recently received more than 900 complaints regarding misclassification of truckers at the ports and upheld more than 500 claims and has awarded millions of dollars in fines and restitution at the ports because of this very issue. The Commission has fined companies millions of dollars for misclassifying and underpaying truck drivers working at our ports. Our truck drivers, who are working incredibly long hours and who are trying to feed their families, deserve the dignity of a living wage. USA Today on this issue and other outlets have published numerous stories in recent months which detail some of the abuses that are going on in the trucking industry and describe the working conditions for truck drivers in really poor and poor ways. We probably all read these reports. And again, I want to reaffirm that this we are not talking about all trucking companies or all independent truck driving firms. We are talking about those that are they're really taking advantage of their workers. I personally have had a chance to meet and talk to many of these truck drivers and their families firsthand. Many of them live in Long Beach. They are our neighbors and they're working hard every single day to move goods in and out of the port. The city of Long Beach in the Port of Long Beach are booming and we couldn't be more proud. It's time that we work with our state and federal counterparts to identify the urgent solutions needed to address these issues, and that will allow our hardworking truck drivers to move our goods in and out of the port, make a living wage, and have basic worker protections. This I. Tonight, we'll do three things. The first is it will align our language so that our both our state and federal legislative agendas will support legislation that is has either been submitted or is about to be submitted. On this port related issue of misclassification, there is already legislation in Congress that we probably are all aware of, and I've asked the federal alleged committee to please take that issue up. And as early as the next day or two, there will be major state legislation in front of us in Sacramento that addresses this issue directly. And I'm also asking our state legislative committee to also please take up this issue. Those committees are headed up by Vice Mayor Richard Richardson and Councilmember Al Austin. I'm also asking in this request to request the city attorney to work directly with the California labor commissioner and the attorney general's office to explore options to support regulatory enforcement efforts. And I'm requesting our Harbor Entitlements Committee and the Long Beach Harbor Commission to independently hold hearings on this trucking issue. It really is a crisis and on misclassification of employees at our ports. I've been working with the city attorney to ensure that this item aligns with recent case law and some of the restrictions that both the Port of Long Beach and Los Angeles have due to cases that have been in front of this city, and, of course, that we're all aware of in the last few years. And so we've been working hand in hand on on this item. I want to thank the coauthors and the rest of the council for hearing this item tonight. And it is really time that we begin to address this issue for our truck drivers. And so with that, I want to thank those that are here, and I want to turn this over to a few people that want to add to that. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. I first want to thank everybody for being here. I know it's been a long time coming. Discussing this issue on multiple levels, trying to figure out what the best solution is for Long Beach. And I really feel confident that we have a step in the right direction. I want to thank Mayor Garcia. I know his leadership in this and making sure that it came to the agenda and we had a chance to discuss this is very important. So I am the lucky one that actually sits on Harbor and Tidelands. I share that with my colleagues, Councilwoman Pryce and Councilmember Pearce. And so we look forward to engaging in those discussions and having a listening mode where we can listen but also collect data, as well as understand how the industry has changed and where the gaps are to make sure that we're recovering those. I have personally met with Councilmember Buscaino, who led the effort in L.A. H to Teamsters Local 848 396 to make sure that we're being comprehensive with this as much as possible. And lastly, I know that in about a year and a half ago when we discussed this item, we led an effort on the council to acquire about $700,000. And so I would like to make sure that we include that in this item as well. $700,000 that we designated for wage theft, education or something revolving around this whole issue of misclassification. And I would just like to make sure that we include that in this item and find a plan and create a plan on how we can utilize that money. And so with that said, I look forward to working with many of you and we'll see where we go from here. But thank you very much. Thank you, Councilmember Pierson. Yes. I want to thank the leadership of our mayor for bringing this forward. When I first moved to Long Beach, I recall my first getting to know Lane, who I used to work for was 27, and we were organizing around our ports, around the Clean and Safe Truck campaign. And so while that was just the beginning for me, I know that many of you in this room have been trying to fix our ports since they've been broken, which has been decades. And so I want to applaud you all for not letting up, for not letting cities or business tell you that there's not a way forward , because I know what the struggle is like daily. I've been in your living rooms and I've heard your stories. I've seen the bunk beds in your in your home and your living room floor where you're trying to feed your family on sometimes pennies. So I'm really excited to be a part of this council today as we hear this item. When I think about this item, there are three areas that I think of that impact. And one is for you, the driver and the daily impact it has for you, for your families, what it means for you guys to be away from home for so long for having that poverty sometimes not all the time. And for our neighborhoods. Whenever we think about our clean air, when I think about our port, I think about what an amazing spectacle it is to drive over the bridge and to see how amazing the goods movement industry is. And I've had the pleasure of also getting to go down there and take a tour and see how everything works. And it is one of the things that I love about Long Beach. I'm originally from Houston, where we also have a large port. And so I want to applaud those businesses, which I think the industry says is or are. Some experts would say that about 10 to 15% of our industry already is doing the right thing. They're already working to make sure that there's an employee status, that people are going home with a paycheck, that they can depend on that they're not going through. I encourage all of you to read the USA Today article that outlines some of the fear tactics that have happened, and that's from a third party that's not from a union organizer or from a trucking company, but real stories about what have happened daily in our ports. And so when we think about those stories in our ports, in the spectacle, that is it is an amazing asset for us to have in the city. I'm thankful for the port bringing forward grants to help clean up our air for moving as fast as they can on green technology. And it's time that we no longer put that green technology on the backs of workers. It's time that we make sure that we're investing in a system that respects you, treat you with dignity, and ensures that our infrastructure is going to be one we can all be very proud of. And so when I think about the last step, I think about all the strikes that have happened at our port and the fact that sometimes it's unsustainable and sometimes it feels like crisis. And sometimes we have ships that are sitting out there waiting for workers that can bring their labor forward in a dignified way. And so outside of the worker issue and what's happening in your home, I think it's really important that we as a city recognize some of the impacts that labor disputes have had. On our local economy. And I hope as we move forward to look at the different areas and I know that we have a lot of people playing are going to be hearing from stakeholders through this process. But I hope that we are able to get some data on what's happening today. How has the industry changed since we've started having this conversation and what are policies that not only at the state level and not only at the federal level, but what are we doing in Long Beach to say we're protecting our assets and our financial bottom line and that all workers in this city are treated with dignity and respect. So I look forward to the process. I hope that we can work closely and on a tight timeline to make sure that this isn't lingering. And I guess I have a one question for the mayor. Did you see this item after having all the stakeholder meetings coming back to this body with all of our reports? I do. I mean, I think there's a lot of a lot of pieces to the item. And so I think I think most importantly, I think we need to immediately support the kind of federal and state efforts with our partners. And I think most importantly, I think to have both the Harbor Commission, which is where obviously where they have direct authority over over the port and for our title, the Harbor Commission, to meet and then work with our city attorney on some on on ideas and language, but also the opportunity for the for our attorney to work directly with the labor commissioner, who has a lot of data that that that department also wants to share with the council. Great. Thank you so much. And congratulations on this next step in the long journey, guys. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I wanted to add my voice in support of this motion. And we know that sort of cargo doesn't move. Goods don't move without drivers and profits aren't made without drivers. But it's not fair to put profits on make your profits on the backs of drivers. This is, you know, across the country, in our state, this is the direction things are heading and now's the right time. So as chair of Federal Legislation Committee, we're going to take this up along with other items, because reality is there may be party change in November. And if it is, we need to be ready to move an agenda for Long Beach. If there is party change or leadership change in November and a Congress is more favorable to work with Long Beach on some legislation. So I think the timing is timing is is good. I concur with most of the things that my colleague said here, but I think this sends a strong message on behalf of Long Beach that this is where we stand, this is where we are. And we hope that that Los Angeles and other cities really take note. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Councilman Orson. Thank you very much. And I certainly extend the support of this item as well. This this issue of our truckers and their classification as independent contractors versus employees has been a an issue, a contentious issue for many years here in the city. I think this is a great step forward. And I want to thank you, Mr. Mayor, for your leadership. I want to thank my colleagues for their support of this item as well. We have to sit, as our vice mayor, sent a strong message not only to Sacramento but also to Washington, D.C., that the goods movement industry here in Long Beach, in this region and nationally is very important to our overall economy. So much comes through our ports but also impacts our freeways. But at the end of the day, this is these are families. These are workers in their families that are that are that are impacted by injustices that are that are currently taking place within some some of the companies at the port also want to recognize those that are that are good actors and that are treating their employees well. I think, you know, we need to look at those as a as a model, but we certainly need to send a strong, unified voice that that employees, particularly in this critical industry and in our city, should be treated as employees, should be afforded the rights of employees in the protections of employees. And so I'm happy to support this item this evening and encourage my colleagues to do so. Thank you, Councilmember Councilman Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. I think that your report was quite succinct and to the point. I've walked with some of these truckers in. In response to the bad treatment that they get there. They're like indentured servants. The way they're treated, they're asked to pay for things that the company should be paying. They're asked to work hours that are impossible and difficult to meet and that get them tired. At the end of day, their check is about a paltry sum that can barely sustain their families. So I strongly support this this item, and I'm glad that you brought it forward, Mayor. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So this is an issue that has been all over the news. In fact, NPR just did a story on it not too long ago. Might. And I support it. I think that's definitely something we need to stay on top of as a city and look at how the legislation is changing and make sure that our own efforts are consistent with that legislation. I'm wondering, as a friendly to this item, would it be possible for us to get quarterly briefings maybe at council or at the Titans Commission Committee? I'm open to either from the city attorney's office in terms of any legal updates on this topic, because California is not the only state that's dealing with this. This is really a national conversation. So I'm wondering if we could get, you know, a quarterly briefing or as updates become available, if we can get updates from the city attorney in terms of where the law is headed and what the courts have deemed acceptable practice. We'll add that to the motion. Mr. City Attorney, we're okay with that. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. With that, we're going to go into public comment. So please, if you have a comment, please come forward. Good afternoon, Mayor. City Council. My name is Jim Danno. I live here in Long Beach. I come from a very unique position. I'm also a Teamster as well as a city employee. My whole life has been spent with working with labor, working with my hands. And it's interesting. I'm sitting here and I'm listening to how we're going to have fair wages. There's been injustice, treatment. There's going to protect our workforce. And yet I hope that the city council does the exact same. Thing. When it comes to public works and their own employees in this fine city. Teamster Brotherhood. Stay strong and you'll get what you deserve. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello to all the council members, the mayor. I sit here and I listen about that. And just then how, you know, people are not being treated fair and everything else. And I can understand that from a homeless point of view where you guys sit there and you say, okay, well, yeah, this system is not designed right or these people are being mistreated, but you continue to go home every night and still live your life like everything is okay. Yeah. Put out money to sit there and say, Oh yeah, we have civil lawsuits or we have claims of $5 million here or whatever. But then half the time we get swept under the rug, just like with homeless people. They mistreated they disrespected the courts in a real way that you are talking about. Your building is being filled by the riverbed where you pushed a lot of homeless people, too. So now the homeless people don't have anywhere to go where they're not being threatened or harassed by the city. These are people that used to be you guys, residents used to work at your offices and everything else, and you still turn a blind eye to it. I've been out here for a year, stressed out dog, had a miscarriage, got pregnant again, is still having got back into my housing. So for you guys to say that you are going to make so much of a big change in airports and everything else and it's just going to be so dramatic. I'm sorry to say you guys are just full of whatever with that. I mean, ya need to really start stepping up and stop covering up all the stuff that you guys are signing petitions or waivers for. 500 here, 700 here, a thousand here. Come on, now. But you guys can't afford to put homeless people in their houses or pay for these truck drivers. A real, you know, foundation. They're just working day to day. Don't know when they're going to be homeless. Your guys need to do a lot. Y are talking about building up long beach because it seems like it's all off the sweat of our backs and you guys get, you know, praise for it. Everybody have a blessed night. Yeah. Thank you. Your best night as well. Next speaker, please. Yeah, my name is Rob. Pete coming in the name of Jesus Christ. He's the only one that deserves honor to me, you know? Let me turn my camera around. So here we go. Okay. Yeah. So a Segway. And I've always said I agree with that. We've got to do a miracle for Americans. And you know my motto, Janine Price got a pierced got to go price days. Pierce goes price it prosecute Pierce so so the thing so you got to. Go. I know we on this this is good I was I was a truck driver. Hey. And I'm not against union Mr. Richardson or Mr. Austin because both of my parents, we got out of the ghetto to Carson because they had union jobs local 770. I'm just saying, you know, we mixed it up. So anyway, the thing is, is but when she says stuff scares me, I see all these other signatures on here. This is mayor. So Councilwoman Nina Garcia. Oh, Janine Pierce. Oh, I'm thinking hammer and sickle, man. Check this out. This all the stuff she said, straight pressure. You know, we don't want communism in Long Beach in America, red, white and blue. Okay. Now, that being said, as far as that truck with Mr. your anger wasn't a I lived it I drove trucks I own my own truck . Oh that the harbor of San Pedro if you don't make it with by 10:00 y'all man you through and everybody else going to Temecula and everything coming back $400 trips. You didn't had a pool and it took you 5 hours. So it's bad. But the reason why I so bad, most of the truck drivers in the companies I worked in, it was like three brothers, oh, one white guy and the rest. There are Latinos. But the Latino Americans were outnumbered because it was like 80% couldn't speak English. No, I'm not mad at them because if I lived in a nation that wasn't putting out more money, I'd be trying to come here, too. But we have to put Americans first. We got to do that. And it's real. Back in the truck when they talk that NAFTA stuff. Oh, man. The person that opened that owned the trucking company I was in, he bought 60 more trucks. He hired some people from down. And T.J.. Oh, look, we were getting the short runs. They were getting nice long runs after that. And then then all but one brother quit and then he got one brother left. And I ain't going name the company, but that's more than one company. So I'm here speaking for the brothers, you know, Black History Month. And hey, let's black people, let's get communism out. Long Beach, no direct controls driving black folks out. Remember that? And I got 19 seconds. Oh, black folks. Jeanine Pirro has got to go. We don't like communist black folks, like just want to be part of America. So I got 10 seconds, so I'm gonna say nothing bad today. Jeanine Pirro has got to go. Everybody else doing a pretty good job. You know, Jeanine Pirro has got to go 1/2. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Okay, next speaker, please. And good evening. My name is Leon Wood. I'm the interim pastor at Saint Mark, a Baptist church here in Long Beach. And I'm also the executive director of the Success and. Challenges Program. Here in the city. And I want to thank Mayor Garcia. The Councilmember Gonzalez and Councilmember Pierce for. Their championing. Of the motion. To address the inhumane working. Conditions of our brothers and sisters who are port truck. Drivers. This is the right step, and I think you're taking the right direction as a faith leader of the community. I believe the. Trucking companies that misclassify their port truck drivers as independent contractors in order to steal their employment benefits. As as well as avoid paying taxes on workers need to be. Brought to light and be brought to justice. Our brothers and sisters at the port do some of the most dangerous jobs in the United States. And yet being paid and not being paid in Los Angeles, living wage. They have to have in central insurance. They need all kinds of things that are needed as a secure employee. And they're not being given. That the workers are robbed of their wage and their dignity every. Day, going to work under unnecessary, life threatening working conditions. Because. Truck companies. Appear to be taking profit over lives, over human lives. If our soldiers risked their lives for their nation's safety. These port truck drivers risked their lives for our economic stability. If all the workers at the port stop working. Could you imagine what would happen to our economy? The crime of worker misclassification. Will make our ports less competitive than. Other countries. This will hold our city back from thriving and prospering like we have started and like we want to continue. So the Council of Long Beach, I asked you to take the complete leadership in our state like you've done in so many other things, to make sure that this continue. To go through and not be lost. Because I'm very proud of Long Beach and I and I appreciate the fight that you're doing for the everyday common person. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Next week across. Good evening. My name is Reverend John Forest Douglas, and I'm the associate minister at First Congregational Church just a few blocks away from here. And I'm also a member of Clergy and Lady United for Economic Justice, or CLW. In addition to serving a church and in District one, I live in District six and I've lived here in Long Beach for five years. And for five years I've heard these stories. Of those who work and drive trucks. At the ports. These brave brothers and. Sisters have shared. Accounts of suffering, wage theft, being misclassified and enduring all sorts of injustices in the workplace. So I'm here tonight to stand alongside and bear witness to the stories of my brothers and sisters and to urge you, the City Council, to make our community and our port more just for those who work there. Our Long Beach port truck drivers are an integral link in the American supply chain, and yet far too many workers suffer wage theft and work in what USA Today has called indentured servitude. I stand in the tradition of Jesus who declared his own. Mission as one that would tell good news. To the poor and set the captives free. A few times tonight. Mayor Garcia, you have said that this is a trucking crisis. And I think that you're right. This is a crisis. It's a crisis. When a worker completes a day's work and isn't given the compensation, they're due. I think it's a crisis when hard work is devalued. It's a crisis when workers are misclassified. It's a crisis when our brothers and sisters have to work so hard just to earn poverty wages. It's a crisis when companies. Can be. So unethical and so immoral just to save a buck on the shoulders of the workers who are often poor. It's a crisis, and it's gone on. Far too long. And so a crisis demands action by those in positions of leadership. And I thank. You for the leadership that you've taken. And so I stand here today to ask you to begin to address this crisis by listening to the. Stores. Stories of the drivers heeding the call of our mayor and ending wage theft and misclassification. At our ports. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. Council members in the audience. My name is Gustavo. We are, in my mind, a pot driver. And I'm here tonight. I took the day off today. I usually bring the love from Mojave Desert to the port with 22 wheels, almost £80,000. And we respect the life of all people. We have to take a lot of time, believe it or no. Two years to bring our wealth to the country and put something back for our families. I came today to say that I'm a still they call independent driver. We pay fuel insurance. Maybe I take Obamacare. And a lot of abuses. And behind me, there's a lot of truck drivers who actually got a scare. They panic to come over and express what is going on for the past almost 40 years. And I just simply say thank you for the leadership, mayor and council members. And I really appreciate it. And. It'd be hard for my wife, my family and all my co drivers. Thank you and God bless to everyone. Thank you, sir. Speaker. Good evening. My name is Rabbi Jonathan Klein. I'm the executive director of Clergy and Lady United for Economic Justice. Or a clue? Two of my colleagues just spoke before me and I wanted to make sure we heard from a driver before I made my remarks as well , because it really is about their story, their plight, their struggle. And I want to thank the council members on this panel, including Rex Richardson and Al Lawson, for making a statement of support for this motion. We've been supporting working people, including port truck drivers and other port workers for over 20 years. CLW works with hundreds of faith leaders all over Los Angeles and Orange counties. Thank you. For those who have brought this matter to the Council, the painful stories of exploited workers expose the greed and devaluation of life at the port, all in the name of profits. That's profits with the letter F. Workers have already engaged in 15 unfair labor practice strikes over the past four years, confronting the epidemic of poverty, wages, misclassification and wage theft that steels their futures and that of their families. How many more strikes before laws and their enforcement will protect these workers who feel ignored, devalued, denied their dignity. How much more pain in body and in spirit will we pretend doesn't exist before we stop these toxic employers? You're right, Mayor. Not all of them, but plenty of them who right now are breaking laws and exploiting those who bring them their profits with an F, their inhumane business practices show the ugly side of human nature. Faith leaders will forever worry about the fate of these workers, the plight of them, the working poor, just as the prophets did. And that's with a H. Mayor Garcia and esteemed Council members. I'm hoping for a unanimous vote. Please take the concrete action steps to hold trucking companies accountable for violating the most basic of labor laws. The laws that create a structure for our society that allow us to have a functional society. These laws must be observed, otherwise we end up with lawlessness. One rabbi taught. The day is short and the task is great. But the master of the house is knocking at the door. The time is. Now. Will you commit to ending the wage theft and misclassification of workers in the port industry? Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good evening, Councilor Max Nourse, Long Beach DSA. This is a moral issue and a moral crisis. I'm not going to get into the details. I think they've been addressed sufficiently. I think the problem here is that a year and a half ago, we met here to talk about talking about it. And now after a year and a half, we're talking about talking about talking about it. We're never going to act. The Los Angeles city attorney has filed charges. We know we're going to act. We're just going to we're going to sit around. We're going to wait. We're going to wait for the state legislature. We're going to wait for Donald Trump to do something. Let's be real here. This is these people are not making a living. They're literally in a position of sharecroppers. If we want a society. That's just for everybody, which. I think we can all agree on, let's see some urgency. It's great to talk platitudes. It's great to call things shameful, but show some urgency. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Andrew Mondo Hanno. I'm what? The Democratic Socialists of. America, Long Beach. I first want to say thank. You for bringing this forward. This is something these men and women have been waiting for for years. We are glad there. Is finally movement on the issue. However, we want to point out that while the discussion portion of this item speaks to the issues these workers are facing, we do not see a lack. We see we do see a lack of commitment to these workers in the recommendation itself. The last recommendation requests the Harbor Entitlements Committee and the Long Beach Harbor Commission to find solutions that protect the Port of Long Beach is priority interest. This should not be the end goal. This recommendation, rather, should find solutions that protects the daily lives of. The sanctuary of. These committed men and women behind me. But thank you, Mayor. Classmate Rex Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Pearce and City Attorney Perkins. We will be following this closely and are excited for what's to come. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. And just and just so you're well. So we worked very closely, of course, not just with the attorney, but also the coalition, a coalition of workers, even specifically on on that piece of the of the legislation as well. And so thank you. Next, people, please. Good evening, mayor and Council. My name is Holly Stewart. I grew up here in downtown Long Beach. And I think the thing that really strikes me about this whole issue is we call it our port and Los Angeles port, but our port of Long Beach, which means we are in many ways all of us responsible for what happens there. We can't blame trucking companies that don't follow the law. We can blame somebody else for this. We have to take the action. And our port commission and our council have got to say we're not going to run that kind of place in the name of Long Beach. We're going to run a place that is fair to workers, where workers lives are important, where their families can grow up and their children can have education because they can afford to live someplace where there is education and where they have the food in their stomach in the morning. So they go there to learn and we can do that. And you can help do it by making sure that this port that is our report, is run in a way so that every worker there can walk with pride, with with pride and with their family, knowing that they've now got insurance, that they've got health, they've got care, and they've got wages that pay you a decent amount. Way back when I was 20 years old and I'm now 78, I drove trucks for a while in two different states. In one state it was there were no unions. There was what was called a right to work state. And I got I think it was $0.65 an hour. Then I was over in another state where there was Union Teamsters and drove there. And all of a sudden I was getting about three or $4 an hour all the time. Now, $0.65, three or $4 doesn't sound like much now, but in 19 oh 60 or 1958, that was a pretty good amount of wage. So that's what we need to do here, is give people the opportunity. The people built this country. The companies don't build this country. The workers who do the work, they're the ones who build the country. And that's who we have to protect. And that is our job and your job as citizens and as our elected representatives. So thank you. Let's just get this done. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker, please. Yeah. Anna Kristensen And I, while I am not representing the Long Beach Area Peace Network. I am speaking as a member of from the perspective of the Long Beach Area Peace Work Network, which is for peace primarily, but also for social and economic and environmental justice. And this week, you may have read in the L.A. Times that the federal government, the migra, the I.N.S., decided to wildly stab at blindly at. Wherever it could. Reach. In California, we are on the blacklist, as we know, for being a sanctuary state. And and so they went to workplaces over 100. The response of a local activist was to spend a few hours today at one of those workplaces that happened to be a trucking operation. Just so we're clear here, there's no request on my part or anybody's part to make this issue any more complex or difficult or challenging for our council to be in favor of than it already is. Having had the experience with our Claudius Law issue, where women were not apparently getting this much support, never mind about that. Anyway, more to come. What I will say is that it's important to realize that when we talk about employers that are good employers, we talk about workers that are hard workers, that this is not a fight between the two or between us as a community. Employers and workers are all part of our community. They all need to be protected. They all need to have the right to operate their businesses and make a living wage. And when when they become separated by a federal government who is on the on the lookout and on the way to divide us as a society and make it harder for workers and employers to get the job done, we need to be protective of that, too. So when our city sanctuary bill comes before you and even in terms of this bill, when you're thinking about it, when you're having your your conversations and your work, realize that all workers have the right to work, whether they . What do I want to say? They had that time, like our like our law enforcement does. They have the time to do the job for our city, for their families and our community. They do not need to do the job that people who seek to divide us have decided they can stop. So we don't we want we want their rights to be known and understood. We hope we can get the city's cooperation in informing everyone in the workplace what their rights are when it comes to protecting their workers and the right to work. And by the way, I will say that Janine Pearce is is facing a recall funded by disgruntled hotel businesses to the tune of tens of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is not a grassroots movement and it is she is not in my way. Thank you for a comment. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Matt Houston and I generally. Resort to politics as a very last resort. That being said, I'm here representing Matt Houston for governor, Matt Houston for sheriff and Matt Houston for mayor of Long Beach. And the reason for that last one, oh, one more is California Dash Republic, not U.S.. California. That republic taught us. One of my ancestors was the president of the Republic of Texas and I believe is represented by that little star on your flag there. I believe he came over here and recognized y'all as a republic in order to make sure that y'all weren't taken over by slaves like a the next like the president of the the Republic of Texas after that, who was a slave trader anyhow. So my we need to talk we need to talk to the issue on the. Sure, sure. Yeah, I'm getting to it. Yeah. The what is connected the mayor thing is connected that both my both my bosses, my family are have truck drivers. So that's one commonality between both sides of the family. One thing is that these guys are pretty good at is organizing. And so I would like to I would like to suggest looking at things from a different point of view. I have experience working. I stopped an al Qaeda attack from on on the NFL Network. They're trying to get the credit card numbers. And I was there. And in so doing, I realized that the system they're using under underlying that could operate a credit union. So I think maybe a way to deal with it would be to combine something like maybe the the the teachers credit union, the Teamsters credit union, the police credit union, the fire department credit union together link it up with the NFL teams and make sure to take care of the gentrification problem. So we can we have to we have to speak to the truck driving issue, which is the issue in front of us. Well, that's. Yeah, that's what I think. That's so. Improve their working conditions and request work with the Labor Commission. I think improving working conditions if you do it financially by, by, by setting up a credit union network so that they can support themselves and support the city of Long Beach so that you don't have to do things like say we're not going to support, you know, low income housing anymore. That's the reason why I'm run for mayor. And you could do that by bouncing timeshares across the country, would work real well for Teamsters, you know, and then that way it could, you know, when there's an influx of of people from elsewhere, you can finance all that, finance the stadiums, finance the city and all that kind of stuff and take care of the Teamsters as well. That's my suggestion. All right. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, honorable council members, mayor and our friends, city staff. I'm actually here to speak on an agenda item later in the agenda. And Councilwoman Pryce asked me we bumped into each other upstairs and she said, Are you here to speak about the trucking issue? And I said, No, what trucking issue? But sitting here and listening to this, I am compelled to speak. So yes, I am sorry that I it took me a while to decide. I wasn't sure. Once again, my name is Vivian Malone, Lulu and I am a very proud port worker. I'm a member of ILWU Local 13. And listening to this argument, I would like to thank you for bringing this to the attention certainly of the city and the public. It is long overdue. Longshore workers have for many. Years been very. Frustrated at the delays that happen on the ports. We want to help our outside trucking brothers and sisters just as much as you do. And oftentimes our hands are tied. While it would be very easy to blame automation for failures and computers and long delays, that's actually not the problem. The problem has to do with logistics. The problem has to do with poor Manning, with not ordering enough workers. With a 24 hour port. System that shuts down while you've got warehouses. And I've written down some notes here as you've. Got. Chances independent. Workers and companies. Who manipulate the availability. Their Inland Empire distribution centers who closed Friday night and weekends. And there, you know, our port is open. I'm actually going to be at work later on tonight. I'll be working at the Port of Long Beach tonight. We are discharging thousands of containers, thousands of containers onto our docks. And yet the yard will only be open from 8 to 5. And sometimes they open on the evening will have dock work that will service truckers at night. But that doesn't happen all the time. And it doesn't happen at all the all the terminals. So the trucks will wait. Sometimes they do two loads per day. They get paid by the load. They get paid by the load, not the hour. We can have an outside trucker come into one of the ports at 9:00 in the morning and he might not get service until 2. P.m. because the computer. Will break down because the trans. Taylor Because there's not enough Manning because somebody else bumped him. So the logistics of it is what truly needs to be addressed. I know that my time is short, but I'd also like to call you. Attention to the beneficial cargo owners gap. Walmart, Old Navy, Nike. They control the costs at the warehouse and distribution centers. They are the ones who manipulate the outside trucking companies, who hire these truck drivers who deserve respect, who deserve to be treated fairly. And the IOW. We are more. Than willing and able to service them in a timely fashion. But we've got to work around logistics that are. Way above our pay. Grade, and the decisions that are being made have nothing to do with us. So good work. Keep it. Up. I commend your effort. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. These are the last two speakers. Good evening, Honorable Mayor Garcia, council members. My name is Louie Diaz, vice president of Teamsters Local 848 here in Long Beach, California. Local 848 proudly now represents more than 500 truck drivers who haul cargo on and off the docks of the Port of Long Beach , nearly all of whom work for companies that have determined that it's in their best business interests to follow U.S. labor laws, as you stated. These companies are being undercut day in and day out by companies like Nephi, Cal Cartage, XPO Logistics and International Intermodal Bridge Transport, to name a few and hundreds of others that are profiting off our ports, the people's ports, by exploiting mostly immigrant drivers. And these companies customers, giant retailers like Target, Home Depot and Amazon are aiding and abetting these lawbreakers by continuing to contract with them for drainage when they know without a question that they are illegally exploiting these drivers, often in violation of their own code of conduct. As was stated, nearly a thousand legal rulings of misclassification have been filed. More than $45 million in stolen wages ordered to be repaid. Drivers have taken to the streets within 15 strikes in four years, as was stated, causing major disruption to the port operations. Mr. Male Mayor and council members there is no need for additional studies or further investigation. These companies are breaking the law and failure to take action will only lead to more disruption at the ports of Long Beach. The jig is up. The time for action is now. Changes past due on behalf of Local 848 Principal Officer Eric Tate and every single member of Teamsters Local 848. Thank you, Mayor Council members for answering the call of the drivers and stepping forward to demand change. I support the motion on this agenda item. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker is for sergeant. With respect to workers and the port. And this this goes to whether or not you believe in God at all, whether or not you consider biblical history accurate or valid for these times. Read Revelations 18 and see what happens to the ports at the end of the age. See how God judges the ports specifically. See what He says about that. And the reason is because. If you are that rich and you're making that much money, God would expect you to look out for people who are slaving for you, who are bringing in your revenue. I noted at the 1933 earthquake, a big part of structure just fell in the ocean. And as I did history on what happened in 1933, I thought, why would God allow something like that to happen? Tonight as I heard this. I became burdened again. Because whether or not you're atheist, whether or not you believe in God, or whether or not you just believe you're running your own destiny. The creator of the moon has marked the date. And part of our issue is. We're defining people. With our eyes wide open. You know how easy it is for a trucker to get turned over on the freeway. How we cut them off. We cut them off at the pass. And the ports make billions. We make billions. And while you're sitting here, council people, all nine of you, whatever you decide, how will you vote? Understand when you vote. And if you vote for the wealthy, the counsel of heaven, which yet will make a decision, the counsel of heaven makes a decision irrespective to what you do here. They will say, is there justice, is there fairness? Is there equality in your distribution of wages that he has given to all of us? This is 2018. And this year will not be like the last few years that you have had to exist as a chartered city. One Nation under the guard of the flag you saluted tonight. Pay attention to how you vote. Pay attention. The clock is ticking on you now. Thank you, Mr. Assad. There there is a motion in a second on this. On this motion, I want to thank, of course, all of the coalition. Most importantly, I want to thank the truck drivers. And appreciate you guys continuing to advocate for such an important issue at our ports. And we look forward to this being the year where we really begin to address this issue in a way that's serious and that respects the dignity of your work. So thank you. And please cast your votes, members. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you again. We're going to take item 23, please.

A resolution authorizing and approving the expenditure and payment from the appropriation account designated “liability claims,” the sum of One Million Five-Hundred Fifty-Thousand and 10/100 Dollars ($1,550,000.10), of which $609,268.80 will be paid to the Jester Gibson & Moore LLP Trust Account, and $940,731.30 will be paid to the individual plaintiffs for wages and compensatory damages, in payment and satisfaction of all claims filed by the 15 plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the City in the United States District Court, District of Colorado, Case No. 15-cv-02539-CMA-STV. Settles a claim involving the Denver Sheriff Department. This item was discussed at the Mayor-Council meeting on 8-27-19.

DenverCityCouncil_09092019_19-0912

And so thank you for everybody who made this happen. And I can't wait to be involved in making sure we get the right operator in this space in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please, for the next item on our screens, I believe we have 912. Councilman Herndon, will you please put resolution 912 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution 2019 091 to be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye. CdeBaca Eye for an Eye. Gillmor Eye. Herndon Eye. To. Eye. Cashmere. Eye. Carnage. Eye. Ortega Eye. Sandoval Eye. Sawyer I. Torres Eye. Mr. President. I Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 3939 as council resolution 912 has been adopted. I'm secretary. Please for the next item on our screens. Councilman Herndon, would you please put resolution 948 on the floor?

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125429 to modify the effective date of certain sections of that ordinance.

SeattleCityCouncil_01222018_CB 119168

The Report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee Agenda Item five Council Bill 119168 An Ordinance amending ordinance 125429 to modify the effective date of certain sections of that ordinance. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember Mesquita I just if you're paying attention, Councilmember Johnson. Asked Mr.. Hill as a. Small little. Bill to change the effective date. As the clerk mentioned, I'm happy to answer questions. If people have any questions of this piece of legislation, please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Whereas I macheda i o'brien. I. So aren't I make sure. Gonzales, i herbold. Johnson President. Harrell all right. Nine in favor. Nine oppose the bill passed and show sign it. Is there any further business come for the council? If notwithstanding adjourn and everyone have a great rest of the day.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to amend Contract No. 34080 with Environmental Construction Group, Inc., of Signal Hill, CA, to increase the scope of work to include the demolition of the old County Courthouse building and to increase the contract amount by $1,559,000, for a revised contract amount of $5,987,000, and authorize a 20 percent contingency in the amount of $1,197,400, for a total contract amount not to exceed $7,184,400; Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Citywide Activities Department (XC) by $2,756,400 for a transfer to the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW); and Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Funds (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $2,756,400, for a total project cost of $7,184,400, offset by currently appropriated Fiscal Year 2016 (FY 16) one-time General Fund strategic investments, and the remainder from bond proceeds. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_12152015_15-1309

Thank you. And then the final piece of this vote is item 16. Also related to the Civic. We got a motion and a second. Do you want to read? Madam Clerk, the item. A report from Economic and Property Development and Financial Management recommendation to amend Contract with Environmental Construction Group to increase the scope of work, to include the demolition of the Old County Courthouse and to increase the contract amount by 1.5 million district to great. I have a motion and a second is or any public comment on this item. Mr. Goodhew. Refresh my memory and what is the reason for the increase? Why do we have to go back and get more money? Does anybody know? Well. Mr. Graves, you know, this is a person where you ask the counsel questions so you can make questions or comments. And we're going to have. You explain why we're just handing this out. I mean, without any public discussion, you just you. Standing. It's like standing out in the street corner handing out the money. This is the point Terry Jensen made. If the guy made a mistake. And step up to it and say he made a mistake and he eats the cost. That's part of your job. That's called responsibility, period. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Any comment on this? Yes, sir. This is a plan cost, and this is amending the contract for the demolition of the courthouse. Thank you. And you see no other comment or question. You have the motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. That. That concludes our Civic Center. Multiyear discussion and voting process. I want to thank all of you for being here. We're going to take a recess here for probably about 5 minutes or so to people, let people stretch and use the restroom, and we will be back for the rest of our agenda. Thank you. Okay. We are going to get this meeting back started. If I can do a roll call, please. Oh, it is for Councilwoman Gonzalez. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Superman. Here. Councilwoman Mongo. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Otunga. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Mayor Garcia. I'm here thinking we're going to hear the the pre-bid item first, as requested by Councilman Richardson. The one thing we're going to do without objection, unless there's any objection, is the infrastructure study session is actually important and it's 10 p.m. and there's actually a real presentation attached to it.

AN ORDINANCE imposing an income tax on high-income residents; providing solutions for lowering the property tax burden and the impact of other regressive taxes, replacing federal funding potentially lost through federal budget cuts, providing public services, including housing, education, and transit, and creating green jobs and meeting carbon reduction goals; and adding a new Chapter 5.65 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_07102017_CB 119002

Bill passed and chair of Senate Bill. Both bills passed into law will sign both bills. Please read the report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. Report of the Affordable Housing Terrorism Finance Committee and item one Cancel 119002 Imposing income tax on high incomes, residents providing solutions for lowering the property tax burden and the impact of others. Regressive taxes replacing federal funding potentially lost through federal funding cuts. Budget cuts providing public services including housing, education and transit. And creating green jobs. Meeting carbon reduction goals and adding a new Chapter 5.65 to set a code. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. I believe Councilman Burgess will give some context and some history and I think it will then be pass counts for her vote, if I'm not mistaken. Councilmember Burgess. Yes, thank you. I just want to go through the history of our committee's consideration of this legislation. This began on May 1st, when the city council adopted a resolution expressing our intent to adopt a progressive income tax targeting high income households in the city. At that time, we indicated that we would pass this legislation by July ten, which is today. On May 31st, the Finance Committee held a special meeting and heard a presentation from local Seattle economists Dick Conway and John Burbank, the executive director of the Economic Opportunity Institute. Dick and John briefed us on tax regressive in Washington state. Dick Conway has studied tax policy in all 50 states for many, many years and reported the updated analysis of his work on that, which shows that Washington State has the most regressive taxes in the United States. On June 14, we held a public hearing here at Council on the draft income tax proposal. On June 21st, we had our first discussion of the legislation that was introduced, and there was a panel presentation from central staff, the city's finance director, Glen Lee, the city law department and outside legal counsel that was retained by the city attorney. On June 30, we held another special meeting of the Finance Committee, and we voted on various amendments to the bill. On June five at the Finance Committee, we voted on the final legislation and recommended it to the full council for adoption. Which brings us to today. So Councilman Council President Harrell, I'd like the sponsors, Councilmember Herbold and councilmembers to want to be able to speak. And then after other council members speak, I'd like to close the discussion. Very good, Councilmember Herbold. And I know Councilmember Gonzalez has an amendment that I think would be appropriate after my context setting of. Of. The ordinance, so maybe I could speak. And then Councilmember Gonzales, with that. That workshop for me. I would like to speak after the amendment is voted on. Okay. Very good to work through it. So as we all know. We face a serious problem in the city of Seattle. We have an increasing affordability gap between the haves and the have nots, and the middle class is being squeezed as well. And one of the reasons is our outdated, regressive and unfair tax structure in our state. We have the most regressive system in the nation. Local economist Dick Conway has noted that we finished last. When You Can Sit are the five measures of fairness, transparency, adequacy, stability and economic vitality. In our state, the top 1% only pay 2.4% of their income in taxes, whereas the poorest 20% pay almost 17% of their income. This is a big step forward in Seattle, but it's also hopefully a big step forward for our state. The council bill was developed according to the principles that we developed and called for in resolution 31747 adopted by the Council on May 5th, and is in addition to creating a process and a timeline for ourselves, we also committed to one another that legal viability would be our primary consideration in making decisions around the different elements of this legislation. The outcome has been a 2.25% tax on incomes over $250,000 for individuals, 500,000 for joint filers. And again, that's only on the income above those thresholds. 100% of the income under the thresholds will still be tax free. This is estimated to raise $140 million annually. And we also stuck to the the principles in the original legislation that identified the the purposes for this tax revenue. And those purposes are include lowering the property tax burden and the impact of other regressive taxes, addressing the homelessness crisis, providing affordable housing, education and transit, replacing federal funding potentially lost through federal budget cuts. And. Creating green jobs and meeting carbon reduction goals. And then finally, the costs associated with administering and implementing the tax. It's been designed for simplicity and designed to minimize the costs of implementation. An important thing to keep in mind is only people with qualifying incomes will will need to file. We're hearing from constituents who are concerned that they're going to need to spend money to file a form to demonstrate that they don't need to pay the tax. That is not the way the tax is structured. In a recent poll, 66% of satellites said they support this measure. And this is consistent with the 63% of satellites who voted to support the measure in 2010. In this city, support for tax fairness is increasing, and I hope that that continues throughout the state. Many thanks to the Trump proof coalition. I do want to say just a couple words about an issue that has come up recently. And I think it's also related to the the amendment that Councilmember Gonzalez is bringing up. There's been some concern about how this legislation treats certain types of business income, specifically those businesses that are organized as sole proprietorships, LLC or escorts. And it's important to recognize that not only are individuals taxed in the state in a way that's regressive, but businesses are too. And that's something that, you know, we're going to need to continue to work on. That's part of the commitment of this of this ordinance to dial down the regressive forms of of of taxation. But as it relates specifically to those those three types of businesses, it's important to note that the losses that those businesses and the expenses that those businesses invest in their company are not considered as gross receipts. And for the purposes of taxation, those are those can be recorded as losses on their filing. And so I just want to make that. Perfectly clear for for the viewing public. Thank you. Councilman Herbold, Councilmember Gonzalez, did you want to address the amendment at this point? Yes. And I'm going to move the amendment first and then have it seconded, and then we can have the discussion. So I'm going to move to amend Council Bill 119002 with this is not marked with a number. Emilio, do I need a reference number or is it just the only amendment? Okay. Amendment one and number 1/2, is it okay to move 1/2 for discussion? And Councilman Gonzalez, please explain. Thank you. Just really quickly, to dovetail off of what Councilmember Herbold was saying, and I really appreciate your remarks and your recognition of the fact that when we were talking about our tax system, it's important for us to recognize that that the entirety of our tax system is indeed regressive and that the impact that that our tax system has, regardless of whether you're an individual or an entity, is that the truth is that that across the board, we still see an incredible amount of regressive taxes, which means that those who make less pay more in terms of taxes. And one of the my amendment does two things. One is it recognizes that when we're referring to in the ordinance that there is an impact of other regressive taxes, that that includes business and occupation tax rates. And it also clarifies, consistent with the resolution in Section three, that the funding may be used for responding to changes in federal policy, which is consistent with the intent of the resolution that this Council passed earlier this year. And so my my amendment will do two things as it relates to the use of tax receipts. It will acknowledge that some of the funds can be used to take a look at these other regressive taxes, including the business and occupation tax rate. And it also clarifies that the funds could be used to respond to changes in federal policy as as we see fit, as the appropriation authority for the city. And I just I just wanted to point out that when we look at the regressive nature of of of our tax system, particular as it relates to small businesses, one of the things that the that I tap the Washington taxation organization found was that when you look at the tax rates for sales and excise on business, for those businesses that have an income, an average income of 11,900 they pay for. 8% in sales and excise on business. However, if you are a corporation that makes more than an average income of 1.5 million, you only pay 0.7% into the system. And I think we can all agree that that is an upside down system. And it's not fair that very, very large corporations pay only 0.7% into the system, while our beloved small businesses bear the brunt of of that of that particular structure. So with that being said, I am moving for this amendment and would appreciate your support. Thank you. We have an amendment. Moved and second it little discussion here comes from Russia wants. Thank you. No, I do not support this amendment because, in fact, B.A., taxes are not a regressive tax. B.A. Taxes are only paid by businesses. Working people do not pay tax. Ask yourself, have you ever paid a B.A. tax? In fact, until today, B.A., taxes have been the only taxes collected by the city that are not regressive. And B.A., taxes are basically the only taxes that businesses pay. I want to use the money from the tax the rich ordinance to fund affordable housing, not to cut taxes. Not to cut taxes for corporations like Target and Starbucks, which is what cutting business taxes would do. If we cut sales taxes, then we would be cutting a tax that taxes regular working class people, especially the poor, that I would support. But there is no truth in Reagan's trick. Trickle down economics and cutting business taxes is basically, you know, it's based on that theory. To be clear, B.A., taxes can and should be made much more progressive than they are. We should cut taxes on small businesses, many of whom are owned by women, people of color, immigrant and LGBTQ communities, and raise the taxes on big businesses. I hope that any council member here today who votes in favor of this amendment will support any legislation in the future to make the business tax more progressive. I vote no on this amendment to spend money lowering taxes for corporations like Target and Starbucks. Mr. President, I can clarify my amendment. My amendment is not a measure that would lower taxes for Starbucks. And I can't remember the other corporation that was named by councilmember. It is specifically designed to begin laying the framework for exactly what she has advocated for just now, which is to set and determine whether there is a more progressive way to to implement taxes on businesses so that we recognize that the small businesses are the ones who need more help, as opposed to those at the top of that income income bracket. And, you know, the the the ITEP recognizes that the Institute on Taxation, Taxation and Economic Policy recognizes that our business tax system in the state of Washington is, in fact, regressive and needs to be more progressive in order to help hold up small businesses within our community. And my or my amendment to this ordinance is designed precisely to allow the foundation to be able to undergo that particular analysis so that we have a progressive model. Thank you. Councilman Gosar and I had Customer Herbold in Q and then I'll pass. Okay. Customer on Herbal during Q. I just want to say that making a tax more progressive is the flip side of making a tax less regressive. And that's what this amendment is intended to say. We're talking about making the different forms of taxation in the city of Seattle less regressive. And one of the things that not many people are aware of is that our taxes on businesses are also regressive. And so it's just simply calling it out to make sure that people are aware that there is regressive ity there, too. And in trying to make our taxation system more progressive, that we intend to do so. As well. With the the impacts on small businesses. Swanson. Q I wasn't I'm probably misreading it, but I didn't read that into the proposed language. I my interpretation was simply to take the receipts or the revenue from this, and it just says use for the filing purposes, including the business and occupation tax rate, which seems to read to me that you could just offset some of the B, you know, for all corporations, regardless as to size. But I'm not reading your meaning into this language. So that is that's not the intent. The intent is as it was just described. So I understand the intent, but. I am reading other. Regressive taxes, including the business and the business and occupation tax rate. So it's specifically it's just identifying that this is one such tax that will benefit from addressing the regressive ity. Okay. We have Councilmember Swann. Well, first of all, just to clarify, if there is a tax that is only levied on businesses and not on working people, by that definition, it is progressive. Unlike a sales tax which falls squarely on the hands of working people, especially the poor, which is a regressive tax. That's a separate point from whether the existing tax on business is progressive or regressive. But then the businesses themselves, absolutely, the current business tax structure is regressive among businesses, and we should absolutely change it to make big corporations pay far more than small businesses. In fact, we should eliminate the tax burden on small business period. However, regardless of intent and attributing every best intentions to council members, the language in the ordinance that is being introduced to this amendment does not actually say that it. What it will do is reduce taxes on small businesses and increase taxes on big business. It will actually by law, what it will do is take the Senate tax into consideration, just like it would take sales tax into consideration and say, should we eliminate this tax? And if all the classes in that group that are being taxed. And furthermore, by law, if you want to make the tax structure of the BNL much more progressive, that actually needs to be taken to the ballot. And so I invite council members to join me in putting something on the ballot where we can we can change that struct tax structure rather than using this vague language, which in reality, in reality, this language has been introduced because business businesses do not support, except for a few exceptions, which I and I applaud them for, that especially big business does not support a tax on the rich because many of them are the richer will be taxed . And so that is why I will oppose this amendment. Thank you. Okay. I think we've had enough debate in the language speaks for itself at this point. Any other closing comments for our call for the vote on the amendment that has been moved to the second? Any other questions were good. Okay. So I'm going to ask you to do a voice call and a voice vote and raise your hand if you support has been moved in Second Amendment number one, the language you have it from us has been moved in second. And all those in favor of amendment number one to council bill 119002 vote I in raise your hand. I. If you oppose, vote no and raise your hands. No. No. So six three. So the amendment has been successfully moved. The bill has been successfully minted. Now, let's go back to the base legislation that has been amended. And are there any further comments on that? Councilmember Johnson. Just briefly. I'm really excited to be voting on this today and wanted to spend a minute saying thanks to my colleagues for their support of a couple of amendments that are offered in committee to those amendments, increased transparency and clarity for the establishment of the tax and maintains the Council's authority as the city pursues the tax mechanism . And one of those, the Third Amendment raised the base rate from 2% to 2.25%, and that was adopted unanimously out of committee by our colleagues. And as we discussed the legislation, the the city identified a lot of priorities that are under threat of funding cuts from the current federal administration. My fear was that as we continue to grow, that those cuts, particularly to those most vulnerable of our population that are on Medicaid and Medicare funding, as they can contemplate cutting those funds at the federal level, that we were going to see some really significant impacts to us as a city. So that amendment allowed us to raise a little bit of additional revenue. And I recognize that we have some additional hurdles to cross before implementing the tax. But I'm really grateful to my colleagues for their support of those amendments, and I look forward to seeing how this plays out over the next couple of weeks and months. Thank you, Katherine Johnson. I'm going to keep from heading into. I know a few of you have things to say. Customer Beck Show you are on. All right. Thank you very much. And I want to say thank you. Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember Swan, for leading this, but also special recognition to my good friend John in the front row. Because you were one of the first people that brought this to my attention that the state legislature was not going to do anything about an income tax and that local cities needed to do it. So for you and to you and to your organization, John Burbank, I want to say thank you for that good work. And just a couple of comments has already been recognized that our state has one, if not the very most regressive tax system in the nation. And it is flatly unfair. We know that. And I think, Councilmember Herbold, you mentioned that the Washington Washington state's lowest earners pay something like 16%, one 6% of their total income in taxes. And where people, families with the highest incomes pay just over 2%, there's 2% of their income in taxes. And besides being just grossly unfair to our neighbors who have the least. What happens is that the city's revenues, which are based on sales tax and property taxes, simply don't keep up with growth. So I think this is an opportunity for us to do what many of you in the audience have already mentioned, and that is that government should have more money to do what we need to do, whether that's fix the roads or pay for libraries or ad parks or deal with homelessness and promote public health and mental health, which are two of my top priorities. Clearly, we need to have a statewide income tax, but our legislature, as we just mentioned a moment ago, isn't going to do that. So having the city take the lead, as we have done, whether that is paid family leave, thank you very much. Or gun responsibility or $15 an hour. Other cities are going to follow this lead. I have heard from a number of people who said, well, people are just going to move out of the city of Seattle. The wealthy are going to move. You know that's not true. And that if it's able to pass and we get past the constitutional muster, other cities are going to jump on this and want to do it just as we are now. So I want to say that in that spirit, we know and I've already been alerted that we can expect a legal challenge the second that the mayor signs this. That said, we go to King County Superior Court. We go on to our Supreme Court. And I would really like to recommend and in this case, I support council members want I would like to see how much of this money can be used to reduce our sales tax. I know that that's an uphill battle, but that's where I would like to first work to invest this money. So during this time where we are facing the legal challenges, that's what I would like to do, is to figure out how can we reduce the sales tax and make our system fairer for everybody. Thank you. Councilman Russell. Council members to watch. Thank you, Brandon Harrell. Washington state and Seattle have had a tax code that is absolutely punishing to poor working class and middle class people for decades. Olympia is run by Republicans and Democrats. And yes, there are differences, very clear differences between those two parties. But one thing that they agree on completely is that their policies benefit big business and the super wealthy. And that is why our movement has done the right thing by not holding our breath for corporate politicians to make a change and build an independent mass movement in Seattle in order to tax the rich. Thanks to the city attorney's office, who have done an incredible amount of work, our city central staff, Councilmember Herbold, and her staff staff members in my office, especially Ted Walden, the Trump Pro Seattle Coalition, but especially the Economic Opportunity Institute and John Burbank and the Transit Writers Union and Katie Wilson and Socialist Alternative. And I have been proud members of that coalition. We need to be crystal clear that the fight is far from over. If you read the op ed from the big business representatives and strategists, they have made it clear that they intend to fight this in the courts rather than city hall. That is why actually we've had we've had to launch a muted battle on city hall. It's not because suddenly the Chamber of Commerce and their representatives on this body here agree with us on tax. But they but because they know that this will go to the courts and they would rather fight it there. And because the movement has been so strong that it is difficult for, you know, for them to fight that battle here. So we will need to fight this battle in the court, and we will need to be there to fight, to win. But throughout history, we've seen that where we have unjust laws, mass movements, when they get organized and decided to fight back, we do not have to accept these unjust laws because we can overturn them. Just one example, Roe versus Wade. The landmark abortion rights law was passed by the Supreme Court to defend women's rights in 1973. Why? What a change at that time. There were no new Supreme Court justices. It was the movement that forced the justices with no choice if they were to maintain their credibility. Our movement will have to and can do the same thing to defend taxing the rich. And just like we have. Packed City Hall. We will have to pack the courtrooms to make it clear that we will no longer tolerate a system that buries poor and working class people in taxes while giving business and the super rich yet another free ride and a system that underfund affordable housing to the point where thousands are homeless. A system that criminally underfunded education. The Washington State Republican Party is trying to trick people now into thinking that we want to tax everyone. They put out a press advisory today about this ordinance with the title. And I quote, Income tax for all is the real goal as far as I'm concerned. I can't speak for other politicians, but as far as I'm concerned, the goal is absolutely to tax the rich and not working people and the middle class. Thank you for all your incredible work building this movement. Thanks to Katy and John especially and all the organizers, including the Neighborhood Action Coalitions, who are the reason this has happened today. When I originally ran for office, Socialist Alternative and I highlighted three demands for Seattle $15 an hour, taxing the rich and rent control. We won the first two because we organized and fought to win. We can win not only rent control, but go towards a society free of exploitation and oppression. I think he wants those inspirational words. Councilmember Burgess, did you want to close us out? Yes, thank you. Because virtual you got to make sure everyone has had an opportunity to chime in. We're good. We're good. Okay, Councilman Burgess. Thank you. I think we've documented really well over the last several weeks with the experts that have appeared before us, with the various reports that we have reviewed, that Washington state's tax system is unfair and is not just. And that, in fact, is my core motivation for supporting this legislation today. State tax reform is needed here in Washington state so that our lowest income residents pay less. Our middle class neighbors pay about the same, and our highest income residents pay more. That would be adjust system of taxation to our business friends, small businesses and large businesses. And I love all of you. It's important that we'll let that go. It's it's important that it's important that you realize that state and local income taxes are, in fact, deductible from federal income tax. And so I would ask our business friends, would you rather send your revenues to Washington, D.C., or keep them local to improve our situation here in Seattle and in Washington State? And I think that's an easy answer. So I join with Councilmember Herbold and the folks who have advocated for this change. We want to compel and jumpstart a conversation in our city and state that will result in the status quo being changed so we can move forward to a much more just and fair tax system in Washington. And that will be for the benefit of all of us, including business. Thank you, Councilman Burgess. Okay. I think we are ready to vote. Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill. Burgess Gonzalez. Hi. Herbal Hi, Johnson. Suarez Oh, Brian. Hi. So I. Beg. Shall I? President Herrell. Hi. Nine in favor. Not opposed. Thank you. The bill passed and the chair will sign it for the record. For the record, the bill passed and there was signage. Please read item number two into the record and you can read the short title if you can.

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; changing appropriations to the Executive Department’s Office of Housing, the Executive Department’s Office of Economic Development, and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget, for the purpose of providing financial assistance to small businesses; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_03232020_CB 119760

Agenda item one. They're part of the city council. Bill 119 760 126000, which adopts the 2020 budget changing appropriations to the Executive Department's Office of Housing, the Executive Department's Office of Economic Development and Budget Control levels, and from various funds in the Budget for the purpose of providing financial assistance to small businesses and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. Thank you. I'm going to move past Council Bill 119760. Second. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. This bill is sponsored by Councilmember Morales. Would you like to address this bill? Sure off me. It's okay. Thank you. Council President Gonzalez. This is a bill I referenced last week. This would add another approximately $1,000,000 to the Office of Economic Development for the purpose of expanding the business stimulus, small business stabilization funds. I know there are some folks who are concerned that this is shifting money from the low income housing fund in the Office of Housing. My understanding is that the Office of Housing Plans to do two offers and that there will be an additional opportunity for funding for housing in the fall. And while I completely understand the the struggle and this is probably the first of many that we're going to have to balance how we how we make adjustments to our plans during this crisis. You know, it's important that we support small business and certainly shouldn't be pitting them against any housing production that we're going to be doing . And we know that we have very limited options as a city for how we support small business and community development. BLOCK Grant money is one of our very few options. So I am going to we support this bill so that we can expand the support for small businesses through the Business Stabilization Fund. I do want to say, if I might, as I've said many times already during this crisis, we need to be aware of, you know, that we're not robbing Peter to pay Paul during this crisis. And also that as we as we look to these emergency measures that we're taking, that we aren't creating new systems that might perpetuate inequities in our community. That said, I do think that it's important that we proceed with this bill. Thank you. Councilman Morales, are there any comments on the bill? Council. President Gonzalez, this is Councilmember Mosqueda. Please, the floor. Thank you, Madam President. And thanks to the prime sponsor for bringing this forward, along with the mayor's office for sending it down. I want to reiterate a few points that were made in conversations with the Office of Housing. We have been able to confirm that the redirection of these CBG funds will not hurt any existing housing projects, and we will continue to be vigilant, along with our partners in the Mayor's office as we move forward to make sure that there is sufficient funding for housing. But the roughly $1 million in redirection will not affect any of our currently funded projects. I want to thank the Office of Housing for their opportunity to engage with us and make sure that we plan for affordable housing projects to move forward. That there's not any negative impacts as we think about the emergency that's in front of us, especially as we think about how important it is for folks to have access to housing and affordable housing in the near future. When and if this virus continues in the fall and winter, we want to make sure that these housing projects continue and that they're funding allocated this year and next year to moving forward on these important housing projects. I think that we talked a little bit about it this morning and have talked repeatedly about how the COVID pandemic has made affordable housing production even more critical. And it really is our only long term strategy for creating affordable housing and stability. So as we ramp up our sheltering capacity and we think about immediate assessment facilities that we're going to stand up soon, having an equal amount of emphasis on building affordable housing is going to be critical . So I want to thank the mayor's office and the Budget Office for helping to explain the budget impacts of this decision. And I think overall, to echo what Councilmember Morales said, we want to make sure that the COVID crisis, when it means the loss of revenue coming in the door, that we do protect funding for critical services , including affordable housing, as we think about reallocating funding. I think this is a good use of these funds and and appreciate the effort to get these dollars out the door for our smallest businesses. Thank you. Councilmember mosqueda, are there any other comments on the bill. After president resolved? Okay. So I heard two people, Councilmember Herbold and Councilman Swan. Did I get that right? Yes. Okay. Councilmember Herbold, I heard your voice first. So I'm going to let you go first and then I'll call on Councilmember seven. Thank you so much. I really appreciate knowing that this transfer of funds from the Office of Housing will not impact any current funding commitments that OHSU housing has made to to our affordable housing projects. And we take knowing that the Office of Housing Estimates at this time that they'll have 67 million to allocate the new housing projects in need of funding. And of course, I understand that CDBG funds can uniquely support the business assistance program as other city and state funds cannot be used to provide this assistance due to constitutional limitations. We know that COVID 19 will put pressure on many thousands of households who will be out of work or under-employed and struggling to make ends meet, as well as pressures on the affordable housing providers who have very tight margins to keep people house. I did reach out to the Housing Development Consortium this weekend. They are supportive of this legislation, but I think we need to assume that housing must be a key component of the city's response to COVID 19. And I don't want to regret these kinds of transfers away from the Office of Housing. We know that the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance has made a request of the governor's office that should any future shelter in place, orders be be instituted, that housing production be considered an essential opportunity and be permitted to continue. In addition to the housing affordable housing projects that are already planned, it seems very likely that we may have emergency housing related needs, where future CDBG funds could be an important funds source. We've checked in with the city's CDBG administrator. We know that emergency housing and shelter is an eligible CDBG activity. It is defined as a public service. We are limited on how much CDBG dollars we can spend on a public service, such as emergency housing or shelter. We are only permitted to spend 35.92% of our total CDBG grant on public services. And it has been our policy of the city to spend those dollars towards emergency shelter. So as I understand it, those that 36% has already been contracted out for 2020. But our CDBG administrator indicates that Congress may be working on statutory relief to temporarily remove the cap on public services for CDBG. We will be kept updated on the progress on this, but what this means is we may have the ability to use more CDBG funds for emergency shelter and emergency housing related needs related to COVID 19 . And so I think this important conversation that. We're having now. About striking the right balance between all of these competing needs is is really critical to the council and the city's ability to be fair and meet those needs. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. So on. Thank you, President Gonzalez. I have concerns about this bill from the mayor, and I have the concern not only about this bill, but that the concern I'm going to express that it's going to start becoming apparent from the emergency orders that come forward and that it will be an ongoing issue. And I have shared my concerns with Councilman Morales in advance, but I wanted to show them here and then also explain what I intend to do with this bill today in the vote. Yes, we already funds relief for small businesses, which are absolutely supported. In fact, it was my office, along with community members, that we were able to fight for businesses in the Central District a couple of years ago. And when 6000 $650,000, it was that is unprecedented for really struggling people of color own businesses that we were able to win through organizing. And so there's no question that small businesses are struggling, as well as the vast majority of working people who are reeling from this crisis. However, this bill would pay for small businesses by cutting the low income housing fund, and I oppose that. But I agree with those members who said that it does not come from currently planned project. That is true, but it takes away from the next round of projects, the projects of the 2020 that will come under the 2020 notice of funding availability. My office has checked thoroughly with city council central staff and they estimate that if this those million dollars, if the funding housing funds are not made whole, this would cost ten individual families, individuals or families, affordable homes to live in during this crisis. That's concrete. That's a concrete loss that could happen if we if we did not actually take care. And I don't understand why we have to do that when there's actually a lot of money in the city is just in the hands of the wealthy and big business. Now, it would be reasonable to ask whether the affordable housing construction was being suspended right now in accordance with social distancing guidelines or shelter in place. That is being anticipated. But we know the notice of funding availability has gone out as planned. So either though it will affect the schedule or the scheduled affordable housing for this year, or it will not affect this year, but it will affect, you know, in a in an ongoing basis. And so my point is that regardless of whether this million dollars comes from the spring or fall, no fine. Regardless of whether or not construction was suspended, the fundamental problem here that I'm objecting to is the robbing Peter to pay Paul approach that is going to be used by the mayor. I'm anticipating that more more emergency orders of this kind and the council needs to take action. But I think all of this is being done in order to avoid taking on big business so that until we have the perpetuation of this politics of scarcity, which I don't accept, most struggling small businesses and working families need to be supported and their need should not be pitted against each other. The city of Seattle has an emergency fund of $66 million that is reserved exclusively for emergencies like this. And we should use emergency funds rather than cutting funding for affordable housing and council members. And they argue that the emergency fund will have many other demands on it, which of course is going to be true. But we know that $66 million can only scratch the surface of what is needed to support our community at this moment. I mean, we are in a pandemic that is going to result not only in completely preventable loss of life due to the criminal primodos health care system, but we're going to have depression like economic effects, with the Fed estimating 30% unemployment rate in the second quarter. I mean, that is devastating. So we you know, that is why Councilwoman Morales and I put forward the Amazon tax. But even that is not going to be enough. The city needs to use the emergency fund for more immediate needs. It needs to immediately approve the Amazon tax to make additional funding available. And we need to demand that the state also act by closing corporate tax loopholes and facing big business and taxes on the wealthy at the state level. My office checked with us and Gustav about possibly amending the bill to change the source of funding to be the emergency fund. But because that would require our title change, it cannot be legally be done in the same bill. That is why if Councilwoman Morales or any other council member were to make a motion to hold this bill from a vote today, I would support that motion or I will make that motion if no other council member makes it. And I don't I wouldn't agree if councilmembers are going to say that such a motion holds up emergency relief, I do not agree with that. Today the council could pass an Amazon tax and make relief available. So I don't accept that. I wouldn't accept that excuse on its face value, but I will make that motion if nobody else is going to make it. And if the motion. It's a majority rule, and we could easily put forward a replacement bill to use emergency fund. Living funds and if there is agreement, my office is happy to rapidly put this together. I know there are concerns that have been expressed that the funds need to be community development block grant money in order to legally be used for this purpose. And emergency fund does not come from anybody. We all know that is easily solved by using CWG money from any other part of the budget and backfilling it with emergency funds. And I will use the guidance of the Council President and the City Clerk to make that motion. But I also wanted to say that if this bill goes out today, unfortunately it allows to vote no on it. For the reasons I have just explained, we cannot adequately address this extraordinary crisis by simply shifting the damage back and forth between working people and small businesses. We need a fundamentally different approach. Excuse me. Thank you. Sarah So, unfortunately, I think your intention to hold the bill would be out of order. This bill has been moved and seconded and is now in the discussion phase. If there wasn't an interest in your part to move to hold the bill, I believe that that should have been done consistent with the council rules at the time that we were considering approval of the agenda. Will the city clerk please clarify that my understanding of the rules of order here. Yes. Come some of us can be quick second so I can get my little cheat sheet out. But I believe that the motion to hold has a higher it's a higher motion. And so therefore, it takes over the motion to pass the bill right now. So two calls could be changed and if it weren't, so we can go back to the motion to pass the bill. Okay. So customers. So if you intend to make a motion to hold this bill, now would be the time to do that. It would require, I think, a significant and then a majority of the city council to pass. Is that correct, Amelia? Correct. Okay. Okay. I'm not sure exactly the words I want you to use, but I will say I make the motion to hold accountable 119760. And Councilor. Excellent. Are you proposing to hold it for a date? Certain or to hold it? Indefinitely. But I'm obviously it's not indefinite in my mind, but I don't want to specify a date because I'm not exactly sure whether this will be done in a week or not. But obviously, needless to say, the intention would be to do it, work on it as soon as possible. Okay. So yes. If you don't mind. So our council rules provided that I'm to hold something to be held for a certain time. As far as a specific date meeting or hour until when the actual item will be taken by the council. So in. That case, I. Miss a lot. No, go ahead, please. No, I think I heard Amelia say that I need to attach a date to my motion. That's what I heard. Yes. Okay. In that case, I will make the motion to hold the bill until the City Council meeting of March 30th. Okay. There's been a motion to hold council bill 11976. So until the full council meeting on March 30th. Is there a second? Okay. Hearing those seconds, the motion fails for a lack of a second. So we will now move on to continue discussion of the previous motion that was made, which was a motion that was moved and seconded to pass Council Bill 119760. I can appreciate the concerns that were expressed by all of the other council members, including Councilor Sylvan, and I understand that we want to make sure that as we are considering these emergency funding sources, that we are doing so in the full context of making sure that we are not sort of engaging in mission creep, if you will, where we are taking from other priorities to address the needs of of the emergency response as it relates to the coronavirus. And fortunately, there will be situations, I think, where we will need to make some intentional, transparent decisions that might require reallocation of funds, either in the short term or the long term. And I think it is prudent for us to have a conversation with the executive and with the guidance of our council central staff and the Chair of the Finance and Housing Committee to make sure that we have a clear understanding of where those lines are drawn. I do want to address sort of the issue around small businesses and the intersection between that and affordable housing. Several of us have already spoken to that. I want to clarify that. It's my understanding that one of the largest housing nonprofit housing consortiums, the Housing Development Consortium, does support this proposed Small Business Stabilization Fund and the legislation to expand that fund. They have indicated in an email to Councilmember Herbold, dated March 23rd at 1:48 p.m., that they're, quote, anti displacement policy position calls for support of locally owned small businesses with tools that would allow them to thrive in their communities. We understand the inextricable link between small business livelihood and the ability of residents to pay rent or mortgage payments and remain housed, which is of paramount concern to EDC members. Now more than ever, we call for compassionate support that keeps us east, keeps us a strong community. A close quote. So I think it's important for us to take that into consideration with the understanding that they support the bill, knowing that it's not going to take away from existing projects and really sort of making sure that we understand that this bill is is specifically not in contravention to some of the housing interests we have , but is, in fact, something that is going to continue to promote this council's priority around ongoing future affordable housing opportunities. We certainly could use more in that regard and look forward to seeing the federal and state resources coming through that allow us to leverage future affordable housing projects through the Office of Housing to make sure that we are meeting the dire housing needs of so many in our city that certainly existed before this crisis. And and, you know, as I think many of us are nervous about might be exacerbated as a result of this of this crisis. So councilmember councilmembers, any other individuals have comments on this. Otherwise, I will allow the sponsor to make closing remarks and I will call this to a vote. Hearing on Caspar Morales. Do you have any other comments to make on the bill before I ask the clerk to call the roll on the passage of the bill? I'll just say that. Well, as we've all said, it's important that we support these small businesses. You know, this is one of the few CDBG funding is one of the few sources that we have. And many of these small businesses that we're supporting with this fund are themselves low income folks who are dealing with, you know, all of the same issues, rental issues, being able to provide for their families. And so the assistance that this provides them is going to be really important. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Morales. Okay. I will go ahead and ask the clerk to call a role on the passage of the bill. Councilmember Herbold, I. Councilmember Suarez. I. Council member, Lewis. I. Councilmember Morales. I. Council members must get a. I. Council member Peterson. Hi. Council members want. No. Councilmember Strauss i. Council President Gonzalez. I. Eight in favor. One opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Right. We're going to go ahead and move to the next agenda item. Will the clerk please read agenda item two into the record?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4545 West 35th Avenue in West Highland. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4545 West 35th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-10-21.

DenverCityCouncil_09272021_21-0881

I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 Ies 13 Ies Council Build 20 1-849 has passed. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 881 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Council President. I move the council bill 20 1-0881 be placed upon final consideration and pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 881 is open and I see we have Fran here for our staff report. Good evening. Members of City Council, beneficial associate city planner with Planning Services. And tonight we're going to be looking at the rezoning request for 4545 West 35th Avenue. Subject property is in Council District one, represented by Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval. In the West Highland neighborhood. The property is located mid-block between Green Street and Utica Street along 35th Avenue. The site is 5800 square feet and currently contains a single unit house. The applicant is requesting to rezone from UCB to UCB one to allow for an EU at the rear of the property. All other forms of your standards will remain the same. The property is currently in the Urban Single Unit Business District, which allows for a minimum download size of 4500 square feet. As you can see on the map, all the surrounding properties are also zoned useable. The Korean line used for the site is single unit residential and in the immediate vicinity the areas land use are mostly other residential uses. Shown in these photos. The character of the neighborhood is mostly residential. The subject property can be seen in the bottom right image of the slide. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval anonymously on August 4th, and while the applicant provided 14 letters of support from neighbors as an attachment to application, staff has not received any further letters of support of or opposition from the public or ordinance. Now moving on to the Denver zoning code, it must be found that the requested MAP amendment is consistent with the five criteria. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to this rezoning. The first one is comprehensive plan 2048. The second one is Blueprint Denver. Stated in the staff report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals in comprehensive plan 2040. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place . Now moving on to the consistency with Blueprint Denver the subject properties mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place type. Displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. 35th Avenue is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The Growth theory and blueprint. Denver is all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see a 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Finally blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy Forward focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Staff also finds that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. The justified circumstance for these rezoning. Is a key part of the plan is the approval of the existing U.S. based on district. The city has adopted a comprehensive plan and blueprint, Denver stated throughout the presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of those two plans. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the UCB one's own district. With that stuff recommends approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you for the staff report, Fran. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Perez. Yes. Good evening. Most accounts for those watching at home. My name is Just Blossom. Paris and I represent the Black Sox. A move for self defense positive actually coming out the sausage chains was the Unity Party of Colorado, the front line black nose. And I'll be the next mayor of Cameron 2023. Once again, shame on you. Denver City Council for allowing 4 to 5 white supremacy could guest star on House Neighbors this evening saying that they don't want housing and they don't want help at all. But it's a blatant lies and they need to stop telling these lies and people need to stop believing these lies. In regards to this rezoning, I'm in favor of it. I support assisted dwelling units all across the city. We have a housing crisis. And we need more attainable, accessible housing. So I'm it's the full support of society going unit. I would love to see accessory dwelling units all over the city in every district, not just district one, but it seems district one is leading the way with the best unit. So good job. Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 881. Give it a moment. All right. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 81. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I believe that this application meets all the criteria and asks that my colleagues vote to approve it. Thank you. And likewise. This meets the review criteria, and I will also be supporting this this evening. Members of Council Council Bill 21, Dash 881 is on the floor for final passage. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 81, please. Sandoval, I. Sawyer. I. All rise. I. Black I. CdeBaca, clerk. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I Cashman. Or. Kenny Ortega. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announce results. 13 813 highs Council Bill 20 1-881 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, October 25th. Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 21, dash 1019, changing the zoning classification for five Cook Street in Cherry Creek and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to submit a grant application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for funding under the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program, for the first phases of the Drake Chavez Vision Plan Implementation Project and MacArthur Park Vision Plan Implementation Project (Projects); and, if awarded, execute all documents necessary to accept the funds in an amount up to $8,500,000 for each Project, for a total grant funding amount of up to $17,000,000 for the Projects. (Districts 1,6)

LongBeachCC_03022021_21-0170

Thank you. We're going to quickly do item 20, please, and then we'll go back up to the last two items. Item 20 Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine Recommendation to adopt a resolution to submit a grant application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for funding under the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program Districts one and six. Thank you. Have a motion by Councilmembers and House. Can I get a second, please? Can I get a second, please? Second by Councilwoman Allen. Councilman is in the house. Give any comments? Yes. I just want to say how excited I am about this grant application. And I'm unbelievably grateful to our director, Dennis and his team for the work that they have done on behalf of our parks and especially our great Chavez vision plant here in the First District. These are both areas of such high need in our city with so little access to green space. And I know that personally, the Drake Park mission plan is something I've been absolutely thrilled about since before I was on council. Seeing this project take its first steps towards fruition has been wonderful for our Willmore neighborhood and our Parks and Public Works team have done an amazing job with with the place, like the local park connection. We still have a lot of work to do and to address that an equal and equal equities in our city, especially as it relates to park access. But these visions will more well, we'll need a little bit more work, you know, and creating access to high quality, accessible and equitable park space in Long Beach is is something that we're working towards. So I'm really excited about that. Thank you all so much for your hard work on this item and I'm so incredibly excited for the future of this. So thank you. Mr. Motorcade. Did you have any anything you want to present on the staff side on this or. That's up to the council? We can do a short presentation by Mr. Brant or Mr. Dunn. Sorry, on this. It's both this and MacArthur Park and he can park. No. Let me go. Let me go to Councilman. Sorry was a second. Just some comments, councilwoman. Oh, no, I was going to ask if we could have stopped your presentation before then. Let's do that. Mr. Motor. After a short presentation. Mr. Dennis. Thank you, Manager, America, honorable mayor and members of council. Both of these projects earlier tremendous examples where establishing a shared vision by engaging with the community have provided the foundation for the pursuit of significant grant funding. So for for the direction of his vision plan in particular, should the department be successful in receiving the eight and a half million dollars in grant fund? It will bring some tremendous recreational amenities in terms of the early phases of the overall parks development, and it includes a whole array of things and especially to be appreciated during this COVID era by the community where there's a focus on fitness equipment, improved sports courts and athletic fields, landscaping, but also things like community gardens, I think for sustainability purposes and just the connectivity and giving people in some of the higher density neighborhoods, some open space and some opportunities to really build community in their neighborhood. Park MacArthur Park again is another great example. Over in Council District six of a similar process, we're developing a shared vision with communities. Input is once again providing the foundation for excellent appeal for an additional eight and a half million dollars in grants. In that particular park, there'll be specific renovation of the playground area and expansion of open play for both active as well as passive enjoyment in the park perimeter. Walking trails and multipurpose walkways are proving to be very important for individuals fitness. And we also look at investing in outdoor fitness equipment and other opportunities for, again, the community together to really become more resilient, getting to know their neighbors. So these are both excellent examples, but we do appreciate the council's support for us to pursue these grant funds. That concludes my presentation. Lester Energy Questions. Thank you. Councilman Sara? Yes, Mayor. I was wondering if we have public comment on this item. And then I would like to make my remarks. And that's okay. Sure. We do have public comment. Our first speaker is Chan Hobson. Hello? Hello? Do you hear me? Yes. Please begin. But every mayor, Robert Garcia, city council members and city manager, Tom wanted them. My name is Ken Hobson. I'm a resident of the city of long before for a year. I am the executive director of the Smart Parent Association. My office is in the district about a mile away from MacArthur Park. My oldest son grew up with that park. I just thought I'm 20. Specifically for city staff to find funding for the Park Vision Plan Implementation Project. MacArthur Park is my goal and it badly needed improvements to accommodate the community. The community within the one mile radius in the area makes up 17% of the population, making it one of the most densely populated area in the city. I was so happy to participate in the visioning process for the park because it never had a vision plan and I am so excited to hear that the staff involved will find funding to implement the plan. Thank you to the city along with Parks, Recreation, Marine and all the partners 87 Friends of the Park, the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust and City Fabric for the hard work, participation and commitment to finishing the plan. Thank you to Councilwoman Farrow for her support and dedication to ensuring them through our path and quality of life for people in this state. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Simmons. Yes. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and city council members. My name is Mary Simmons. I live in the sixth district and I fully support item 20. Specifically for city staff to find funding for the MacArthur Depart Vision Implementation Project. MacArthur Park is my park and that I go to and needs improvement badly. I actually live across the street from the park. This community, the community within one mile radius of the area, makes up 70% of the long, long beach population, making it one of the most densely populated areas in the city. I will say I was happy to be able to participate in the visiting plan for MacArthur Park because I'd never, ever had a vision plan. I'm so excited to hear that the staff will work to find funding for the implement to implement the plan. Thank you to moms. Long beaches, parks, regs, Marines, all the partners, AOC seven Fred, the MacArthur, Los Angeles Neighborhood, Land Trust, the fabric and all our local stakeholders for their hard work participation and. Commitment to finishing the plan. Let's continue to bring resources to a to the park and finish the plan. Two weeks ago, we had an amazing vaccination clinic at MacArthur Park. And I would like to commend Councilwoman Julie Sorrell, her staff, as well as the entire health department, for a job well done. We vaccinated 400 residents at MacArthur Park and thank you, Councilwoman Julie Barrow, for your support and dedication to ensuring we improve our parks and quality of life for the people. Of the Sixth District. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Melissa Williams. Hi, my name is Melissa Williams and I live in the sixth district with my husband and my two children. And I wanted to speak in support of the finding funding for the MacArthur Park Vision Plan Implementation Project. As the other commenters have mentioned, this is a very dense part of Long Beach. Many of us live in multi-family homes without a lot of outdoor space for children and families to use. The park is kind of the center of our neighborhood and it is in dire disrepair. In spite of the condition the park is in, it still continues to host very important cultural and neighborhood events such as the vaccine clinic that Mary mentioned. I would I was very excited when I found out that there is a vision plan to improve the park. So I'm really happy that the city council and the city staff seem willing to support those efforts to find funding. And I think that this kind of thing is especially important in the pandemic with the children not in school, to have a place where families can go. I want to thank all also the partners. Long Beach Parks and Recreation and Marine, the AOC Seven Neighborhood Association to do really wonderful work around here. Friends of MacArthur Park and the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust and City Fabric for all of their support to helping to make our our district better. And also Councilwoman Shirley Sara, for all of the great work that you've done in our area to really improve conditions and equity for our residents. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rocio Torres. You. Good evening, Mayor, and good emergency council members. My name is Joe Theaters. I live in the second district and MacArthur Park is my childhood park and it is still my park. Believe it or not, 47 years I've been here and I've never had a vision in crime for my part. So I support item number 20 specifically for City to find funding for MacArthur Park's visioning plan and implementation project. I was glad to be able to participate in the process for MacArthur Park Visioning Plan because it had never been done before. Thank you to the city of Long Beach, Parks and Recreation and Marine and all the partners that champion for our Park 87 Friends of MacArthur Park, the L.A. Neighborhood Land Trust and City Fabric for their hard work and participation and commitment for finishing the project. Thank you for Councilwoman Susie Saal for continuing to champion for our park. She helped us with the visioning plan and information that we needed. And MacArthur Park is a beautiful park in a beautiful place. Let's continue to reactivate our park. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Back then to go back to Councilwoman Sara. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to just thank all of the committee members who made their public comment. And I feel that they've said a lot of things that I would have said and that I continue to want to have them lead this process, as they did with the visioning, with our partners. So so I want to thank again, just reiterate, thanking the studio staff at Parks Rec and Marines and our amazing neighborhood group, AOC seven. That's just really been, you know, making sure that we address so many of the issues in our parks and our neighborhoods. And the Friends of MacArthur Park and the L.A. Neighborhood Land Trust and City Fabric for helping to really just get feedback from such a wide variety of groups. I saw many seniors sitting with younger generation and talking about what they really like to see at this park. And I also want to mention this is also my neighborhood park. I live in the 9.13 area. It's really like within walking distance from me. And I'm just disheartened that we continue to have porta potty bathrooms that have been there for a long time to variety amenities that I think could be much improved, which is why I really look forward to working with our partners on the ground, as well as our city staff to look for funding so that we can make improvements and really improve the quality of life of everyone around the area. So thank you so much. Councilman Allen. Now? Yeah, I didn't have any comment. Sorry about that. No problem. I mean, I just want to add great projects both obviously. Certainly that the Drake Chavez project has a special place in my heart. Having worked on that, in fact, in my predecessor worked on that project as well. And it's been a long time coming just building that part kind of piece by piece, and it looks so great now. I love seeing the soccer fields, love seeing the connections, how well the Willmore neighborhood is and such a great job. And the community with that and folks like Kathleen and Jim and Cheryl and and so many others that have played such a vital role in in getting that park to where it's at a and Diane and so many others so just happy to see this where it's at. So with that, I'm sorry. The councilman. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to our staff where we were on budgeting to replace and repair the bathrooms so that they won't have porta potty bathrooms. This time. I got it. We do have a budget. A project was added into Measure A, I believe, about a year and a half ago, something like that. And it's in design and it's more important. Wonderful. So I'm just going to speak to and I know after I made this comment last time, I got a text from Council Vice Mayor Richardson supporting what I'd said, and I think that it's important to say it again. The park bathrooms are part of a critical infrastructure across our city for our families. That was prioritized by this council in a previous council action related to measure A for other measure funding as it became available. And as I said in the Infrastructure Committee meeting earlier today, when when other proposals are brought forward that are in opposition to the original intent of the Council, we should also at least be brought the list of things that are not getting funded that would have been funded by the previous council action. Because when you see projects like this one that are just so critical to a community like park bathrooms, I can tell you today I was at a park and I saw multiple city staff stop on their break because they need to take a bathroom break. And they're an infrastructure across our city, not only for families, but for our city workers. And some of them are in such horrible disrepair that we just need to continue to invest in these park bathrooms across our city . They're just too important. And so thank you to the community who partook in the visioning process. It will come out to be amazing, but those amazing amenities are only possible when bathrooms function and are kept and maintained in an appropriate manner. So thank you so much to everyone for all the great work and congratulations to Councilwoman Sara. It'll be a great, great project. The Mercedes. Cast your votes. Roll call. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. I District seven. By District eight. I. District nine. All right. Ocean carries.

A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval of a Significant Structure Term Permit to Seattle Arena Company, LLC to construct, maintain, and operate a tunnel under and across Thomas Street, east of 1st Avenue North and west of Warren Avenue North, to enable the renovation of KeyArena at the Seattle Center.

SeattleCityCouncil_12032018_Res 31857

The Report of the City Council Agenda Item one Resolution 31857. A resolution granting conceptual approval of a significant structured term permit to Seattle Arena Company LLC to construct, maintain and operate a tunnel under and across Thomas Street, east of First Avenue, north and west of Warren Avenue North, to enable the renovation of Key Arena at the Seattle Center, introduced November 26, 2018. Thank you very much. I'll sort of introduce the matter and if any of my colleagues have has anything to add, please just sort of jump in. So this is a resolution, as you may recall, we had a select committee on Civic Arena is meeting just this morning to sort of talk about it. In short, gives a conceptual approval for what's called a significant structure term permit to the Seattle Arena Company. And I think if you're following the news at all, we know that what's happening in a key arena is an exciting project. And this basically allows the the developers and the city to proceed down a path of conceptual approval for a tunnel that will be used for the final structure. There will be another ordinance forthcoming tentatively scheduled around the first quarter of next year that will actually the permit part of the process. And between then and now, the city will be involved in the development of that with the Seattle the Seattle Arena Company, LLC. So basically, again, it's just a conceptual approval to keep going down that path. And as one of the co-chairs of the Civic Arena Committee, we recommend approval of the resolution. Any questions or comments? I'm going to have to make a an amendment to it. That's just a technical name. And I'll do that in a second. Unless there's any questions. Any questions on the base resolution? No, go ahead, Councilmember. I'll just I want to tell you how supportive I am of this. Thank you all for being here, all four of my colleagues. Thank you. To those of you who have been working on this for over a year and a half, I'm very pleased that our neighborhood has come together. The work that Oak View Group has done to reach out to the neighbors in Uptown and Belltown and Queen in South Lake Union. This is going to make a big difference. So I appreciate the fact that you're moving forward. I believe tomorrow we are hoping to hear from the NHL board of governors. Is the event in the morning open to the public? So tomorrow morning, I believe at 8:00 in the morning, there is going to be a get together of hopeful hockey fans in South Lake Union, Henry's Tavern. And as I understand, it's open to the public. I'm intending to be there. Nothing like starting your morning off in a bar, but I'll be there at 8:00. Yeah. Thank you for that. Okay. So I'm going to move to amend resolution 31857 by substituting the fourth recital with the following language entitled quote. Whereas on November 2nd, 2018, Oak View Group, LLC and Seattle Arena Company, LLC entered into an agreement titled Assignment and Assumption of Seattle Center Arena Project Permits and approvals by which Seattle Arena Company LLC was assigned and assumed. Oak View Group LLC Rights and Obligations related to Oak View Group LLC. Application for a significant structure, term permit and end of quote. And basically because you have to be a lawyer to understand what's going on there. But we're just separating the correct names of the parties as a technical correction, as we discussed this morning in committee, any questions on the amendment? We're just going to vote on the amendment. I will move that amendment. Second, all those in favor of the amendment, please vote I. I opposed. The ayes have it. And I think we have an imminent resolution. And I could just do that as a resolution. All those in favor of the resolution as amended. Please vote I. I opposed. The ayes have it. It was unanimous and the chair will sign it. And please read the next agenda item into the record.

AN ORDINANCE relating to civilian and community oversight of the police; establishing a process for investigating complaints naming the Chief of Police; adding a new subchapter V to Chapter 3.29 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Section 49 of Ordinance 125315 to renumber the existing Subchapter V of Chapter 3.29 and Sections 3.29.500 and 3.29.510 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_07192022_CB 120337

A report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee Agenda Item eight Council Bill 120337 An Ordinance relating to civilian and community oversight of the police. Establishing a process for investigating complaints. Naming the Chief of police and adding sections to the municipal code. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended. Thank you, Kasper Herbold. Thank you so much. This bill addresses a technical issue from the 2017 Accountability Ordinance, which didn't address how complaints that named the chief of police should be addressed. I became aware of this issue earlier this year and immediately reached out to the mayor's office, the Inspector General and the Office of Police Accountability to chart a path forward to address this issue. As noted in the recitals, there were three complaints against the former chief in 2020 that linger for some time until. Mayor Harrell's. Office forwarded the complaints to an external agency for investigation. Moving forward, it's important for public trust to have a clear process to resolve these types of complaints. The legislation establishes a process for the intake, evaluation, classification and investigation of complaints that name the chief, either by a city unit or by an independent investigative body that is external to the city. That process would involve the Office of the Inspector General, and the legislation also requires key stakeholders in the person or people who made the complaint to be notified at investigative milestones. I'd like to thank Inspector General, Judge and interim okay Director Perkins, as well as their staffs for their assistance and time in developing this legislation. Central staff in my office held a number of meetings with them, and I worked through a number of complicated issues. I'd also like to thank the Community Police Commission, the Mayor's Office, for their collaboration on this legislation, as well as my own staff. Aldrich The Public Safety and Human Services Committee made changes to the original draft in response to a letter from the Community Police Commission to state that both intake and any investigations conducted by okay shall be conducted exclusively by civilian personnel. There are four civilian personnel at the OPA. Now two civilian investigators into civilian supervisors. Any non. It also requires that any non city entity conducting an investigation of a non criminal violation will not be a law enforcement agency and that any investigation of a suspected violation of law would be investigated by a non law enforcement agency. The committee heard this bill four times before sending it to council. It moved forward with the unanimous vote and I urge my colleagues to vote for it today. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Herbold, are there any questions or concerns for Councilor Wolf Herbert regarding item number eight? I am not. Oh, I see what customers want. Thank you. Guns have been worse. I will be voting no on this legislation. Establishing the investigation procedures for complaints against the chief of police. This legislation is largely technical establishing timelines and notification requirements for the investigations, while maintaining the current accountability system of the OPA, OIG and the political establishment. This is a system that is completely failed to hold the Seattle Police Department accountable for their militarized response to the Black Lives Matter movement of 2020, with the billowing clouds of tear gas, stun grenades and pepper spray. This is a system that is designed to condone when officers kill Charlene Lyles in her own home for small children because she made the mistake of calling the police. What we need is an elected community oversight board with full powers to investigate complaints against the police, including the police chief. Not further reliance on the OPA, OIG and other entities that we are going to be going to accountability structures for those reasons. I will be voting no. Thank you. If your customers want, are there any other comments and Councilmember Mr. Verbal, is there anything you'd like to add before we close out? You could. No, thank you. All right. Thank you. With that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Councilmember Lewis? Yes. Alice. Yes. Councilmember mosquito by. For Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson. All right. Councilmember Sawant No. Councilmember Strouse. Yes. Councilmember Herbold? Yes. President was high eight in favor when opposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please fix my signature to the passage of the bill. That concludes the eight committee reports that were listed on the agenda. And with that, moving on to the agenda, we moved two items removed from the consent calendar. There were no items removed going to Section J of the agenda, adoption of other resolutions, not seeing any other resolutions for introduction and adoption today.

AN ORDINANCE concerning protecting conservation lands in King County; adopting financial policies to accelerate the protection of vital open spaces, including urban green spaces, natural areas, wildlife and salmon habitat, trails, river corridors, farmlands and forests in King County; to address equity and social justice issues by increasing the availability of open spaces in historically under-served areas; and to address generational equity by spreading costs of protecting vital open spaces over time; amending Ordinance 8867, Section 1 and K.C.C. 26.12.010, Ordinance 13717, Section 1 and K.C.C. 26.12.003, as amended, and Ordinance 13717, Section 4 and K.C.C. 26.12.025 and adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 26.12.

KingCountyCC_07252018_2018-0268

All right. So for the record, on Mary Bergen on from the council staff and the materials for this item began on page 39 of your packet, but I'm going to begin at page 40 and just give a little bit of background on what led to this ordinance. Back in 2015, the council passed motion 14458 which declared that it is county policy to protect and conserve land and water resources and directed the executive to develop and transmit a work plan by March 30th of 2016. To do that, the executive came back with an initial work plan in early 2016 and then convened a land conservation advisory group which met throughout much of 2016 and 2017 and developed a first phase report in January of last year and then a final report in December of last year. That report set the goal of acquiring 65,000 acres of open space lands within the next 30 years, at a cost estimated over the 30 years of $1.9 billion . The group came up with a number of ideas for how funding could be secured to do that, which included, among other things, resetting the conservation futures tax to its state maximum of 6.2 cents per $1,000. That would require voter approval. And so instead of that, at this point, the Executive has come forward with several of the other concepts from the Land Conservation Advisory Group, one of which includes an increasing the bonding level against the conservation futures tax. And then the other, which is also in this ordinance to establish equity areas in underserved areas of the county. In the middle of page 41, you'll see a description of the conservation futures tax. This is a dedicated portion of the property tax that's authorized by state law to acquire property rights to conserve open space. It's been collected in King County since the early 1980s. And as I mentioned, state law sets the maximum for this levy at 6.2 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. The CFT was at this maximum level when it was first imposed in the 1980s, but since then it has eroded and it is now under $0.04. King County currently allocates about 12 and a half million dollars in CFT proceeds each year, and those allocation processes are governed by sections of the King County Code, which establish an application process for local communities. A citizen's oversight committee from whom you heard this afternoon to review the applications, and then a process by which first the executive and then the council review those recommendations and allocate funding. Now I'm moving on to page 43 in terms of the proposed changes that are included in this ordinance. The first thing the ordinance would do, as I mentioned, is change the financial policies for the CFT to allow that 80% of the proceeds could be used for debt service so that the amount of money bonded against the CFT could be increased. Currently, there is not a set limit for bonding, but there's been an informal limit set by the council, an executive of about half the proceeds used for bonding. And right now about 46% of annual CFT revenues are used to support debt service with the proposal going to 80%. That would provide an additional 6 to $8 million a year. That could potentially be set aside for debt service and could lead depending on the length of the bonds. The interest rate, somewhere between 80 and $150 million in proceeds that could be used immediately to acquire property. The second thing the ordinance would do, and here I'm on the top of page 44, is to eliminate the match requirement for what are defined as equity areas. I should note that right now any jurisdiction applying for funding through the CFT is required to provide local match equal to the amount they ask for from the CFT for equity areas. And I'll get to that definition in a minute. There would be no local match which would allow for more jurisdictions and underserved areas to seek funding. You'll see a little bit farther down on page 44 the definition of equity areas, which would require three criteria to be met. First, areas located in a census tract in which the median household income is in the lowest third in the county. Second areas located in a census tract in which hospitalization rates for asthma, diabetes and heart disease are in the highest third in the county. And then finally, areas that do not have easy access to parks, either those within the urban growth growth boundary no park within a quarter mile or areas outside the urban growth boundary, no park within two miles. There is also language in the ordinance that would allow for some flexibility so that an applicant can demonstrate and the CFTC Citizen's Oversight Committee can determine that a project proposed for funding would be eligible to be considered an equity area. With that turning to the bottom of page 44 and staff's analysis. First, the definition of equity area. As I noted, there are three criteria as well as some language that allows for flexibility. Those obviously are policy choices for the council, whether you wish to add this definition and then if you are satisfied with the combination of set criteria as well as flexibility that the Oversight Committee could apply. The next policy issue for the Council is the elimination of the match requirement for equity areas. Again, this would allow for underserved communities to apply more easily for T funding, but would mean that because there is not a local match, more money would need to come from the CFT or other sources to acquire that open space. Again, a policy choice for the Council. Next, the increased bonding. As I noted, setting the bond limit higher would allow for an immediate cash infusion to purchase property, but would mean that in future years more of the C of T revenues are being used to support debt service. Again, there are pros and cons of that. It's a policy choice for the council. And then finally, the nexus between equity and open space. The proposed ordinance talks about this to some extent, but staff has identified a number of both adopted policies and regional plans that specifically call out this nexus, including King County's Determinants of Equity Report , the King County Open Space Plan and the recently adopted Puget Sound Regional Council Regional Open Space Conservation Plan. The final issue I'll note is the ongoing erosion of the C of T. As I mentioned, the state maximum for that tax is 6.25. Since it has eroded over time to under $0.04. And this proposal would not affect that erosion. So it will continue to erode over time. Mary, you used the term erode, but can you explain what you mean? What I mean is that there are limits in state law by how much property taxes can increase each year. And because of those limits, the portion of any particular dedicated source of funding such as the CFA, go down in value year over year. And so again, over the 30 plus years that this tax has been enacted, it has gone down from 6.2 $0.05 to under $0.04 now. And that diminishment would continue unless there is some action and in this case, voter approval to reset that levy amount. Finally, I'll note and as you had mentioned, Mr. Chair, this ordinance is a dual mandatory referral. It was heard by and approved by the Regional Policy Committee earlier this month. And that concludes my staff report. Bob Burns is here from the Department of Natural Resources and Parks, if you have questions. Thank you very much for the staff report and the presentation, Mary. Let's take a couple of questions and then we'll see. Councilmember Cole Wells is the co-sponsor of the legislation with me, if you might, when we're ready to be able to put it forward. Start with Councilmember Lambert and then Councilmember Gossett. Thank you. To look at instead of eliminating the match, look at a sliding scale. I think that's a great question for the executive. So I'll call bumpers up. So well he's coming up asking the second question. So, you know, we talked about the 6.2 going down to $0.04. But during that time, the housing in this county pretty much doubled in value. So while that the amount to 4000 went down, the assessed values went way up. Right. Yes. That's so it didn't really erode the amount of money because the assessed values were so much higher. The rate has been what eroded. That was what I was trying to impress and apologize if there is any confusion. But I wasn't. And I know you weren't, but I just want to make sure the citizens listening who don't do this everyday got that little twist. And then I know that in the catalog. And maybe there's another question for you, Bob, but there is a catalog of county planners, city planners that says that for every thousand people you have, you have to have so much open space. Do you know what that formula is for? So for the record, Paul Byrnes, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. So on that question, I think each jurisdiction has their own, you know, comprehensive plans and part plan. And so it varies by jurisdiction in terms of what those goals and targets are. There's not a legal requirement. I don't think that's uniform across jurisdictions. But many jurisdictions set targets and goals for numbers of acres, numbers of ballfields, numbers of certain park amenities. So that that's true. And thank you. What I was asking was, what is the guideline? There's a guideline formula. And so I think it would be interesting as we go forward to maybe have something in the bill that says that you need to you need to get closer to the guidelines so that you don't end up in these problems. Because I used to know that there's what the number was, but I don't remember off the top of my head. But there is a formula. So maybe we should find that out and then see other cities that in going forward you need to make decisions that don't put us in the situation in the past. So did you ever look at a sliding scale as opposed to eliminating it? So the advisory group recommendation was to eliminate the match, but what we did was assessed where are the areas of most acute need? And I think that the sense was that there weren't there's not a lot of gradation when it comes to acute need areas that are bottom third of income, bottom or top third of hospitalization, rates for heart disease, diabetes, asthma and a lack of proximity to greenspace. And the strong consensus coming out of the advisory group process was elimination of the match entirely is the thing that is going to allow those areas to catch back up and get some greenspace going. If we if we take gradations and gets very complicated, it's hard to, you know, describe an area with an acute sort of need as just, you know, gradations of of of waiver. And so the strong consensus was to eliminate the match entirely. Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert, Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was impacted by many of the people who testified because they reminded us that already the King County Council has preserved a lot of open space where our public funding. More so than most other places, at least proportionately speaking around the country. And I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that Larry Phillips was our leader for so many years on a county council, and he was the father of the growth manager plan when he was in the state legislature. And I also like the fact that the CFP has that program that you and Council remember had been talking about where we could give priority consideration to low income communities getting a little bit of open space because I think communities like Harlem and North Philly that you can go from miles and have no open space. You got some cement basketball courts, but no open space for a long time. Here's the challenge that I have. If we increase the bonding capacity for our county from 50 to 80% of all the money, yes, it's true that that means that right now we can bond that money and have an I think oh, I think you said about 100 3050 million available to spare. And two or three speakers said if we could spend money now better than we're waiting for later because the cost of land would be so much more. And that that's a consideration. Here's what bothers me. The FBI guy in the Seattle Times, his name is Bork. Eugene Bork. Yeah. Okay. And he said The poor people in King County in Seattle are King County. I can't remember which pay way more taxes than anybody else in the state of Washington and perhaps in a lot of other places. And they sound like we pay for 18% of their money for sales tax and most put it on their homes. But I'm sure it's even more than that if they if they do and have to pay taxes, because those are two primary taxing possibilities here. I don't know about this having more. And Mary, very clearly explain what it means. It means we have to have more capacity to pay off a larger debt in years in the future to pay off that empty debt. That would be really high. And then the other point, she said, because each year something falls. And what was that? It was the rate of the tax know. So it's going to be much more difficult to get resources in the future. So I wanted to ask either one of you. The debt service payment being so high in your future, what are the redeeming values of having that kind of situation? Thank you, Councilman, for the question so that the action in front of you today would put the financial tool in the toolbox to allow bonding at a higher level, but it would not cause any increase in taxes. So what what would happen? No, I mean, why not? So we would rely on an existing the existing conservation futures tax revenues, which is an existing, stable, predictable revenue stream. We would use those existing revenues to pay off any debt that would be council magically issued. And so it wouldn't require increasing the tax, it would just be binding against an existing stable funding source. And the reason we think that's prudent is pulling that capital forward allows us to accelerate the pace and buy land before it disappears to other uses and wallets. While it's maybe more affordable in the future, we project the price of land to only go higher, and the longer we wait, we'll lose these opportunities to get green space in urban areas, to protect farmlands, connect trail corridors, etc.. So those are the rationale set. Up by me. Mary, also a comment on Macron because if the because are using all of this, the money, the value of it is going to go down in the future. Well, understand what it means. It's easy to pay it off. What I mean, sir, is that essentially the county would be taking this existing revenue source, which Bob mentioned, and it's essentially putting more of it on the county credit card. We'd be saying we need the money upfront because land values are increasing so quickly, we're going to borrow to get more money. So it's as if you said your salary is the same, but you're going to put more in your credit card because you need to buy a new car or you're going to take out a home loan to buy a new house. And that's essentially the proposal here. So it's not a new tax. It's not an increased tax. It's just saying we're going to borrow some money now to have more up front. Somebody has to be paid back. So the county would be paying it back out of its existing revenues from this tax. And it just means that in future years there would be less to spend on an ongoing basis because the county would be spending more to pay back the debt. Definitely would be less to spend in the future. Thank you. Thank you. If I might come at Mr.. And I think one of the reasons you got comfortable with the proposal in the Regional Policy Committee and were able to support it there is because this legislation authorizes us to go up to 80%. But there are still two additional steps before we would actually do that. At least tier one you would be able to approve the specific proposed acquisitions of land with the money or recall that comes before us every year on recommendations of the CFP committee. And two, you would have to vote to issue the debt and there may even be a budget vote in there somewhere as well. So I think there were those additional steps that would be required to where your concern, which I think is valid with respect to does the proposal comply with our financial policies? Are we not overextending ourselves? All of those issues are certainly going to be able to be presented and addressed if we were able to move forward. This simply sets the framework to be able to do it. Did I messed that up, Bob? That that was exactly right, Mr. Chair. This just even a blind squirrel finds the knot once in a while, so. Okay. No, he's always pretty good at explaining count. Thank you, Councilmember Garcia, that's kind of you to say Councilmember Lambert had an additional comment before we put it before us. Yeah, well, I found it online line. So it was just what you said. But it was also that prior to from 1919 60 to 19 eighties, the National Recreation and Parks Association standard was ten acres per thousand. And then in the 1990s people were saying that there was too much parkland, surprisingly enough. And so then, then they said, but each city establish its own standard. And so some cities have like nine acres, a couple cities have 12 acres, Tampa has 9.9. So, you know, it's interesting that the cities, very few of them look like they've gone over the ten per acre, that it was actually a way of making it less, which was very interesting. But I think, you know, looking at some kind of standard, even though that was the old standard for 20 years, it gave a guideline so that if your city didn't have proper and we know that it's needed for health and all these other good reasons, including mental health. So anyway, I threw that out because they thought it was something that we should at least know how our cities are doing. Are they getting close to a 10th acre just so we know, or are they doing it like one city has four acres per thousand, which is completely not acceptable as far as I'm concerned. So know. I just want you to know that. Thank you, Councilmember about duty and then Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you. Looking left. I just wanted to repeat something that we said at the Regional Policy Committee, mainly because there are people in this discussion that weren't in that discussion. First of all, there was some discussion at our P.C. about whether pulling this money forward would limit our ability to fund things in the future, which is, of course, always true when you bond because then you then tied up your revenue streams. However, I'll repeat what I said there, which is for this kind of a project, it's a very sensible kind of strategy for funding because of the risk of losing the lands that we're trying to preserve. If you don't preserve them now, the risk is that they go away. So pulling money forward to me makes a lot of sense in this kind of situation. I just thought I'd repeat that. And the other thing I wanted to repeat was this I am I'm very appreciative of and and excited by the work that's been done in the proposal that's coming forward. I am particularly excited about the equity investments. I think there's an incredibly strong case for that. And it's a it's a it's a nice way of making up for past inequities in access to open space and safe ways, places to play outside. I do want to again, though, stressed that when we talk about conserving land outside the urban growth boundary or at the urban growth boundary, that sort of brings to my mind of the discussion around the whole balance of good, the Growth Management Act. And the balance was we're going to grow inside that urban growth boundary, we're going to provide housing, we're going to provide density, smart growth, transportation, all everything that people need so that at the same time, we can conserve the land outside the urban growth boundary and not sprawl all the way to the Cascade Mountains. Right. We seem to do a pretty good job of the conservation part, but we're not doing the greatest job on the housing part and the density part. We're not keeping up with the demand for housing and the cost just keeps going up and up and up and up. So maybe I'll frame it as a question this time. Was any thought or discussion giving to a way to tie these two things together because they are linked like a TDR program for housing or any kind of innovation? A better way to try to support that second really critical part of growth management while we're doing the conservation, that is also very critical. Yeah, thank you. Great question. That actually came up yet. But I do say. That that came up through the advisory group process. We actually did an analysis based on questions from advisory group members and we looked at the buildable lands capacity in the urban area. It's about 417,000 units of capacity. And the Land Conservation Initiative that we estimate is about double what we need for that, I think the 30 year growth target. But but that's, you know, there's the next 30 years in the 30 years beyond that that land conservation initiative would impact that by about two and a half to 3%. So the advisory group, I think, got comfortable with the idea that that's a fairly de minimis impact, but it's an impact. And the point you made is we're struggling with affordability and. And can I jump in? Yeah. It's not about the impact of this. I'm not arguing that because we're taking land out of production, we should. Therefore, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is this is regardless of what our targets are and what our buildable lands may look like, we are failing egregiously at providing enough housing so that people can afford it in this market. So there's something wrong with that analysis there. There's something not working there. And this provides an opportunity to potentially encourage more density in places where people will actually build it. Maybe just put it that way. Yeah. And so we've been working with the Development Committee on how do we grow the TR program, which you referenced. I want to suggest that as part of this, we should try to do that. Yeah. Yeah. That's actually was we as part of the Land Conservation Initiative, we assumed a higher level of revenue from TDR as part of the non CFT revenue that would help support land conservation. The more we can grow TDR, those proceeds can help cover some of the cost of land acquisition. If we pass this as written, does it limit our ability to use TDR or some other incentive program in that way? In this package, it. Doesn't limit our ability to use TDR or any other private or public private partnership opportunity. That's very that's very comforting. And I want to work with you all on finding ways to do that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Customer Resolution. I want to remind colleagues that in our comprehensive plan update, we included a work plan item to explore adding flexibility and new types of TDRS with our program. And I think the department is working on that, which would include urban to urban TDR using I call supercharging TDRS to incentivize their use in underinvested communities and even some perhaps rural to rural, whether that should be TDR to be able to facilitate these things. So I think some work. Is underway on that, and I'm very interested in seeing the results. We're running low on time, and I'm going to turn to Councilmember Caldwell's to take up this item. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I proposed ordinance 2018 020268 that would make changes to the code to allow increased funding of conservation features, tax proceeds and establish policies for the purchase of equity areas in underserved census tracts. All right, that's before us. Comments on passage. We don't have amendments at this time right here. Effectively, Amanda, we got to go back to their pieces, hopefully do that. Councilmember One Right, Bart tells me, is a full agenda at the IPC Council Member Lambert Thank you. As we go forward in this, I think there's some things that we need to continue to think about. So I'm just going to listen quickly. First of all, our citizens are saying their property taxes are too high. So that's a problem. And one of the reasons our property taxes is too high, it's because 61% of the land is not paying full taxes and much of it is not paying any taxes. So that's a problem with this. It would probably go up closer to 63% of the land not paying full taxes in this. 3% of it would be on buildable lands. And we also have a problem with affordable housing. And yet part of the properties that were on the list, I don't know if they're still on the list, but are buildable land properties. The issue about having more open space land is that we still have many, many noxious weeds. We're not doing a good job and fire prevention in the unincorporated areas. We're not doing a good job of making sure people are not parking illegally and we are not doing a good job with the amount of garbage that is being taken into our rural areas that my citizens. One group spent $14,000 last year paying for that garbage to clean up after their property. That was not their garbage. $14,000 last year. So as we go forward and we have people out in open spaces, they need to not be bringing their garbage and leaving it for somebody else to clean up. The chance for development rights has impacts on the rural roads, and as we change that, we need to be aware that the rural roads are a huge problem. And every time we do a transfer of development rights, it makes the Rural Roads Fund worse. It makes it better for the unincorporated area incorporated, it makes it worse for the unincorporated areas. So it has an impact. That is not. But I was here when we talked about the 50% rate for bonding and there was a lot of discussion that day because people were worried that it would ruin our discussion in the future . And they were really worried that we'd get up to 50% right away and that wasn't going to happen. And so it was almost humorous. I laughed when I read 80%. I thought, Wow, we debated a long time on 50 and now we're talking about 80. So I have those concerns as we go forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Limmer, Councilmember Colo. Mr. Chair, who shared the comments made by Councilmember Lambert that I think there is something eminently, eminently compelling about this legislation. As as Executive Constantine wrote in his transmittal letter, which is found in attachment to in the first paragraph, he referred to finishing the job of protecting and preserving irreplaceable open space lands in King County. Timing can be everything, and if we don't take this opportunity, we may lose the opportunity to actually have these lands being saved. And then on attachment for the last two lines, and this is from supporters of the Land Conservation Initiative and refers to the initiative will pair the creation of new green space with new housing units to promote livability as our cities grow and densify. We still have time, but if we wait, these lands will either be developed or priced beyond our capacity to secure. And thus, Mr. Chair, I strongly support this motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Or. Well, you're always Madam Chair. You can't go wrong with that, can you? I want to just say a few remarks. I've spoken on this item many times, but I'm pleased the prime sponsor. I want to thank and commend the county executive for his leadership and initiative on this and our advisory group that worked for a couple of years, plus on putting it together with outreach to the community, including especially the co-chairs, Larry Phillips, our former colleague, and Shawn Quinn from Tugwell on the city council. There we are all from my district, talked about growing up and be able to walk out his front door to Cougar Mountain. We're both Hazen Highlanders, and we both now represent the Shawcross Scotts, whose motto is Our mascot is a Highlander as well. Like the Shortcrust delivered their mascot down to Hayes, and when it opened up, there's a connection there. But the reason that Will Hall was able to walk out his door and to Cougar Mountain was because 50 years ago, in 1968, voters in this region approved Proposition number six and the forward thrust bond package. And that bond package preserved things like Coal Creek and May Valley Wetlands and Cougar Mountain and Maplewood Park, all part of the network in south east King County that surrounded the places where Will Hall and I grew up. But for that foresight and investment by the region's voters to make a long term investment and significant down payment, those lands probably would have been paved over. This is a continuation in my mind of that tradition, but very well thought out. The technical expertize that the department natural resources in parks has brought to this proposal, the specificity with respect to which 65,000 acres we want to preserve and protect from our farmlands and our forests and our open space and parks and waters is a new level of precision and focus. And I just I think it's terrific. The equity piece fits with our county values of making sure we do right by those who have leased. So I think it is a very, very compelling proposal and I'm excited hopefully to see it advanced today. And I want to thank Bob Burns for his leadership on it, as always, with that will come through. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Belushi. Hi, Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Garcia. Hi. Councilmember Coldwell I. Councilmember Lambert No. Councilmember McDermott. High. Council Member of the ground. Councilmember Bond right there. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. The vote is seven I Council member. Member no and one excused. All right, we've advanced that recommendation. I would like to expedite it to Monday's County Council calendar, given the break that's coming, and it'll just be on the regular calendar there. So thank you all for coming today on that item and to my colleagues for your work on it. We will turn now to item 38 Ordinance 2018 0257 Building for Culture Reallocations. Mary will have a staff report on this and then we'll move to take action.

Recommendation to approve an employment agreement with Thomas B. Modica to serve as City Manager.

LongBeachCC_04142020_20-0318

Motion carries for the concert calendar. Now we're moving on to item 45. Clark, please read the item. I'm 45 as a recommendation to approve an employment agreement. Employment agreement with Thomas Modica to serve as city manager. Thank you. We are. We are. We do have, obviously, Mr. City attorney, I'm going to turn it over to him just to read something into the open session from a vote and some discussions of the council. So some discussion to the council. Sorry, Mr. City, Attorney. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor and members of the council are trying to stabilize. The before. You. This evening is a recommendation to approve the employment agreement with Thomas Modica to serve as your city manager. And he has the city manager salary pursuant to this contract. Will be. $290,650. A 12. Period at an hourly rate of $139.26 per hour. That concludes. My report. I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, let me begin. I do have a motion to approve this by Governor Richardson. Can I get a second sheet up? Okay. And I got a second by Councilmember Bass. Mayor Andrews. Let me go ahead and I'd like to make some comments. And I would also I'm assuming that the makers of the motion wrote, and if anyone else from the council would like to make comments, please do so as well. To. I just want to just begin by thanking Mr. Motorcar for it is now 20 years, almost 20 years of service to the city of Long Beach. We know that Mr. Modica has done a great job not just in this role, but his work all the way from being a management assistant to working in our Development Services Department to managing our lobbying effort. Communication. Appreciate the city and of course serving as our former city manager, Mr. West's number two as as the assistant to the city. He's obviously been acting in that role now, and I think the Council would agree, Mr. Modica, that your handling of the COVID crisis been impressive and stellar and you've done a great job and really risen to the occasion in this crisis. But separate of that, no one has a better mastery of the budget. You are connected to our city. You live here. Your children go to school here. You're invested here. And we know you're going to do a great job. So congratulations to you on on a on a process. And I know we want to wish you the very best to you, Mr. Modica. Captain Bill Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think your comment summed up the joint statement City Council put forward. I'm honored to make this motion. I'm honored to support Tom in this moment. I have to say, you know, for 20 years that I was there with the city, I've known for about ten. We both had a lot a lot more here back then. But this crisis that we're in is the ultimate test. And I've said it before the ultimate test. I'm pretty sure not many new city manager will walk into a crisis and be able to lead the organization. And what you've been able to do is truly impressive, and we have a lot more ahead of us. So I think this was the best, most prudent, responsible decision for our city, our city's future. I think you have the right set of skills and I'm honored then to have this vote. Welcome to our new city manager. Thank you, Vice Mayor Andrews. First of all, let you down. I don't think that there's going to be another candidate who could be accomplishing. You are. I think you came in the way you did and you were very, very supportive and in everything. And I don't think anyone. You out of your ideology in the sense that you go through. I know you wanted it back and you will be the best party and the crisis that will end. Just follow your heart. And I know we will come out of this the way we should with your leadership. And thank you again so much for getting into this into this job, knowing all the time of our situation. You are going to be coming up again. I you are going to do a great job. I support you 100%. You go get them. Thank you. And next, we have Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I wanted to chime in, Tom, and say, you know, I don't take this vote very lightly. I've told many people in our community it is perhaps the most important vote that we can take on this council. And since my first day, you have always been engaging. You've always listened and acted in a way with integrity that really tried to make sure that you were balancing all the needs and requests of all the, you know, the diversity that our city has. And I wanted to make sure that I looked at that up because I think it is so important when so many of my constituents I have brought up diversity that you really have led with that in so many ways. And I think your demonstration over the last month with this crisis have really demonstrated not only to myself but to the community members that you will also be serving, that you're the right person for the job. So I'm proud to take this very important vote and getting to work with you not only the next several months, but in the long term. So congratulations. Thank you. Next stop, a few councilmember. Hold on 1/2. Susie. What? I'm sorry, Robert. I cut out for a minute there. You call on three? I did? Yes. Customer base. Oh, perfect. Thank you. Sorry about that. I just. I want to echo the comments of my colleagues. And, Tom, we wish you the best, and I'm really happy to be taking this next step. And thank you for everything you have done. And thanks in advance for everything you're going to do to keep us stable and strong. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman. And they have. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to congratulate you on being our new city manager. You've been doing a phenomenal job for the last couple of months that I've been working with you, but especially in this in this crisis that we face. And I feel that the rest of the council will agree with me in the fact that we are so glad that we are in your hands right now. And we feel very strong and confident because you are at the head of our faces, always being on top of things and always, you know, even, you know, predicting the future. I think that, you know, it takes a certain kind of person to do that. And I believe it's the love and the passion that you have for our city that that makes you work so very hard. So I want to thank you again and congratulate you for doing a phenomenal job. And I'm looking forward to all the great things we're going to do together. Thank you again. Thank you. And Councilwoman Mongo. Thanks. I just wanted to congratulate Tom and add a bit of perspective. Thompson here so long that he's been through three economic downturns. And and for that, I know that he has the experiences to guide us through what we did right and the things we can do better. And I look forward to many years of service at this important role. Thank you. Thank you. And Captain Ranga. Thank you, America. And you know, I've known you your whole career myself, having been an employee in the city as well, then now in the capacity of a council member is something you develop. I've seen you grow and you crawl into this position with regret with that. And while we maintain open communications or playing a role, we continue that goal. And I appreciate your director for you're opening with me because certainly we'll get over this together, but I'm sure that there'll be some of the challenges of the future where they be. We can also work together the resolution and thank you. Thank you. That includes a comment from the council. I would go ahead and take care of the motion any second. I will go ahead and take a roll call. Vote for District one. A district. Do. I. District three. I. District four. By. District five. By. District six. Art District seven. Hi. District eight. Hi. And District nine. I. Great. Congratulations to our new city manager, Thomas Modica. And I'm going to ask I know you should take a minute here, Tom. I know you. You're on the line. I was at the part of the meeting, so I'm just to let you say a few words, if you would like in your new role now for the rest of the meeting as our city manager. So, Mr. Monica, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Mayor. And I'm just beyond humbled to hear the support of the council. It is such a great group of policy leaders that we have in our city, and I am just so honored to be your city manager and your commitment to public service, your commitment to thoughtful discussion, to compassion for your community is just amazing. And it amazes me every Tuesday and every day that we that we talk on the phone. I do want to say I'm just so fortunate to have an amazing team at our city. Our city employees are second to none from our 6000 that work out there every day for their residents to our executive management team. They are all focused really on the excellent delivery of service to our residents. Our mission really is just to make Long Beach a little bit better each and every day, and that's something that they really excel at. And so I appreciate all the very kind words. It's not me. It's really our team that does all of the things that you talk about, and they do it with pride, and I just couldn't be more proud of them. So thanks again for the opportunity and I look forward to serving in this role and and helping you achieve your goals for this community and to do it every day with integrity and with dedication and with service. So thank you so much and are just so proud to live here in this in this great city. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. America. And we will move on with the agenda for. Thank you. We're now moving on. We have three hearings that we have to do. I'm going to have the clerk kind of help move the hearings along just because they're going to be calling folks in. And so we're going to start we have items 32, 33 and 34. And if we can, please have and start with item 32 that the first hearing will let the court begin and introduce the item.

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2.24 to Article II of Chapter II Related to Emergency Organization and Creating the City of Alameda Disaster Council as Required by State Law to Obtain Legal Recognition as an Official Emergency Organization. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC_07052016_2016-3077

The staff want to say anything before I call the speaker? Oh, no. Okay. I just. I'm just going to go ahead to you. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and call the speaker. Paul Foreman. Oh, yeah. Well, this is my third time. Maybe the third time. Third strike in, year out. I don't know. The. The charter, the Alameda City Charter. Says provides that the mayor may take command of the police and fire department and govern the city by proclamation whenever the council determines the public danger or emergency requires such action. The ordinance you are about to vote on for the second time today gives the city manager acting as a director of emergency services. The power to control and direct the effort of emergency organization for the accomplishment of the purposes of this disaster ordinance. The rescue operation, which between and coordination of services and staff of this emergency organization and resolve questions of authority and responsibility to make and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency. For to require emergency services of any officer or employee. To command the aid of as many citizens of this community as deemed necessary in the execution of the duties. Just to give you a few. Now, if that language doesn't, just, in more words, say exactly the same thing that the charter says about the powers of the mayor . I've been practicing law for 27 years. I represent a redevelopment authority. I represent a school district. This is as clear a case of conflict as I can imagine. And what makes it even worse is that. You decided in the first reading to solve the problem by inserting this language in the ordinance? This ordinance is neither intended to restrict, nor does it conflict with the city charter, section 61, which is the power of the mayor. To me, that's tantamount to Congress passing a law saying no congressman can be publicly criticized, but this doesn't conflict with freedom of speech, saying it does not make it so. If there's either a conflict or at the very least, there's a an appearance of a conflict. I do not want the chief of police or the fire chief to get conflicting orders from the city manager and from the mayor as what they should do in the midst of a disaster. I do not want an Alexander Haig moment in Alameda. When a disaster actually occurs. Whether I'm right or wrong. There is an appearance of a conflict here. And you either. If there's a real conflict, you resolve it by either giving the power back to the mayor or amending the charter. If there's not a conflict. All I ask is you at least put in the ordinance why there's not a conflict. So some reasonable human being reading it like a police chief or a fire chief can know what you're talking about, because I don't. And just one last thing. I understand that the city attorney has given you an opinion on this because Mr. Mallory said he would ask for it. I know those things are supposed to be in private. This is a public matter. It involves the disasters that involve all of us. If there's a if I'm wrong. Or write whatever the public is entitled to know. Why? Not a matter of private discussion between counsel and attorney. Thank you. Counselor, would you like to speak to the issues he's raising? So. Certainly, Madam Mayor, I did provide information to the council which frankly could have been shared with me. I didn't do it because that's not my role. It's up to the council to do so. But I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Of. The charter. The language that you cite is permissive, not mandatory. We are completely in compliance with the charter. The charter section that you reference, which is 6.1, was put into place when the charter was adopted in 1937. Prior to the time there were any emergency operations, plans or the sophistication that we as a country, not just the city of Alameda, have learned over the years about emergency operations pursuant to all of that great learning, this city council, not this particular one, but the City Council of Alameda adopted in 2008 an emergency operations plan which lays out. So there's no confusion what happens in the case of an emergency, what the structure is. It has all been adopted by the city council pursuant to their authority under the charter. And the charter is also very clear about the distinctions throughout between legislative and executive authority. The legislative authority is established by the City Council as the policymakers. The actual implementation of policies is given to the city manager and it's made very clear in the charter that that's the way that works. So the emergency operations plan completely follows that theory. The Council has adopted a policy legislation and emergency operations plan, and the city manager is named as the emergency director, operations director. And there are goals and there is a huge binder that talks about all of those things. So this in no way modifies that. And yes, there is the language in in section six one, again, permissive, not mandatory, which by its very language says if there is a certain set of circumstances that the council decides requires that the mayor be put in charge of these things, they can do that. But what they have done to date is they have established this other process, and that's the one we are going forward with the ordinance before us here, before the council that before me is consistent with what's required under State Office of Emergency Services rules that there be a disaster council adopted, which is a pre-planning advisory body, and also then reaffirm certain tasks, declarations of emergency and goes to the implementation rather than the legislative authority. So there is no conflict with the Charter. We are perfectly in compliance with the charter and I don't think there's any confusion about what should happen in an emergency operations. And I think. Captain Oliver, thank you. Captain Oliver is here from the fire department who can answer any questions about that. And I think there will be some updates to the Council coming in the next few months as to where we stand on updating those procedures. Thank you. All right. Council members dissolve. It's now time for comments. Yes, we only had the one speaker on the forum. So you can ask questions or make your comments in. The comments that I'd like to make is the following. The most important message, I think, to the residents of Alameda is this is that the purpose of a disaster planning council and all the preparedness that we're doing is that in the event of a disaster of such magnitude that we don't respond to it, to that on the fly, that we already have a game plan in place. This is just council comment. Mr. Foreman, when you hear. That we already have a game plan in place days, weeks, months, years, decades before, heaven forbid a disaster occurs of such magnitude. But the concern raised by the member of the public, Mr. Foreman, in the event of an actual disaster, if we're in the eye of the storm of this disaster, it is altogether possible that per the charter, that the city council, now the city council, the mayor can't take the power just on their own. It is altogether possible that in the eye of a disaster, the eye of the storm, that the city council can designate the mayor as being in charge of the police or the fire, because perhaps the city manager is elsewhere for some odd reasons. But that is a design that is a a decision of the city council per charter 6-1. But the point of having a disaster plan is that hopefully in the. We're in the eye of the storm of a disaster. We don't have to pull that trigger because we already have a plan in place and that we've got all the right people, including the city manager and the police chief and the fire chief and their assistance in place. Maybe they won't be. In which case, then. Then we would pull six one and that the ordinance as amended reflects that possibility. So 6-1 is included in the language, as is three dash 12. I think there are reasons to get into this lengthy debate about three Dash 12, and I'm in favor three Dash 12, and that re dash 12 speaks to the City Council's ability to determine emergencies and public dangers. And out of that flows all these other charter actions. But there are some debates within three Dash 12 that can happen. But I'm very happy to see that it's actually specifically referenced in the amendment in the ordinance as amended. So I feel that we have a plan in place in the event we're in the eye of the storm of a disaster. And so that we have the people both on our city staff and on city council who understand what what needs to be done then. And that plan is being put in place now so that we are not doing things on the fly just in case something happens on, you know, June 27th, 2019. Okay. I want to confirm when this came before as last time and the vote was 4 to 1. I'm the only one that voted against it and I'm the one that pulled it tonight. At that time, I asked if the meetings would be public. Can you can you clarify with the meetings, in fact, be public? So the meetings of the Disaster Council are subject to the Sunshine Ordinance and will be open in public. All right. So I had pulled this evening because I agree with the speaker that there is either a conflict with the charter itself or at least at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict. And the charter is very clear that the mayor shall be the official and ceremonial head of the city and may take command of police and fire per the council's determination. My concern with this change is that since 1951, a member of council, i.e. the mayor, has in fact been part of this disaster council. And now our fire department and our and our staff are recommending that we completely remove any representation of city council on this disaster council. And in fact, if you look at our current people that would be involved, our city manager, our police chief, our fire chief, none of them live on our island. All council members do live here. And we had a letter submitted by a former mayor, Bev Johnson, whose recommendation was, in fact, to increase the role of city council , such as having the mayor and one other council involved in this. Yes, it is preparation and it would be important to have someone that we know will be on the island, at least involved in the preparation of a disaster of our city. So I do not support eliminating our role, the council's role. I would prefer we do the opposite of increasing the role of council on this disaster council. And I'm very concerned. I'm happy that the meetings are public because I do plan to attend the meetings and I would encourage members of the public to attend these meetings because we all know if we have a serious disaster, it is going to be on us that live here to figure out what we are doing, which is why we really encourage people to do this training. And I'm very concerned about eliminating the role of council from this. Now I'm going to call on vice mayor and I. I looked at this and I read the city attorney's opinion this afternoon and come to the same conclusion that the separation of operations from policy is maintained in this ordinance. And it does not usurp the ability of the council to to provide that authority to the mayor. It also does not usurp the ability of the council in its role in defining emergencies. And I'd like to move the second reading. And I'll second that and for discussion, if I could just save the discussion. We do things now differently than we did in the past and in some instances in when it comes to disaster planning and preparedness. Back in 1941, when the disaster council was first formulated six months before Pearl Harbor, by the way, the kinds of disasters that communities have seen would need to even have been contemplated. And so what we also have that we didn't have then is a much more sophisticated response to emergencies and disasters of all kinds from a variety of agencies. And so what the Disaster Council is and the ordinance that we're going to have hopefully passed the second reading tonight brings together a number of staff members and even community members from a variety of backgrounds that can help, whether it's fire, earthquakes, tsunami, economic terrorist attack. It's much more sophisticated than just, you know, an elected city council would be able to handle. But they're planning the policy. And as the city manager indicated earlier, maybe it was the city attorney or both of you. We will all have our roles. We'll be looking forward to having that updated disaster plan coming forward to us. And I will echo the mayor. We just got an email recently about cert training and we all on the council. If you haven't done it, we should do it and you in the community get your neighbors to do it with you. Set up your cert groups within your neighborhoods. It helps make us a safer city. I know a lot of neighborhoods already have. Anyway, that's my second in my discussion. And I just want to add if in response that if you look on the state's website for disaster council, their proposed city ordinance does in fact have the mayor be the chair. So we are not following the state's model ordinance. On this, we are modifying it. Councilmember, did you have a comment? I think this horse has been beaten to death. So I'll just echo what Councilmember de SAC said, because I thought he said it best. All those in favor I opposed. I opposed. Motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you. Now we go to our regular agenda item six a. Adoption, a resolution calling an election to be consolidated with the city's next general municipal election on November eight, 2016, and submitting to the voters at that election a measure the Utility Modernization Act. It proposes to amend the City Charter by amending Section 1206 to reaffirm Nestle Power's annual general fund transfer and amending the ZIP Code by repealing Chapter three, Dash 59 and replacing it with a modernized utility users tax ordinance. Consider authorizing a direct and possible rebuttal argument and directed to the attorney to the impartial analysis. And the assistant city manager is going to give an overview. This council has already looked at the you are may and directed unanimously to go forward and place this on the ballot. And so this is the first step to doing that. Thank you, city manager. Before I get started, I just want to. Acknowledge that tonight is my 25th wedding anniversary. So, John. Are you still married? I don't know. I'll have to check when I get home. To make it. And Will? Also, I did want to acknowledge that we do have a whole bunch of folks out in our audience tonight that have been helping us on this. As you know, we've been talking about this for almost a year. I'd like to acknowledge Tom Mayhew, who's here, who's one of our attorneys, James Harrison, although I don't see him here tonight. We also have Tom Clifford, who's been helping us. Don Maixner, of course, Glenn Steiger, Babita, Elena Adair and Amy Wooldridge. So lots of people working on this. This is kind of the culmination tonight of a lot of hard work. And hopefully we're going to be answering the questions that you posed to us last time and asking for unanimous support for the Novem, putting this measure on the ballot in November.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 112 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone property located at 2220 East Union Street from Neighborhood Commercial 2-40 (NC2-40) to Neighborhood Commercial 2-65 (NC2-65) and from Neighborhood Commercial 2-40 with a pedestrian designation (NC2P-40) to Neighborhood Commercial 2-65 with a pedestrian designation (NC2P-65); and accepting a Property Use and Development Agreement as a condition of rezone approval. (Petition by East Union 22, LLC, C.F. 314312, SDCI Project 3019001)

SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_CB 118785

I ask those opposed. Please vote no and raise your hand. Oh, no. The motion carries the resolutions. Adopt and chair will sign it. Please read the next report of the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Committee genda item eight Council 118785 relating to land use and zoning. The committee recommends the bill pass. Castro Johnson. Thank you. Council President This relates to council action that we took last week. It's the amendment to an executed property use and development agreement. So I would like to move to amend Council Bill one one, eight, seven and five Exhibit B by substituting the executed property use and development agreement for the non executed version. Is has been moved in second to amend council bill 118785 by substituting executed public development and use agreement. All those in favor of the amendment. I'm sorry. I know I was going to finish. I was going to give her the floor. Oh, in fact, we're getting ready to vote, so why don't we say that before we vote on the amendment? Councilmember Swan. Thank you, President Hill. On the recommendation of central staff, I need to recuse myself from voting on Council Bill 118785. I've received ex-parte communications from opponents of the project that may violate the appearance of Fairness Doctrine for members of the public who may not be familiar with these laws. There are some council votes, usually on land use questions that are called quasi judicial. On those items, council members cannot legally vote. If we hear directly from community members about it in certain ways. But I look forward to working on issues of density and displacement in the future. Thank you. Councilmember Sawant. We had before Councilmember Swan's recusal and an amendment to Council Bill 118785. All those in favor of the amendment vote i. I opposed the 97. The legislation is a minute. Councilmember Johnson, did you want to speak further? I have no further comments. I move an adoption of the underlying council bill. It's been moved and seconded, I believe. I thank you. Please call the roll on the passage of the amended. Herbal. Oh, I was waiting, I thought. Let's go. Go ahead. Yes, we are ready. Herbold, I. Johnson whereas. O'Brien, I. Begala Burgess, I. Gonzalez President. Harrell, I. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Actually, I'm supposed to say. Council member Sawant is in attendance but disqualified from voting. The vote count is 8 to 0. Thank you. The bill passed in show assignment. Next agenda item place.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use, and adopt resolution ordering the vacation of a portion of the west side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, south of 6th Street. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_03032015_15-0160

Item number three Report from Public Works Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use and adopt a resolution ordering the vacation of a portion of the West Side of Martin Luther King Junior Avenue, south of Sixth Street, District one. Thank you, Mr. West. Mr. Mayor. The staff report on this item will. Be handled by our Malloy and our Director of Public Works. Honorable Mayor and Honorable Council Members. The item before you is a request to vacate a portion of the West Side of the Martin Luther King's Junior Avenue, south of Sixth Street. As depicted in Exhibit A. It's about a five feet by 49 feet, equating about 244 square feet of public land. On February 3rd, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 15 Dash 0009, declaring its intention to vacate the subject property or right away and set March two, which is today as the date for the public hearing. If you have this is the end of my report. If you have any questions, I can respond. No problem. Are there any public comments on hearing item number three? See none. If there's any council deliberation on hearing item number three. See nonmembers. Please go and cast your votes. Councilwoman Pryce. Motion carries six zero. Thank you. Now we're going back to hearing item number one. This item requires an oath. Item one report from Financial Management. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of Naples Restaurant located at 190 North Marina Drive for entertainment with dancing by patrons.

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving and adopting the official budget of the City of Long Beach for the Fiscal Year 2021-2022, creating and establishing the funds of the municipal government of the City of Long Beach and appropriating money to and authorizing expenditures from said funds for said Fiscal Year; declaring the urgency thereof, and providing that this ordinance shall take effect at 12:01 A.M. on October 1, 2021, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) (Emergency Ordinance No. ORD-21-0030)

LongBeachCC_08242021_21-0871

Motion is carried. Thank you. If I can get a motion on item 14, please. And this is the final item that adopts the budget. And so can I get a motion any second please, on that? I think I'm going to I have some comments I want to make generally about the budget and then we will take the final vote. If anyone has any final comments, this would be the time to do so. I want to I want to just start by really thanking the Budget Oversight Committee. I want to thank you, Councilmember Austin, the chair, and the other members of the of the committee. Councilman Gringa and Councilwoman Price, for your really, really hard work and commitment to the city and the budget process. I also want to take a moment to thank the budget staff headed by Ms.. Yoon and Mr. GROSS, of course, and the entire team who work on the budget, not just during budget season, but all year long. And so thank you very much for your incredible work as well. And, of course, to the really hundreds of people that were invested through community surveys, community meetings, attending the council meetings in a variety of ways. I just want to thank everyone that was a part of the budget. I want to also just note that this budget that we have in front of us, the 22 budget, is balanced. It's responsible. And it reflects the city's strong recovery from this historic economic and public health crisis. This budget includes no cuts, no deficit. Replenishes our reserves and positions. Long Beach to continue building back stronger than ever before. We are making historic investments. In public health. And in securing our city's future. And in violence prevention work across the community. I want to thank this Council for their leadership and work throughout this year. It has been a difficult year, but we are grateful to all that. We've been involved in this process and in passing a budget that is responsible and reflects what our needs are is really important and really glad to see that happening tonight. And as we move forward on with that, again, I want to thank the makers of the Motion Councilmember Austin Councilman Ranga Guzman. Ask and give any final comments. I think I gave my comments. I just want to say thank you to everybody who participated in the process. Thank you, Mayor, for working with us and all of my colleagues for the confidence and collaboration to make this happen. Thank you. And Councilman Garrincha. Great work on everybody's part for everything that has been done today. I want to especially thank the staff. I mean, they were really wonderful in doing the most difficult part of the heavy lifting, if you will, for this budget. Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman in the house. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you so much again to our oversight committee for all the hard work. But I also want to uplift all of the community organizations that worked really hard on the budget and really came to to a lot of meetings with me and my office. And I really got a chance to get to know them and get to see where they're coming from and the needs in the community. So I just really wanted to uplift them and and also say that years ago, years ago, the people's budget was only a dream. And I think that throughout the years we've been taking as much as we can and implementing it into our budget. And I'm glad to see that there's a lot of focus on on our youth because I really think that there is a key in us. Investing in them is definitely the key to, you know, to ending hopefully are violent crimes in our city. So again, I think this is very hard work but very balanced and responsible budget, as you said. Mayor. So thank you, Chair Ashton, for all your hard work in the committee and I look forward to another great year, especially seeing this this amount of dedication to a budget and being able to not come out in a deficit is something that we as a city should be very proud of. Thank you. Councilwoman Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just want to take a moment and just acknowledge the significance of this budget. I want to thank all the community members who participated for a very long time. It seems like we've talked about this budget and it's, you know, the recovery plan and conversations and through the budget process. And then we here we are tonight, and it's significant because we don't typically have these types of resources, but also we have a new revenue source with Measure US that we look forward to doing a lot of good, touching a lot of people in the areas of public health, climate and youth. And so tonight we made a significant commitment to youth in our city. We established our first million dollar youth fund. Our entire city council should be proud of that and should get out and make sure that community based organizations are engaged and support is going their way to make sure that we're supporting and have a world class youth development program here in the city of Long Beach. I want to thank Councilman Austin are chair of the Budget Oversight Committee for being a good steward of this process. Thanks to our mayor for his leadership, the federal legislative committee, for working hard on the that resources and city staff. Thank you so much. Thank you. Councilman. Yes. I just want to add my thanks as well to staff and to chair Austin of the Budget Oversight Committee, as well as the committee members and staff as well. It's been an interesting first budget process for sure. It's historic in the sense of this kind of resource and the challenge we face. I can't think of a better way, I guess, to learn about budgeting. So I appreciate everyone's patience around the process. And, you know, it's, you know, just thank you for everyone's hard work. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes comment on the budget members please Gordon, cast your votes.

A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure. Amends the City Council Rules of Procedure regarding communications from the public with members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca approved direct filing this item on 2-20-20.

DenverCityCouncil_02242020_20-0183

President? Oh, we're missing somebody on the Ortega. Paul Jones. 8 hours, four days. Eight days, four days. Resolution 182 has still been referred back to committee. Okay. So, Madam Secretary, if you put the next item on our screen and that is 183 and Councilmember Hines, please put Resolution 183 on the floor. I move the council resolution 2183 be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilman Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. This is one of those provisions that did move out in the bill that was approved. But I did have a question on how it would operate. Councilwoman, if you could tell me how that how that would look in the chamber, because frequently, the way I read this, if someone in the audience wanted to tell us something, they would have to go to Marsha. Whereas right now, if somebody wanted to say something, they could give me a signal like a walk out. It does. Does your amendment are supposed to. Stop that from happening? Thank you. My amendment is actually to simplify that language because the original language is a little bit confusing about who is allowed to talk to us and how they get our attention. I think somebody's waving their hands. The audience or sending you a text is not an intrusive way of communicating with you. And I don't think that the original rule was really designed to mitigate or intervene in that type of communication. I think the original intent of the rule is to prevent someone, a member of the public, from coming up to us as we're speaking right now. And so the language there was simple to simplify it. And I think that it would that the ideal process, if somebody has something to give us, they go to Makhija. She gives it to us. If they send you a text or flag you, I think that's perfectly acceptable and non-intrusive and in alignment with the original intent of that rule. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. That clarifies it. So if someone in the audience were to text me or to you, even though we're not supposed to be using them technically. Technically, right. That would not be prohibited by this rule. No. Okay. And then you also limited it to council meetings. So the original rule that you're replacing speaks of committee meetings with the same thing. Apply in for the committee chair. I mean, who would receive a message in that case? Would it be the staffer? The committee staffer, Zach or Emily? I also think that the intent of the rule was just to not disrupt the committee meetings or the council meetings. And so I support, if you want to add committee meeting on to that, but I think it was really designed for these meetings. Thank you. I'm good with it now. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilmember. And I see nobody else. And you all said this is one the ones that we had a good conversation. And thank you, Councilmember, for bringing this forward. And I'm happy to support it today. Madam Secretary, roll call on 183 flack. I see tobacco, i. Flynn, i. Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Pounds i. Cashmere I. Ortega like Sandoval, i. Sawyer, I. Torres, I.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager or designee, to execute a contract, and all necessary amendments including term extensions, with the City of Los Angeles to receive and expend Department of Homeland Security grant funding for the 2017 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant, in an amount not to exceed $825,000, for the period of September 1, 2017 through May 31, 2020; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications Department (DC) by $90,000, in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Fire Department (FD) by $405,000, in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Health and Human Services Department (HE) by $65,000, and in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Police Department (PD) by $265,000, offset by grant revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07102018_18-0574

Motion carries. Thank you. Item 28, please. Item 28 Report from Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications, Health and Human Services. Fire and Police Recommendation to execute a contract with the City of L.A. to receive and expend Department of Human Homeland Security grant funding for the 2017 Urban Area Security Initiative grant in an amount not to exceed 825,000 CDI. Yes, I speak on that. No. Starting like a brief staff report, please. Can we please have a brief reporting? Make sure we have Nelson Kerr from the Health and Human Services Department. Oh, I'm sorry. Reggie Harrison. Look at Cosmo Andrews met with the city council. The item before you is to approve a contract with the Los Angeles and Long Beach, U.S., to receive a $125,000 in Homeland Security grant funds. The grants are used to for the purpose of providing training, as well as equipment that first responders need, as well as to provide resources for community partners as well in the event of it, to assist them in being prepared for a major emergency or disaster. Is an annual award of a contract in the city of Long Beach has been a long time recipient of these funds. Thank you. Thank you very much. There's a motion and a second. Any public comment? But since the city doesn't have the backbone to shut down the cannabis operations, I think it would certainly be appropriate if the money's there. To apply for. The money they will need to expend. As a result of. The marijuana business that you've invited into the city, period. And if the money is there and obviously the police are going to need it, the community is going to need that security. And also it's a study I use it for that or a study, what I should have mentioned before and have mentioned before. But I did mention it tonight, the concept. Of a meeting. Of the city renting out the top floor of the police department. To nine different cannabis operations. They can come there. 3 hours. Every other day. And you'll get some type of control. If the money's there, if they're handing out that grant, get creative and use it. And use it in that way. Because right now. You're understaffed with the police department. It's going to take another 5 to 6 years to come up to what we should be at. So if they're handing out money, get creative and ask for it. Thank you. Thank you. And the other public comment saying none. Please cast your votes in. Motion, Kate. Thank you. Before we go back to item 29, I just want to make sure. Did we already take. I moved 25 to 26 and 27. We continued all three.

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

KingCountyCC_04212021_2021-0158

Look forward to it. That takes us to items. We're going to combine item six and seven. And today's agenda brings us to notions 20, 21, 157 and 158, which would confirm appointments to the Medical Harborview Medical Center Board of Trustees for Bill Boyce and David Hadley. The application materials for the appointments were sent out to council members separately in an email from Ms.. Stedman on Wednesday, April 14, at 12:40 p.m. and Sam Porter from Counsel Central Staff will provide a brief staff report and then we'll hear from the nominees. Themselves. Miss Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me? We can. Great. Councilor Sam Porter, council policy staff. The documents for this item for item six begin on page eight and page 13 for item seven. Overview is a 413 bed teaching hospital that serves as the level one trauma center in the four state region of Washington, Alaska, Idaho and Montana. Harborview is owned by King County and operated by the University of Washington and governed by the county appointed Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is composed of 13 members, one representative from each council district who is nominated by their respective council member and four At-Large members. Nominees are appointed by the executive and confirmed by the Council by motion and the Board as the representative authority of the county, oversees the provision of health care services to assure that the county's priorities are addressed and high quality health care is made available to residents regardless of their ability to pay. As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, there are two appointees here for consideration today. We have Bill Boyce, who would represent District nine, and David Hadley, who would represent District three. And that concludes my remarks. Thank you so much. I will turn it over to Mr. Boyce and then Mr. Hadley to introduce themselves, share a little bit about their background and their interests in serving on the review board of Trustees. Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me begin for the honor of being here. I'm very excited about the possibilities appointment here. A little bit about my background. I spent four years in the military. There's an Airborne Ranger paratrooper. I'm a Boeing. Employee for 3 to 4 years of my profession at the Boeing Company. I have. Served 16 years on the 10th School Board of Education and now currently in my third term. On the Kent City Council. Also, I'm the vice chair of. The Sentencing Association, the state committee. What excites me about this. Possible appointment is our high review is a well-known medical center in northwest L.A. being part. Of the best. I feel like I have some skill. Set that can be. Part of a team and help enhance. What we are trying to do. Be successful at Harvard. I had a very nice conversation. About interim CEO Summer yesterday. And so it was very pleasant to talk to her and talk about what's going on at the hospital and some. Of the challenges. So I really look forward to this area and being a member of the team. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Mr. Hadley. Get the right button pushchair. There we go. Welcome back. I can't remember. MCDERMOTT It's a great pleasure to be considered for being a part of the Harborview Organization. I've been a resident here in King County since 1981. Previously has served on the board for 14 years. I stepped off the board at the end of my term four years ago, and Council member Lambert asked if I would consider returning to the board. And I'm thrilled to be considered young to be part of this organization. While on the board, I served as the chairman of the Finance Committee for several years. I also served as the chairman of the board for two years. I am currently involved in start up here in Bellevue. We're a medical device manufacturer focused on ambulatory monitoring for electrical activities in cardiology, with the goal of trying to identify pathological arrhythmias in the heart. And we also build a product that's used for screening use for the risk of sudden cardiac arrest. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Before I turn it to colleagues for questions. We have also with us the CEO of Harborview Medical Center. Some are clinical. I'm Wally. And if you would like to make any introductory comments, you want to. Oh, thank you, Councilmember and Chair. I had the opportunity of meeting both with Bill Boyce and Dave Hadley, and they have expressed very wonderful commitment to being on the board. They are both very excited and both bring a very nice skill set to match our other really strong board members and the engagement. We have both asked very appropriate questions and verbalized extreme interest in the committees that they're already excited about joining. So I have spent time looking at the past past council of our past board members that have been on and feel like these two will be extremely good additions to the to the committee. And I'm very pleased that they are up. Thank you very much. Thank you. Colleagues. Questions Conversation Dialog with our nominees. Councilmember Bell, D.C.. Thank you very much. Just a couple of things. And for reflection, if either of the members want to, but I want to I want to first off, just share my appreciation. Both of you bring a great deal of experience, expertize and knowledge to this position. And we we so appreciate you doing that. All of our board members, it's a very high functioning board with a very critical mission for our our entire county. So thank you, first and foremost. Second, we're going into a really interesting time of growth and expansion with the Harborview Levy that passed last year. And so I I'm interested to hear your your thoughts on as board members, how you help to guide an institution through this kind of a major expansion, which is very exciting. It's an exciting time, but also a challenging time. And then finally, I just want to say, particularly to Councilmember Boyce, I'm very glad to see somebody with your experience coming on the board, because we often hear from from the staff of Harborview about, you know, various issues. And it's so important that the organization have strong policies and a strong, you know, philosophy of supporting the staff because they are the services. They are the they are the trauma force center. They are the ones who make sure that we have the best in class treatment and support for, you know, for everyone in the county, but especially for our mission population. So I think that your experience is so, so, so good to have on the board. Anyway, no, no response necessary unless you feel like you want to. But those are my thoughts as we move to make this appointment today. Well. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank both applicants for your willingness to serve on this important board. It is, in my judgment, the most important board that we appoint for at the King County Council. And we have seen more now, more than ever with the pandemic, the need for a strong and robust public health system. Our review is the only level one trauma facility anywhere in the northwestern portion of the United States yet to go all the way down to San Francisco before we get to another one and quite a ways east, I don't know. I think it's Minneapolis. So it's really important and it's good to have different temperaments, generally two convictions and professional experience on that board, as we have seen, to make it better, more user friendly for everyone. So thanks for your willingness to serve. I eagerly support both of your nominations and appointment to the board and look forward to working with you once you're there. Thank you. Thank you very much. Comes a member of on board. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First a question for Mr. Boyce and for Dave. What are in your minds the greatest challenge you're going to have as a board member of Harborview Hospital for the next couple of years? What do you think. Is going to be the greatest challenge to you as a board member? I'll go first. Thank you, Councilman. I think for me, really, we all need to make sure we're on the same page for understanding the. Mission of Harborview. Medical Center. I mean, that's number one. I think it's. Important. Also that we put our people and our employees first and also make sure we provide the most upgraded. Profession to all of our patients. Right. So I think that's what we're really going to identify, at least. To kind of keep us continue. The look at the number. One trauma center. And I think it's. Up to us as trustee, as the CEO and our staff that we deliver. Services to. All employees. Thank you, Councilmember. Dave. I would certainly echo Bill's comments. I think those are very appropriate. I think Harborview is nearly unique in the country. Most county hospitals have at extremely difficult times in surviving facilities are inappropriate or are inadequate. Part of it runs on a razor thin margin and provides support for the uninsured and everybody else, elements of our society that otherwise wouldn't have access to great care. So I think helping support the organization as it continues to balance the budget without calling upon the county to supplement its budget is extremely important. I was on the board when we built out the Ninth and Jefferson Building and I think the ability to expand the range of care that we can give away with care we can give is essential as as the county continues to grow. So I'm really excited about those areas. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for the. Comments of Councilmember Dunn and Councilor Belushi, because they reflect my own sentiment. As well. Thank you. Thank you. Further questions. Discussion. I have my own perspective. I would just like to note that one of the things the in addition to the substantial bond measure that the voters so strongly approved last year, another part that the council has paid attention to and devoted some interest in over the last several years is the labor relations with Harborview and our labor partners at the hospital. And I want to give credit to the interim CEO and the management team over it, over time as well, that have made improvements in those relationships. Now, we can still continue to make strong improvements, but it is in partnership with our Labor employees that we provide the care to our mission population and everyone seeking care at Harborview. And I would just emphasized the need to continue that cooperation and progress while continuing to make sure we're managing the hospital well. I think strong labor relations is part of strong management. And you agree? Council member. Up the Grove. Councilmember of the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to add my voice of support for both of the nominees. And in particular, Councilmember Bill Boyce and I have had the chance to bump into each other over the years and and cross paths in his role as a council member. And he's someone who has demonstrated and has a reputation for being thoughtful and levelheaded. And I've always known him to be someone who is driven by the public interest and wants what's best for the community. And I think he'll bring those values to the Harborview Board as well, in terms of being a real voice for what is in the public interest and in terms of whether it's the patients, the employees, the all of the of the people who impact or impacted by that organization. So I just wanted to add my word of appreciation for Councilmember Boyce, for you willing to lend your time and talent to the to Harborview and certainly support both of both of these excellent nominees. Further discussion. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. First of all, I agree with everything that's been said about what a special place Harborview is and. And the other things. And you mentioned adding the knife and Jefferson and I've had the opportunity to be up there on a number of occasions, and that is a beautiful space for people and very respectful. And I am really pleased the quality of care that Harborview is famous for. I am also pleased with the technology that you reach out to in so many ways with specialties like the Burn Unit and robotics. One of the units that I want to mention is that England bond issue that we just passed. There's going to be a new behavioral health building, and I've seen the schematics of that. And it is so impressive to me what that is going to look like and the range of services and how thoughtfully that was put together. And with the issues that we're having with mental illness, that building getting done on time and hopefully even a little bit early would be very helpful. I did teasingly ask if we could get keys to the building so we could come in and relax and enjoy the atrium. And no, we don't get keys to the building, but it it is really a wonderful design and I am looking forward to seeing that be available to us as we work with the impacts of life in general. But post-COVID. So it's one that I'll be looking forward to seeing more and hear more about as well as I know that the director of the unit currently has a lot of really good ideas that I'm looking forward to seeing implemented and potentially being a role model nationally. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the discussion. Seeing None Council member done, I would entertain a motion to give a do pass recommendation to motion 2021 157 Appointing Mr. Boyce. Move a to pass recommendation with pleasure for proposed motion to add 20 1-0157. The motion is before us and we've had great conversation with the appointees. Nominees. Any further discussion? Just generally super proud of these guys for being on the board. Has a long history of of that group working well together and also reporting back to the council on ways that we can continue to improve the system. I would urge my colleagues support and thank the individuals for their willingness to serve. I see no further discussion. Madam Clerk, could I ask you to please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Belushi. Hi. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. I am Councilmember Dunn. I council member calls. I council member member. I council member of the growth. I council member by night. There are. I. Council members online. I. Mr. Chair. All right. Mr. Chair. The vote is 19 strong us. Thank you. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation. A motion 2021 157. And we'll send that to full council and on regular course on consent and council member Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure that I'd like to move. Item number seven 2021 desk 0158 with a do pass recommendation. Council Member Lambert's moved adoption of the motion 2021 158 Appointing David Hadley do the Job Review Board of Trustees discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hadley knows the work well, is serving many leaders of capacities on the harbor board before and when he had to step down for business reasons. A couple of years ago, board members called me and said, Oh my goodness, you're going to have to really work to find somebody to fill those shoes. And I did. But when that person had to leave for business reasons, I immediately called David. And I am so thankful that he is willing to come back again and to have his many expertizes back. He, as with Mr. Boyd, will do most, will do an excellent job and continue the great work of a past board members as they go forward. Thank you. Seen no further discussion. Madam Kirk, I'd ask you to please call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Carlucci. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, I council member done. By. Councilmember Kowalski. Councilmember coe was i. Councilmember member. I. Councilmember of the grill. I. Councilmember. Born right there. I. Council members all. I. Mr. Chair. All right. Mr. Chair, the vote is 99 zero now. Thank you. By your vote, we have given a do pass recommendation to motion 2021 158 appointing Mr. Hadley to the review board of Trustees. We will send that to council in regular course and put it on the consent agenda. Gentlemen, it'll. It'll be up for consideration by the full council. We'll see how you do there with all nine members. And it will be a consent. So we would expect that we'd meet with great support. And with that, I want to acknowledge that I believe the chair of the board of trustees, Stephanie Fain, is with us as well. Ms.. Fain, if you wanted to offer a word of congratulations or an update to the council. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And good morning, everyone. I just wanted to be here to support the appointees. Normally, I would just sit in the row behind the appointees, but Zoom puts us right up front. We are very much looking forward to working with the appointees. And I also want to take this opportunity to thank you all again for your strong support of our review and the unanimous passage of the bond measure that allowed the voters to consider it in November. I'm happy to answer any other questions. I believe we'll be back later in a few months to do a full report. Exactly. But I wanted to be able to recognize you and acknowledge you joining us as well. Chairman, thank you for not taking a vote on. Okay. Thank you so much. And we will move to item eight on today's agenda. This is an ordinance that would prohibit county administrative offices and executive departments from using facial recognition technology. I understand that there is a technical striking amendment.

A bill for an ordinance renaming a portion of Weir Gulch Park located north of West Alameda Avenue, south of West Bayaud Avenue, north and west of South Weir Drive, and south and east of South Windsor Drive, as “Ruth ‘Lucille’ Dreiling Park”. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Re-names a parcel of Weir Gulch at West Alameda Avenue and South Weir Drive to “Ruth Lucille Dreiling Park” in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-29-16.

DenverCityCouncil_07252016_16-0473

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 473 be placed on the floor and do pass. It has been moved and. We'll try again. Let's. The pick on the bush patching up. We have moved. Can we get a second? Got it. It has been moved and seconded. So what our courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 473 is open council members. We've had a request from the Department of Parks and Recreation to deliver the staff reports on both park renaming Council Bill 473 the ruthless the old Drilling Park and Council Bill 474 The MLA, Sam Sandals Park one right after the other. Then we will hear separate testimony on each bill and finally vote separately on each bill. If you have questions from Parks and Recreation staff regarding either bill, please ask those questions during this public hearing. And with that, may we have the staff report? Councilor. Good evening, Mr. President. Pro Tem Members of council. My name is Happy Haines, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. And Mr. President, if I could prevail upon you to give us a few moments, the folks who are here for these hearings have been waiting patiently outside and would like to file in for this, if we may . Sure thing. How long do you think we just need filing? They're heading in. All right. This is just one more. Looks like that, everybody. We've got. Everybody. All right. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you so much. It is my distinct pleasure to be here this evening to recommend. And I'm going to speak, Mr. President pro tem, if it's all right on both at the same time and in recognition of the time this evening and trying to remain brief. Yes. So I will speak to both hearings, even though I know they will be separate. And so it is my distinct pleasure to recommend that the parcel of Wear Gulch at West Alameda and South where drive be named in honor of Ruth Lucille drilling. It is also my pleasure to recommend that Barnum Park North between Sixth Avenue, Knox Court and Federal Boulevard be renamed in honor of M l Sam Sandoz. These processes started last fall. The families and community members in and this is all one community in the Barnum Park neighborhood began the process of renaming these parcels, distributing and circulating the petitions. And we were fortunate enough to witness the results of those. Let me say a word or two and a you've received the memos that I sent for both individuals, but I would like to take a moment to say something about each one of these individuals. Let me start with Ruth. Better known as Lucille Drilling, who is a long time resident of Barnham West neighborhood. I think she came there in the 1960s, and it was her efforts that really led to the creation of Weird Gulch Park. And, you know, Ruth was one of those people that when you called, people answered, whether you were a neighborhood person, a Boy Scout or a council member or ahead of a department in city hall, she she was truly a force of nature. And it was her single mindedness about transforming what really was just a ditch where people thought they should ditch their trash, in fact, into something better. She had a vision for that area. That is what we it is transformed today and what we hope will continue to happen into a beautiful, natural area in park that serves the community that she so loved. And so in 1972, where Gulch Park became a reality and it really was thanks to her tenacious efforts to get that done. And she remained an advocate, so she never stopped it. It was named a park. And that wasn't good enough. She wanted to make sure it was the best park and that it was well maintained and that people used it and so on. So she remained a real champion and advocate for this park until her passing in 2008. Let me move on for a moment to someone who really was a mentor for me. Emil Sam Sandoz. Councilman Sanders was serving on this council when I was just a pup, along with my former colleague, Councilwoman Ortega. And we we were serving as aides along with our friend Ramona martinez, who served with Sam. And he taught us an awful lot about not about city government. We learned a lot about city government, but what he taught us. Was. About community. What he taught us was how to respond and how to use the energy and the commitment from people in a neighborhood to make changes in the community that they wanted to see happen. And so he was a lifelong resident of the Villa Park neighborhood and served on this council in Council District three from 1975 to 1987. He started so many programs to serve the community that there are too numerous to mention. I know that many of you and many folks in the city have participated in in the annual holiday. Drive. That that continues to this day. And it's something that Sam started the Hispanic annual salute. Again, another extraordinary event that helps support our young students and their dreams for college. And that continues today. Thanks to the efforts of his family, which have carried it out. So. Over over 700 signatures were obtained on both of the petitions for the renaming of these. Parks. And letters of support poured in, including from Councilman Lopez, who really was a champion and continuing on in the tradition of Admiral Sam Sanders responding to the needs of his community and helping them to bring this forward. This evening, I'm going to. Let you hear the. Details from the people who will speak this evening. But after a public hearing on Thursday, April 4th, between the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, where we heard some of the passionate stories you're going to hear a little bit tonight, the the Parks and Rec Advisory Board voted unanimously to recommend that. Barnum North. Park be renamed M.L. Sam Sanders Park and that the Weir Gulch be renamed for Ruth Lucille Drilling. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have seven individuals sign up to speak this evening on Council Bill 473. I'm going to call the first five speakers and I do apologize if I say your name incorrectly when I call your name. If you could make your way up to the front bench, that will help speed up our proceedings. So the first five are Bill drilling, Paul Santos, April Crumley, Ethel Santos and Tim Santos and Mr. Darling. Bill Darling, you're up first. Thank you. My name is Bill Rowling, and I'm here. I'm going to wing this because I didn't write anything up. When my parents moved to that gulch. In late 1959, I was just a youngster. And I remember that ditch being full of weeds, ten foot deep marsh machines in their cars, garbage cans, tires, everything you could think of. And my mom pursued and she had us boys over there working, cutting weeds after we cleaned up our own yard, which the home had been repossessed. And we picked it up. But. We worked and worked on that park for many years, and she just was totally avidly after the city. Constantly, every mayor, every councilman she could get her hands on, she would take them a cake or whatever she could do to even talk to them, you know. But in a way, I loved my mother and I think she really deserves this. And I hope you all can see it our way. And I want to thank everyone from the drilling family and the Santos family for being here tonight. This is just a great honor for all of us and for her. I know she'll be up there smiling if it passes. Thank you. Thank you. Paul Santos? Yes. Hi, I'm Paul Sanders. And a wonderful find Duluth roots drilling. In 1972, I was a sophomore down the street at Denver West High School. I just learning to drive. And my father had us involved in any kind of political campaign you could imagine. Roots, of course, was quite a bit older than I, and I was just a young kid. And she turned to me after everybody got picked for all of the coal jobs and said, You know what, we have to flip pancakes for over 400 people. That's like a thousand pancakes. Are you up to the task? And she immediately told me how she was not a show horse, she was a workhorse and that I was, too. I took a love to Ruth and told her that I had just been jilted by my girlfriend at high school. And so she made me the very first pancake I'd ever seen with a mickey Mouse sign. And she put little you got it right, the blueberries for the eyes and the whole body. And she cheered me up every campaign from Senator Wirth, Pat Schroeder. I was always picked to work with, really. So we became very close when she started to work on the on going. Of course, I had my new car, which is an old car for a kid on. I love that car. But she convinced me I needed to put this old mattress in the back of that trunk and take things over. Ruth drilling. She was an amazing lady. I always wanted to marry her. I'll be honest with you. I was a young cow. I got as close as I could to Ruth driving. And my wife Crystal is here to attest to that. Thank you to Ruth has worked tirelessly for for Denver and for our website for your time. Thank you, April Crumley. Hello. April Crumley, 215 South King Street in Barnum. Lucille was a big driving force in Barnum. And this is such a great honor that we're doing two individuals, Lucille and Sam, together. She used to tell me how they would pull things out of the garbage, shopping carts and tires and bicycles. And towards the later years, she'd sit there on the porch and applaud, you know, work more, work more. But she never as happy said she never stopped with her political affiliations. And I think she stopped in front of your office with her big car, my house, and laid on the horn. My house. Was. My house. I had your. House, too. Well, I was in your office and she had something to report and something to drop off. And I go, What is this, curb service? And she was she had porch meetings, current events. She started the transplant program season, the transplant program through Denver Urban Gardens. She started planting marigolds along the gold and Weir Gulch is this strange thing that runs through our neighborhood. And I've often said it's one letter away from weird. But. You know, when you find kids playing in it, I go, you find something alive and you can play in it. It's that simple, you know? So she was always an advocate for getting politicians involved. At her funeral, she had a pickle recipe. The family had done a pickle recipe with the notice, and someone was saying that they needed help in heaven making dill pickles. But there were so many politicians there and speaking that you wondered how the government survived that day because they were all at her funeral. Weird Gulch is an open drainage ditch and it's now beautiful Green Parkway, thanks to Lucille Drilling and others. And thank you for considering both these good people. Thank you, Ethel Santos. Now I'm going to tell you how it all came about, because it was my husband, Sam Santos, that we went. He was just barely elected and we didn't know diddly about city works or anything else. He had gotten into this job because he thought he could help more people if he did it well. We went to the Concerned Citizens for Barnum meeting. Well, who did we meet there? But Lucille Drilling and her neighbor and little German lady that spoke very poor English. And the two of them tore into Sam like, you know, on an ape. But they wanted that gulch cleaned up right now. And I mean, they demanded. And so Sam thought he had to do it himself. He didn't know that, you know, you can call city services and they would do this sort of thing. But anyway, he got his friend Joe Lucero with a great big truck and all of our many sons. And every Saturday they cleaned the girls. And so they finally, when they would get down to the end, which is where the Sandoz part started in, we were in the gully, and by then we had it all together and the kids would all have hot dogs and they didn't mind working and helping. So anyway, that's how the girls finally started getting cleaned up. But then Sam started to get a little bit wise too, and knew that he could ask for help and get it. So now, like the lady just said, it's a beautiful park. There is the the playground for the children and Lucille drilling. See, I love her to death. And so she would sit on her porch and she would admire all that stuff. And if anybody was hanging around the kids playground, she ran them off. I mean, it was just the way it was. And she took care of it. And if anybody never came to mow the lawn or tram or whatever, she was on the phone to City Hall and she would walk into to Hickenlooper's office with a red velvet cake. And when she came out, she was getting done what she wanted to get done. So at her funeral. Hickenlooper was there. He was mayor at the time. And he and I both promised her that we would see that that park was named after her and Vine, that it's being done. And God bless you, Lucy. And just to enjoy what you got that you did for us. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Tim Sandoz. And while Mr. Sandoz is working his way up, I'll call the last two speakers. You can work your way to the front bench. Erica Pollen and Debbie trailing. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Tim Sandoz, and I live in Centennial, Colorado. Looking forward to moving back in Denver when we get the affordable housing done so I can afford to live here again. I really want to pick up where my mother left off about Mrs. Driving because to us when we were younger, she was Mrs. Dry Lang. We were raised that way. But one of the things that we learned about Mrs. Driving is the drive that she had and Poppa learned how to work within city government. And all of us did, in fact, as a result of a lot of Lucille's drive and say Mama said, Papa didn't know that you could find resources to do the cleaning, so we did it ourselves. But then he was able to learn how to develop the summer youth employment programs, to bring young people to be able to do that work and to better the community. Help them to learn about the legacy of creating a better community that you live in. Now I'm going to ask you to keep that word, legacy in mind as we go through the evening. Ruth's legacy was We Are Gulch, and it started out just looking at how we changed the appearance. It was used as a trash dump. So how do we clean it up? How do we make it more palatable for the people in the neighborhood? Once that was completed, she was kind of like the movie Lilies of the Field, you know? And he got one job done. Then she would, okay, but now we have to do this. And so was Ruth trailing Drive. The next thing that happened was one of the least sexy projects that any council member will ever have to deal with. And each and every one of you, I'm certain, will deal with it at some point. And that was the urban drainage portion. You see, the culverts were so small and everything was backing up and all the neighbors homes and it was just a mess every time you had a heavy snow or a heavy rain. So once the gulch was cleaned up, the next step had to be, how do we address the flooding in people's homes? Thus we are goals project was created. It was my father's first major project as a member of the Denver City Council and he would not have gotten the support that he had from his colleagues without the drive of Lucille Drilling. Now, I don't suggest anybody just take up red velvet cakes as a way to negotiate getting things done. That was one of her many ways, but she was very convincing, made sure everybody participated and then protected and nurtured that park to become a park later on. We'll talk a little bit later about the funding of these things, because that was created in 72. But much of the funding did not come for generations later until 1989. So Ruth was a mentor to all of us. She helped me, my father and others understand what city government should be doing for its people, and the naming of this park is extremely well deserved. Thank you so much. Thank you. Erika Pilon. Hi. Forgive me if my voice shakes. Some Erika pile on from Firestone, Colorado. I am one of the grandchildren of Lucille Driving or Granny D, as we called her. And as a. Child I. Remember going to her house. And playing at that park and playground. I don't ever remember there being anything there other than a playground that we were able to play in because she created it. I remember catching crawdads with my brother and being able to be safe in that area because of her. We cleaned up trash. And she taught us to clean up trash because that's the right thing to. Do. And that's what you do. When there's a mess, you clean it up. And the biggest thing that we learned is what it means to speak up for your community. And so now that I live in Firestone, we speak up for our community all the time and we're on our way boards and things because it's important to speak up for your community and to have a part in your community. I can take my own children. My own children played over there. My Uncle Irv still lives in her house. And so to be able to go over there and visit and have my children have play on the same playground I was able to play on and be safe is a really lasting legacy. And I speak for all her grandchildren that I can't tell you how many times we heard you better get this park named for me. Like, don't forget to get this park named for me. And so I don't know what will happen if this doesn't happen. So I just urge you on behalf of her whole family that you would name this park in her honor and. Such a lasting. Legacy that she's left in all of us her first great, great, great, great grandsons in the room as well. And just such a legacy that she's left. In all of us to teach us what it means to be a part of your community. Thank you. Thank you. And last up, Debbie dryly. Yeah, my name's Debbie. Debbie dribbling. And Ruth was my mother in law for over 40 years. So I came into the family in 1967. They had moved in there in late 59, early 60. So much of it was cleaned up by the time I became part of the family. But every weekend that was part of our duties was to come over and help clean up. And I don't know if you ever heard the word bigot. When's the last time you heard the word bigot? We heard it every weekend. Trash begets trash. Let's get it cleaned up, because if we don't get it cleaned up, there will be more next week. Trash begets trash. And it was true. You know, if we were busy for a week and we came back the next time, there'd be more trash. There were shopping carts and tires and washing machines. I mean, it was unbelievable. Rats. I mean, it was it was disgusting. There was no place for children to play. So by the time my children were born, they were able to play there. And it gives me great happiness to see my grandchildren play on those playgrounds that she worked so hard to put together. We've been friends with the Sanders family all those years. You know, she met Sam when he was the councilman and she, you know, browbeat him into helping her with the park. But, you know, we've been lasting family, friends. We've always worked on the Christmas baskets with them, you know, wonderful projects to do with them, you know, great for family friendships. I would like and I know, you know, you guys are here really late tonight. I don't want to keep this too long. We can go on and on and on about it. But I would like to ask everybody in favor of Lucille Drilling Park. Please stand up. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions? Questions from members of council. Councilman Espinosa. Where is my red velvet cake? Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, any other questions? At the public hearing for council bill 473 is closed. Comments by members of Council. First up, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I am very proud to sit here on this dais in front of my community and see this come up in front of us, on our screen, on our desk, and to be able to vote on it. I. We were ready to do this when she was still alive. Unfortunately, the rules in our city force us to wait seven years. And every single year we made sure this was on our radar screen. And when that year came up, when that September came up, we were ready to go clipboards. Pens. Everybody ready? And knocked on those doors. It is unfortunate that well, I guess the only thing that I that I resent is that she is not here to see her flowers while she is still alive. She really clean that not just the the the the gulch shop, but our neighborhood. It's that kind of civic participation, that insight and that inspires everybody else to do it. When you when I say legendary district three, you know, we play around as the front door to Denver and somebody else has the highest point in Denver, the heart of Denver or whatever we say, legendary district three. And we say that because of people like with driving and because of people like Councilman Sanders. But Ruth was amazing. Come into the office. And she always had a presence to her. She knew she owned that office. She knew when she would walk in there. Red velvet care. Cake or not that. She'd get what she needed done. Not out of fear, not out of some ego trip, but out of love. It was infectious. It was. You'd catch it right away. She'd look at you with her eyes and. And sometimes I think maybe it was just me, but she looked at me like she would look at you and you couldn't avoid staring at her eyes. You have them and I could see them right now. And they made you feel like you did something wrong or you were an idiot. And I felt like I did something wrong. But no, no. She just was serious. And she had this sense of integrity. She had this sense of courage. She was true grit. But just surrounded with love. Everybody in the neighborhood respected her. And not not for something that was born out of ego, but for just straight an aura of respect for this woman. She would have these neighborhood meetings in her driveway. Everybody would be there. The governor would be there, the mayor would be there. The mounted patrol, which I had no idea we had until it was at her meeting. You had the Jimi Hendrix of accordion players who lived in our council district, right? They'd come and I'd say Jimi Hendrix, because they would play an accordion and they'd get on the floor and do this. The only thing that needed to be done was the light, the accordion on fire when they were playing it. But that was Ruth trailing. And it was the donuts, it was the coffee, it was the music. It was the fact that you join that neighborhood association to be part of something great and positive, not to be something negative. Not to say, well, not in my backyard, but to say yes, let's do it. Starting with this. Got you first. And she would hand you that rake that broom. Well, this gulch had been it currently no name except for the Weird Gulch. And only because the guy who owned the plot of land. Right. This park because it's always been a park. And when even before, when the city wouldn't consider it a park, it is a park and is a park. Because of where? Because of Lucille driving. And her work and what she stood for. And so today with her family here, you could, you know, dedicate that in her memory and in her honor. And every single kid, every single family, every single pet that's on a leash or walks through that park will be walking through Lucille Ruth Training Park. From here on out and let there be a heck of a lot more of that. So it's with great pride and honor that I ask my colleagues to support this renaming, long overdue renaming for this park in her honor. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. I think, Councilman Lopez, if anybody is intending on voting no, we should subject them to accordion music. There's a I think there's nothing would get me to give you what you want faster than to get that recording and music to stop. But. But I just want to honor Lucille for reawakening the. The knowledge of our cultures that they are not garbage pits that the South Platte River once was. They are not places to dump things. They are assets in the community. And we on the West Side, we we love our water courses all the way from Bear Creek, West Harbor Gulch, Sanderson Weir, even Lakewood and Dry Gulch as they kind of define the West Side. And to see them change over the years, from garbage dumps to assets to playgrounds to places where you can actually go and enjoy your community is just it's remarkable. And it's it's much more than fitting that that we that we all vote yes on this. Mr. President, I will proudly vote yes. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Kinney. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say that that is one of the sweetest public hearings I have been a privilege to hear in my time in office. I am so thankful for all of you for coming out. And what an amazing way to bring government and people and public spaces and history all together. Thank you so much. And I will be very happy to support this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I'll just add before we vote here that our waterways in Denver have been so neglected and abused and forgotten, whether it's the South Platte River, the Bear Creek or the Cherry Creek or Weird Gulch and really. What has happened to reclaim them is this story. And it's what inspired me in a different version to do the work that I've done my whole life and to be sitting here tonight. And so I'm so excited and thrilled to be able to vote, to put this name on this park so that every single one of us will always be reminded that really one person can completely change their community. One person can turn something that's a trash dump into something that's a treasure. One person can create a space for kids to catch crawdads. Memories that they will take with them for the rest of their life and challenge all of us every time we are in this space to say, what is that space that still has trash? And how do we how do we take that next step and and live up to this legacy from legendary District three? So I'm very excited to be able to support this site. And with that. Madam Secretary, roll call. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Absolutely no. Black eye. Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore. Cashman. I can eat. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight, accountability for 37 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please vote council bill 474 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Mr. President. I move the Council Bill 474 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The one hour courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 474 is open. We have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening on Council Bill 474. Just like before I called the first five speakers. When I call your name, if you can make your way up to the bench. First up, we have Joanne Phillips, Debbie Drilling, Bill Drilling, Paul Santos and Tim Santos. And Joanne Phillips, you're up first. Good evening. My name is Joanne Philips. I live at 936 Mead. I want to talk to you about Sam Sanders. I first met Councilman Sanders when I was when I had my second child in 1982. I had been working, but then with my second child, I decided to stay home. And so we had a Franjo Lucero. He said, Joanne, you got to come down and you have to work on this program. I says, What is this that's just come down and let's see what's going on? I says, okay. So it was the Sam Sanders District three Christmas basket program. And so I started in 1982. It's been a long it's still going this now, but I don't remember when it really started. But anyway, so I started with that, started working with Councilwoman Martinez. Now this is 1982. This is when you had typewriters, you had you didn't have all these fancy computers. So we we had cards because we worked with Social Security, social services to make sure that everybody got a basket and they didn't get populated with because everybody called for basket. Every they called everybody for a basket. So we would have to write they had to write these cards out. We had to have people in the community actually took phone calls, said, hey, I need a basket. This is where I live. This is, you know, whatever, my fellow. This is how much I make. This is how many kids that we had that we have in the household, how to feed. And then once we got that all cleared up, then we had the day that the baskets were going to be put together. Everybody helped. The Sanders boys went and got all the food, which I was Sarah And then they then they packaged them together. And then on a Saturday morning, we got up quite early and we distributed all this. And then we also at that time, if there was some people that couldn't come to deliver it or come to pick it up, we had people that would deliver it. So that was, you know, we had a lot of people, we had the firemen, we had the police, we had public works because we had to have some of the dumpsters to throw some of the the boxes out from that we had used to put all the produce in. So this was quite an event. And it was, you know, it's one of those things where that the way it started, because Sam had such a big heart and people would come to him and they didn't have any money for food they didn't have, especially in the holidays. And so that's how I believe he started doing this. And one of the things is that he was always he said, Joann, don't you know? I says, you know, other people always talk about their program, says Joann. That's all right. He says, I'm doing this for the community. That's who Sam Sanders is. He does what he has done is done for the community. So after that, I sort of stayed with him. We did. We did things together in the community. He would call me. We come over, we talk about stuff that was going on. And Sam works almost 24 hours a day, 24, seven. There would be nights I would get a call, maybe about nine or 930, and Sam would call me and he'd just start talking about something that was going on. And I go, Sam, do you know what time it is? It's like, Oh, okay, but let me finish this. And I go, Okay. So that's how hardworking he is. Man had courage. He loved he loved his community. He'll have God, his community, his family and his community. He was a member in presentation church. He sang. He was always involved with that. And then when he'd be so this is how I know Sam. And I just want I'm so proud that something is is going to be named after him, especially the Barn and Park North, which is in Villa Park, even though it says Barn and Park, it is in the Villa Park area. So it all used to be Villa Park between sixth Avenue came along Sixth Avenue divide at that. So we have Villa Park on one side and Barnum on the other side, but Barnum North, it's always been called Barnum North, so it's really great to have this name after Sam . Sam Sanders, who actually lives in Villa Park. So he you know, he's he he's such a he was such a good man. And you always you always he always gave you his best. He always told you the truth. And he always worked with both sides. Even if you didn't even if he was on opposing. He always would go to the opposition and shake their hands and would talk to them. So that was Sam. He was he I just can't tell you how much I appreciate and love Sam.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6974 for the improvement of Artesia Boulevard, between the west City limit and Butler Avenue; award the contract to Sully Miller Contracting, of Brea, CA, for the base bid in the amount of $744,660, and additive bid items AB-1 through AB-22 in the amount of $94,913, for a total of $839,573, plus a 15 percent contingency of $125,936, for a total contract amount not to exceed $965,509; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Compton, including any necessary amendments thereto, for reimbursement of additive bid costs for items AB-1 though AB-22 in the amount of $94,913, plus a 15 percent contingency of $14,237, and prorated costs estimated at $22,186 for design, construction engineering and inspection, project management and administration, for an estimated prorated share amount of $131,336; and

LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0543

A motion carries eight votes to 25, so a recommendation to adopt plans and specifications and award of contract to Sully Miller for the improvement of Artesia Boulevard between West the West City limit and Butler Avenue for an amount not to exceed $965,000, and to also enter a cooperative agreement with the City of Compton for two additive bid cost items. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. I just want to take the time to acknowledge the city staff, more specifically public works for their great work on this portion of Artesia Boulevard. For folks who might not know, this is what connects. This is adjacent to the Compton border, and it connects Compton College to essentially star King Elementary. So it's an important corridor and there's a bike lane and other things built into it. So we're really excited about this and we're hoping that in the years to come we can go ahead and connect the Artesia Corridor and improve it from Compton to Long Beach to we board of Paramount in the City of Bellflower. So this is really important and I think city staff in the work and so moved together. Has been in motion in a second. Is there any public comment? See none. Members, cast your vote. Councilmember Richardson. The motion carries eight votes. 2626 is a recommendation to drop specification awards contracts for as needed. Landscape architectural services to four landscape architecture firms in amount not to exceed in the aggregate $3 million cash.

Recommendation to request City Manager to create a comprehensive plan to recruit and include Long Beach businesses in all contracts and purchasing agreements. This should include but not be limited to; a review of current Request for Proposal process, preference points for businesses located in the City of Long Beach, preference points for businesses who are certified California Small Businesses, small/micro businesses, etc. Examples of existing programs throughout California include the "Pasadena First Buy Local" program, the City of Los Angeles "Business Inclusion Program - Local Business Preference", and the City of Oakland's Local & Small Local Business Certification Program. This program should be brought back to the City Council for review in 120 days.

LongBeachCC_08092016_16-0719

Motion carries came. Back to item 13. Communication from Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Supernormal. Councilwoman Mongo and Councilman Andrew's recommendation to request the city manager to create a comprehensive plan to recruit and include Long Beach businesses in all contracts and purchasing agreements. Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes, thank you. I want to first thank my colleagues for joining me on this item. Councilmember Super Councilwoman Mongo and Councilmember Andrews, I think this first came about for a couple of different reasons. You know, Long Beach. First, I remember we put together the project labor agreement and we asked for a certain percentage of local hiring for our residents. And we also did the first source agreement that was also any city dollars that went to projects. We wanted to ensure local hire was important in. That as well. Now we're looking at what I'm intending to do with this item, is to research other policies and ordinances that other cities have done in relative to businesses. So as we've done with. Local hiring, just to ensure that we're also allowing local businesses to have the first chance at doing city work in the city with the city they love and have invested in. It'll strengthen our Long Beach economy and hopefully we'll also get local jobs as well. With this. So I'm hoping that we can get support in looking at these different cities. The one that I have liked and I think that they have a lot of metrics in as well as Pasadena. They have quantified their success by measuring measuring local procurement dollars and, of course, local jobs. I was also happy to see that the you know, about a couple of weeks ago, we were able to include three Long Beach businesses in one of the the projects and contracts that we had put out for public works. And so I want to thank our city staff for really being committed to that and just listening to, you know, the things that I had been saying and then implementing that. So I appreciate it and thank you very much. Thank you. Councilwoman Mongo has a business advocate who spent much of our business advocacy meetings over the last eight months working on a business's first component of the county of Los Angeles. I think this is the right time where the city of Pasadena is. Plan the county's plan, Burbank's plan. All the different local plans have been reviewed. And a lot of key things stand out to me as as priorities, certain things that small businesses need when dealing with large governments. And I do mean dealing with we work with constituents, but sometimes we deal with government. Right. This city of Long Beach is a more business friendly city. However, governments as a whole get a reputation for being hard to work with and to be slow at paying their bills. And so one of the main things that when we went out into the communities of L.A. County and asked businesses, why don't you do business with the county? Why don't you bid? They say the same thing about their local city government, which is it's very hard and confusing. The requirements for insurance are high and it takes a long time to get paid. I don't have that kind of cash flow. So specifically, I'd like us to look into quick pay price, preference and support for onboarding our new businesses to become partners. Furthermore, incentive criteria should probably include if the business is headquartered in Long Beach, if their main location providing the service or product is in Long Beach, and then specifically, a lot of our Long Beach businesses are great, but they're on the border of our city. And I'm council district along with my colleague Vice Mayor Richardson, where a lot of our our border city businesses recruit, but they don't necessarily only recruit Long Beach residents. And I think we should give a reward to those who employ our residents, because those are the people who we are looking to bring up and support and take care of. And so I would like to look at we do a annual reporting on your business license of how many employees you have. I think that categorizing how many of your employees are Long Beach residents versus how many total employees is is a big deal, too. And I think that increasing those percentages over time that perhaps we could put in some of those incentives again. So I think this pairs up nicely with the prior item we did about a year ago related to putting new businesses into the city. A lot of those new businesses, as they've spurred up, have even chosen not to take the refund of the business license because they're very happy, even though it's a one page, super simple plan, they're just super excited to be a local new business and they're focused on their business and less on the paperwork. So whatever we can do to support that, I think this is a fantastic start in the right direction. And I know that as business friendly as we are, we have to keep reminding people how much we've changed from 20 years ago and how much we're not the same as some of the other governments in the area because we are different. We are Long Beach, so come up in a business here. Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I just wanted to thank everybody that put this on. And thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez. The comments that Councilmember Mongo made definitely support any local hire that we could do on this. It's pretty interesting to look at some of the multiplier effects that happen whenever we employ local residents, whenever we make sure that we're contracting out with local businesses. And so as much as we could do. Looking at some of the multiplier effect numbers, whenever we're talking about how how many local businesses that we're trying to bring in would be really helpful. But yeah, just really thankful for this item. Good job. Councilman Price. I want to echo the positive comments. I think this is a fantastic item. I commend my colleagues for bringing this forward. I do think it's very, very important to promote and encourage growth of Long Beach owned businesses while at the same time making sure that the companies that are selected are those that can provide the best quality product for our residents. And I think that that balance can be had if we give a more stringent eye to recruiting local businesses for projects. So thank you for bringing this forward. And I think this is just a fantastic item things. Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. And I just wanted to clarify, and I think my council colleagues for their support. You know, I had mentioned in here that it will review. Current request for the request for proposal process preference points for. Businesses located in the city of Long Beach. Preference points for businesses who are certified California small businesses as well. So I just wanted to make sure that we. Are clear on that. But thank you all for the wonderful comments and I hope we can proceed. And I've asked for this to come back in 120 days. Vice Mayor Richardson. Just want to chime in and say congratulations. Good job on this is an easy, easy item for me to support. I would just say, you know, the more we can recycle our dollars in Long Beach, the better. You know, when people have an incentive to move their their headquarters here or if they're, you know, have an incentive to hire more people and do those things, it really has a multiplier effect in our whole community. So thanks for continuing this focus. And I do want to acknowledge you're absolutely right. Play was a focus on local Long Beach. First was a focus on local and this continues that thread so so thank you for couching those together so that the community does see this is yet another thing the city council's leading on to keep things local. Thank you. Local. Linus, I want to call you from now on. It's better than disaster. Made me major disaster. Whatever that was. Listen, I actually love this I love this item. So thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales, for this. Can you can we can you also, Pat? So when the council passed its local point preference program for for non professional services. And correct me if I'm wrong here. This was I know a few years ago that we did do some kind of point preference program that's different than this, because this I think this is also speaking to professional services in all types of services. Can we review if that had actually any effect on local hire? The last the last time that the council passed something similar to this, by the way, that was much less in scope. And I think what this is being proposed. But can we look at that? I don't know if it's possible to get that data or not, but it'd just be interesting to see if that actually had an impact of hiring more Long Beach folks. Sure. Okay. Thanks. Any public comment on this? Great Castro votes. Motion carries an.

A bill or an ordinance changing the zoning classification for multiple properties in the 38th & Blake station area to remove the 38th and Blake Station Area Incentive Overlay District (IO-1) and adjust underlying base zone districts. Approves a legislative map amendment to rezone multiple properties in the 38th & Blake station area to remove the 38th & Blake Incentive Overlay District (IO-1) and adjust underlying base zone districts for certain properties in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-26-22.

DenverCityCouncil_06062022_22-0425

Past parents have to if you. After I moved back, I'm still 22. That's 45 on my consideration in the past and new categories and. I'm still 45 in the fall based. On my. Right next to me for my final strike. I had five. I was eight. And I was called Interstate ten and I was fired. Sure, I was actually one of the 4931 strike sections. U.S. air strikes that show three, four, five, six, seven. Eight, four straight lines 3840 45853513. Reporting and replacement text has remained attached to all other sections, most recently in Houston. You may need. Right. That's what I heard. Or there was a powerful argument. And I will check if I have spoken to her here. We're not. When you look back. All right. Okay. Have one more thing about this one that if you're following that thing here, this American worker with the very. Station area is in. So I guess I need to hire a spy. And actually and this is the thing that really fights closer is to compliance with a sworn statement. For the fact that I can't afford anything else. But I expect that we are. Urban planning process for neighborhoods should not be getting a. So I heard. From when you say this. Time zone in some areas is to maintain overall development that has to be. Which means. Continuing to drive development in the area of the town, very much happening. At the expense of everyone living there. It's not consistent. With our neighborhood plan, and it does not promote quality, affordable care. It increases the likelihood of danger and my safety concerns related to the past. Due to infrastructure. That is not quite up to the technology area. Thank you. Can I just take the question for always a little bit of clarification? So the current 38 lane overlay starts at 12 storeys and goes up and the portfolio is being built in. Is that right? Yeah. Sounds like it's. A three, four, four, five, three eight to have all the features all over the floor. Okay. So thank you. So that and. I guess we need a little more explanation of exactly what you meant at the council. Meeting about the features. I guess so. The affordability of things. Back in the day it was designed. Catcher. Yes. And so the dates are based on the case by date. And of course, there is a lot of information like that. And so they were only allowed to go up to those times if they. And now this is going away. And we know they actually did work. I needed to go somewhere to make some cash. But there is a basic zoning. We should map of zoning. All of this should be breaking it down. The neighborhood plan calls for five streets in that area. The. What this does is it offers multiple places for us to reside where it does not. And. Never mind that. To have this conversation. So I. Think. Thanks for the clarification. Thank you for your. That was basically. Secretary of. I went out of her house last. Cashman Clinic. No, Ortega. So simple. Go so far as I know. Many of you know, Madam Secretary. And now with the result. I was. I think you. I mean, I hate to. Nine days to high tech event, they'll have a bill. To add to their Fortune five. 1000 comments under. She vowed to keep fighting. The. Second, third of all. When you die, you work. You find. Hi. But what? All right. Frankly, I. I can take a sample. I swear I saw it. I. That was our. Name. Five on five. 3:30 a.m. announcements on Monday, July 12. The Capital required to carry out two. The voting block. 13 by 1335, 40 was 40. Any protests against the law must be filed on Council of Year. You know, there been. And a lot of that wasn't enough money to spend the money on dirty. The five.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning, amending Sections 7.24.020, 7.24.030, 23.42.040, 23.44.030, 23.45.504, 23.45.506, 23.45.508, 23.45.536, 23.45.570, 23.46.002, 23.46.004, 23.46.022, 23.47A.004, 23.47A.006, 23.47A.013, 23.47A.032, 23.48.020, 23.48.085, 23.48.205, 23.48.280, 23.48.605, 23.48.705, 23.49.019, 23.49.042, 23.49.044, 23.49.045, 23.49.046, 23.49.090, 23.49.094, 23.49.096, 23.49.142, 23.49.146, 23.49.148, 23.49.180, 23.49.322, 23.49.324, 23.49.338, 23.50.012, 23.50.028, 23.51A.004, 23.54.015, 23.54.016, 23.54.020, 23.54.025, 23.54.030, 23.61.008, 23.66.122, 23.66.124, 23.66.320, 23.66.324, 23.66.342, 23.71.014, 23.74.008, 23.76.004, 23.76.006, 23.76.032, 23.84A.030, 23.84A.038, and 25.05.675 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); repealing Section 23.71.016 of the SMC; and adding new Sections 23.42.070, 23.54.026, and 23.54.027 to the SMC; in order to promote transportation options, update the definition of “frequent transit service,” update bicycle parking requirements, update parking space standards, update SEPA environmental review parking policies, and make clar

SeattleCityCouncil_04022018_CB 119221

The report of the full council agenda item one Council Bill 119221. You can read short. Title two if you like. An ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending section 7.2 for 7.0. I'm sorry. 7.24 to 3.4. 2 to 3.4. 4 to 3.4. 5 to 3.4. 6 to 3.47 a to 3.4. 8 to 3.4. 9 to 3 point. I'm trying to do the short title to 3.50 to 3.51 aim and two 3.54 to 3.2 3.61 to 3.6 6 to 3.7 1 to 3.7 4 to 3.76. You can read a short title if you like. I don't know how to love the Seattle. This will code repealing section to 3.71.01 of of the CMC and adding new sections to the CMC. Introduced March 26, 2018. Before I turn to Florida, Councilmember Johnson, were you. I apologize for interrupting. I should have instructed. Were we clear on the title being read in? Did I messed that up? Are we okay? We're good. We're good to go, Councilmember Johnson. For sure, sir. That's how long the short title is. When I want to talk about parking. Just we've talked about this a lot because it's been two plus years of discussion about off street parking requirements. But let me just remind folks about a couple of things that are in the bill. Well, then I think have a discussion about a proposed amendment. And then once we get through with that, I'd love to reserve a little time at the end to just talk about what happens moving forward. So several things to highlight here. The first of which is this bill is aimed at trying to make the city a more affordable place for folks. We're trying to do that in a couple of different ways, the first of which is creating a flexible use parking standard, which allow people who currently own parking lots or parking garages to facilitate shared parking between uses . Right now, that is legally prohibited. It would eliminate that prohibition to allow for currently underutilized parking to be better shared in neighborhoods. Why is this important? Recent studies from King County and other places have shown that even in very dense neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, as much as a third of the parking overnight in those neighborhoods is not being used. So what we've got here is a lot of parking and a lot of people looking for parking. And this allows us to marry those to the supply and the demand. The second thing that it does is it clarifies frequent transit service and how that frequent transit service is measured. Increases, clarifies the watershed to that frequent transit service and allows for developers to build build buildings in that neighborhood with parking if they want to, but it doesn't require them to do so. That's the big distinction here. Current rules require them to do so. We're not requiring them. Many developers still are choosing to build parking, but we're just not saying you have to build parking. A third thing that it does here is it unbundled the parking from the residential and commercial leases, which will allow for a renter who is renting a building with a parking space and they may not have a car to not have to pay for that parking space. Ditto for those in commercial leases. And that will increase a lot of transparency about the transportation costs and and who's paying for it. This would eliminate the parking requirement for all affordable housing projects. All throughout the city, we've talked to affordable housing developers in and around even our light rail stations where they were previously required to build parking. And those requirements have resulted in unused parking spaces in their buildings, which adds to the cost for those developers and really takes away from the housing opportunity for us. And in the final thing that it does is it updates and increases bike parking requirements. We could have spent probably the entirety of today just talking about the differences of the amendment strategy that we talked about on bike parking. But this helps to streamline and clarify some of the bike parking amendments to just for the sake of transparency. I want to push back a little bit on one of the comments that I heard during public comment that this is not a data based approach. We we wouldn't have done this for over two years if we weren't going to take a data based approach. And there's a lot of really good data out there on parking. I won't bore everybody with the nerdiness behind it, but I will say that the still Department of Transportation, this is a department of construction and inspections put together a really good map that shows the impact that this legislation would have in neighborhoods throughout the city. And you can really see there's a correlation, strong correlation between where folks live without cars and where frequent transit service exists. People are choosing to live in neighborhoods that have frequent transit when you don't own a car. And that's because that's the only way that you get around. So when we make it easier for developers to build buildings in and around frequent transit service and don't require them to build parking, it will end up being beneficial for everybody . So I'll stop there. Why don't we talk about the amendments and then let's circle back around for some closing comments. Sounds good. Any further comments before we turn over Councilmember Herbold? Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. Oh, I do. I need to move this, Amelia. Do I need to move it? I'm sorry to put the best legislation in front of us. I move for adoption of countable 119221. Well, I don't think it has to be moved because it did come out of committee. It's a good report. Oh, very good. So it's been moved in second. We're good. Thank you, Councilman Johnson. Good catch, Councilman. Thank you. I'm moved to amend Council Bill 11 9221, Section 63 and 65 through 68 of the bill as presented on the amendment. This amendment would allow SDI to mitigate parking impacts in urban villages with frequent transit service only where parking minimums are eliminated, and only in those locations where on street parking occupancy exceeds 85%. I'll Second Amendment. I think you may speak to the amendment. Yes, please, councilman. Honorable. Thank you. So I just wanted to start by saying I agree wholeheartedly with many of the signs in the audience today, specifically the signs that say that we should prioritize room for people, not cars. This amendment does not obligate SDI to require mitigation through SIPA. It only gives them the flexibility to do so under some very, very narrow conditions. The tools that are in the amendment are given as options. Those tools are transportation management plans, parking management and allocation plans, incentives for use of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles, increasing the amount of parking required for development and reducing nonresidential densities. This version of the amendment removes the option of limiting our permits upon the advice of the law department, and it prioritizes these five tools with increasing parking, parking requirements and reducing densities to be the options considered last. And it gives SDC the ability to craft a draft director's rule before this amendment goes into effect. The version heard in the Bylaws Committee did not include these particular elements in this version of of the amendment. Central staff last year or this year analyzed last year's data and looked at 136 projects. Of those 136 projects, only six of them would have triggered this super mitigation. Of those six projects, three of them provided parking for other reasons. So if last year's data is a good comparison, this tool would have only been a consideration of SDI in three of 136 projects or 2%. And again, it does not require them to use the mitigation tools. It is only a trigger for their consideration. The city has entirely removed the authority to use NEPA to mitigate the parking impacts of projects that that do have impacts when those projects are are in areas where the city has removed parking requirements. Areas referred to as frequent transit areas and states. EPA actually requires developers to do parking studies as part of the permitting process. But when those studies show that a development without parking is going to create a problem, Sky can't require mitigation in those instances. What SDI Stsci tells to the public is, and I quote, While impacts to parking could be substantial, we are unable to mitigate the impacts. In what instances will this matter? It matters in areas where car ownership is high and parking availability is low. Many of those still driving are renters. And with nearly 70% of our renter population in Seattle earning less than the median income, this is a little more than $200 a day before taxes. They are the ones who are likely to have the most difficult time getting by without access to parking options. These folks work in jobs that require car ownership. They have child care and elder care obligations. They are struggling already. And if they live in neighborhoods with more than 85% parking capacity, they will struggle more without some sort of parking mitigation. One of Donald Trump's most famous recommendations is to propose a policy that targets an 85% occupancy rate for street parking by modulating parking prices. This is a policy that we've adopted here in Seattle when determining what the proper amount is for pay parking. What this means is that by understanding parking demand is a price responsive quantity when parking is overloaded. Prices can simply be increased to return to a desired occupancy rate by depressing demand. Why the 85% standard? The 85% standard is used because it's a good compromise between optimal use of the parking spots and allowing for drivers to find a parking spot easily avoiding cars driving around for 5 to 10 minutes to find a parking spot. Seattle is in the top five of cities for number of hours, 58 hours a year spent looking for parking. Failure to mitigate parking impacts in instances where it is warranted is a very big environmental issue. CPA requires us to look not only the impact of decisions on plants, animals, air quality and water, but also on housing, public services and historic preservation. In a 15 block study conducted by Donald Shoup. He said a vehicle seeking a parking spot over the course of a year, the search for curb parking in that 15 block district created about 950,915 I'm sorry, 950,000 excess miles of travel, equivalent to 38 trips around the earth or for trips to the moon. This cruising these 950,000 miles waste 47,000 gallons of gas and produces 730 tons of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. And so, again, this mitigation tool is really only designed to be triggered in those extreme cases that without it, we are actually going to contribute more to the problem that we're trying to address. Thank you, Councilman Herbold. Any further comments on the amendment? Only we're just taking the amendment. Councilmember Johnson. Councilmember Herbold, you know, I want to say I love when people quote Donald Shoup. I'm wearing my to button today. You know, I appreciate his work and your reference to it. Most of that reference relates to the on street parking requirements, which is a little bit different from today's off street parking requirements. And let me provide you another shoe piece to quote, which is parking requirements. Reduce the supply. When parking requirements, reduce the supply of apartments, they increase the price of housing. And on some days, planners think about housing affordability, but on most days they think about parking and forget about housing affordability. So when we require a developer to build 25 to $35000 per parking space for parking that goes unused, I think that it results in more expensive housing. And so I'm going to be voting no on this amendment and encouraging my colleagues to do the same. Very good. Any further comments on the amendment only? Okay. I'm seeing any hands, so I'll just say brief remarks is no surprises based on our discussion this morning that I sort of want to give some context. I think the fight for clean air, clean water and fight against global warming is a noble fight fight by some noble warriors. And so I certainly don't criticize or denigrate or second guess those advocates. I'm supporting this amendment because I don't believe this is inconsistent with that fight. And I believe that it's just, again, a very limited basis. A mitigation tool in addition to CDC are looking at and before this tool is used, looking at transportation management programs that can help us out with the issue, parking management and allocation plans, incentives for the use of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. So in other words, consistent with seep in can and consistent with an environmental analysis looking at other options. And then again, this being one tool that can possibly be used because of the parking issue that we have. And this particularly is in I think our public testimony today would be would support that the the argument that many communities of color, many of our poor residents are affected directly by this. And in certain situations, that could be one of many factors that should be considered considered when looking at how we are growing our city. So I support Councilmember Herbold amendment, and I want to thank you for doing a deep dove on this issue. And we're just going to talk about the amendment only now. So I see some hint and I see I guess I ask you right before I speak and then I but. You were of inspired. Okay, so I saw a councilmember who wants to go first councilmember but scalar, you get the Floridian experiment back show. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to say thank you to Councilmember Johnson for working on the underlying amendment and our underlying bill and to Councilmember Herbold for her work on this amendment. I've heard the positions and discussions on both sides of this decision that we have to make today. And ultimately, for me, this is about how we work to create more affordable housing throughout this city. In front of us is an opportunity, I believe, to reduce the cost of housing, especially near frequent transit hubs, and so that we can create more affordable units overall throughout the city. And that said, this is not, as I understand, an effort to try to change parking requirements citywide. I do think that the conversation that you've begun today will help us later on this year as we have a conversation about street parking requirements. So the comments have been well received and I think very much appreciated. And again, I appreciate the work and your commitment to bring this forward. I will be a no on this amendment today, but I want to underscore the importance of of why I think it's important for us to create affordable housing using every tool in our toolbox to encourage affordable housing, and also recognizing that this will be affordable housing near transit hubs, because renters like me are more likely to be individuals who don't have a car. In fact, 27% of us as councilmember horrible mentioned, don't have a car. And for our elders over 65, the majority of folks also don't have a car. So while we want to work together to collaboratively identify ways to increase transit transportation options, make sure that everyone in our community has access to affordable transportation means. I want to make sure that we all underscore our importance here of not just leaving the conversation today about parking, but really trying to underscore that this is about affordable housing, increasing our commitment to transit across this community and having a deeper conversation later this year when it comes to off street parking. So thank you so much for bringing this forward and I look forward to the future conversations around this. Thank you. Councilmember Square, that comes from a packed shop. Thank you. And this is piling on. Councilmember Mosqueda. Thank you for allowing this. Councilmember Herbold, I really want to. Thank you and appreciate the fact that you brought this forward last week and acknowledged the fact that we've got really strong, competing, good goals, that we are trying to make it as easy as possible for neighbors to get around. We are also recognizing the affordable housing. Today I am going to be voting against your amendment, but I want you to know and appreciate the fact that I clearly acknowledged the needs for the supply and demand. We got a lot more people moving into our city. We're trying to keep it as affordable as possible and affordable. Put that in air quotes, because we know that it isn't available. But I do believe that there's work that we can do on the off street parking and on street parking as this goes forward. And Councilmember Johnson and all on the Transportation Land Use Committee have been looking at this and all of you who have been out there advocating for various positions, I am I really acknowledge how hard this is and that we have these, as I said, competing goals where we're trying to get people inside, get them into housing, but also with the mobility to move people around. So I want to acknowledge the good work that people have been doing, and I want to move forward with your underlying legislation affirmatively and as fast as possible. Thank you. So without further ado, I'm going to call for the vote on the amendment only councilmember verbal there's we get to go on the vote. Okay. So all those in favor of the amendment, please vote I and raise your hand, i. Account seven and oh, all those opposed say no, no. Okay, the amendment fails. So so we have the it fails 2 to 7 and councilmember 2 to 6. I'm sorry, 2 to 6. Council Member Johnson Would you like to say any more words about the base legislation? I'm happy to. I don't know if any other of my other colleagues want to make any additional remarks, but if if there aren't any, I'm happy to close the debate on topic. I think we're good to go. Oh, no, we do. Okay. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. So this is a tough one. There's a lot to like about this legislation in particular. I really appreciate the unbundling of rent from parking. This will save renters money. I also appreciate allowing the building owners to make unused parking in their buildings available to the general public. And I thank the committee for the inclusion in this legislation of two amendments that we're not discussing today, because they did pass committee, but that were very important to residents of my district. But here's my problem. Work was written in 2005. It was republished in 2011. A 2013 Journal of American Planning Association says ships failure to update the book also means that he only hints at the latest scholarship. Recent research suggests the importance of considering context when implementing planning and design standards. While Shoup provides examples of places like central business districts and universities where parking supply could be reduced because of the availability of other travel options, he does not develop a coherent argument for context sensitive parking policies. The use of academic theory should be informed by real world application and rigorous study of their impacts and their outcomes towards meeting our policy goals. Since Seattle's removal of parking minimums in urban centers and urban villages with frequent transit service, there's been no evaluation supporting the claim that the result has been reduced car ownership in these areas. In fact, car ownership has remained flat since 2012. This is despite six years experience with with with this policy. A particular importance to me is how policies that in some neighborhoods may punish people who need their cars. What is really important to me is that the growth of the gig economy, specifically driving jobs since sheeps work, Amazon, Flex, Instacart, Uber and Lyft were not the lifeblood side jobs providing supplemental income for struggling families back in 2005. We legislator values, but in legislating, we must balance our values in a way that recognizes our cities are not urban planning or public policy models in a laboratory. Our cities are made of people with unique qualities that don't always fit in our models of how we hope the world to be. And so sometimes we have to compromise around the edges. For example, we on the Council oppose discrimination, but in the last two years we've passed two pieces of legislation the source of income discrimination bill and fair chance housing that made an exception for small landlords, allowing them to discriminate against our values. We also believe that workers are helped when they know their schedules in advance via the secure scheduling ordinance. But we exempted many employers from this value. The compromise, I thought today is like that. Council supports the value of supporting people who choose to live car free lives. I do as well. I live in a neighborhood with driveways and plentiful on street parking. When members of the public who don't live in neighborhoods like mine and with lives that are different than mine, asked me to consider a compromise to my values. I feel it's my responsibility and duty to do so. So my vote today is not against a prior council's removal of parking minimums. In 2012, though, I am going to vote against this legislation, it is instead a vote against expanding these parking minimums without first evaluating our existing policies, without considerate consideration of the social justice impacts on low income folks who need their vehicles, and without accepting a very modest amendment that would allow, not require SDI, the flexibility to mitigate parking impacts in very, very narrow circumstances. Thank you, Councilman Herbold, Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. I want to thank Councilmember Johnson, first of all, for your work on this. This took a long time and a lot of work to get through here. And I know that hasn't been easy. And I really appreciate your persistence on this. I want to say this bill has been really challenging for me, not challenging to support this. And I'm clear that I will be supporting this and I appreciate the work on this, but challenging and hearing the concerns that have come out of the community on this. To be clear, what this bill does is a modest change to the legislation passed a number of years ago. The councilmember. Herbold referred to. It will expand the elimination of parking minimums to a small handful of neighborhoods beyond where it has been for the last number of years. It also clarifies our definition of frequent transit based on what I think many of us here are about to vote on, to say that the hearing examiners interpretation of our previous one was not what we intended. So we will clarify that. The outcry I've heard from many folks in our community has been loud and very direct. And I want to make sure that everyone knows out there that I have heard that. And I believe I understand the concerns, the concerns about the frustration when you cannot find a free on street parking spot in front of or near your home or a business you're trying to visit. I share that frustration when I'm in that same situation. It's maddening. But I also want to highlight that this is a city that is committed to reducing the impacts of climate change. We embrace the commitment to be carbon neutral by the year 2050. We embrace work to fight Arctic drilling. We embrace work to fight pipelines. The work on climate we're doing and protection of free on street parking are mutually exclusive. We cannot do both of those and make those a top priority. As we move forward and start working on on street parking, I want to be clear where I will be on those issues, too. I will not support policies that discriminate against certain types of people in neighborhoods versus others specifically. I will not support policies that say homeowners should have access to the permits, but renters do not get those same benefits. I do not. I will not support policies as in this legislation. Does that say that if you're in the neighborhood today and you don't have on street parking, that's fine. But new people moving to the neighborhood need to have off street parking. I do not think that's fair. Katherine Herbold talked about punishing people who need to drive. What I think this bill does is actually allows people that are new to neighborhoods they cannot afford to afford on street parking, the ability to have access to on street parking and not require that they pay for that on street parking. That's why I think this legislation is fair. This bill is going to pass today. And the reason it's going to pass or one of the reasons it's going to pass is because you all have elected a council that is committed to doing climate work. Well, we'll continue to weigh in on issues like Arctic drilling and fighting pipelines. We also, as a community, have to take actions to change our impacts on the climate right here locally. We're going to have to take hundreds of actions like this one today. And these are hard actions because they require each of us to slightly change the way that we live in our communities. We have a question before us as a community, and this is the part that's been really hard for me, is which way are we going to go? Are we going to embrace fighting climate change and supporting a planet that can support life for everyone? Or are we going to shift to focusing on protecting our narrow interests locally? I don't want to paint folks that are opposed to this legislation as bad people. I know a lot of you and I have friends that have concerns about this. But we have to figure out how as a community, we make that transition to a carbon free. And sometimes that might be car free future. And it's going to be it's going to involve significantly hard decisions like this. I'm really grateful for folks that have pushed for this. I appreciate hearing from everyone in the community, including folks that strongly disagree with the vote I am about to take. But I want to question us as a community. Where are we going to go when it comes to how we fight for climate change moving forward? Thank you. Thank you. Kerry O'Brien. Any further comments from any of our colleagues? Councilmember Johnson. I'll be brief, Mr. Chair. So I just want to say a couple of quick things as we close up the discussion. Fundamentally, I come to this because I believe it's unfair for us to have a city where parking is abundant and free and housing is scarce and expensive. And I'm working hard to try to change that. And that's what this legislation is about. It's not as far reaching as the actions that are being taken by other cities around the world, where other cities are banning the construction of new parking or considering instituting parking maximums. What we're doing here is we're allowing the market to decide where a developer chooses to build parking or on a frequent transit service. They can choose to build it, or they can choose not to build it if they don't want to. We're also making that a targeted issue insofar as we're not eliminating this requirement in places that don't have frequent transit service. So we are recognizing the reality of the circumstance that the city that we live in. But we also just generally know that there are about 70 people moving to the city of Seattle every day, and we can't also absorb 70 cars per day and expect to live in a world that has clean air, is free from traffic violence and is cheaper. And so for me, this is about a sensible set of solutions that will allow us to take the 5 to 6 million parking spaces that we have in the city and allow for the 700,000 cars that we have in the city to be able to better utilize those millions of parking spaces. So I'm excited to bring this legislation forward to a vote. I just want to say a couple of quick thank you to a couple of folks, Gordon Flowers and Mary Catherine Snyder from D.C.. I have worked hard on this legislation. I'm grateful to you all for your work. Listen, Whitsunday of Council Central Staff put in a lot of time and energy, particularly in his free time, getting through a whole lot of very dense academic tome on this. So thanks. Listen to Amy Gore of my office, who dug in more on parking nerd stuff than I imagine she ever thought she would. This has been a fun one to work with you all on, so I'm grateful for the action and looking forward to us voting yes on this bill today. Thank you, Councilman Johnson. And with that, it's been moved in properly second. So please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Berkshire Gonzalez I. HERBOLD No. JOHNSON All right. Juarez, I must gather, I. O'BRIEN Right. And Council President Harrell. All right. Seven and excuse me, six in favor. One opposed. The bill passed and show a. Senate that's incorrect. Seven in favor. One opposed. The bill passed and the share was still. Sign it. Thank you very much. Parts of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; declaring certain real property rights relating to sewer facility easements within property bound by 25th Avenue NE, NE 49th Street, 30th Avenue NE, and NE 45th Street in Seattle as being surplus to the City’s utility needs; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to relinquish such easement rights and to accept a new easement from University Village Limited Partnership for a City-owned sanitary sewer facility; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118806

Agenda Item 34 Council 118806 Failing to sell public utilities declaring certain real property rights related to a sewer facility. Easement within property bounded by 25th Avenue, Northeast Northeast 49th Street, 30th Avenue, Northeast and Northeast 45th Street in Seattle as being surplus city's utility needs authorizing director of sale public utilities to relinquish such easement rights and to accept a new easement from University Village Limited Partnership for city owned sanitary sewer facility and ratifying confirming certain prior acts the committee recommends. The bill pass. Comes from O'Brien. Great. This is a fairly straightforward shift in easement. So the property in question here is under is at University Village. There are certain easements that the city has held where sewer lines for sewer lines in the past. Those easements are no longer needed. There's new easements that are needed, I believe, for realignment of sewer lines. And so this bill does both those. It relinquishes the easements that are no longer necessary and accepts easements where the new facilities are. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Johnson Suarez O'Brian by Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzalez. President Harrell. Seven In favor and unopposed. The bill passed in Charles Senate Agenda Item number 35.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; creating a compensation program for the position of Fire Chief; specifying provisions for the administration of said compensation program; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120248

Report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Agenda Item 26 Council Bill 120248 An Ordinance relating to City Employment Creating a compensation program for the position of Fire Chief specifying provisions for the Administration of said compensation program and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends bill passed as amended. Madam Sirkin They handed over to Councilmember Herbold, who is the chair of this committee, to address the item. Thank you so much. So the background on this is currently the fire chief is classified as what's called an executive for that's the same classification as exists for the deputy fire chiefs. The executive has identified salary compression issues in the department and that is created when the job top job is classified in the same way as other jobs. And that creates a outcome where there's little or no difference in pay, but large differences in responsibilities, skills or qualifications. The Human Resources Department connect. It conducted an analysis of comparable fire chief positions among what's referred to as the standard West Coast seven cities San Francisco, San Diego, Oakland, Long Beach, Sacramento. San Jose and Portland. To come up with a new salary rate for the position of fire chief and this legislation codifies that the. Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any additional comments? Hearing on what the police called the roll on the passage of the bill. LEWIS. Yes. Morales Yes. Mosquera i. Peterson. I. Strauss Yes, for both. Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez, I didn't favor none of those. Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read item 27 into the record.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the implementation of the 2016 Stormwater Code update; ensuring that the City’s local program for stormwater regulation meets substantive requirements of the State Department of Ecology; amending Sections 22.170.120, 23.22.028, 23.22.074, 23.24.050, and 23.76.032 of the Seattle Municipal Code; amending Section 106 of the 2012 Seattle Building Code; and amending Section R105 of the 2012 Seattle Residential Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118466

Agenda Item 26 Council Bill 118466 relating to the implementation of the 2016 Stormwater Code Update. Councilmember Bagshaw. Good. Thank you. And again, Cheryl, thank you for this. This particular council Bill, it's a complimentary piece of legislation to the stormwater code and it implements the changes to the stormwater code in our land use building and grading and residential codes. This particular bill is necessary to ensure that all the regulations that are related to development uniformly reflect when the new requirements take effect and it will apply to all relevant city development regulations beginning January. 1st of 2016. We recommend Do Pass. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill o'brien. All right. Okamoto I Rasmussen so want back shot. I got in I Harrill I Lakota and President Burgess favorite and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 27.

An Ordinance, referred on August 18, 2021, to provide for legal representation of the Boston Groundwater Trust by the City of Boston Law Department, the committee submitted a report recommending the ordinance ought to pass.

BostonCC_11172021_2021-0900

Duncan Number 0900 Ordinance to Provide for legal legal representation of the Boston Groundwater Trust by the City of Boston Law Department. The chair recognizes Councilor Lydia Edwards, chair of the Committee on Governance Operations. Chair Edwards, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. I want to thank my vice chair for taking the lead and helping me in this moment to conduct the final hearings on this. I was counselor forces, the lead sponsor of this matter, pushing for making making sure that our grandmother trust has legal representation, which I currently do not. So I'm going to actually turn over to the vice chair or and or the lead sponsor, whoever is more prepared to speak right now to help. But my ultimate recommendation is that we pass this. I think this was an oversight that we had in our legislation. And this is something, again, Councilor Baucus found that we need to just make sure that we are covering all aspects of city workers and people who are doing good work. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am quite convinced that both the vice chair and the sponsor are well equipped to speak on this and most things. So I'll start with the Vice Chair of the Committee on Governance Operations. And I would like to recognize the lead sponsor for our great work on this. And obviously it's something that is is needed. So through the. Chair Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Chair And I recognize of the District Council from Beacon Hill. Councilor Bach, the floor is yours. Thank you so much. And thank you to the vice chair for chairing and to Councilor Edwards, as ever, for her leadership and also to both of them for being my co-sponsors on this matter, and to Councilor Flynn for being the fourth co-sponsor really on this matter and also attending the hearings. You know, I think between our districts, Councilor Flynn's Councilor Edwards and mine, we have the bulk of the area that the groundwater trust covers. And so one of the things that we all know as district councilors and that Councilor Flaherty knows from long experience, is that the groundwater trust is really part and parcel of city government and of the stewardship of a critical public resource, which is the groundwater level, a public resource, I should say, with enormous impact on private property values, because we have a large number of buildings and across all of our districts that, you know, if the groundwater level lowers and the pilings that the buildings are on start to rot, it becomes a very expensive endeavor indeed to try to save them. And so it's one of those things where everyone needs to be proactive. And I think really Boston's laws around this are a model in terms of requiring groundwater recharge, requiring groundwater trust, sign off on people's plans to make sure that we don't have leaks in the system . The strange thing about all of that is that even though we rely on the trust as such a critical piece of our approvals apparatus, the way that the current city law has been interpreted by corporation council is that they're not actually eligible for legal representation or advice from corporation council because of the way that the entity is technically set up. And, you know, that exposes the volunteer members of the groundwater trust who are really, you know, give of themselves for the sake of the city. And its executive director, Christian Simonelli, who again is a ubiquitous presence at city meetings. And and so this was something that, you know, it's not that the law department doesn't want to represent them. It's just that the way it currently reads the statute, it's not authorized to. And so it's an easy fix, but a really important one. And that's the piece of legislation that we have before you today, is just to make sure that if if the groundwater trust finds itself embroiled in any issue and again, when there's money on the line, as there is in development, we all know that lawsuits follow, that they can count on the city of Boston to have their back legally in the same way that they have our back as a city and and frankly, support all the residents in these communities. So it's a it's in the I said to somebody, this is the category of boring but important, but I would be very grateful to everyone for their support today. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. But could anyone else wish to speak on docket zero 900? Seeing none. The Chair. Councilor Edwards. The Vice Chair. Councilor Flaherty, the lead sponsor, Councilor Bach, and the fourth sponsor, Councilor Flynn, seek acceptance of the committee report and passage of docket 09000. Those in favor please indicate by saying I oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. The docket is passed. Congratulations. Motions, orders and resolutions. Mr. Clerk, would you please read docket 1181. Docket number 1181. Councilor Braden offer the following order for a hearing regarding access to low cost veterinary care.

A MOTION acknowledging receipt of the feasibility study for a waste to energy facility to manage the region's solid waste that provides a comparison to waste export by rail in accordance with the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget, Ordinance 18835, Section 19, Proviso P4.

KingCountyCC_11042019_2019-0429

The October 21st meeting minutes are before us, so no discussion. All those in favor, please say I opposed. Nay, the ayes have it. The minutes are approved. That takes us to the first report on today's agenda, which would acknowledge receipt of a feasibility study related to the options for long term disposal of the region's waste. Comparing the waste energy facility to waste export by rail. As many of you know, the region's landfills in Sewer Hills is projected to close at some point in the next 20 years. The study in front of us today, conducted by consultant, provides cost and other estimates to help the county plan for the next disposal method after the ultimate closure of Cedar Hills and will begin to this discussion with the staff report from Teal Rose. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. For the record, Tara Rose Council staff the materials for proposed motion 2019 0429 begin on page five of your packet. The proposed motion would acknowledge receipt of a feasibility study, as the Chair mentioned, and I'm going to begin my remarks with a bit of background, but spend most of my time focused on the findings of the feasibility study in a few key areas. Turning now to page six of your packet. King County's Solid Waste Division operates a regional solid waste system for the unincorporated area and 37 partner cities who have signed in our local agreements that this system includes one remaining local landfill, the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, a 920 site located in Maple Valley, which is owned and operated by the county and which has served as the final disposal location for the region's mixed municipal solid waste since 1965. This past spring, the Council approved the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and this plan directed further development of the Cedar Hills landfill to maximize disposal capacity instead of the other options considered at the time of a waste to energy, facility and waste export by rail. The adopted 2019 2020 biennial budget included funding for landfill development, capital projects and the Solid Waste Division is currently conducting a State Environmental Policy Act process to evaluate three engineering options to develop Cedar Hills for additional capacity. Executive staff indicate that based on the three development alternatives being considered and the current tonnage forecast, Cedar Hills is expected to reach capacity sometime between 2035 and 2041, because the current in our local agreements with the partner cities obligate the county to dispose of the region's waste through 2040. And it is not yet known the exact year when Cedar Hills will reach capacity. An alternative waste disposal strategy will need to be identified given the lead time associated with implementing the next disposal method. While the adopted Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan directed the maximization of Cedar Hills, it did not specify the next disposal method. After the ultimate closure of the landfill in the 2019 2020 Biennial budget, the Council directed the Office of Performance Strategy and Budget, or PSB, to issue a request for proposal and managing contractor to conduct a study evaluating the feasibility of either a waste to energy facility or waste export by rail as the county's next disposal method, including in that budget, is the proviso that requires the feasibility study to, among other things, review the county's projected waste forecast, as well as provide estimates for the costs and environmental impacts of both options with the study to be transmitted to the Council by October 4th of this year. The full text of the related expenditure, restriction and proviso can be found on pages seven and eight. Now moving on to the bottom of page eight to the analysis section of the staff report. And I will just note before I begin for the committee that waste to energy is a specialized technology. And so my remarks will focus on the findings and assumptions contained within the study. But for things that are not explicitly mentioned, I will likely have to follow up and confer with the executive staff and the consultant. So with that said, I'll offer a bit of just process information. PSP issued an RFP earlier this year and selected Arcadis as the consultant to perform the work requested by Proviso. The resulting feasibility study with the motion in front of the committee would acknowledge the receipt of the feasibility study, and that was transmitted to the Council on October 4th. And now I will begin to dove into some of the findings. So the proviso required the consultant to review the factors that may affect the county's future waste tonnage forecast and analyze how different assumptions could affect the forecast as well as include a range of estimates. The consultant reviewed the Solid Waste Division forecast that was prepared in February 2019 and developed to waste tonnage forecasts representing a high and low bound over a 50 year planning period. These are based on a combination of the county's forecast data, as well as population projections from the Puget Sound Regional Council and per capita waste generation estimates . Executive staff indicate that the consultant used population as the major variable because it reduces the number of assumptions to project out over a long period of 50 years. The footnotes at the bottom of page nine describe the two forecasts in more detail, if you are interested. Table one on page ten provides the estimated waste generated in a few key areas under each developed forecast. And just for context. Approximately 931,000 tons of waste were disposed at Cedar Hills in 2017. So I'm now moving ahead to pages ten and 11 of your packet, which provide a high level summary of the consultant's findings in a few key areas. I know. Earlier. The Feasibility Studies study considers two options for long term disposal a waste to energy facility, where the region's waste would be directed to a facility where combustion would occur, and a controlled furnace system that generates electricity for use either at the facility or where excess electricity may be able to be sold . Ashes generated at the bipod product, which may be directed towards re-use opportunities or landfill. And then the second option considered is waste, export, and where the region's waste would be exported by rail to an out of landfill. Two landfills were considered under the study, one located in eastern Washington and the other in eastern Oregon. The remainder of the staff report identifies each of the proviso requirements and summarizes the consultant's findings for each of the requirements. But as I noted earlier in my remarks, in the interest of time and based on the historical interests of the Council, I'm going to focus my remarks in three areas the estimated implementation timelines, the estimated costs , and the modeled greenhouse gas emissions for both long term disposal options. So the consultant's conclusions in these areas are summarized on table two on page 11. And I'll begin with the implemented the potential implementation schedule. The feasibility study estimates an implementation schedule of 8 to 11 years for waste energy and 3 to 6 years for waste export by rail. Additional detail regarding the potential timelines can be found later in the staff report. However, I am just going to summarize it here since we have the table in front of us. The consultant notes that the citing and permitting process for waste energy largely account for the difference in the estimated implementation time needed. According to the study, the 11 year upper estimate allows for up to two years of delay for permitting or siting issues. The lower estimate of eight years assumes no significant regulatory hurdles or public opposition to the project, as well as assumes the availability of long lead time materials with waste expert. The schedule assumes that a new intermodal facility to transfer waste from trucks to train would be needed instead of using existing facilities. And both schedules assume that the procurement process would occur concurrently with siting, planning and permitting. Moving on to the next row of the table related to greenhouse gas emissions, the feasibility study provides that the consultant use two modeling techniques the Environmental Protection Agency, one tool and the worm tool with line item adjustments based on the consultant's professional judgment. And these are outlined further in the study attachment. According to the study, the modeling tools used do not quantify annual emissions from either disposal option because they don't explicitly model the timing of any emissions . Therefore, the figures should only be used in a comparative sense and don't themselves represent actual emissions in a specific period of time. Additionally, these modeling tools used by the consultant involve a sort of debit credit system where gross greenhouse gas emissions, for example, the emissions of carbon dioxide from combustion to be offset by avoided emissions, for example , avoided carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity generated by a waste energy facility. So for net greenhouse gas emissions, the consultant estimates that a waste to energy facility in its modeling would have comparatively lower greenhouse gas emissions than waste export by rail -0.05 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per ton of waste versus a range of 0.8 to 0.33 using the same metric. The negative result for waste to energy indicates that in the consultant's modeling, the estimated offsets or emissions avoided for things like ash and metals. Recycling at a waste energy facility are greater than the estimated generated emissions. And for reference, this information is further described in the staff report on pages 17 and 21. For comparison, the greenhouse gas emissions estimates in the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which also used the warm tool but included different assumptions, yielded the opposite conclusion and estimated that greenhouse gas emissions for a waste energy facility would be a net positive, meaning emissions are higher than the available offsets. The next rows in the table provide estimates for the total cost and the average cost for that for the proton for the ten, 20 and 50 year time periods. The feasibility study notes that total cost includes capital and operating costs as offset by revenues but does not include some departmental cost, though are assumed to be the same for both options. The consultant concludes, based on its final financial modeling, that the total costs offset by revenues for both long term disposal options are similar in the ten year near term at over $1 billion, but that a waste energy facility could cost less in the 50 year long term, estimating the total cost of waste energy over 50 years at approximately $7.9 billion and a total cost of approximately 11 and $16 billion for waste. Expert by rail. Over the same 50 year period. For comparison, the analysis contained in the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Comparing the to long term disposal options resulted in the opposite conclusion and determined that waste export was the more inexpensive option per tonne. Executive staff provided a memo to the council members by email on October 24th. I described the different assumptions that led to this conclusion. This memo is attached as attachment three to the staff report for your reference. I will now describe the waste to energy sizing options developed by the consultant and provide additional detail about the cost estimates . The bottom of page 11 of your packet discusses the facility size that would be needed to accommodate the county's waste over a 20 to 50 year period beginning in 2025. Based on the high and low bound forecasts described earlier, the consultant developed two facility sizing options, the first with an initial processing capacity of 3000 tons to be expanded to 4000 tons per day in 2048. And the second option a facility with initial processing capacity of 4000 tonnes per day, that would be expanded to 5000 tonnes per day in 2040. And the former refers to the low down forecast and the latter refers to the high down forecast. These initial facility size estimates are lower than the 5000 tonnes per day facility that the 2019 comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan assumed that would be needed and which was based on solid waste division and an external consultant analysis. And just for some context, the county Salt Lake system averaged roughly 2500 tons per day in 2018. The feasibility study indicates that approximately 43 to 55 acres would be needed for a waste energy facility with the processing capacities that I just described. But notes that it's often possible to condense buildings and equipment into a smaller footprint at additional cost, and that the acreage range figure provided represents a slightly larger site requirement than ultimately may be needed. Additional siting needs identified by the consultant are listed on page 12. I'm now moving on to more detail about the cost and financing options found on page. 12. In response to the proviso requirement or a discussion of estimated cost as well as potential financing options. The consultant developed a model financial model that includes the costs for development, construction operation and expansion of a waste energy facility based on the high and low bound forecast estimates again over the 50 year planning period. The feasibility study model assumes a design build operate contract is used, meaning the contracted entity is responsible for design, construction and operation of the county owned facility. Table three summarizes the estimated total cost information for a waste energy facility, including capital costs and operating and maintenance cost. And note that these are the same figures as in table two. Moving on to the following page or initial construction cost estimates, the estimated initial construction costs, according to the study, would range between 1.19 and 1.49 billion, depending on the facility size and for expansion cost between 231 million and 289.5 million. According to the study, these are based on the most recent facility constructed in the United States located in West Palm Beach, Florida, and are adjusted for regional prices for things such as labor sales tax and land acquisition costs. Also included in these estimates is the cost for carbon sequestration, technology and advanced metal recovery equipment, the former of which is anticipated to be required under a new state law concerning electricity sales. And I will discuss that further in a few moments. The consultant assumes a long term bond. That long term bond financing would be used, though notes that other options may be available, but at potentially higher cost. Table five summarizes the estimated operating, operating and maintenance costs for each sizing option offset by revenues. And I would just like to call your attention to an error on this table. So instead of revenue, the column headers should say costs. So my apologies for that error. The rest of the language in the figure is correct. And so the feasibility study provided operating and maintenance costs over a 20 year term, which roughly corresponds to the length of time before the facility would need to be expanded and the remaining 30 year term in the study period. The list on page 14 and 15 summarizes some of the costs included and the assumptions used by the consultant. For example, these costs include the value of an operator contract. Recall that the consultant assumes that the county would use a design build operate contract under the financial model the consultants developed and the this value is based on the actual operating contract for the West Palm Beach facility, as well as the additional costs for operation and maintenance of the carbon sequestration and advance metal recovery equipment. Information about the potential revenue sources are further discussed on pages 16 and 17 of the staff report. However, I'll note that revenue is assumed from electricity sales, sale of recovered metals and from acceptance of out of county waste for a per tonne fee. Executive staff indicate that the available facility capacity for any out-of-county waste was determined by subtracting the projected county waste from the designed capacity of the facility in a given year. However, that actual interest on the part of non county jurisdictions was not specifically evaluated as a part of the study. The consultant indicates that the cost estimates provided are influenced by a variety of variables and assumptions, and so they have identified the top five risks or assumptions impacting the financial model, and these are summarized on table six on page 15. I'll highlight just two of these. The consultant notes that if the larger facility option is selected and the actual waste processed is significantly lower. For example, if the county is not able to secure out of county waste to process as assumed in the model, the cost per ton of waste may increase. Another risk identified by the consultant relates to carbon sequestration. The 2019 Clean Energy Transformation Act, passed by the Legislature this year, imposes new requirements for electricity generation and therefore may influence future electricity revenues should the county decided to move towards waste to energy. Under this law, the feasibility study explains that all retail electricity sales must be carbon neutral by 2030 and by 2045, all utilities in the state must obtain electricity from sources classified as renewable or non emitting. According to the consultant, new waste energy facilities would then likely require carbon sequestration or carbon capture technology and or require the purchase of renewable energy credits to offset emissions in order to meet the carbon neutral goal. However, the consultant suggests that in their analysis, it will be difficult for a waste energy facility to meet the 2045 requirement for renewable or non emitting electricity generation, even with carbon sequestration or capture absent a modification of the rule. The feasibility study also notes some uncertainties related to these technologies at a scale that would be required by the county. The implications of the Clean Energy Transformation Act is further discussed on page 16 of the staff report. And we can interrupt for a moment. Councilmember Dunn on point the modification of the rule set by the state legislature with respect to carbon sequestration goals by 2045. With regard to the implementation of the Clean Energy Transformation. Act, any indication that the legislature was considering waste to energy facilities when they were looking at that rule? I would have to look into some of the legislative history. And I'd be surprised if they were thinking about that, as opposed to things like hydroelectric facilities and other things where we're comfortable with. But we do have our state legislative director here as well as others. It would be something that we can work through. But when you're talking globally about the environmental need to deal with waste and then the fact that in order to do that, you've got to incinerate it, creating energy, that might be a little bit different tack they may be willing to take. And I'm not going to speculate on exactly what they were thinking, but I think there's room there at least to possibly modify some of the state rules. I will note that there is one waste energy facility located in Spokane. So to the extent that the city of Spokane did any lobbying, that it may have been addressed, but I can't speak to. That's good to know. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. So I'll now turn to the study findings for waste expert by rail, which can be found on page 20 of your packet, skipping right ahead. So as I did for waste energy, I'll provide some additional detail related to the estimated costs for waste export by rail. Table nine summarizes the estimated total cost and average cost per ton for both the high and low bound forecasts as before. Total cost includes capital and operating costs, but does not include some departmental costs. The feasibility study notes that a waste expert program would have four major cost components. Construction of an intermodal facility is assumed a transport of waste from the transfer stations to the intermodal facility. Transport of waste by rail to the landfill and the disposal fee at the landfill. The study assumes, again, that current intermodal facilities would not offer sufficient capacity to handle the county's volume of waste. And so the financial model assumes construction of a new intermodal facility financed and constructed by a rail company. Under the model, the rail company would charge the county for these capital expenses in the proton fee charged for waste export by rail. The consultant identified the top five risks or assumptions impacting the financial model, and these are summarized in table ten. I'll highlight three and he lists on page 21. According to the consulting. Interviews with railroad companies. The railroads indicated they're unlikely to grant long term contracts and instead would anticipate offering something in the 5 to 10 year range . The consultant notes that this may result in some uncertainty relating to hauling and disposal costs over the long term. The second note relates to the rail capacity as part of the proviso the consultant was required to review future rail capacity, and that concluded that there appears to be sufficient capacity now to accommodate the region's waste and that there will continue to be some rail capacity in the future. But the availability of that capacity may depend on an entity's willingness to pay. Additionally, the consultant notes that the out of county landfills typically partner with a specific rail hauler, which may make it more difficult to switch landfills and rail hauler at the end of a contract period, particularly if an intermodal facility is constructed with a specific railroad. And that all of this would potentially result in less competition. Flipping ahead to page 23 to the summary of consultant recommendations based on its analysis, the consultant recommends that the county consider pursuing additional preliminary evaluation, permitting and fighting considerations in order to move forward with a waste to energy facility over waste export by rail. Specifically, the feasibility study states that, quote, due to the long term cost savings, improved recycling rates and potential for net greenhouse gas emissions. With the inclusion of carbon capture technology, waste to energy disposal will provide a significant financial and environmental benefit to the county over waste expert by rail . Additionally, even with potential hurdles during the permitting and siting process, waste energy represents a more, much more stable long term financial profile underway. Expert by rail to protect the county's solid waste rate structure against future inflation and escalation, end quote. I'll close my remarks in noting that the proposed motion in front of the committee would acknowledge receipt of the feasibility study and approval would release the funds encumbered by the proviso. However, it would not provide council approval for the next disposal method. The main vehicle for solid waste planning decisions is through updates to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan the council included in the 2019 plan that was adopted earlier this year, a requirement for the Office of Performance Strategy and Budget to engage with the Solid Waste Division, as well as regional partners to develop a plan for long term disposal. With a progress report on that work due to the Council in 2021. That concludes my remarks and I'd be happy to take questions. We also have Dwight Dave Lee from the Office of Performance Strategy and Budget and Pat McLaughlin from Solid Waste available for questions. Thank you very much, colleagues. Council up the Grove. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Chair, I'm not sure. Who to address the question. I looked over. I thought, Jeanie, there are there. Questions. That weren't asked in terms of points of comparison? You know, this was pretty specific about comparing certain factors. I wonder if and I'm not sure if you're the right person to address this, too. However, are there other strengths and weaknesses of the proposals that can be measured with other metrics that weren't addressed in this other environmental output ? Those kinds of things. I would say that the the consultant's work was driven in large part by the budget proviso, which identified a number of very specific requirements to be contained, whether there could be other things included, I would have to think about that more and get back to you or defer to I could of staff. Okay. I'm sorry if there are glaring if either is in feature communication if there's glaring things but what what they didn't look at was X or what. They should have looked at was Y, that kind of thing. And but for. Both this and the previous study. You know the the interesting to me. Council member, Lambert. I don't think you're surprised that I want to talk about this. So one of the comparisons is that the underlying says that we're capturing about 95% of the methane of the land, though we don't really have a way of knowing that for sure. And so I think that the comparisons are very important to look at. And in Germany, which is one of the 13 ways to energy plants I've seen now in the world, and they do a lot of work. And on the website, it says, since the Hamburg facility represents the world's most environmentally sustainable, commercial, proven solid waste solution is not surprising that it serves as the model facility for the European Union and enjoys the exclusive support of the German Green Party as the best available technology for the treatment of solid waste to achieve the Green Party's 2020 concept to avoid landfilling of all degradable solid waste from human activities. And when I was in Germany and talked to the ministers of the environment, they were very proud of what their facility has accomplished as one of the finest in the world. So I think this is really an important study. The experts were asked questions very as much as possible to be comprehensive because this is an important study. And in the study it says that potentially by the year 2035 that our landfill could be filled. And it also says in the study that on the long range, it could take 11 years to get the next facility up and running. So when you think about this being 2020 and you had 11 to that, it's pretty darn close to 2035. So making a decision soon, I think is an important thing that we need to be doing and looking at proven technologies for the size of the volume that we have and also looking at all the byproducts that we would get from this. And there is a reason why the European Union requires this to be in all of their member and member countries so the rest of the world is doing this. There's data online, 24 seven out of Hamburg, so that we can see exactly what's happening. We do not have that same kind of information available for the landfill because it cannot be gleaned where with the waste energy plant it can be cleaned and it meets and exceeds our federal standards. So after 12 years of talking about this, it's very nice to see the report is here and I look forward to people reading it. Council member Done. Thanks for that very good staff report as outstanding and appreciate your work on this. I want to concur with my colleague, Councilmember Lambert and others that this report is well timed after the comprehensive plan that we move forward on solid waste with a ten year provision for the continuation of using the Cedar Hills landfill, followed by possibly , and I hope not a ten year option to continue out there if we can possibly fit anything in. And given the report coming back saying, you know, something like an 8 to 10 year time horizon, assuming that is even is inaccurate, the time to discuss the matter is really now if we are going to seamlessly move to a different technology and get rid of the landfill. The time for this body us to have the conversation is really in the next 12 months. And so I really hope that folks are willing to at least have a conversation that's either go no go decision or sequence the steps so we can do slowly get our feet wet on the matter. Driving towards a point in time which we do have sort of a command decision on what are substantive, solid waste policy is going to be moving forward. So I wanted to flag that we working on this issue. It's an important issue with Councilmember Lambert and Dwight Daley in the executive and others and see if we can't go in a different direction, because the the days of huge monolithic landfills, I think, are are slowly coming to an end. They have to it's just not sustainable into the future. Thank you for your time. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I just want to make two extra quick points that we are preparing to put millions of dollars into a new pit. And I think that that's something we need to be looking at and that those dollars could be used in a much better way. And I want to thank DSB for all their work on this and for Mr. Dave. Like going to Florida to see it. And I'm hoping his capture the executive to go with us. So thank you. And his manager that oversaw the study did an absolutely fabulous job. She didn't have any background in ways to energy, but it didn't take her long to become very well versed. And she was an excellent project manager, so please thank her for her good work. Thank you. Thank you. And Morales, we've complimented PSP in the study. I want to also acknowledge your analysis and review of the study. Substantial study with a key question, a key decision point. This coming before the council with the exceptional analysis that you've presented to us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues prepared to accept the report in Council Member Vale. Did you just make one comment as Richard, please? It's just slightly off topic but related. So I had an opportunity to go visit the landfill last week, which I thank the folks from Solid Waste Division for setting that up. It really is something to see it in operation and all the different challenges and things that they do they work with. I mean, it's a very it's a very modern professional landfill. And but I have to say, watching a truck dump up to 18 tons of waste and then the next trip drive down to do it again and see that there's going to be over 100 trucks like that that day alone and then every day after that. Our challenge isn't just how to get rid of it. Our challenge is to create a lot less waste. We have just got to and this is way bigger than King County, but we have to start to figure out how to produce less waste because our society is going to be drowning in our waste, whether we burn it and bury the ashes and put some of it into the air, whether we bury it in the ground , whether we shoot it into space. There needs to be less of it. And so I just think that that's something that we should be figuring out how we get into our discussions about future planning for waste as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Colwell, would you be willing to put the item before us? Definitely would. Mr. Chair, an acknowledgment to Councilmember Lambert. I moved the proposed motion to move 2019 0429. You're given a do pass recommendation. Councilmember Caldwell's move that we give a do pass recommendation to motion 2019 429 and again, that's simply accepting the report before us make these decisions about our long range waste disposal that are timely for us to be considering now. But the acknowledging that we see the report itself further discussion. Others other than favorably say, But do I need a roll call? I'm sorry. Will you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Duty Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Councilmember Dunn. Hi, Councilmember Gossett. Councilmember Colwell. Councilmember Amber. Hi. Councilmember autograph. All right. Councilmember one right there. Mr. CHAIR. But, Mr. Chair, the. Vote is 19 zero no's. Thank you. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation in motion 2019 429. And can we put that in consent? We'll put that on the consent agenda for at the regular course. That takes us to our next item, which is about how the county can play a more active role in expanding and enhancing the market for

Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing an annual special tax of $0.14 per square-foot for Community Facilities District No. 2007-2 for commercial properties in Belmont Shore for Fiscal Year 2020 and authorizing the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller to be included on the 2019-20 Secured Tax Roll. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_07162019_19-0691

District four i. District five I. District six. District seven i. District eight. And District nine. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you for for passing that. And we will be moving on to the next item, which is going to be item 41. You the Missouri. You please. Report from Public Works recommendation to adopt a resolution establishing an annual special tax of 0.14 per square foot for commercial properties and Belmont Shore for fiscal year 2020, and authorizing the Los Angeles County Auditor Comptroller to be included in the 2019 2020 secured tax role District. Three. Whoever we put in there. Craig Beck, our public works director. And I have a few questions for staff. But excuse. Councilman Price has a few questions. Her staff. We could have the questions and then Craig can answer them. Are you okay? Go ahead and start. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Mayor. Um, so, Mr. Beck, I do have a few questions that have come up on this, and I'm hoping you could clarify them for me. Um, what's the Belarus Fund used as the primary source of repayment of the bond? Or were Mr. revenues used? Councilmember Price. We conducted a review of the Mallory's funding. It collects roughly, say, 65 to $70000, depending on where the assessment rate is set. Our debt service on our bonds is currently about $270,000, so it's really a mixture. The Melrose collected again about 65 to $70000, and then the rest of that is supplemented with parking meter revenue. Okay. So my understanding is that, um, the revenue sources for the annual payment obligations are 200,000 from parking meter revenue. And then the risk assessment. Is that right? Fairly close again. The Melrose Sets collected its first pledge to the debt service, and then the parking meter revenue makes up the difference, and that difference is roughly $200,000. Okay. Was the Belarus Fund used to pay back public works for the immediate improvement and instead of the meter revenue. Councilmember. No, that is not accurate. Again, the assessment for the Melrose is being used for debt service. We utilize parking meter revenue to do the improvements along the Second Street corridor that address the medians and the landscaping and the lights and some of the other enhancements that were made. Okay. I think that's a really important point. So it's it's a it's an unequivocal no. The reason the median repayment was budgeted as the parking meter funds budget, the Melrose Assessment was not used for the meeting. Is that correct? Yes, Councilmember, that's correct. Okay. Um. We have heard some concerns about that. There was supposed to be $700,000 in the Mallory's account. Can you shed some light on that? Councilmember I heard that, but as far as we understand, that is not correct. There was an initial bond offering of about $5.4 million when the bonds were issued in the Melrose was generated. Since then, we've been making repayments to the bond structure. And as mentioned, we're collecting roughly the 65 to $70000. What we are proposing with this action is that we would set the assessment at $0.14. This is a $0.01 decrease from the current fiscal year, which was set at $0.15. We anticipate that. Okay. So I was just going to say, we anticipate the $0.14 will generate roughly $69,000. Okay. So tonight's action would actually be decreasing it from the present 50%. That is correct. If Council approves this item, it would decrease the assessed rate from $0.15 to $0.14. Okay. What is the military spending paying for currently? Councilmember. Currently, all the funds have been expended except for roughly $70,000. It can be used for any parking improvement within the within the district. So most of the funding has already been expended. And at this point, we're just making debt service payments. Okay. And one of the requests that I had from stakeholders in my district was to continue this item to a later date. Is that possible? And if it's not, why is that? Councilmember Yes, we understand that request came forward. Unfortunately, we need to have this item addressed this evening because we have to have information to the county assessor by the end of the month to be able to put the assessment on the rolls. If we do not take action tonight, then the rate would stay at $0.15 for the next year. Okay. And then another area where we had a lot of concerns from some of the stakeholders was on the topic of notice. Can you please share to the best of your ability what the notice requirements are when there is a change in the rate? And, you know, maybe some historical perspective on when the rate has been changed and what type of outreach has been done. Well, I'll do my best. I don't have a long history with this item. I can tell you that the the assessed assessment rate was about $0.12 for a number of years. Recently, we were finding that there was a gap in the amount of money raised to be able to make the payments. So there was a recommendation to increase the $0.15. I believe city staff could have done a better job reaching out and educating the stakeholders about that increase. Unfortunately, that was not done. So you are trying to do that this year. There is not a noticing requirement, but it certainly is a best practice. That we would work with the stakeholders whenever a changes made. Yeah, I agree. And, um, this is obviously something that was initiated by staff and presented to our office as basically a. A necessity and not something that we had too much discussion or outreach on. So I think moving forward, it would be a best practice for us to engage a little bit earlier if there's going to be any rate adjustments. I'm happy to see that the rate adjustment that we're voting on tonight is actually a decrease and that it's getting us closer to the 12% rate that we had for a number of years. And in the future, should there be any sort of rate adjustment? I think it would be important for us to maybe have some discussions or or maybe even an outreach meeting in advance of it coming to council. But I know that you share that that intent with me. So moving forward will make sure that we do that. In regards to tonight's item specifically, are you able to give any sort of prediction as to whether there will be another rate change in the next year or two? Councilmember. I'm not in the prediction business, but my anticipation is that we would leave it at $0.14. Okay. So that so it would not be appropriate for me to ask you to predict what streets are going to get repaved in the next few weeks either. Maybe once you return from vacation, we can have that discussion. That sounds good. Excellent. Thank you very much. I have no additional comments or questions. Thank you, Mrs. Rice. Would you like to continue, Mr. Craig, with your report? Oh, is that it? Vice Mayor I think that we covered all the outstanding questions. I'm happy to go in more detail if the council would like, but I'm fine at this point. Thank you very much. Councilman Orson. Fine, Councilman Ewing. Okay. Do you have any public comment in this? Could you please. Come on. State your name. You have 3 minutes. Sure. Okay. Son I can feel District six. I'll be curious to hear from Mr. Beck about in regards to the roots of this area. You brought up the being decreased from $0.15 to $0.14. I just happened to find online the hundred and 12 page report done by the legal counsel that initiated the original one. I think it's Quinn Quint something Quentin related when you you know, I'm just curious about Proposition 218, which is how this even comes into effect when you change the the tax, the amount of tax for this, which is basically a parcel tax when you change the amount. Isn't there supposed to be some type of like a two thirds approval from voters? That's a question I have. And also, is this decrease within the tax? Because according to the series 29, the expectation for these bonds, it's supposed to be about 75,000 for 2019. Is there any kind of, you know, evaluation in regards to the new development on the second PCH that's coming along? Just curious about these things. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Did you want any answers to those questions or are you just. All right. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Fine. We can go to the vote. This is why. I did want to get some clarification. Okay. Councilman, Arson. City manager. Mr. West, can you answer the question regarding the requirement for a two thirds majority? Sure. Mr. Beck can answer. Sure. Council Member Austin Council Regarding the community's comment. This is an assessment for a specific number of parcels. This is not a citywide assessment. If you think of it, the mailroom is I like to use the term set up similar to kind of in a way where certain property owners are paying rent and those dollars are only used within within certain boundaries. And I think the question was put out, does does the development of the second impact have an impact to this? And as. Of now, this. Project is not within the jurisdiction of these properties. Thank you for answering that. And I was clear. I just wanted to make sure that the public was as well. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry I am on public comments on this item. If not, we will go to the vote just to go. District to district three. I. For. I5ii. Think District six, seven, eight, nine. Designate. Yes. Thank you. But. We move on now to item 43, please. Do you please with the 1843.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7026 for Improvements of the 6th Street Bicycle Boulevard Project; award the contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company, of Brea, CA, in the amount of $821,000, and authorize a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $82,100, for a total contract amount not to exceed $903,100; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments; and Accept Categorical Exemption No. CE-57-09. (Districts 2,3)

LongBeachCC_05092017_17-0354

Thank you. We're going to take a couple out of order here. The next one is 19. That was the first one to be requested to move up the stairs. Take take that one now. Mr.. We'll take a moment. Mr. Vice Mayor, I'll be recusing myself from. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to invite you to to do that. That's fine. Thank you. So we'll take a moment to allow Councilmember Price to exit the room and we'll move forward. Report from Public Works. Recommendation to award a contract to Sally Miller Contracting Company for improvement of the Sixth Street Bicycle Boulevard Project for a total contract amount not to exceed 903,100. District two and three. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Okay. Can we have a brief staff report, please? We can have a brief staff report by Public Works director Craig Beck, who has been working on this for a few years. Okay, it's. Not quite a few years, but I'm getting closer. Vice mayor, member, members of the council this evening, we're pleased to bring before you another evolution in our ever growing master bicycle plan for the city. This is another bike boulevard similar to some that we've implemented on Pacific and Vista. This is on Sixth Street. We believe it's an important East-West connection linking a number of different neighborhoods. We're excited to have this before you this evening and are available to answer any questions. Thank you. Councilmember Pierce. Yes, I did ask for a staff report. Card staff has been working really hard on this and the community members around this bike boulevard are really excited about it. So I want to thank you guys for all the work and I urge my colleagues to support this vote tonight. Well done. Thank you, Councilman Austin. I support. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? Please come forward and you have 3 minutes. Good evening. Know Neal Belmont Heights. I have a question about. Originally this project was proposed as a application for a funding federal fund. Safe routes to school, I believe, was the initial application by Sumi Gant way back in 2011. So my question is, has that grant been granted? I think it was $500,000 initially. Is this contract being paid for partially by that grant or is this going to be city money? So who's paying for the Bike Boulevard? AS My first question and second question is, does this $821,000 cover the complete two and a half miles of the Bike Boulevard from Junipero to Bellflower? And if not, what portions does the $821,000 contract cover? And then my third question is. To date, there has not been any public notifications. To six Street Boulevard. Residents regarding the Bike Boulevard itself. What it's going to look like, how it's going to affect their parking, how it's going to affect their passing through the neighborhood and so forth and so on. And so my question is what sort of public mailings will be issued, public notices about the construction that is apparently, at least under this agenda item going to start in July, which is just very. It's in a couple of months. So I'm a sixth Street resident and I would like to know what the plans are. And will we have will the residents on Sixth Street for. That two and a half miles have public notice of the construction and information that they can be educated and contacts that they can reach if there's any questions? That was it. Thank you for your time. And I know that there's quite a few questions there. Some are outlined in the memo. And Councilman Pearce, do you want to just. Yeah, I was just going to ask Steph, if you could just clarify, one, the funding and to the community engagement process? Yes, certainly, this has been a process that's been evolving. There have been multiple community meetings to talk about the Sixth Street Bike Boulevard. We are prepared to move forward, as you mentioned, in July. So we're roughly 45 days out before we we see a notice to proceed. And all of the funding is from transportation grants. There is no general fund involved with this particular project. And I'm happy to after this item, I can talk to you about specifics and give you my card and you can address any questions you have my way. Banking Council among them. And then just a point of clarification, I appreciate when our city management staff talk about grant funds. They're all tax dollars in one way or another. The difference is also with these types of tax dollars, if we don't apply it, another city would get them. So it's not as though we want to use money on things that we don't need. That's never the goal. But they are grant funds that are specific for a purpose. And so they have to be used within that purpose. And I know that that can often be confusing on some of the other projects we've worked on. When people ask about that variance, I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further comment or public comment or council comment members, please cast your vote.

A RESOLUTION calling on federal government officials to immediately remove U.S. President Donald J. Trump from office by any means permitted by the U.S. Constitution, including impeachment, for violating his oath of office on January 6, 2021 or for committing any other high crimes and misdemeanors.

SeattleCityCouncil_01112021_Res 31985

Will the clerk please read item one into the record? Agenda Item one, Resolution 319 85, calling on federal government officials to immediately remove U.S. President Donald J. Trump from office by any means permitted by the U.S. Constitution, including impeachment, for violating his oath of office on January six, 2021, or for committing any other high crimes and misdemeanors . Thank you, Madam Clerk. I need to adopt resolution 31985. Is there a second? I. Thank you so much has been made and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Herbold. You are the lead sponsor on this resolution and are recognized in order to address the item. And then we can hear from Councilmember Peterson, who I understand is also a co-sponsor of the resolution. But Councilmember Herbold, first. Thank you so much. As I mentioned this morning, this resolution was written in conjunction with local progress and is based on a draft article of impeachment from Representative Ilhan Omar. I've learned this morning that our sister city in local progress will Minneapolis will be taking a similar action on Wednesday, and I suspect other cities will follow this resolution. The content of it has, of course, been reviewed and approved by the Law Department and the Office of Intergovernmental Relations. This is an updated version that includes changes from Councilman Peterson. Thank you to Councilmember Peterson and your staff for providing valuable input. I want to uplift some of the the elements of the resolution. As mentioned, it mirrors the introduced resolution that accompanies the article of impeachment introduced in the House of Representatives, urging Donald Trump with incitement of insurrection in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States. It further states that Donald Trump suggested that the Georgia secretary of state should overturn verified Georgia state results of the presidential election, and he repeatedly made false claims that he won the election. This person has used the presidency to incite violence and orchestrate an attempted coup across our country. And against our country. This effort has injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced members of Congress, the vice president and staff, and interfered with the congressional duty to to inconsistent with the Constitution to certify election results. This person demonstrates with his words and his actions that he will remain a threat to the national security and democracy of our country and warrants impeachment and trial removal from office and disqualification to hold any future office in the United States of America. I also want to condemn the possibility of any threat in Olympia and state legislatures across the country. As I think we all know, the FBI has warned of armed protests being planned at all 50 state capitals. And as mentioned this morning in council briefings, our thoughts and hopes are with our delegation and the rest of the legislature in fulfilling their obligations to the the the constituents of Washington state, and that they do so in in safety and security. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold. I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Peterson next as one of the other co-sponsors of this resolution and then colleagues, if anyone else would like to make comments, please do let me know by either raising your hands to the camera or using the raise the hand feature in, say, one customer . Peterson, please. Thank you council president and thank you councilmember herb all for your leadership on this. On January 20th, 2017, Donald J. Trump swore an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. On January six, 2021, the Associated Press reported. And we witnessed with our own eyes the shocking video of a violent mob loyal to President Trump storming the U.S. Capitol. Forcing lawmakers into hiding in a stunning attempt to overturn America's presidential election, undercut the nation's democracy, and keep Democrat Joe Biden from replacing Trump in the White House. This is as reported by the Associated Press. The rioters were egged on by Trump, who spent weeks forcefully attacking the integrity of the election and had urged his supporters to descend on Washington, D.C., to protest Congress's formal approval of Biden's victory. Five Americans are dead. President Trump has violated his oath of office. As someone who has had the honor to work inside those sacred halls of the Capitol building in our nation's capital. I'm eager to join the call for federal government officials to safeguard peace, security and democracy for our nation and its people by immediately removing President Donald Trump from office by any means permitted by the U.S. Constitution. And so one of the things we added to this was to basically expand it so that it could be through any means under the U.S. Constitution, in addition to the impeachment articles that are proceeding through the House of Representatives. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. And I do want to thank both you and Councilmember Herbold for getting together offline to coordinate efforts around the proclamation. Both of you had expressed independently interest in pursuing a resolution. And again, I want to thank you for. You guys. Making it a little easier for us on the council to just do some of that background work, to coordinate and give us one unified resolution to consider. So my my deep appreciation to both you and House members for those. Efforts. And to your staff, of course. Okay, colleagues, I haven't seen anybody raise their hand using the A Zoom feature, but I just just want to sort of do a quick scan. Again, I think I just saw councilmember sergeant who also wants to make comments. And again, if anyone else would like to make a comment on the resolution before I call the roll, please do let me know as soon as possible, because we're. Thank you. I'm glad to vote in favor of this resolution supporting the impeachment of Donald Trump. Donald Trump should have been impeached long ago. He should have been impeached for massive corporate tax cuts and handouts, including to his own companies at the expense of vital social services for elderly failing to represent working people, and instead representing the billionaire class beginning with himself. He should have been impeached for an utterly criminal approach to the COVID 19 pandemic, which has undoubtedly directly cost tens of thousands of lives. He should have been impeached for caging children. He should have been impeached for sexually assaulting so many women. And frankly, it is unfortunate that the establishment of the Democratic Party has done so little to fight his far right agenda over the past four years. Impeachment at this time would be symbolic. I fully support it because we need to make crystal clear that there is no support for this right wing violence. But impeachment in the last few days of the Trump presidency are not a substitute for a concerted resistance to his agenda over the last four years, or to building a left alternative to the right wing going forward with mass protests, labor mobilizations and political demands that would genuinely help working class people like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. There could have been grassroots organizing that could have destroyed Trump's legitimacy by promoting a genuine progressive alternative to the corporate establishment and also the right populism. But Trump took advantage of the vacuum on the left and again was able to falsely pretend to be that anti-establishment alternative. And on that basis, he won over 74 million votes in the last election and has widespread support, which should alarm anyone serious about fighting the right. Biden won over 81 million votes. He is the first U.S. presidential candidate to have won more than 80 million votes. But Trump won over 74 million votes, which is more votes than any other presidential candidate has ever won. With the exception of Biden. We know that all of this will do lasting damage unless we build the left and social movements. Wednesday's far right mob in DC, in a violent attempt to overturn a democratic election result, should be understood as a wake up call for the left. Not surprisingly, media the media report there are now warnings of plans for more armed, far right pro-Trump protests at all 50 state capitals and in Washington, DC, in the days leading up to Joe Biden's inauguration, stoking fears of more bloodshed. The right will continue to scarily grow as long as there is no alternative to the status quo of corporate politics. But despite their differences, the two parties serve the interests of big business and put the burden of the COVID crisis and brutal recession on ordinary people in Seattle. Most immediately, our movement needs to make sure the City Council is accountable to the Black Lives Matter movement, to the working class and all those fighting the right buy and make sure that all council members work correctly today. Going to be voting yes on the Impeach Trump resolution should also make sure to pass the strongest possible ordinance on the ban on police use of the so called crowd control weapons. And I wanted to be clear that my office looks forward to working with any and all council members who want to make sure that the best and strongest possible ordinance is upheld. And nationally, the best and only way to stop the far right is to build the left and social movements. This is the only way we are going to pull millions of ordinary people away from the right wing's influence by building a powerful fightback for the interest of the working class and where actual fascists are in the street, they should be met by a massive show of force led by unions and the left. This week we heard the inspiring announcement of employees at Google forming the Alphabet Workers Union. This is a step in the direction of what is urgently needed the rebuilding of a militant American labor movement. We cannot expect Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi to provide any alternatives. That is why I have endorsed a grassroots Force the Vote campaign, which is demanding that the squad and other movement elected Democrats use a floor vote on Medicare for All as part of a larger strategy to build a fighting movement for socialized medicine. Representatives of working people cannot support a corporate tool like Nancy Pelosi continuing as Speaker of the House, while millions face misery as even the squad members have unfortunately done. While I agree Trump should be impeached, this cannot be our main focus. The Left has the responsibility to address the urgent needs of the working class, and that means, as a starting point, fighting tooth and nail for Medicare for All. Comprehensive COVID Relief. A Socialist Green New Deal. And preparing the ground to launch a new party. This is a critical juncture in history, and we cannot accept a false unity with the corrupt Democratic establishment. But instead, we need to build a powerful unity of millions of working people and the oppressed to fight for a different kind of society. The final point I would make is that we need to be clear about what needs to be condemned. I condemn Trump's violence and the right wing bigoted agenda that it serves. I condemn Trump's authoritarianism and his attempt to steal the election. A democratic election result. I condemn this con man for posing as a representative of working people while actually being an utterly reactionary representative of the rotten billionaire class. We do have to be careful about using words like, quote unquote sedition and quote unquote treason in a way that can backfire on working people. These words have been used by elected officials throughout the nation since Wednesday. These are words that are used overwhelmingly to attack movements of progressives and socialists and the labor movement. In 1919, the great American Socialist Eugene Debs was sentenced to a decade in prison for sedition and was a charge for speaking out against World War One courageously . That same year, Seattle's Socialist, another strong the last socialist elected in Seattle before me, was part of a movement against World War One. She publicly and courageously stood by the Wobblies or the Industrial Workers of the World and one of their staff members who was then jailed on sedition charges for opposing the war. Soon after that, Strong herself was recalled from office and the school board for her association with the Wobblies and those who were courageously opposing World War One. This act of 1940 was created in response to attacks by the far right, but was then used to attack the left and the labor movement. Thank you. And I will vote yes on this important resolution. Any additional comments about this resolution? Councilmember Lewis, please. Thank you, Madam President, I. I wasn't planning on saying anything, but I want to share a couple of brief comments, because I do want to point out that because there's been some speculation in the media of if it's strategically worth it to impeach Trump or what the value of impeaching Trump at this late stages. And it's important to note that the Constitution provides that when someone's impeached, they're disqualified from holding that office in the future. President Trump is currently eligible, even having so nakedly violated the trust in his oath to run again and any point in the future in a presidential election or hold other federal offices. So this impeachment is more than symbolic. On this important future, it is critical to the future America we want to build. And I do want to share just an observation about some news that I had actually wanted to talk about briefly in briefing. But I have forgotten. But I think it is just important to point out that, you know, before we saw the worst of America on Wednesday, we saw the best of America on Tuesday, when the people of Georgia sent. The pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, the Ministry of Dr. King, Raphael Warnock, and the son of Jewish immigrants, Jon Ossoff, to the Senate, in violation and in condemnation or in condemnation of the divisive politics of President Trump and an explicit rejection of senators who had been running on a campaign of virulent racism and confrontation and the kind of divisiveness that Trump has attempted to cultivate and that the Democrats, for the first time in ten years, following on the disastrous results of President Trump just to comment on the news, have unified control of the federal government on policies and platforms in stark contrast to the vision of this country that President Trump has perpetrated. And I just want to lift up briefly in a in a limited to to the extent that I can hear that that was only due to incredible effort of normal people in communities and neighborhoods all over this country who were apolitical, who never voted, who were never involved, who were never active, who saw it as their duty to get involved, to organize and to push. And it's in no small effort the result of the organizing fair fight Georgia did for voter integrity and security, or Stacey Abrams as a community and movement leader in that state that we have seen these results. So I am I am optimistic that the spirit that was present on Tuesday is going to be a guiding force of American politics to come in the future instead of the division and treason that we saw on Wednesday. And this resolution gets us closer there by encouraging the Congress to reject and firmly reject this man and this man's politics and to bar him from ever holding this office in the future to bar him from drawing a pension for that office. And there are lots of other relevant considerations to taking this action. So I did just want to mention that and state that I will be very enthusiastically voting for this. And I want to thank Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Peterson for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for those comments. Colleagues, any additional comments on the resolution? I do want to give the sponsors of the resolution the last word. To the extent that they have anything else to add, Council Herbold or Casper Peterson. Okay. I am receiving visual cues that that that there are no additional comments that either of the sponsors would like to make. So I'm going to go ahead and ask that the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution. Herbold. Yes. Suarez, I. Lewis Yes. Morales s macheda. Yes. Peterson Yes. So what? Yes. Strauss Yes. President Gonzalez, I nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign. It will please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Other business. Is there any further business to come before the Council? A hearing nun colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Tuesday, January 19th, 2021, at 2 p.m.. Of course, Monday is an observed holiday, so our full council meeting, instead of being on Monday in our council briefing, instead of being on Monday, will be on Tuesday, January 19th, 2021 at 2:00. So I want to thank you all for your hard work today and hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon and evening. We are adjourned.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light and Seattle Public Utilities Departments; temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts; superseding several sections under Title 21 that authorize and require the collection of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts; declaring an emergency; and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_03192020_CB 119758

Agenda item two? Constable 119 758. Relating to the City Light and Seattle. Public Utilities. Departments temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts, superseding several sections under Title 21 that authorize and. Require the collection of interest on delinquent utility. Consumption and utilization accounts. Declaring an. Emergency and. Establishing an immediate effective date all by 3/1 vote of the City Council. Thank you to the clerk for that. We're going to go through the same process that we did with item number one. So I'm going to move to pass it. I'll need a second. Then we will go ahead and invite the prime sponsor, who is Councilmember Peterson, to speak to the bill. We will then suspend the rules to allow central staff to address the council and answer any questions. Councilmember Peterson and I believe Councilmember Lewis have some substitutions and an amendment, and then we will go ahead and consider those and then vote on the full bill. So that is the the run of show, as they say, for this particular item. So I'm going to move to pass Council Bill 119758. Second. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill again. Council members please note that Eric McKinney and Brian Goodnight of Council Central Staff have joined this meeting. Should you have any questions? I will move to suspend the rules if there are any questions for central staff after the prime sponsor speaks to the bill. Councilmember Peterson, would you like to address this bill? Yes. And welcome back, Council President Gonzales. And thank you for leading with a moment of silence for all of those suffering from the COVID 19 emergency. So with this of course, with this public health emergency becoming an economic crisis to all levels of government need to provide immediate financial relief. And that includes relief from the utility bills that all households, small businesses and nonprofits face each month with necessary public health protocols resulting in restaurants, cafes, other social establishments closing. Many of our neighbors are seeing reduced paychecks or layoffs, and the last thing they need to worry about are bills for essentials like electricity, water and garbage removal . So this legislation I'm sponsoring, council bill 119758 will waive all late fees for utility bills to provide additional relief for hundreds of thousands throughout Seattle during this crisis. In addition to thanking the mayor, I'd like to commend both Deborah Smith of Seattle City Light and Mummy Hara, the head of the Seattle Public Utilities. This effort builds upon a separate policy of no shutoffs, which is a humane policy that our utility departments put in place in large part due to the leadership of Councilmember Mosquito. I also want to thank Councilmember Ed Lewis for requesting an amendment that we will consider shortly that will make it crystal clear that nonprofit 501c3 organizations would also benefit from this legislation. This ordinance would waive late fees and interest charges from both Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities until the mayor's emergency declaration is terminated, or August one, which whichever comes first. If the COVID 19 emergency lasts beyond August one, the Council can take additional action to extend this waiver. So I am prepared to move the substitute and I can explain that, but let me know if that's the appropriate time. I think what we're going to do first is I'm going to go ahead and suspend the rules to allow council central staff to address the council if they need to, and then we can go ahead and move it into substitution. In the last Council member Peters, do you believe that speaking to the substitution first would be would allow for a smoother conversation with council central staff. Yes. The substitute is is fairly simple in that it makes it. Yeah. Why don't you go ahead and go through the substitution first. Just describing it will will hold off on the moving of the substitution until after we've had an opportunity to hear from council central staff. So go ahead and speak to that substituted substitution. Sure. So version two, the substitute makes it easier to administer this ordinance by clarifying that the income for small businesses is based on the annual receipts from 2019. It also adds some, whereas clauses to underline the public health emergency that we are in. Great. That's a very simple, clearer explanation of that substitution. I appreciate that. I'm going to go ahead and suspend the rules now. So if there is no objection, the council rules will be suspended to have council central staff address the council. Hearing no objection. The rules are now suspended. And I would invite Eric and Brian to provide us with any additional information about this particular council bill for consideration by council members. Hello. This is the Carnegie on the council's central staff. Thank you, Consul President. At this point, I don't have anything that I think is more clear than has been already offered. I am on the line. It would be happy to answer any questions. I will add a separate from the bill. It's already been mentioned that this bill is a part of a package utility relief that the city is offering. Under the emergency, the utilities will not be shut off. Folks can apply for flexible payment plans and the utility discount program has been opened up more broadly for folks to self-certify and make it easier for people to get into that program. So I just wanted to take the moment to mention those aspects of utility relief the city is offering in tandem with the effects of this bill. Great. Brian, anything to to add? I don't have anything at this time. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Eric and Brian, for being on the line and for and for being available for questions. So I'm going to go ahead and in the same fashion as I did on item one, I'm going to roll call each of you to see if any of you have any questions. If you do not have questions, just say that you do not. And we'll go ahead and move on to considering the substituted version of the bill. So we'll start with Councilmember Herbold. Any questions for council central staff or the prime sponsor? Yes. Thank you for council central staff as it relates to the impact of the bill, both to the utilities in the reduced. Revenue in. Interest payments, as well as the reduction to the general fund, the estimate to the reduction to the general fund. Can you let us know whether or not these impacts are eligible for. Federal. Reimbursement? Councilmember, thank you for the question. This is Brian Goodnight. I believe we would have to check with the department about that. That's not information that we have at this time. I think it might be useful for all of these bills coming forward that have financial impacts that I would have thought to ask, I might have asked as it related to additional CDBG fund allocations in the future or. Reimbursement. Under the COVID 19 crisis. It might just be a good standard practice for all of these revenue impacts to ask CBO whether or not the actions that we're taking to that that have financial impacts are our actions that we can receive reimbursement for under COVID 19. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember. We will follow up with you on that. Any other questions, Councilmember Herbold? None. Thank you so much. Councilor Morales, any questions or comments on the bill for counsel, central staff or the prime sponsor? I don't have questions, but I second Councilmember Herbold request that we keep in mind anything that we could possibly get reimbursed for later. I'm sure CBO is doing that, but the recovery plan is also on my mind, and that's an important piece of it. Great. Thank you. Council Salon. Any questions for council central staff of the prime sponsor or comments about the bill? None. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, I know you've already spoken to the bill, but any additional questions for council central staff or comments that you'd like to make? No, thank you. Councilmember Suarez, same questions or comments. About the. Building. Thank you. Councilmember strauss, any questions or comments about the bill? Great Bill. No comments, little questions. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, any questions or comments about the bill? Not at this time. Thank you. And Councilmember mosqueda, any questions or comments about the bill? Thank you. The president I first, I want to thank Councilmember Peterson for all of your work that you're doing for those who are on limited incomes already, and especially thinking about them in the post-COVID world as it relates to families and to businesses. Given the financial impact that this public health crisis could have. I want to also come in the folks at Seattle City Light, who we've been engaged with since Mesa last year. Thank you for the shout out early, Erica Peterson and a huge shout out to the folks at Seattle City Light for their creative thinking, not only with stopping the implementation of shut off notices, but to being really open and receptive to community feedback on how to improve a number of their communications. So I look forward to a future conversation in your committee. Councilmember Peterson, where I think our council colleagues will be able to hear a number of provisions that they've put into place. Waiving late fees is a really great first step. And some of the other things that they're looking at that we really appreciate is how to simplify the language to make sure that notifications are less scary and intimidating, especially in times like these. Ensure that we're using language that is inviting to understand the ways in which payments can be done. And I'm looking forward to a future conversation about basically debt forgiveness at some point, given some of the conversations that have happened in other municipalities. As I say that I also recognize we need to be looking at the revenue impacts. And in our conversations with the Budget Director of Venable, we've been asking a number of questions on each of the executive orders. I really appreciate the suggestions from our colleagues to make sure that that is presented as we look at the various executive orders. I will echo that call and look forward to the future conversations about how we not only address the crisis now, but make sure that we're budgeting for the future recovery and that the funding going, especially to those in the biggest crisis. And right now, I think that this is an excellent example of us following through on those priorities and values in this legislation. So thanks again to Councilmember Peterson and to the mayor's office for their good work on this. Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda. That concludes the roll call on any questions or comments on the bill. I want to thank Council Central Staff Brian and Eric for being available for questions and for presentation. Thank you so much for being available. So I'm going to go ahead and hand it back to Councilmember Peterson, who needs to say the magic words, move the substitution formally. Yes, I'd like this is Councilmember Peterson. I move to amend council bill 119758 by substituting version two. Version two is, as I described earlier. And we need a second. Second back. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to substitute the bill. Councilmember Peterson has already addressed the substitution as the prime sponsor of that substitution. Are there any other comments on the substitute? Hearing none will the clerk call the roll on the substitute. Councilmember Strauss. I. Councilmember Herbold. I. Council member, Maurice. I. Council member, Lewis. Hi. Councilmember Morales. I. Councilmember Macheda. I. Councilmember Peterson. I. Council members want. I. President Gonzalez, I. Nine in favor, nine opposed. Thank you. The motion carries and the bill is amended. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Councilman Peterson, any additional comments? Well, I would like to discuss amendment number one, which was published along with the agenda. Excellent. So I will go ahead and hand it over to you to discuss and ultimately move amendment number one. Thank you, Council President. So amendment number one, which was published along with this agenda, would amend section two of the substitute. And what it does is and I want to thank Councilmember Andrew Lewis for raising this and working with me and central staff on this to get this done. It will clarify, make it crystal clear that nonprofits are also getting the waiver of the late fees. So what it does is in section two, it adds a subclause, saying customers that are nonprofit organizations as defined under Seattle Municipal Code Section 5.30.040. C and basically saying that's 501c3 organization. So what we would consider as a traditional mission driven nonprofit would be crystal clear that they are exempt or we were giving the fees for them to. Great. I'm going to go ahead, Casmir Peterson, and ask you to say the magic words and move this for consideration. And then we'll go ahead and open it up for questions or comments. Thank you. So I move to amend Council Bill 119758 Section two as presented on Amendment one on the agenda. Second. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill. Councilmember Peterson has already spoken as to that amendment as the prime sponsor. Are there any comments or additional information for Council member consideration by Council central staff? Uh, President, this is Carnegie. I don't have anything to add. Great. And Brian, nothing bad. Nothing to add. Thank you. Great. Excellent. Okay. Are there any comments on the proposed amendment? Uh, that's Councilmember Lewis. Madam President, I have a couple of questions at the appropriate time. Yes. Council member Lewis. The floor is yours for questions. Oh, sorry. Well, I. I don't have any questions. I just have a comment. Great, Councilman. No. I just. I called for question. Sounds like nobody had any questions. I'm now going to hand it over to you to provide some comments on the bill, please. All right. Thank you. So I just want to first thank Councilmember Peterson for working with me on this and putting this amendment forward. Obviously, District seven has a massive concentration of arts organizations in the city. The arts are really, really reeling from the response from COVID 19, given that so many of our artistic events involve gatherings of large numbers of people . They have just been absolutely slammed as an industry with a lot of workers who, as we know, unfortunately, do not receive the renumeration that they should for the cultural contributions that they make so they have a particularly vulnerable population. One thing that has come up in talking to arts organizations in my district is that utilities are an ongoing concern for them. Most of them are organized as mission driven nonprofits. So I just wanted to make sure that the opportunities that we are looking to create, to provide relief through this ordinance, be set up in such a way that those arts organizations could take advantage of this as well. So I want to thank him for his leadership. It's been good to work with him on this over the last couple of days, and I do hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the amendment. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, are there any other comments on the amendment? Hearing not. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. Council President. This is Tourism Council Member Locator. Um, I do have a question, and I hope it's appropriate to ask an hour of central staff. I can hold it for the overall bill if that's more appropriate. If it's a question about the overall bill, I'd ask you to hold that question for when I solicit comments and questions about the the bill as a whole. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Great. Okay. So we're are just voting on the amendment right now. So we'll if are there any other comments or questions about the amendment? A hearing on Will Clarke call the role on the amendment. Council member strauss. I. Council members are both. I. Councilmember suarez i. Councilmember Lewis. I. Councilmember Morales. I councilmember muscular. I. Councilmember Peterson. I. Councilmember. So what? I. President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor, nine opposed. Thank you so much. The motion carries and the bill is amended. Are there any questions or comments on the bill as amended? And I believe, Councilman Mosquito, you indicated that you had a question. Thank you so much, council president. This may be a question for either the sponsor or the central staff. Our utility fees also waived for our nonprofit partners in in contracts with the Human Services Department and other city providers. Yes. Because they would be under this definition of the Seattle Municipal Code, the 501c threes. Thank you for clarifying that. Thank you so much, Councilmember Ms.. Mascara. Any other questions or follow up? No, I just I think that that's an important reminder for folks. A lot of our service providers are really trying to stretch their dollars right now as they respond to the COVID crisis as well. So I think this is going to be very welcome for them. Um, I think that Plymouth and the City, for example, we saw their presentation in years past about the cost of utilities. So thank you for thank you for that clarification. Great. Thank you so much for the for the question. Are there any other comments or questions on the bill as amended? Harry Dunn. Will the clerk call on the passage of the bill as amended? Councilmember Strauss. I. Councilmember Herbold. I asked Councilmember Juarez. I. Council member, Lewis. By Councilmember Morales. I council member must get up. I don't remember Peterson. I never saw one. I President Gonzalez I nine in favor and then opposed. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? All right, folks, that was our last item of business on the agenda. And we have no other items to discuss for today. So that concludes our item of business on today's agenda. Our next meeting will be Monday, March 23rd at 2 p.m.. Council is now adjourned. Thank you all and be safe and healthy.

Consider Directing the City Manager to Create Breastfeeding Locations, Baby Changing Stations and Gender Neutral Bathrooms. (Councilmembers Vella and Oddie)

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6645

Considered directing the city manager to create breastfeeding locations, baby changing stations and gender neutral bathrooms. The Senate was placed on the agenda at the request of councilmembers Bella and Odie. Take it away. So, you know, I've kind of talked about this a little bit, but essentially, you know, I'm a little embarrassed that it took me being pregnant to kind of start noticing these things, even though I've been babysitting my nieces and stuff. And I think during my swearing in, we had a bit of a trouble changing her because of the, the, the lack of changing stations. But I, I part of why I put this on is, and I do want to correct one thing. There's a little bit of misinformation out there that we don't have anywhere in City Hall to breastfeed or for nursing mothers to pump. And, you know, essentially before Nancy got here, some folks were using the the loft up there as a space, obviously not during council meetings, but staff were using that as as their area to to pump. Nancy has opened up the and offered the conference room. This is Nancy Bronstein, our h.r. Director. And has has made that available. That said, in in some of our buildings, we don't have those areas. And in a way, our conference room isn't really the most ideal place. And so part of this is, is, you know, I looked at some other options. There are options out there that are available that don't require, you know, massive construction or change to the building structure on their pods that you can get. They range in in different prices. And so I would I just want to make sure that I would like to as to give direction not just for me, but I think also just for all of the staff that we have that are impacted really both here, City Hall, West and other city buildings to go ahead and look at at making those changes or acquiring that so that we can we can make our city buildings accessible and safe for nursing mothers. Councilmember Ody has also joined me. The other things and I've talked with Liam Garland, our director of Public Works, about the changing stations and the signage and he said that both of those would be kind of minimal costs. We have those items and they're they're fairly easy fixes. It's just a matter of kind of going through and making sure that we can get them actually installed. And so I would also like us to give that direction to make sure that all of our bathrooms, both here, City Hall West, especially because we have members of the public coming, are accessible. And I think that that's both for the changing stations and the gender neutral bathrooms that we really have made our our buildings, our civic buildings safe and accessible for members of the public and welcoming. Thank you. Okay. Anything from you? I'll just second everything that Malia said and glad that she was able to talk about it this late, this late hour. I just think it's important that, you know, we have signs back there and all across town that say everyone belongs here. And, you know, just like the mayor mentioned with our fleet. I think it's important to put our money where our mouth is and walk the walk and not just talk the talk. And, you know, there are people that don't feel comfortable using either the male or female bathroom. And I think we need to be able to provide options for them. So all of our transgender folks are welcome here in Alameda and that we actually show them by our actions that they're welcome. And, of course, the the the nursing or the pumping is like a no brainer. I don't I don't know why it wasn't done before, but thanks for bringing that up. Okay. So then if I and anybody else else want to comment and do we need a motion or just to give staff direction, what's the best way to do it, Mr. Rush? I'm I'm I'm a little uncertain about what the policy has been with regarding that. I assume it would just be direction, but I will defer to the city clerk on this issue. I think, as long as the council expresses consensus. But you could also take a vote. I think it's been done both ways. But just so. Move approval of the referral. Okay. All right. We have a motion and we have a second and the referral to consider directing the city manager. To do. To have a direct yeah. To direct the city manager to create breastfeeding locations, baby changing stations in gender neutral bathrooms. All those in favor I opposed abstain. The motion passes unanimously. Okay, let's move on to. Hello. Are we at Council Communications? I think we are OC Council Communications. Any I can address, any matter. Not on the agenda. And you won't have a council communication. Okay. If hearing them. Let's move on to ten. A vice mayor?

Amends the process for approving contracts via City Council in order to save time and administrative costs.

DenverCityCouncil_07062015_15-0371

Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that council bill 371 series of 2015 be placed on be ordered published. It has been moved in seconding Councilwoman Ortega, your amendment. Mr. President, I move that council bill 371 be amended by inserting that intergovernmental agreement that require council approval or on line one of page two after the words, however, and before the word that. So if I can explain what this is. Just. We need a second person. Yeah, we got the move and we got the second time for comments. Councilman, I take it you're up. So what this amendment does is it will continue to keep inter-governmental agreements as to reading ordinances and separated out from the contracts. So although our attorney city attorney's office considers ideas intergovernmental agreement as contracts, this amendment would have IGAs and continue to be reviewed as they are today. So they will not fall under the language of this particular ordinance. It removes them and keeps them as a two reading ordinance. That's awesome. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any comment on the amendment? Governor Leavitt. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I just we had a long discussion of this in committee or one of the many committees that this was discussed in. And I think this is a worthy addition to the, uh, to the ordinance. If you think about it, you know, there's a a zillion contracts that pass across our desk. Most of them are uncontroversial. We've talked about that. The ones that do generate any controversy. And many of those actually are intergovernmental agreements. We treat them as contracts, but those are the ones that do tend to generate a little bit more scrutiny. So if those are the ones that fall into a different category, it makes sense that we treat them as a different category. And I think Councilwoman Ortega's amendment does just that. And so I'll be supporting that. Thank you, Councilman Levitt. Any other comments on the amendments for 371? Seen none. We're voting on the amendment. Madam Secretary, Raquel. Ortega. I. Brooks. I brown. I can eat lemon. Lopez, Montero, Nevitt. Hi, Rob. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. Tonight. Tonight, 371 has been amended. Now, counsel, whenever we need a motion to order published as amended. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 371 series of 2015 be ordered published as amended. Thank you. Comments. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So when this particular ordinance was brought forward to committee that I chair, I had some concerns about. What was being asked of us, basically by taking all contracts from what is now to reading by ordinance to one reading by resolution. I supported the change to the rule and the amendment, but in general I do not support compromising our process. And when this was brought to us, we were told that we would save eight days in the contracting process and about $39,000. We were given different information today that related to staff time when we have people from the different agencies who have to come down here on Monday night when we were dealing with the issue. But technically these are salaried employees, so they're going to get paid the same whether they're here or not here. So I just think that with Denver being a strong mayor form of government that for city council to change the rules, to not allow ourselves to have the two reading time frame. And I do appreciate the amendment to the rules that Councilwoman Kim each brought forward, because if this does pass, that at least still gives any one council member the opportunity to hold it up for a week or to have it go back to committee. But I think in general, the contracting process, which I've had an opportunity to participate in when I was part of the Department of Human Services, where I had to do a number of contracts with service providers. First of all, there's no systematic way that every single agency does the contracts the same way in ensuring that as staff changes happen, that the new person that has to do the contract has clarity and understanding on all those procedural steps they have to go through with the vendors to ensure that, you know, what's being done is one agency is consistently being done in another agency. And until I see that all of that has been shored up and the shortening of the time frame is is one that, in fact, works for everybody. I'm not willing to support this ordinance change. So I just wanted to explain my no vote on the ordinance itself. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. I think you've made a point. And the last the last time I spoke about it and the reasons why I to start with Councilman Councilwoman Ortega, I just think this is a power that we have that we've had for a very long time. And it's a very important process. We shouldn't forsake it. There's a reason why it kind of sit for two weeks. And when we've we've actually shined a light on some of these contracts, we had a validity to create some accountability. That's exactly why, again, there's a lot of bills that go through. There's a lot of contracts that go through. These are few and far between, but they are very important and I think we are doing ourselves a disservice and the legislative branch to be voting against our own process here. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. Two points at the time when in the eighties, when council achieved the power of reviewing contracts over $500,000, resolutions were used primarily the way we use proclamations today to take perhaps a legislative position beyond our own powers on a city council to recommend something to the state or federal government, or to commend a person who has served the city well, either as a private citizen or a city employee. And we didn't have the form of resolutions. So I don't see this as taking away as much power. Council didn't even have that option on the table when when they first gained that power. And as I explained before, I think we have ensured that the power is preserved through the rule change. The second point I would make is Councilman Brown and I served on a committee to try to speed up contracts through the city process. And the process has been shortened in terms of if everything goes barring human error goes as should go, it's a shorter process before we even do this. But the reason we did that good times or bad times aside, is to get the contracts on the street and create jobs sooner. And I think that's a pretty powerful reason to do this more than the filing fee. Or the publication fees of the ordinance. I think it really is about keeping people at work in this city, getting work done efficiently in the city. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez, you know the comment. Yeah. I mean, not to why? I guess we are being argumentative again. Like I said, it's all hunky dory when you're part of the majority. It's all hunky dory. Hunky dory when it's, you know, when it's not of concern. But there's like I said, through the contracting process, there's there's a lot of there's a lot of politics involved. And women and minorities get the shaft. And we actually have had a study that was commissioned that showed even not to pick on the airport. I think we had a great airport and great staff there and here, but it showed that there was discrimination and show that there was not enough representation of those of those populations in our contracting process, the folks that are awarded contracts. And when you look at jobs, I'd love to take a look at how many jobs are created. I love for them to say that in every contract. And how many of those are going to Denver residents? Right. And so that's that's those questions are asked when somebody brings it up, whether it's a whistleblower on the inside, whether it's a member of the public, because we see so many of these come through, we can't catch all of them. And we need the time to be able to look at those. That's why that exists, because we need to correct that. We need to make sure that the process is fair. And we it's been proven that it hasn't been fair. And yes, we may have not had it since Denver was founded, but it is a process that a council of the people that represented the people agreed to do and agreed to take on. And, you know, it doesn't hurt us to stay a little longer on Monday night to get it done. Just ensure that equity. Right. And that's that's what it's about at the end of the day. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. All right. Any other comments on 371 as amended? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call. Can each. Hi. Lehman. Hi. Lopez. No. Montero. I nevett. I. Ortega. No. Rob Brooks Brown. Hi. Mr. President. I. Councilman Ortega, your vote. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please. Because we've only announced the results. Eight eyes, two nays, 82 nays. 371 has been ordered. Published as amended. Well, Madam Secretary, I believe that was it. So we are now ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Nevett, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption and a block? Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that the following resolutions all series of 2015 be adopted in a block council resolution for 86 for 80 7409 for 31 and for 32. Got them all seen? No comment. Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks Brown. I can each layman. Lopez, Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting results tonight. Tonight, as resolutions have been adopted in a block. Councilman Levitt, will you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage? With the exception of Council Bill 430, which establishes a capital grant fund as part of the intergovernmental agreement regarding I-70, East Project Council will vote to pass Companion Bill 430 later tonight after the conclusion of the one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 381 as amended approving the intergovernmental agreement regarding Montclair and Park Hill Basin drainage improvement and I-70 transportation enhancements. Got it. Mr. President, that's accountable for 30, is that correct? Yes, sir. Okey doke. Thank you. I move that the following bills all series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass in a block. Those would be Council Bill 389 three 9391 392 393 395 429. 406 414 415 419 for 25 to 37 394 327 328 329 three 3331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 389 422. Got them on. It has been moved in second hand. See? No comment, Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks, I. Brown. I can eat. Lemon. Lopez. I. Monteiro. I. Nevitt. Ortega. Hi, Rob. All right. Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and have the results tonight. Tonight, the bills placed on final consideration do pass and block one lengthy pre recess announcement. Tonight, there will be a combined required public hearing on Council Bill 312 as amended approving the text amendments to the Denver Zoning Code, creating the Scottish Village Conservation Overlay and Council Bill 313. Changing the zoning classification for multiple properties, roughly bounded by 32nd Avenue, Clay Street, Dunkeld Place and Zuni Street. A combined required public hearing on counter Bill 319 as amended, approving a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code, creating the Potter Highland Conservation Overlay and Council Bill 321. Changing the zoning classification for multiple properties, roughly bounded by 38th Avenue, Federal Boulevard, 32nd Avenue and Zuni Street. A combined required public hearing on Countable 322 as amended, approving a text amendment to the Denver zoning code, creating a side interior setback, design overlay and Council Bill 323.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (“Sound Transit”); authorizing execution of a project administration agreement between Sound Transit and The City of Seattle for the West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Project; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_04092018_CB 119229

Thank you very much. Any other comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and appointments are confirmed. Please read the next agenda item. To be put at the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Agenda Item 12 Constable 119229 relating to the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority authorizing execution of the Project Administration Agreement between San Transit and the City of Seattle for the West, Seattle and Ballard Lake Extensions Project and ratifying, confirming search and prior exec committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you very much. This legislation follows up on legislation passed in the last year or maybe it was even the beginning of this year. This is part of the broader work to coordinate between the city's work and sound transit's work as we work to design, develop and ultimately build sound transit. Three. This agreement specifically talks about the relationship between how the city will be doing the permitting work, and specifically it talks about the compensation the city will receive from sound transit for the permitting specialists that will be on hand to make sure that this work is streamlined. Thank you very much. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Gonzalez i. Herbold i. Johnson Mosquera i. O'Brien, I want President Herrell High seven in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and sure will sign it. Please read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4885 and 4889 South Quebec Street, in Southmoor Park. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from B-4 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2, to C-MX-20 (business in the former zoning code to urban center, mixed-use), located at 4885 South Quebec Street and 4889 South Quebec Street in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-18-18. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures by owners of 20% or more, either of the area of the lots included in such proposed change or of the area to a distance of two hundred feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 20% respectively).

DenverCityCouncil_01282019_18-1497

You see the proximity. This is looking south from Quebec, simply from the light rail station into the subject site. And so this is looking at surrounding properties. This is looking north again, showing the proximity to the light rail station and the currently vacant site to the north and looking towards Union Avenue. And then looking south from Quebec again, but showing the park and ride, which is directly east of the subject's site in the Arapahoe County enclave here. It's a pretty small park and had only about 60 spaces here. And so this is looking south across Shenango, directly south of the subject site. And this is one of the newly constructed buildings, I believe this one's 211 feet, about 15 stories. And so this is looking kind of south southwest from the subject's site. These are the approximately 80 feet tall buildings, mixed use buildings. And then looking north more towards the currently vacant but again rapidly changing area. We're seeing lots of development activity in this area. This is kind of zoomed out looking at the subject site kind of in the larger context of the the tech center on the Bellevue Avenue and I-25 interchange. So you see the subject site called out on the right hand side of the screen in the context of several office buildings. And then looking east of the subject's site, there are several buildings that are over that 200 foot threshold as well. And so the rezoning process to date has been our typical rezoning process. I will note the planning board on December 5th did vote for approval of the rezoning by a vote of 8 to 1, and they did of note they did discuss some of the infrastructure issues that were raised at that meeting and were also raised in some letters that should be in your packet, and we can all note those in the next slide. But ultimately, they decided those those infrastructure issues were concern, but not related to the rezoning criteria. And so of note, there was a protest petition filed per the Denver zoning code. There's a provision for legal protest that was filed. And staff did look at the protest petition and determined that the minimum threshold was met. And so therefore, council would need ten votes tonight to pass this rezoning. So the public outreach, there are actually no neighborhood specific registered organizations. But we did receive two comments, both from the Belleview Station Metropolitan District expressing concerns about the development intensity on the subject site and potentially negative impacts on the infrastructure within the district. And also that the rezoning is inconsistent with the Bellevue Station General Development Plan. And so these are the criteria that staff uses to evaluate each of the rezonings and formulate our recommendations. So I'll go through each one. So in terms of the first criteria, consistency with adopted plans, these are the only two adopted plans that that are applicable to the subject site. These are both citywide plans, the Denver Conference of Plan and Blueprint in Denver. Of Note the subject site is not in the Bellevue Station General Development plan. So in looking at some of the policies that staff listed in more detail in the staff report for the Denver conference, a plan again, a citywide plan, staff did find in its analysis that the request is consistent with several conference of plan policies. I'll sort of paraphrase them, but mostly related to encouraging infill development and more density at transit nodes and sort of encouraging use of transit in those areas. The site is certainly right next to a light rail transit station, so staff does find the requests consistent with those policies. And so on to Blueprint Denver, the other citywide adopted plan. So two kind of map based designations for the subject site. One is that it's in an area of change, and two, that the future land use is transit oriented development. So area of change, a couple of policies to kind of lift up here. One, these are areas per the blueprint policies where new growth can best be accommodated and in particular does cite areas adjacent to or near transit that have not realize their full development potential. And actually, blueprint does identify the Bellevue Station area as one of the greatest potential opportunity areas for for transit oriented development. And again, this being a transit order in development area, very consistent with that land use designation in terms of its correlation and relationship to the mass transit system and an area per blueprint where the city should encourage compact mixed use mid to high density development. So other kind of non based policies that you cited in the staff report from Blueprint similar to the comp plan in terms of supporting trends in support of land use and development in and around transit stations and to concentrate the most intense types of development around transit stations. So staff in its analysis did conclude that the rezoning request was consistent with Blueprint Denver for a number of reasons, but it's a paraphrasing here one that the rezoning would support mid to high density development and a transit oriented development area, a site being adjacent to the light rail station. Again, two, that the rezoning would support redevelopment of a site that has not realized its full development potential. And looking at the current restrictions on the building height, certainly an area that is not going to be able to see its full development potential in a total area with those restrictions. And then lastly, the rezoning would eliminate a former Chapter 59 Custom Zone District, which is a policy that blueprint never supports doing. And so one other document to cite. So this is not an adopted plan, but staff did site it in the staff report. In its analysis, the city in 2014 did a transit oriented development strategic plans. This is a mayor led initiative with some general policies and recommendations for Todd areas and it did call out the Bellevue station area as an opportunity area and called it out as an urban center. And kind of with that designation, those being the areas that are higher density in multimodal areas and areas, up to a maximum of 20 stories. The second criteria, uniformity of district regulations. That's just essentially saying that the rezoning request, the zone district regulations will be consistent across the site. That will be the case. So that finds that criteria is supported by the rezoning. Third, the criteria to further public health, safety and welfare staff finds that the rezoning request is consistent with that criteria, primarily through implementing adopted plans for policies that were previously cited, but unrelated to eliminating a former Chapter 59 custom zoned district and the fact that both Blueprint Denver and the Comprehensive Plan support increased development intensity on this specific site in the specific area. Force criteria justifying circumstances. The fact that this reasoning would would remove an old code Chapter 59 Customs Zone District in itself as a justifying circumstance and bringing in the new code so that criteria is met. And then you could also cite the surrounding redevelopment pace that's happening in this area as a justifying circumstance for the rezoning. And then lastly, the consistency with the scene in the Urban Center Neighborhood Context Zone District, Permanent Purpose and Intent staff does find the rezoning request consistent with that criteria, primarily because it promotes a mixed use development where an adopted plan or plans supports larger scale TOD with excellent multimodal access. And staff does recommend approval of the rezoning, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Tonight, we do have 20 individuals signed up to speak, so I'm going to call the first five and then call five at a time. If you if I call your name, if you can come up to this front bench and be ready to jump right in when I call your name to come up to the podium, because we'll start your time as soon as I call your name. So the first five that we have tonight are Jack Roy Tolle, Tommy Negro, Paula Williams, Howard Pollak and Taylor Hilliard. And Jack. Rose Voight. So you're up first. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council. My name is Jack Rizzoli, 1801 California Street, Suite 2600 Denver, Colorado. 80202 I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant. And my sole purpose really here tonight is to is to lend additional support to the staff report. I think the staff report did a robust and admirable job of analyzing the zoning criteria before you and I would I would suggest that you you have that by your side when you're considering this decision. I'm actually I actually authored a letter that I believe became is in your packet. And it really was in response to the Metro District's letter that really took exception to only two parts of this, the rezoning criteria that you heard. One was consistency with the adopted plans, and the other one was for furthering the public health, safety and general welfare. The major thrust of the letter from the district is that you should be looking at the the Bellevue GDP. I think staff has suggested appropriately that that's not a plan before you. We are not in the GDP boundaries. And no matter how much twisting somebody might try to do, you can't we don't find ourselves in there. So we're we're not bound by those by that plan. Similarly, I I the they raised some concerns with regard to the health, safety and welfare and they mentioned they mentioned height and they mentioned density. As your staff has already suggested, this is this height and this proposed height and density is completely consistent with the adopted plans, and it's also consistent with the statements of the Metro District President and master developers in front of planning board. And I have supplied a record of that, of their transcript in front of Planning Board that you could you can make reference to. But essentially their comments were they were in front of planning board that we have no problem with the density. This is a TOD site. Of course we expect density. So between planning board and tonight, we find ourselves here contesting with with a letter that seems to indicate that the height is way too high and the density is way too too dense. I would suggest that it has nothing to do with land uses or proposed development. It has to do with infrastructure. And I would I would respectfully suggest to you that where the infrastructure is granted or where where we could get it, that is not something that city council should look at with regard to rezoning. That's the purview of site plan and it will be further discussed and vetted at that point. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Tommy Nigro. Thank you, council members. Appreciate your time tonight. My name is Tommie Negro. Addresses 4949 South Niagara. I'm here representing the applicant. I'm with Stonebridge Companies and we are a Denver based hotel developer, owner operator that is again based here in Denver. We were founded in 1991, have 21 hotels in Colorado with four currently under development. So we're long term owners, operators, and we are part of the community here. The way I look at I think this is a fairly straightforward decision when you look at the criteria. We own a property that was developed in the mid-nineties predating the district and the light rail station. It's currently characterized by a two story low rise, deteriorating motel that is surface parked and is not very esthetically pleasing. What we want to do is is transform that site across from the light rail station into a very high quality mixed use development that consists of ground floor retail, hotel rooms, you know, very high quality, four star, you know, level. A new hotel is not been built down in the tech center, at least a full service hotel in about 30 years. We think that's an amenity that the area is sorely lacking and that's what we do. So we'll develop something very high quality combined with with office as well. Part of that will be certainly some public improvements, sidewalk lighting, landscaping that users of the neighbors, certainly tenants of ours, can enjoy. I think the reality is real estate affects other real estate. Neighbors affect neighbors. And we think that this will be a really positive addition to the neighborhood. And we're asking for your support tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Paula Williams. Good evening, counsel. My name is Paula Williams for 50 East 17th Avenue, Denver. I am with the law firm of McGee de Becker. Our office works extensively with Stonebridge. I'm available for questions in the event any questions come up with respect to metropolitan district matters. Thank you. Next up, Howard Pollack. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the council. My name is Howard Pollack, and I'm general counsel for Stonebridge Companies. My address is 956 Olive Street in Denver. I've been Stonebridge attorney in one form or another for close to 25 years. So I'm very familiar with the company and with the principals of the company. I wanted to give you a few additional facts about the subject site as a follow up to what Tommy Negro just told you. First, the property was purchased by our predecessor, an interest extended Stay America back in 1995. They built a 160 room extended stay hotel, which is comprised of approximately 25,000 square feet of building area on the property. That hotel, as people have noted, is still operating there today, but it's generally considered to be an eyesore and is inconsistent with the redevelopment of the adjacent land. It's also a hotbed of criminal activity and something that really, I think everybody in the area generally feels needs, needs to be redeveloped. The important thing to note is that the existing hotel and the infrastructure that supports it were developed back in 1995, which is almost 20 years prior to the creation of Bellevue Station Metro District and the redevelopment of the adjacent land. This site, since its development in the in the nineties, has been operated independent of any other properties or metro districts and still operates that way today. The primary access to the site since the beginning is been off of South Quebec Street, which is a public street that predates the initial development of the site. And it's our intention that that access will continue to be the primary access. Subsequent to our redevelopment of the site, currently Denver water provides water service to the site and will continue to do so. The site is currently on the Goldsmith Gulch Sanitation District Sewer System. I think in your packets we included a letter that Goldsmith gave to us that indicated that they would be more than happy to have us remain on their system after the site is redeveloped. That's our desire as well. However, if public works in the city concludes that we need to connect to the to the city owned sewer system, we'll do that as well. And we're willing to bear the cost of extending the connection to that sewer system and to pay all applicable connection fees to the city. That, that that the cost, I understand, is fairly significant to extend that pipe. So that's just something that we do want to talk further with the city during the site development process, planning process. We strongly believe. I'm sorry, but I'm sorry. But your time is up 3 minutes. Okay. Thank you so much. Next up is Taylor Hilliard. And then I'm going to call the next five to come up to the bench. Mark Staton, James Neiman, William Kaufman, Diane Miller and Kim Kucera. If you want to come to the front. Of the evening, council members, thank you for being here. My name is Taylor Hilliard and I am here to answer any questions. That may come up about design or zoning something. Thank you. Thank you. Mark Staton. Good evening, counsel. My name is Mark Styron and my address is 5085 South Syracuse Street, and I am the managing partner at Shanahan Steak House in Denver. And I'm here to, first and foremost, thank you for the opportunity to speak and also speak in favor of the development of this hotel by Stonebridge. I'm very familiar with Stonebridge Hotels and their product and the quality of which they've provided in many locations throughout the Denver metropolitan area. And I just really believe that this hotel would complete the site on the west hand side. Of the highway on Bellevue. And be very consistent with the current architecture that's being constructed. As a business owner, I would also want to state that I am very much in favor of this hotel with the understanding that it will bring added commerce to the Denver Tech Center and support all of the existing retail and restaurants throughout. So thank you for the opportunity tonight and I'll look forward to hopefully this project coming to fruition. Thank you. Next up is James Neiman. Hello. My name is Jim Ninan. I'm the owner of Primus Development Company. We are currently the developers of 6900 Leyton Office Building immediately to the west of the subject property. We also developed the one Bellevue Station office tower immediately to the south of the subject property. My address is 7001 East Bellevue and Suite 650. Denver, Colorado 80237. I'm here to actually speak against the rezoning. In summary, I actually think the zoning is not inconsistent at all, as you've heard earlier, with the with the master thought process. However, the site is bounded by on three sides by existing development that has a general development plan approved on it. And the zoning would be inconsistent with that general development plan in this sense, and primarily in the sense that it does not require any open space where the general development plan for all the surrounding property requires it . And this property would be zoned for buildings up to a height of 250 feet, whereas all the surrounding property has a maximum height of 200 feet. I do believe that this property should be zoned consistently with the general development plan that is, the zoning on the surrounding property. The major issue that I have with it, though, has to do with fairness. The the Metro District was formed years ago to to provide and to find and install all the infrastructure around this property, the streets and utilities, sewer, sewer capacity and distribution systems. And this property, as my understanding, will tie in to that, but will not be subjected to paying any of the metro district taxes that all the other properties pay for, including myself, as well as the tenants at and within Bellevue Station. And I think that's a very unfair situation that a property would be allowed not to have to fund any of those infrastructure costs, but be able to tie into those utilities. So therefore, I'm protesting this. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, William Coffman. Thank you, Mr. President. Council Members. William Kaufman, 679 East Bellevue. Denver, Colorado. 80237. As general manager at our restaurant at. Denver, Bellevue Station and a resident of my house at Bellevue Station. I'm in favor of the rezoning project. At 4885 South Quebec Street. The current extended stay hotel no longer fits. With the current development of the area. The proposed development. Will remove a dilapidated building that I see daily and replace it with an opportunity to bring more to our neighborhood and more support for our area businesses such as the restaurant. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Diane Miller. Good evening, council members. I'm Dianne Miller. Miller and Associates Law Offices 1641 California Street, Denver. I am general counsel to Bellevue Station Metropolitan Districts numbers one, two and three, which surround the property that's proposed for rezoning tonight. You know, since at least the 1960s, the incredible growth here in Colorado has been undertaken with an approach, a principle which is usually described to referred to as development, paying its own way. And what does that mean? The idea is that the cost of new development should be borne by those who are going to benefit from that development. And, you know, consequently, the cost of that new development should not be borne by those who will not benefit. It's Bellevue Station has created an incredible amount of public infrastructure streets, storm drainage, traffic control, parks and rec, storm drainage. But we wouldn't expect the people in the Bear Valley neighborhood to pay for that or Stapleton. We expected and what the city council approved were districts that allow the new development to pay its own way. The use of metropolitan districts is the result of a recognition by cities and counties throughout Colorado that special districts are particularly appropriate and suitable as a mechanism to ensure that development does pay its own way. Special districts are normally a very well defined area that encompass new development and that provide all that public infrastructure for the people who will use it. The property under consideration tonight is not within the Bellevue station metropolitan districts. The districts that surround it and that are providing substantial and significant public infrastructure to bring development into into this area. Are asking for your approval tonight for property that lies outside the district. But they will benefit in every conceivable way from the infrastructure that has been put in place by those districts. And because they are outside of the district, they will have no obligation to contribute to the payment of more than $33 million of bonds that have financed this new public infrastructure. Last week we requested the Denver elections division for a current voter list for our districts. There are 526 voters in the Bellevue station districts, and every one of those districts voters pays directly or indirectly to fund the cost of public infrastructure in our districts. We would ask and urge that you not approve the rezoning tonight unless or until that provision is made for this property, this development to pay its own way by contributing to the I'm sorry, I'm sure districts. Thank you very much. Next up, Kimberly, Sara and I will call the next five. David Foster, Mike Sullivan, Brooke Malloy, Lewis Bonds. Mark and Richard Farley. Good. Hello. Members of council. My name is Kim Kyocera. My address is 1660 Lincoln St number 1800. I am however, here to read a letter into the record from Hickmott RSK, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Western Union. His address is 7001 East Bellevue HQ 15 Denver, Colorado. They are their new headquarters located within the district. I sent this this to you via email, but it was late in the day. January 28th. Dear Denver Council Members. When people arrive at Bellevue Station to shop and eat, we want them to have a welcoming experience so they will stay longer and return a new building. Greeting them as they step off the light rail would enhance the visitor experience. We think the proposed building at 4885 South Quebec Street would significantly increase the experience in the station area for the public office workers, residents, customers and transit users. I have not seen the plans of the building yet. However, for the above mentioned reasons, I support the project application. 44885 South Quebec Street to Cmax 20. Sincerely Hikmet Herceg CEO Western Union. I'll also draw your attention to letters of support you have in the packet in front of you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, David Foster. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name's David Foster. 360 South Garfield here. On behalf of the Belleview Station Metropolitan District. You have a letter for me that should be in your file, should be in front of you. I wanted to make a couple of additional points this evening. First, I want to make sure that as part of tonight's record, we include the 2006 GDP that has been referenced a number of times. Belleview Station, Transit, Orient Development. As you know, rezoning is a quasi judicial legal process, and it requires certain standards and documents for your review, I only point you to the staff's own report under consistency with adopted plans. In the first sentence, there is the following adopted plans apply to this property. It is really, I have to say, surprising to me that the 2006 general development plan that was approved and adopted after the 2000 comp plan and after the 2002 blueprint, Denver wasn't even contemplated in the review of this rezoning. It's not even contemplated by your staff. It wasn't even contemplated by the planning board. And even tonight in your staff report, yet again not contemplated. Mr. Roy Sole speaks to that's because you're not bound by the plan. And who said you are? Who said you are bound by the GDP from 2006? It's a plan that informs the rezoning of this site. It informs the rezoning of this site just the same way blueprint in just the same way. Comp plan 2000. You're looking at a donut hole in the middle of a donut by ignoring completely the implications of a GDP that was adopted in 2006. You're doing just that. There are a host of other issues that I've identified in my letter. I want to focus obviously on open space, which is infrastructure for anybody to walk away tonight thinking that open space is an infrastructure is it doesn't recognize the full implications that development has on the city. In fact, it was just last month we were rezoning another Todd Todd site downtown that in fact identified one and a half times the amount of open space that was required by the zoned district that it was rezone two one and a half times the amount of open space. So this has zero no open space, that's infrastructure, it's ignored and the GDPR speaks to that. The reference was the surrounding development space from the staff report and in fact that is consistent with the GDP. The GDP contemplated exactly this surrounding development pace. I appreciate your time tonight. And I again urge you to look at the 2006 GDP that references the site. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Mike Sullivan. Good evening, council members. My name is Mike Sullivan. I work at D.A. Davidson Company's 1550 Market Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202. We are a regional investment bank and broker dealer with public finance headquarters here in Denver, Colorado. The practice group I work within specializes in special district financing throughout the state in Mountain West region. Our client, Bellevue Station Metropolitan District, would like us to share different cost sharing strategies that districts participate in around the state and the state of Colorado and the benefit in which those strategies provide. We typically see three strategies for when public finance is used as a solution equitable cost sharing, the inclusion of the benefitted property within an existing district encumbered with an ad valorem tax leading to cost sharing based on taxable value. Therefore, the benefited property included would be paying the same mill levy as the other property owners within the district based upon the taxable or assessed value of the property. Secondly, the inclusion of the benefitted property within its own special district. The newly created Special District would enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Bellevue Station Metropolitan Districts. This could lead to an allocation of cost sharing based upon benefit determined in the negotiation. And thirdly, the benefited property owner could pay up front to Bellevue Station Metropolitan District in an agreed upon fee based upon benefit negotiated. We believe these cost sharing strategies benefit the motivation behind regional infrastructure and continue to maintain a balanced playing field for future real estate investments. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Brooke, more. My name is Brooke Malloy and I live in Littleton, but I am a property owner as a member of Belkin's Limited Liability and moderate investment company who own the surrounding undeveloped properties. I've been involved with the redevelopment of Bellevue Station since the late 1990s and I currently manage the Bellevue Station Master Property Owners Association and the Bellevue Station Public Improvement Company. Front Range Land and Development Company, as master developer for the 50 acres surrounding this proposed rezoning, has had to give up nearly 20 acres of developable land for public right of way in open space requirements. And this applicant is not being required to give up any land under this rezoning. A CMCs 20 zoning would entitle the landowner to build over 2 million square feet of development on this property. And yet the city is not evaluating whether or not open space should be required, nor is the city considering the impact this development would have on the surrounding infrastructure. I would request Council to deny this application of rezoning until the applicant has agreed to provide some sort of open space and that the applicants for rezoning be considered in light of the Bellevue Station GDP that the city approved. I reviewed the video from the December 18th, 2018 Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting in which this rezoning was presented. City planner Jeff Hirt explained that the current zoning on the property carries a 30% open space requirement and that the new zoning requires none. Mr. Hirt also mentioned that the Planning Department has worked with the applicant to address certain deficiencies identified in the CMCs 20 zoning that were of concern. But apparently community planning and development does not view the reduction of open space from 30% to zero as an issue, because Mr. Hertz said that open space could be addressed, but staff elected not to do anything and no amendments related to open space were considered. Councilwoman Black also pointed out that this is one of the largest areas in Denver without a park, yet the committee passed the rezoning request without further consideration. Mr. Herbert indicated that there were two public comments concerning infrastructure. Trust me, there's been a whole lot of comments regarding this issue. I don't believe that there is one land owner in the immediate area here tonight that is supportive of this rezoning. Yet this is an area yes, this is an area of change. And I think it should ultimately be resolved to something. And I think the landowners in my Property Owners Association would agree with that. But we all know that once a property is re zoned, it is virtually impossible for the city to come back and get another chance to discuss adding open space and looking at their impact on traffic and infrastructure. This process of pointing out deficiencies but not addressing them and simply checking the box to to move a rezoning through the process is extremely concerning. And I would urge council to deny the rezoning in its current state and go back and evaluate open space and infrastructure issues before it is resolved. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Louis Bonds Mark. Hi. My name is Louis Barnes back and I live in Cereal's Village. I'm an adjoining property owner through my membership in Vulcan's Slim City, Light Limited Liability Company and Moderate Investment Company. I also sit on the board of the Bellevue Station Metropolitan Districts. I'm concerned that this rezoning in its current state does not meet the criteria outlined by the city, that it must further the public health and safety and general welfare of the area. In fact, I think this development, without any accountability towards traffic, utilities and open space goes to the detriment of the safety and general welfare of the area. Without the infrastructure built and paid for by the Bellevue Station metropolitan districts to which this property is not in the district, this property would be exclusively forced to use the intersection of Bellevue Avenue and Quebec Street for all of its traffic, which currently operates at a service level. F However, this applicant will have the use of the roads and underground infrastructure provided by the Bellevue Station Metropolitan Districts, yet will not have any obligation to help pay off their portion of those infrastructure costs, nor will it be required to participate in further traffic studies or traffic signals to which its development of potentially 2 million square feet of development will certainly have a stressful impact on the infrastructure. Thus, this rezoning will negatively impact the safety and general welfare of the area by forcing the area to increase capacity for sewage flows and traffic without participating in the solution. Ultimately giving this property a free ride at the expense of the surrounding property owners. I would urge Council to deny the rezoning of this parcel until it impacts. Until its impacts on the safety and general welfare of the area have been fully examined. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Richard Farley and McCall call the last five to come up to the bench. Robert Warren, Trey Warren Time, Tom Ragan, Eddie Chairman Sekou and Jesse Pierce, who come up to the front. Go ahead. Mr. President. Members of city council. My name is Richard Farley, and I live at 2500 Walnut Street, apartment 112. And we're Colorado. I'm speaking against the proposal because, you know, Bellevue Station underneath the old zoning has undergone a substantial public review and approval ranging from a general development plan for its streets and parks to design standards and guidelines and design review. City Design Review, which I wrote to ensure its quality. The proposal before you doesn't have to provide any of this to achieve a substantial up zoning. It doesn't provide the kind of usable, consolidated, open space that Bellevue station does. It takes advantage of an overtaxed Bellevue station's infrastructure without paying for it. And there is nothing to require good design in the public interest. You know, I don't oppose development, but I do oppose development that provides the minimum public return for its substantial gain. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Robert Warren. Good evening. My name is Robert Warren. I'm the president of the Bellevue Station Metropolitan District, formerly known as the Moderate Metropolitan District. And I am the manager of the MADRE Investment Company, which is the major landowner in Bellevue Station MADRE. For those of you who might be interested, was the name of my grandmother, which her name was Margaret Bonds back. But we called her madre. She taught us a lot. She taught us about hard work. She taught us to fulfill our responsibilities. And she taught us to pay our own way. And that we should never expect to get something for nothing. We have always lived by that credo. We paid our fair share to extend Denver Water Line Main, the conduit south to Bellevue Station. We paid to oversize the sewer line down Bellevue to accommodate Bellevue Station. We paid to oversize the pump station at Monaco and Bellevue to accommodate Bellevue Station. We paid to increase the size of the detention pond at Monaco and Bellevue. We worked with the city then to create a well-balanced and responsible general development plan with significant open space. We formed the Metropolitan District and we floated over $33 million worth of bonds to pay for the infrastructure. We built all the streets, all the curbs, the gutters, the sidewalks. We built the landscaping. We put in the sewer outfall lines, the water lines, the electrical conduits. And we dedicated five and a half acres of land for open space. And don't forget, we're still liable on those bonds. We still have to pay the principal and interest on those bonds. And we've not received one penny from the city and county of Denver. We've paid our own way to allow this parcel an island in the middle of our development, to increase its density 30 to 50 times and give it access to all the infrastructure that the district built for its own use without paying for any of the impacts on the district now or in the future and without contributing any open space is unconscionable. There's one other thing that Madrid taught us, and that was when faced with unfairness, fight and we're going to fight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Trey Warren. Hmm. My name is Trey Warren. I live at 57 Charlotte Circle. I represent Front Range Land Development, the master developer at Bellevue Station. I just like to continue to point out the inequities in this potential rezoning. We all recognize the importance of growth and the development in Denver, but it needs to be smart. And we don't think that a blanket 30 times to 50 times increase in density on this particular site without any studies, standards or any open space requirement, especially reductions from 30% down to zero is very smart. In fact, it's destructive to the surrounding development, and we're all trying to move forward responsibly under completely different rules. Bellevue Station was subject to a great deal of public and city scrutiny. We were required to provide land for roadways, utilities, about 15 acres to dedicated to the city. We were required to set aside five acres more than this entire rezoning site for usable open space. We were required to perform Storm Sanitary Traffic Water Master plans, then form a metro district and finance and guarantee it all. We still remain obligated to complete roadways and traffic signals and to mitigate future impacts to the surrounding areas. Impacts that are sure to grow with the approval of this particular zoning. But the applicant in this case has been asked to do nothing, none of the above. You should understand that there is no density restriction whatsoever attached to your CM zoning. The site footprint may be somewhat small at 3.2 acres, but the potential development on the site of 20 storeys could exceed 2 million square feet. The Bellevue Station Master Plan, created under intense study and restriction, contemplates only about 6 million square feet of total development. To suggest that a 30% increase in size with no open space requirement will have no impact on the surrounding area is crazy. It certainly will, absent any area plans by the city. The Bellevue Station GDP should, in my opinion, be the governing plan for review of the area. So far, the city has completely ignored it. The spotlight is now on the city with growing frustration over density, the loss of open space. And this request simply illuminates exactly why the city council must take the reins of what is right and appropriate and steer this zoning because it's clearly in its purview. Abdicating this responsibility to public works only silences the public voice and in gender's ill will and frustration. Please do the right thing. Require an open space, commitment, appropriate density and mitigation of impacts, anything less shortchanging the neighbors and the taxpayers. And in my estimation, this will trigger a gold rush of all the time you thirties remaining in the city to seek CMC's rezoning so that they might sell their open space for higher profit. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Tom Reagan. Mr. President, members of city council. My name is Tom Reagan. Eddie. My address is 950 17th Street, and I'm here to speak on behalf of Bellevue Station Metropolitan District, which supports the Bellevue Station Project. The nearest neighbor to and which surrounds the subject property Bellevue Station is a 51 acre development and was first conceived in the mid 1990s when the BASBANES, Bach and Warren families, the owners were approached by Councilwoman Joyce Foster, who who suggested to them that they should consider a transit oriented development in connection with the new south east rail line and proposed station at Bellevue. The families agreed to, and they dove in hiring Civitas, a prominent local, fair planning firm, to lay the planning groundwork for the TOD and our firm to do the land use over a many year period. The plan took form and jelled and the owners even paid to have the first draft of the TMU 30 zoning prepared, which is the current zoning for Bellevue Station. They further dug in by doing a GDP, forming the Bellevue Station Metropolitan District and issuing well over $30 million in bonds to pay for the basic infrastructure, subjecting all real estate in the district to a mill levy of 50 mills. Now the current applicant wishes to develop cheek by jowl with Bellevue Station, with zoning that is larger and denser, with no open space, and to use both the district's infrastructure and open space for free. That's not only bad planning, but it's a serious injustice to the nearly 25 year dedication of the Bonds BLOCK and Warren families to producing a first rate geode with no city investment and to the infrastructure monies that they invested into the taxes paid by the district's taxpayers. I urge you to reject this reject this rezoning until the newly proposed development can be better coordinated with the existing and future development of values station. And until the range of. It can be made for the new development to pay its fair share of the district infrastructure it will undoubtedly use. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Scoop. My name is Chairman. Say, who founded the Black Star Movement? Advocacy for poor, working, poor homeless elders and students. We stand opposed to the rezoning of this property for all of the above mentioned reasons. And when we look at the folks who've been doing the development in this area, there is an unconscionable absence. Of black contractors and workers on any and all of these sites. If you go by and look at the construction and workers that are doing that, you don't see. No, not one black person working, not even holding a sign, which is in violation of federal law and state law and city law. And you choose to look the other way. And this has been going on for 15 years that I've been down here. So here comes the Chinese water touch, because I'm going to tell you over and over and over again so that you get it and that you monitor these rezoning things with these unconscionable organizations that is just buck naked, raw dog pirate capitalism. How are you going to come up in and get some for nothing? What everybody else is paying for this and folks have to pay bonds and whatnot forever and ever. And this even gets to the border. That's an insult to the intelligence of this body. I don't even know how I got this far. Except for some corruption. Hook up. And when you looked at that board, it said it was initiated by the mayor. This is part of the development issue that we have going on in the city now where it is driven by raw dog capitalism and don't care nothing about the neighborhood and what the people say. And the time has come for city council to do what the people say, do not what to tell us to do. You represent us. Not developers, not the mayor. So we've got to stop this lapping, lapping dog up approach to that. And it's time for council to stand up and oppose the mayor. We're even having to do this kind of stuff which makes this body look corrupt and in bed. KING Michael. KING Michael. The most corrupt mayor in the history and got mess going on everywhere in the city full of nothing but confusion and madness. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris. Good evening. The council. My name is Jesse Pierce. I represent for Denver Homicide allow Black Sox a movement for self-defense and positive action, a commitment for social change. And I'm also an at large candidate for 2019. Like we've previously stated, we are against this rezoning request. As usual, you do not heed the words of the community and take that into account before you make these rezonings which is already stated. This is capitalism on steroids and you want us to pay for something that clearly the community and the neighborhood in question does not want. I don't know how many times we have to come here and do a public comment. Honestly, I don't even know why we do public comment at this point, because it's pretty much useless at this point, because you do not take the words of the community into account. You just do what you're going to do. You are already being bought and paid. So please keep keep. Your comments. To this. What this is all to the question of how against this. So I urge you to vote no on this rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a couple of questions. First, I wanted to ask someone from city staff. Number one, the city's policy on open space and why there was no recommendation for open space on this particular parcel. Normally when it's over an acre is my understanding. We require some open space and this is what, 3.7 acres? 3.2. So can you speak to that? Yeah. The only policy or regulation we have to establish open spaces for through the general development planning process and thus for a project over ten acres, actually. So this site is under that threshold. So in the CMCs 20 zone district in itself does not have an open space requirement. There is none. There is. No, no, no. So even when. Okay. Number one, let me let me go on with my next set of questions. So someone that represents the property. So, Mr. Niekro, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. So I'm trying to understand if this particular parcel was part of the original Met district or is has it always been excluded from the Metro District? It is. Excuse me. And it's always been excluded from the metro district and from the GDP. And that was certainly a factor when we acquired the site that we looked at. And, you know, at times there can be a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure, and that was not in place either. So can you just speak to what infrastructure is needed for the development that is being proposed for the site? Nothing that doesn't already exist and that we're not connected to. And that's, I think, some of my confusion with the opposition as we stated that this development was built in the mid-nineties and it's had infrastructure connected to it since that time. Quebec Street has been there. The light at Quebec and Bellevue was there, was there prior to the formation of the district. The sewer line that were connected to has been in place since this property was built in the mid-nineties or connected to Denver water. We're connected to Denver storm. So this infrastructure already exists on our site. And, you know, what seems like would be unfair to me is for us to pay for things that we don't want or need. So, again, the third district was formed voluntarily, presumably to, you know, improve the value of the land. And we weren't part of it. And I don't understand really why we're discussing infrastructure as it pertains to zoning when we already have it. Just a quick question about whether or not you plan to include any open space at all on the site? Yes, we do intend to include open space. If if my understanding is correct there, TMU, 30, which requires 20% open space. But it's my understanding that they negotiated that down. So while they're talking about all this open space, they worked to decrease theirs to 10%, if I'm not mistaken. And our development will have well over 10% of open space. Okay. So you're planning to include that? Yes. Okay. I have no further questions at this point in time. I may have some others. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman. Espinosa. Sorry. I thought Wayne was in there. That's what. It was. I thought so, too, because we knew. Did you read? Okay, so probably, Jeff, this is going to be a familiar line of questioning. What what is the kind of st classification does all have st have. All the st is a local street. Local street to Nagle local street. Quebec local street. Are any other streets bordering this property? So I'm assuming you're referring to the Zone District purpose statement and which says that the site could be primarily served by an arterial. So there are local streets directly adjacent, but Bellevue Avenue and Union are both arterials and those are served by the site, including Interstate 25, certainly. So it says served primarily not by an arterial. But once again, we're talking about a major arterial. So we have these two classifications in our zoning code about arterial and major arterial. So where is the nearest major arterial? I don't know. If we call out major arterials, I may be mistaken. We have different categories of arterials. Bellevue and Union are both mixed use arterials and certainly 25 is sort of within some category. So we had this conversation before. So Federal Boulevard and would that be considered a major arterial. And I'm not sure. Colorado Boulevard, would that be considered a major arterial? Again, I don't think we have the major classification. I would have to look at it. Would it be considered arterial? That would would Colorado Boulevard it are in arterial? I don't know I mean, it wasn't part of the analysis here. We're looking at the. Large zoned district classification actually requires this to be primarily served by arterial major arterial streets. So I'm just trying to find out what the relationship of this zone, lord, to any major arterial streets. And you're telling me CPD has no idea where the nearest major arterial is, by definition. So I'm saying Bellevue and Union are both mixed use arterials and that fits that definition. And they. Primarily serve this zone on. Yes, yes. And how is that what's the definition of primarily serve? I don't believe ever deficient apparently served. But you certainly get to the site coming from Bellevue and Union. Okay. Because again, how we're doing this in other zone districts is using the rail. And you just mentioned I-25. And I will argue that at least Bellevue and Union are porous, meaning they can cross at any number of places on a fairly frequent basis at intersections. But is that true for the rail to be able can I cross the rail or I-25 as frequently as I can cross Bellevue or Union? I'm not sure. The rail is a fixed route. Yeah. So we're not talking about going east. West. We're talking about one one route. Okay. Because again, what I've heard from the administration and from planning board is that the number of passengers served by those sort of rails in the fact that they stop is proximate, is somehow akin to an arterial or a major arterial. However, we want to find this. But I'm trying to understand if arterials are all sort of created equal because I can cross Colorado Boulevard and a whole bunch of intersections on a very frequent basis. I can also access multiple modes. I can take an Uber, Lyft, a bus, you know. And so I'm trying to figure out how a light rail with as infrequent a stop as it has in the sort of the limits of its service equate an arterial. I'm not sure anyone saying that equates to an arterial. I think that's part of the balance of the multimodal access for the site, which is excellent. Okay. So we are now. Okay, great. Then let's go to your slide on consistent mean criteria, zone district criteria. I've got to go to that page. So. So specifically the criteria with consistency with adopted plans. So conserve item two is conserved lender by creating more density at transit nodes. What are we? So again, my time within this dais, we have done a lot of increasing density. We haven't done a lot of one of the things we've noticed is, is and this is sort of framing the question, we've noticed that we've had a decrease in open space relative to the number of people that we're bringing in . And Denver has gone from a very respected place to sort of middling. What are we doing as a as an agency to conserve land area as we're increasing the density in these areas? Well, I mean, this is outside of the rezoning criteria, I think. But that is actually your net point number two on the next slide. Not sure which. So it's said review criteria. Consistency with adopted plans is the header right there. Right there. Back one more note there point to conserve land area. This is your justifying your justification conserve land area by creating more density at transit notice how what are what is CPD doing to balance this increase in density with conserving land area? Because what I see is greenfield development. Yeah. Yeah. I mean the open space issue has certainly been a hot topic lately and the Denver Post and CPD is looking closely at that. There are a few initiatives to look at addressing open space that we're working on. But again, those are city wide initiatives. And so what we're talking about here is BMX TOW, and so we're kind of bound by the requested hand in the standards within TMX 20. But that's what I'm saying. You're asking us to look at the density component, but relying on the conservation of land area component. And so I'm saying you're going, well, what are we doing in this station area and this TOD If we're not doing it by application, by application and waiting for only ten acre developments, do we have any other strategy in place to sort of make sure that we're actually hitting both sides of that just for justification? Yeah. I mean, again, it's certainly an issue that we're aware of, but that's a I mean, it's a citywide issue and it's not something we be tackling as part of this rezoning request. Okay, thanks. No further questions. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you very much. You're Mike is not a. Turn on your mike. I'm going to keep a secret. Thank you. Let's talk about a GDP. A general development plan isn't a general development plan usually done after a zoning has come through? Not always. Yeah. Sometimes they can go concurrent as action. Sometimes the zoning can follow the GDP. Right. GDP is generally about the infrastructure where the roads are going to go, where the utilities are, and is a document for the city to review and make suggestions, changes, requirements. Isn't that true? Yeah. I mean, it's it's a tool that we're looking to revamp now, actually, but a tool to look at horizontal development systems, mostly focus on infrastructure and open space. Right. And it's though not always usually done after zoning is in place and deciding unless the the person requesting the zoning wants to show a GDP before zoning, it's not required before zoning is a. There is the ability for the city require the timing of zoning within the GDP approval framework. But it's been done a number of different ways. It's really been different for. And the council doesn't approve or not approve GDP. Correct. Correct. It goes to planning board as a public hearing and a recommendation to the Development Review Committee, which is an administrative body. Right. So the council doesn't approve GDP? Correct. Okay. I I'd like to ask Nate a question. Thank you very much. I think it's need I should ask. Is that correct, Mr. Crawford? Natural Resources attorney. If a property isn't in a metro district, is it ever is it is the fact of there not being in a metro district ever a criteria that we use on whether to approve or deny zoning? No, ma'am. The only criteria is the five that are listed in front of you and on the on the screens. So being in a metro district or not is not something we can consider when we decide upon zoning. No, it is not. One of the criteria for consideration. Is not being a part of a GDP. A reason for us to be able to decide about zoning? No. The way I would think about that or advise you to think about that is is as if it were any other sort of adopted plan. If we're talking about a neighborhood plan or or the citywide comprehensive plan or blueprint, Denver, if you fall outside of the boundary for neighborhood plan, then your requested rezoning wouldn't be reviewed against that neighborhood plan. Same with the GDP. If you're outside the boundary of a GDP, then staff city council won't consider that general development plan against your rezoning request. Okay. Thank you very much. I had a couple of other questions, too, and maybe, Jeff, you can help me with this. There were some folks who thought that this might be too dense. It's a 20 story request or an idea that they would put a 20 story in. How how tall is the Western Union building? It's 15 stories, 211 feet. You even know defeat? I don't know how I know that, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Me up there. What about the Kimpton Hotel? Well, I'll tell you, sir. Well, sorry, I'm not. The Kimpton Hot Kimpton Hotel. Can't remember if it's the Kimpton or the. I'm not sure which side that is. Is it west of I-25? North of Bellevue. Somewhere near there? Sure. Okay. I think that's just about all the questions I needed to ask. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. A lot of the comments tonight talked about the GDP and the metro district. So I've got questions on both of those. So City Attorney John McGrath, would you mind coming up to answer some questions about the Special District? And thank you, Councilwoman Saltzman, for starting that conversation. So. Which city attorney's office? Sorry. We've had a lot of conversations about this. Can you explain how districts are formed and who decides goes in and who decides doesn't go in? And can you ever force a property owner to go in? Sure. So a metro district initiates with the owners of the land that are within the boundaries of the proposed district. And, you know, case by case, it's difficult to say across the board. But generally speaking, a group of landowners or one landowner, if it happens to be under the ownership of of one group, will formulate a plan to, you know, presumably enhance the developer ability and and value of a property by bringing infrastructure to the site that would be needed for that purpose. There may be negotiations with neighboring landowners along the way to to determine whether other properties are interested in joining. But at the end of the day, it's it's a process that's initiated by the owners of the land within the district. And those are the individuals or entities that have a vote. And what improvements will be made and what indebtedness will be incurred to to pay for that. Obviously, the properties outside the district, whether they may in the future, benefit from that or not, don't have a say or a vote in in those decisions. And can a property that is outside of the district be forced to join the district? To my knowledge, there's no way for the city or anyone else other than just by negotiation between private landowners to to decide. There's a process in state law for individuals who are outside of a district to petition in a way to get included within the boundaries of the district. But I don't think that there is a reverse right or process for a district to decide to incorporate properties outside of their district boundaries. And are there other cases like this in the city where the first in developers create a special district and then another property owner benefits from those improvements but isn't paying into the district? It's not uncommon. If a district elects to make improvements that will become public improvements. Then at the point that those improvements are are the title to those improvements is vested in the city. The city is constrained to allow any property owner to have access to that infrastructure based upon the criteria that we have in place at the appropriate time. There's an analysis made about what the proposal is to connect to that infrastructure. And so public works in the city would go through that process to determine if there was sufficient capacity in light of the existing and planned uses in the vicinity and make a decision to either impose requirements or not. But it's a it's a public asset at that point. If if a private developer finances public improvements. Yes, there's an initial upfront cost. But eventually those improvements are transferred to the city. And the city then has the long term maintenance obligation for those assets. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. My next question, I think, Jeff, this might be for you. As far as the GDP, GDP goes, are there ever instances where I wear properties are added to a GDP? I don't know of any in and um. GDP is pretty well I don't know of any that have been added. Certainly many have been amended, but I can't think of an example where one was brought in recently at least. Okay. And then I my final question for now is about open space. So I've read all of the the packet and all the additional letters and materials we've received and I've heard 10%, 20% and 30%. So maybe someone from the Belleview station. Can you talk a bit about that? I've heard 30%. And then I heard somewhere in one of these letters it says it was negotiated down to 10%. David Foster on behalf of Belleview Station. So the TMU rezoning had initially had a an obligation of 20% open space. And I and kind of going back to a question that Councilwoman Ortega was asking that I don't think was answered correctly. The open space obligations are not as a function of a GDP. A GDP works to aggregate or identify where infrastructure belongs. The obligation of open space is in the underlying zone district. So the TMU had a 20%, but it was able to be aggregated into a way that allowed for 10% open space in in places that made the most sense for this Todd station. And you'll see in my letter I highlight the page from the open space that indicates where the largest portion of that open spaces, which is directly north of this particular site, but it's in close proximity to the station. The 30% requirement that was identified is for the existing site. The B4 with waivers has today a 30% obligation for open space. If they were to redevelop under a before, they would have a 30% open space obligation. But again, the clarification that I thought was important from before is open space is a function of the underlying zone district. The GM, you, the gmc's tow requires no open space irrespective of any promises made today. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. Jeff, I have a question for you. I know we're we're just at the rezoning, but could you share with us what sort of additional infrastructure improvements might need to be made based upon the property that we're looking at rezoning? The density, you know, would it warrant traffic signals? You know, I know the gentleman said that they're going to be responsible for sidewalk, curb and gutter. But could you talk a little bit? Not specifically, because we don't know exactly. We don't have the traffic studies. But could you share with us what it might entail as far as infrastructure improvements? Yeah, I mean, that's generally out of my wheelhouse. I will say that the C-Max to allow is really a huge range of potential intensities. I mean, there's a there's a proposal that's being verbalized to you today, but anything can go on and see a mix tape from a one story drive thru restaurant, which I know is unlikely to a 20 storey building. So with that huge range, it's really only prudent to look at the infrastructure impacts when you have a site specific proposal and anything further related to specific infrastructure, I'd probably refer to Mr. McGrath or. Yeah, I'm not sure if there's a there's. So is the Sewer and Water Act adequate? Is it I'm sure. Is the sewer and water adequate to handle a project that would be as dense as what is being proposed? Or would there be a developer responsibility. To help improve it? Yeah. I mean, I can't speak to whether or not it's adequate at this time. I know that that would be a requirement. It would have to be adequate. And the applicant spoke to and I think in your packet there's a letter from the Goldsmith's district indicating they can serve the property and they indicated that they're on Denver water. But I'm really not the one nor I don't know if it's the time now to be able to make that determination. I would defer to others if they have anything else to add on that. But there's really not a lot you can say given the hypothetical nature of them. Okay. Thank you. Nate Lucero. I had a question for for unity. I'm since, you know, in District 11, we have quite a few metro districts. And I'm concerned that if a city council were evaluating the request of an applicant to or the request of someone in opposition of a rezoning to force or for us to, you know , vote down a rezoning based upon, you know, them not wanting to join the metro district. Is this precedent setting for us as a city? If we voted down this rezoning based upon a really a private business conversation between two parties with a metro district? Are we setting a precedent? It's a good question, Councilwoman, and I appreciate that. And it sort of goes back to the questions asked by Councilwoman Sussman, which relate to the rezoning criteria under which you evaluate rezonings. So there's no criterion that says if there's a metro district, then council ought to consider that because that's just not not part of the criteria. And we don't know when, if ever, a metro district is going to be formed in this case. There is there is one. It's not related to this property, but there is one. But it still should have no bearing on on the rezoning decision. And I don't believe that there's any way for city council to compel the rezoning applicant to join the metro district. I think. Thank you, President Clark. I don't have any other questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman new? Well, of course. Mr. Warren, please, sir, just trying to understand a little bit of the history of what the Metro District and the and the G and the general development agreement, the when when when the district was formed. Was there discussions with the previous owners for this property about joining the Metro District and joining the general development plan? Yes, there was. And they were productive discussions and they were about to enter into an agreement in lieu of joining a cost sharing agreement. But then they sold the property before the agreement occurred. Okay. So the owners of that property, have they ever paid for any improvements that the metro district has has entered? No, sir. So as they've been asked to pay for the improvements. Well, we have asked I don't know exactly how to answer that. We have asked them to step up to the plate and ascertain the impacts that their development would have on our district. We think we know a pretty good idea from the studies that we have done how they would impact the district. But we've asked them to negotiate and to enter into a cost sharing agreement and they've said they have no obligation to or they don't intend to do. It just became a legal matter then. They they weren't required to pay for anything. That's correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wong. Stenographer, does your question, please? I was pleased to hear that you were going to. You're thinking about a 10% open space requirement for your development. Would you be willing to get into a development agreement with the Metro District to make sure you can provide that 10% open space? I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? Could you go into a due form, a development agreement with the Metro District? Just to give some assurance that you are going to provide the 10% open space. As. You develop the property? I think so. I'm happy to, I think, provide assurance. I guess I'm not quite as familiar with entering into a development agreement with the district. And I'd want to understand how that would work a little bit better. But I'm happy to stand here today and tell you we're very comfortable providing in excess of 10% of open space . Okay. So you can't give them some assurance that's going to happen. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. Jeff, could I ask you, every time we look at a rezoning and we have all the five criteria that match the application, I'm always struck by the fact that there are other probably other zone classifications that also can meet all the criteria. So I'm curious how this is the most dense CMCs classifications. He emerged 20. It allows up to 20 stories of all the mixed use urban center classifications. How is it arrived at that? This was the appropriate application for this site versus TMX 16 or 12 or one of the lesser lesser ones. Sure. Yeah. I mean, I guess the quick answer is we respond to the request from the and certainly we work with them to find the right zoned district. But ultimately, we responded to the requests at hand and did the analysis based on that. TMX 16 wasn't one of the ones that was requested. I will say that the height allowances for that zone district are below the surrounding heights as context, but again we respond to same x 20. Okay, so that 16 is slightly below, but 20 is slightly above. Yeah. At the number of. The time you throw. Yeah. I think 200 feet is the max height and TMX 20. 250 252 to. 0 zero 200 feet. Okay. I think it's actually 250 and 620. I think it's 200, if I may. Okay. Not in your staff for. 2016 is 200 feet. C-Max. C-Max 20 is 250 feet. All right. You're getting my numbers mixed. I apologize for throwing out too many abbreviations. My fault. It's getting late, and I understand that. So let me ask Mr. Negro a couple of questions. The extended stay was built in 1995. Do you know any of the circumstances being the owner now, but not then, as to and how that was developed? And is that one of the first developments on the the former, you know, the site there? The. Yeah. Yes. I don't really know many of the details surrounding that. My knowledge of what happened then is, frankly, exclusively related to some of the images from Google Earth dating back there. I think that we could repackage. Was was the parcel that the extended stay is what was that part of the golf course? Also, if you know, I don't Mr. Warren is shaking his head. Yes. In lieu of him coming up to the microphone. I'll tell you. Okay. So when the extended stay was purchased, it was hooked up to the Goldsmith Sanitation? That's correct. District. So when a when a guest it extended stay flushes the toilet doesn't it is always gone somewhere before the metro district was established. That's absolutely correct. At least at least we hope so. And after the metro district was established, is that parcel connected to the sewerage lines of the metro district? Are they interconnected? No, it's not currently connected. The infrastructure for that, the subject proper did not change when the metro district was created. Okay. So if it were developed under catch 20 and you have a denser development when people on the 20th floor flush the toilet, that will go to the Goldsmith Sanitation District also. Yes, that is possible. As possible. Is it possible that it will use or that it will have to use some of the infrastructure provided by the Metro District? It is not necessary. Okay. I believe, Mr. President, those were the only questions I had. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa, do you have more questions? I did. Correct. Correct answer. Yes. If he if his answer is different. Come on back up. Since we took a head nod and it sounds like the head nod was maybe not it. Was not part of the golf course. It was part of the clubhouse. Okay. But as part of the bounce back property. Thank you for the clarification, Councilman Espinosa. And I hate to bring up something that is completely irrelevant, but since we're talking about metro districts. At least in the formation of them, you can have a boundary that draw that's drawn in such a way that captures a minority landowner, and that landowner could be essentially compelled by a vote of the district. Is that true or not true? Sir. I. I don't know the answer to. Yeah, that's the question for City. Who are you directing your question to so we can get somewhere? Anybody from the city that's available to answer that or anybody who knows the answer to that question? Actually. I will start I will start by saying I do not know the answer to that question. One of our attorneys back there want to take this question. When forming a metro just metropolitan districts you can form, you can identify a boundary that is an inclusion area. In order to include that property, you have to have 100% of the property owners signatures in order to include the property into the boundary into. Okay, great. Good. So I have questions I'm going to ask Dick Farley and David Foster to come up. So I'll start with you, Mr. Foster. On the GDP, how familiar are you with the sort of pre 2010 GDP and post 2010 GDP and the differences between the two? I probably can't speak to a real specific difference. Okay. At some point in the history of GDP's, in the relative recent history, the process has changed and previously they actually had to come and be adopted by council. Yes, I believe. A GDP from 2006, the vintage of this one was in fact adopted by council. So you can tell, you contend that there were even though the GDP doesn't include this area in its boundaries, that it does speak to these to this parcel, the proposed map amendment. Is that correct? Well, all you have to do is look at page four of the GDP and it calls out this particular three acre site, identifies its existing use and proposed future use. And it's somewhat frankly preposterous that you would take an approved GDP and approve plan that has been recognized as an adopted plan by the city and not contemplate the entirety of the property surrounding this l parcel. I'm honestly, I'm baffled. Staff may have ultimately determined that the GDP doesn't or shouldn't influence what zone district it is, but to ignore it entirely. When infrastructure was brought up at the planning board and the GDP, GDP speaks to infrastructure. I mean, I'm frankly, I'm I am surprised with the somewhat callous disregard for this approved plan. So there is a hurry, hurry hierarchy of plans, though, right? In the sort of the more granular, the smaller the area, the more precedent it essentially has. But that you know that to be true. You know that if you have the 2000 comprehensive plan in 2000 to blueprint and then you have something that is specific to a site or a small neighborhood area or a small neighborhood plan, you know, that you rely you so do we. By the way, as developers and property owners, we rely on those documents to speak more to the specificity of those uses. Then a document that identifies every property across the city. And are you is your understanding the same as mine? When I heard the city attorney's response to the question about considering GDP's that he essentially put it in the same level as a small area neighborhood 100%. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Dick Richard, Mr. Farley. Declined. So you heard the city's response from my previous questions about zoning, district purpose and intent and the response about relationship to arterials and open space. I'm going to read a couple of sentences again from the same zoned zone district. The section let me. So again, under the main heading that says general character, this is for urban center neighborhood context. So we're talking about urban center neighborhood context. Just so the record, can you state your credentials and who you are and your professional background? Well, I'm a urban designer. I was head of the Denver Urban Design section in from 2000. From 1987 to 96. And then I've been in private practice as an architect. I'm now retired. I've been an urban designer. I've been working with neighborhoods. And I mean, the last, you know, sort of five years or so, I was a principal at Civitas in charge of Urban Design. So, you know, I sort of bridge that gap between planning and architecture, between the built part and the policy part. Okay. I just wanted people to know that I didn't just pull you out of random. There's a very specific reason. So in section seven one, one general character, it says commercial uses are primarily located along mixed use arterial streets. Again, is there any is this or any of these streets that border, this property? Arterial streets. Well, Bellevue is close to the property, but is it along? It's not along, no. Okay. And then the. Sorry. Let me I'm trying to marry my notes with the actual text. It also then talks about the urban neighborhood context, and it says the urban neighborhood context, which this zone district is, is part of the proposed map amendment is part of this is the urban neighborhood. Context consists of a regular pattern of block shapes surrounded by an orthogonal street grid. Are the streets here orthogonal? Mostly. But, you know, there's that because of the topography and there's some warping of the of the orthogonal aspect of it. So. I was questioning the city because I've had this challenge with the the the sort of stretch that this administration has been doing with Tod's and applying zone districts that that seemingly are not appropriate for those zone districts, even though the densities may and the mix of uses idealized and all the notions that come with those zone districts that we may not, in fact, have the most appropriate zone district. Time and time again. And that maybe there is grounds for customized zoning in these regards when we have the uniqueness of these circumstances. So the reason why I brought up those questions challenging the, the relationship of the street grid because of the zone district preceded the zone district purpose and intent is not on arterials, but major arterials. You know, I was questioning the the validity of the of that relationship. But I'm am I to understand that you don't have those same reservations? Well, I think the the crux of the the issue is what is the city getting out of a massive up zoning? You know, what is a neighborhood getting out of a massive up zone? It's to me, the the aspect of some of the negotiations on the part of the planning office, you know, if you. I have no problem with the with an up zoning. But, you know, what are we getting out of it? You're going from something that is a 2 to 1 effort to something that probably is close to 15 or 20 FDR. And are we getting any additional open space on it or are we getting design review and design standards and guidelines? Or are we, you know, we're getting open space or we're getting housing? And, you know, I don't think we're getting much of anything with that kind of uphill. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn, you back up? Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. I was I while the discussion made me recall the other question I was going to ask, and that is and I Jeff May, you might be the most appropriate person to address this. And I promise to try not to confuse you again on the terminology, but the current zoning on all of the parcels here, including in the Bellevue station, GDP and the applicant property are all with one exception, that this council did in 2015. They are all old. Chapter 59 Zoning. Is that correct? There's an there's a one parcel that's smack 12 that was changed in 2015. But yeah, it's like someone can pull it up. Yes. Everything north of Bellevue, west of Quebec, is all old code zoning. Okay. And so we don't really have an option in the old for a rezoning of this parcel that the extended stay is on the applicant with, which is before with waivers and 50 foot height limit. I think I think most people would agree that just adjacent to a transit station that's probably not the that this this is under zoned right now according to all the planning for four transit stops to have a two storey. Yeah that's opinions that underutilized site for example. So we have to look to the 2010 code. So my question is and this gets to what I was asking earlier about the need to see Amex toe choice. And I know that was the applicant's choice, but what are what other classifications existed in 2010 code that would more that would better match the time you throw under chapter 59. We don't have one that's exactly congruent. But is this the closest to the zoning for the surrounding parcels of those that are available to us in the 2010 code? That's tough to say. I mean, the the team you throw, the fact that it has waivers on it to makes it a very layered, nuanced, custom zoned district. So we did not do that analysis of the most comparable. I will say we looked we looked both at the suburban context and the urban center context. And there was it really was in a suburban context zone district that really sort of fit in with the overall sort of land use and zoning framework. So that put us into the urban center context, and that is where we are today. There's just not I don't really have a great answer for you because it's such a customized, zoned district. We don't really have anything that. You throw the. 2330 with the way. With the waiver. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So we don't have anything that can exactly match, but. But the CMH 20. Other than the 30 foot additional height and the open space. 10% minimum in the team. You're 30 and none here. Yeah, we don't, we, we don't have a zone district that based on district that has really robust open space requirements. I think we've got some in the Cherry Creek area that are specific to that area with some open space requirements. But other than that, not a requirement really that was carried forward into the current code, which is I mean, like it or not, it's kind of the system that we're working with right now. Then I'll say not. All right. Well, thank you, but that's almost frozen. Thank you, Councilman Flint, Councilwoman Sussman. Yes. I have a question about something that's been of concern to me about the protest petition. Certainly had an experience with that recently. In this particular protest petition, how many signatures did it require to engender a protest petition? Oh, gosh, I'll have to I have to pull out my staff report. I think it was only four. I'll have to confirm that for signatures. Well, it all depended on which property signed because it depends on the geographic area of the property owner who is signing. So in this case I believe you only needed four representing to get to that 20% threshold. But it really so isn't really the number of property owners, it's the number of property owners in tandem with the percentage area that they own. Exactly. So there are four owners that own 20% of the 200 feet. And if you'd like, I can confirm that with sense. Okay. Okay. Just wanted me to know how many it took. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Constable 1497 is closed. And we're going to move on to comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going first because this is in my district. And Councilman Flynn, to follow up on your line of questioning about the zone district, also in my district is the Colorado station and it is actually zone and 20. So just as an employee. So it's great that you're all here on some friends are in the audience tonight. The Bellevue station is an incredible development for our city. And in my district, my constituents are really enjoying all the great new restaurants there as I am personally. Some of you may not know this little bit of trivia, but this family has owned this property for 160 years. Is that right? 1880s, I've been saying 1860s, 1880s. They are very patient. I also wanted to comment that the statistical neighborhood is called South Moor Park, which anyone who lives in south east Denver would never call that South More Park. In fact, the actual park called South Moor Park is not even in South Moor Park, this particular motel. I think all parties who are aware of the area are pleased that it's going away. It's been a. A development that has had a lot of crime. And I know the police have been there a lot trying to solve some of those issues related to that motel. As far as this rezoning goes, I think I first heard about it close to a year ago. I know it was winter and I really struggled with it. I have had countless meetings with multiple city attorneys and people in the mayor's office so I could better understand the legal issues around it. As a council, we often go off topic when we are discussing rezonings. And so I have been very clear in talking to our attorneys to make sure that we stay on topic and that we follow the legal criteria for this rezoning. There's a lot of issues that are important to this rezoning, and some of them are relevant to the criteria and some are not. I hear you all when you express your sense of unfairness around the infrastructure. I agree with you. And, you know, if there was a way to make them pay for your infrastructure, that would be great. I have asked both of you to talk to each other to see if you can come to some sort of agreement. But there is nothing legally that the city can do to compel you to do that. There is no legal way to force one party into a special district. It is a voluntary thing to be in a special district. Again, we've had numerous conversations about that, and it is my understanding that all over the city we have instances where the first developer in pays for the infrastructure and the next guy or woman in benefits. And it's just not fair, but that's just what happens. I still would love it if you all would get together and come to some sort of agreement on the open space issues. Yes, we need more open space in our city. I'm pleased to hear that your plans would include some open space. I have to acknowledge Chris Nevitt in the audience. I feel like I'm on the Academy Awards. I like to think of it now. Chris Nevitt, he is our manager of transportation oriented development, had a lot of conversations with Chris about this project. And it it it is an appropriate zoned district for a light rail station and for Todd. And as we as I said when I first started talking, the Colorado station does have this exact same zoning, so I will be supporting this. It aligns with the legal criteria that we are supposed to be looking at. Again, there are a lot of other issues, but they are not relevant to the legal criteria to resell this property. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Black, are there any other comments? Councilman Espinosa. All right. Sorry. I'm finishing up notes. I've heard that I'm better when I read than going off the cuff. My issue on this is as much the minimum as it is the maximum, and neither are adequately or appropriately addressed by the proposed zone district. In a zoning sense, we are trying to shove a square peg into a round hole and what can be built there is everything from a McDonald's to a 250 foot tall mass that covers every square inch of the parcel. No setbacks. No open space required. None. Which will it be? Who knows? We could, with more appropriate zoning, tailor to the unique circumstances and the opportunity that this land has for placemaking next to a TOD Transit Station. But we have to prioritize outcomes over the status quo. Selecting a base zone district to much of the things that Dick Farley just talked about is just accepting the status quo, which a lot of communities in this city have spoken out against that are based on. Districts do not do enough. We've done a two year planning effort. Denver Right. Talking about district standards and guidelines because of the deficiencies in our base zone districts. And not to take these opportunities to codify real outcomes that are. Todd is a dereliction of duty. There are major differences in concert mean there are major deficiencies in consistency with adopted plans and neighborhood contexts and non-conformists with the zone, district purpose and intent. The Base Zone District is intended and is defined in the Denver zoning code for an entirely different context. The area is clearly conducive to a mix of uses. I won't deny that. Increased density. That too. And has plan objectives for those outcomes with some much needed public amenities, including open space. This zone district is being taken out of context in an attempt to apply it to a zone lot that does not conform to the district purpose and intent. If we do not have an appropriate zone district due to the uniqueness of these circumstances that would capture the stated and codified objectives of all adopted plans, then you have the conditions. An applicant would need to justify a PUD that would appropriately address all requisite criteria. This MAP amendment fails to meet two of the most significant criteria and is wholly inappropriate. The fact that the city administration and appointees continue to ignore these simple facts continue to fail not only this particular station area, but all Denver communities, as it has repeatedly for the last ten years or eight years, sorry, since we adopted the new Denver zoning code. The things that Chairman Siku is talking about were real. And if we don't get these things right and we don't demand more from our city staff and push developers requesting. Dick Farley was right. 820 a tenfold increase in entitlement to go from basically far to too far. 20. That's 18 stories of zero set back that we are granting this developer for the cost of going through the rezoning process. If we can have tough discussions then and get better outcomes by the time it gets here and we continue and we continue to approve those things, don't be surprised what comes after the Denver right is adopted. Thanks. I'll be voting no. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President. Clerk You know, based upon the current plans that we have and the legal responsibility that that we have to look at the information that's presented before us and. Would I like different things done around requiring open space? Of course. I think as a city council, we should really dig into the, you know, the general development plan process we have. We don't have a say in requiring open space in new developments. We're leaving that up to CPD and especially when there might be recommendations where a developer might split parcels so that you're not under that ten acres to move things forward that can affect a community very negatively, not having that open space, I understand that. But we've got to look at what's presented before us tonight and in everything that has been presented. In reviewing the criteria. I believe it does meet the criteria because this is by a towed station. We need the density by a Todd, by that within that Todd area. And I'm very concerned that we're blurring those lines between what we as council can do around metro districts. I would probably never have a successful rezoning in District 11 if we were taking as some of the criteria that we were going to compel a property owner to become part of that metro district, just for the very fact of the way that Green Valley Ranch was built. And that's very concerning to me, because we could try to compel someone to join into a metro district. And that, unfortunately, could affect us getting a full service grocery store to serve our neighborhood because they want to make a business a business direction that they don't want to come in under that metro district because the metro districts serve their purpose. They help us get development and infrastructure in the city, but they also tack on additional taxes and mills that can make it very hard for local owned businesses to stay in the neighborhood. Our you know, the the prices that we have in Green Valley Ranch sometimes rival near to the urban core. That makes it an undue burden. And we cannot use the metro district argument to vote down this rezoning. And so with that being said, I will be supporting the rezoning. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So first, I just want to thank everybody on both sides for coming down and sharing all the different perspectives on this issue. I think it's critically important that we look at every single zoning on the merits of what is presented before us. I appreciate the commitment that was made to include open space on this site because that was a big part of tonight's conversation. This is an area of change under blueprint. It is a tod site. Across the city we have been seeing zoning increases to accommodate trying to get more people at our tod locations, encouraging more people to take public transit, try to make sure we're closing the gaps on first mile, last mile so that people don't have to drive their cars to go to work regardless of wherever they happen to work. And I think if we really want to see councils involvement, as was previously done when I served with a whole different body of people, then we need to change the zoning code if we want this body to look at the details that we used to see, because that authority was abdicated to the Planning Department under previous council, and we now no longer see that level of detail that used to come before this body. And I think there is less predictability for the neighborhoods, but I think that there is also less predictability for the developers because you then have to deal with the planning department to work through this process. So that's something we may want to have a collective conversation with our development community about. And I've had this conversation with a number of them. You know, when when we did a metro district in the Central Central Platte Valley in my old district, the city played a big role in basically doing some of the infrastructure, like building the parks, which actually were built to serve the Highlands neighborhood on the other side of the highway. But with all the new development that came in, it actually serves, you know, those constituents probably more so than it does people on the other side of the highway. The metro district obviously covered a bunch of other improvements that really kind of laid out the opportunity for the developers to come in and build a lot of that high density development that exists there today. This is a 3.2 acre site. And I know we're looking at just the merits of this case. But just to put this into context, we're now talking about approximately 500 acres of development that we're going to see along the I-25 corridor. And we're not even having the big picture conversation because we're not involved in that process, because we've been taken out of it to look at what are we doing to address the impact to the existing infrastructure of waterlines, sewer lines, all of our other utilities, the existing roads. I-25 is gridlocked today. I drive that corridor every single day, and we can't widen it through parts of that section because we've built right up to the edges. So as a city, I think we need to take a step back and look at how we are addressing the bigger picture of the impact issues when we are looking at huge parcels. And again, you know, just taking into account what we will be seeing on the I-25 corridor, it's going to be massive. And we think we have gridlock today. We need to be getting our arms around this on the front end and not wait until it hits us in the face and go. What are we going to do now and expect the taxpayers to pay for everything? So these are important conversations to have. I will be supporting this tonight. I appreciate the fact that the developer of the Bellevue Metro Station, this MIT district, you know, covered the cost of all the infrastructure to build out that site. And, you know, I served with Councilwoman Foster at the time. All of that was brought forward. The sewer lines, the water lines were were increased in size to accommodate the increase in development activity that was proposed at this new TOD site. But that doesn't that doesn't require that the current property owner has to cover those costs. Each metro district stands on their own. And we have seen more and more of them come before this body that have been approved for new development that is yet to come, some of which I just talked about. So. Legally, I can't see any justification to say this particular property owner because they will be utilizing the roads, potentially tapping into water or sewer lines, all which connected the city's lines. That that they should be held accountable or responsible for some of the costs that other property owners who came before them had to incur that are within the metro district. So for all of those reasons, I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. I don't see any other comments, so I'll just quickly add. Councilwoman Black, you had acknowledged our toddy guru, Chris Nevitt in the building. I just wanted to also acknowledge that he's a former member of this body representing Luckey District seven. So Councilman Nevett, honored to have you in the chamber this evening. Good to see you. I want to say thank you to staff for all your work on this, putting together the presentation, I think as outlined in the presentation tonight and in the staff report. For me, this meets the legal criteria for rezoning and I will be supporting it tonight. Councilmember Since Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest has been met with petition signatures, then ten affirmative votes are needed instead of the standard seven to pass this bill this evening. With that, Mr. Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1497. That's all. All right. Gentlemen. Brooks. I know. I feel more. I earned it. I kasmin. I can eat. I. Lopez I know. Ortega Hi. Sussman Hi. Mr. President. All right, Mr. Secretary. Close the voting. Announce the results. 12 hours, Mr. President. 12 eyes one day. Council Bill 1497 has passed. On Monday, February 25th, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1480 for changing the zoning classification for 42 on Delaware Street in Globeville and a required public hearing on Council Bill 1540

Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2017. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC_09052017_2017-4620

Motion carries unanimously and may the record reflect member Ashcraft just joined us I will now during that meeting and now I will open the regular city council meeting and it is now a quarter to ten. 945 roll call. We have five present now. Thank you. All right. Agenda changes. I am pulling five. Oh, actually, I'm just plan to vote no on it, so I just need to reflect that. Are there any items, any other items we need to pull? I'm going to pull five. I'll actually vote no on it. So if. You're voting no on. 505l4, Larry. If I make council members, what I want to do is vote no. You can just record that without pulling the item. And I'm happy to do it that way. Okay. So on this, the balance of the consent calendar be approved. Oh, I'm sorry. Does your gender change? We're not there. Yet. So that's agenda changes. So it's only 500 and five L that I heard anyone speak to. Is it possible, Mayor Spencer, to move up at nine B to be heard after the item 60? Which item. Nine be. What is nine. It's the referral. So I would not. So so that's the and they would not move moving up referrals. To move it after item 60. Those there. I don't support that. Um, I actually was thinking you might say another item. Um. Ah. Is there more majority that wants to move up a referral to to before 60 or after 60? I wanted. To. So if I may, I wanted to see if we could move item 60 up in the regular agenda to be the first regular agenda item since we do need to vote on that tonight. Right. Yeah. I would second that motion that that's ahead of me. So is that ahead of our proclamations? Is that what you're asking, that it would be the next thing we go to? Okay. So I'm not in favor of that. Is anyone else in favor of that? But I mean, now she's asking to move up six d to have it be the next thing we go to. After the consent item, since we do need to vote on that matter tonight. I would support that. I would do. Oh, right. Okay. I think we have a vote in a second. Okay. That follows the consent calendar. Mm hmm. Okay. I thought you were asking about. I'm going to. I'm going to withdraw my referral. Okay. Okay. Okay. So next then I just want to confirm agenda changes. We only have five oh and five oh. We had to know about one on each of those. Any other changes are on that. Okay. So then we can move to our proclamation three, a proclamation declaring September 16th, 2017 as Coastal Cleanup Day.

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget, including the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2021-2026 CIP; creating positions; modifying positions; abrogating positions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120221

Nine opposed the bill passes in the trouble planet. Will the card please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the title of item three into the record channel? Item three Council Bill 120221 An ordinance amending ordinance 126237 which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2021 through 2026 capital improvement program a.S.A.P . The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on the bill? Council members the one place. Sorry. Just finding my place here. I will I will be voting no on this 20, 21 year end supplemental budget. Unfortunately, because this vote is coinciding with the votes on the total city budget for next year, it has not received the attention it needs. As in previous years, there are many elements of this supplemental budget that I have no objection to, but there are some aspects that are very objectionable, and for that reason I will be voting no. This supplemental budget increases the police budget for this year 2021, by a total of $6 million. 333,540. How can the police complain of hundreds and hundreds of vacancies and a reduced payroll on the one hand and demand millions more dollars in mad money? On the other, it makes no sense. Some of that increased funding comes from the general fund and would better be spent on housing renewal programs and social services. Other funding comes from federal grants, and some of those grants are particularly ominous because it includes grants from the FBI and from Homeland Security for those so-called joint operations that have been used in the past to criminalize dissent. Like the way peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters were arrested and investigated by federal officers in the Justice for George Floyd movement last year. For those reasons, I will be voting no on this supplemental budget. Thank you. Thank you. Comes first. Are there excuse me, any additional comments? Any additional comments? Any additional comments on the bill? Gary None. The piece called the roll on the passage of the bill won't. No. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mascara. I. I. Council President Gonzales I. Eight in favor one opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will occur. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. The clerk please read the title of item four into the record. Jan Item four Council Bill 120040 An Ordinance Meeting Ordinance 126000 which adopted the 2020 budget, including the 2023 2025 CFP, changing appropriations to various departments and

Recommendation to determine that the application serves the public convenience and necessity, and receive and file the application of Malibu Management Services Number 2, Incorporated, dba Malibu Wines, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 1126 Queens Highway, Portside Retail Shop Main Hall Aft. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_11102015_15-1154

Item 15. Report from police recommendation to determine that the application serves the public convenience and necessity in receiving fire. The application of Malibu Wines for an original application of an ABC license at 1126 Queens Highway District to. Thank you and council members. I am in support of this item. Is there any member of the public that was on item 15? Please come. Forward. Good evening, counsel. My name is Shane Semler. I am the applicant for this ABC license. I just wanted to introduce myself. I will be brief. We're renting a small space on the Queen Mary. We're going to do a wine bar that offers Malibu wines. And, uh, that's about it. We've worked with John Jenkins. I'm sorry. John Thomas. Who is the ship historian. We haven't altered the space at all. We've actually kind of made it a little bit better, and, uh, that's about it. So if anybody has any questions. Great. Thank you. And thank you for introducing yourself and for waiting this long. Members, please cast your vote. Councilman. Awesome motion carries. Thank you.

Consider Having Council Sign the Friends of the River Letter Urging the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Interior Secretary to Reject the Proposed Shasta Dam Raise and the Temperance Flat Dam for the Friends of the River May 18, 2016 Legislative Outreach, which Requires Council Action at the May 17, 2016 Meeting. (Mayor Spencer)

AlamedaCC_05172016_2016-2891

Nine A's consider having counsel sign the Friends of the River letter urging the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Interior Secretary to reject the proposed Shasta Dam Raze and the Temperance Fight Dam for the Friends of the River. May 18, 2016. Legislative Outreach Which requires council action tonight. And this was my referral. And we do have speakers on it. And there is a letter that is attached here. And, but I, I brought it for, to hear if council would be interested in joining me. Otherwise I would sign it. And I really do want to attend the. I'm planning to attend the day tomorrow in Sacramento and join our community members. If, uh, if council supports this. All right. And I'm going to go ahead and call our speakers on this item Heinrich, Albert, Nina, Gordon Kirsch and then Richard Banger. Thank you very much. My name is Heinrich Albert. I'm a volunteer with Friends of the River and with the Sierra Club Water Committee. I've previously sent the members of the council information summarizing the two specific projects that we're asking or that we address in the letter and that we're asking you to support. What I would like to do tonight is just discuss the two issues that were raised in the letter from Alameda Municipal Power. So if you had a chance to look at the summary that we sent out on the Shasta Dam race, we don't discuss hydropower generation in that summary. And the reason is that there's no significant change. I've just gone back in and reviewed the Bureau of Reclamation, Feasibility and Environmental Impact statements. They look specifically at several different generating sites. Some go up, some go down. The net change is not significant. So if we do a cost benefit on this project and we look at the very significant dollar costs, we look at the environmental damage, which is done both upstream of the dam and downstream, including in our own estuary. If we look at the cultural loss to the women went to tribe and we try to balance this out with really what is just a pittance of new water and no significant change in hydroelectric generation. I think this just does not pencil out. This project does not make sense. Now, the second point that was raised was the litigation by Northern California Power Agency. So Alameda Municipal Power is a member of that group and they've initiated the suit, the purpose of which is to reduce the payments for environmental remediation that Alameda Municipal Power pays. So the Central Valley Project, which includes the Shasta Dam, it is required by law every year to do very extensive environmental remediation to balance out the damage that this existing project does. They in turn pass that on to their customers, including Alameda Municipal Power. Alameda Municipal Power wants to pay less for this environmental remediation. I have no opinion on the merits of that litigation, but in my opinion, when you're in a hole, stop digging. If you want to pay less for environmental remediation, then we shouldn't build more environmental problems that we then have to remediate. Thank you very much. Thank you. Nina Gordon Kirsch. Hi. My name is Nina. It's my first time at a city hall meeting. It's very exciting. I'm from Friends of the River and I have a lot of training in the water industry. I did a Fulbright scholarship in Israel about wastewater treatment, and then I continued and did my master's degree in environmental economics, and I wrote my thesis on a cost effectiveness analysis of wastewater treatment options. So I'm familiar with cost benefit analysis. The Temperance Flat Dam proposal doesn't make any sense from a cost benefit analysis perspective. The costs there's financial costs, $2.6 billion, and growing projects like that always increase in costs as they continue to get built. There's environmental costs, fisheries, damaged ecosystems of where the reservoir will be. A lot of those plants will get ruined. There's also cultural costs, such as the Native Americans that use that river and that whole area. And then there's benefits. There's an increase in water supply, but it's only about 70,000 acre feet per year. And that's a tiny, tiny percentage. That's like point 2% of California state water needs as a whole. So it's a really small percentage. Um, and then there's also hydropower, which is a benefit, and the project is proposed to create 160 megawatts of watt of electricity per year. Yet creation of this dam will actually flood two existing hydropower plants. And the net, there's a net loss in electricity production. So as much as there might be some hydropower created in this dam proposal, the overall power creation will decrease. So that doesn't make any sense. Um, so I just want to say that if Allen, if the AMP is focused on increasing renewable energy like hydropower, this isn't the answer. And there's been a lot of proposals and I think five different proposals and none of them have have shown to be successful. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Richard Baer. And then he's our last speaker on this item. If you'd like to speak on the side and please turn on your slip. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the Council on City Staff. I support the letter. I think it's unfortunate that our municipal power company, whose middle name is Green, recommended that you take a neutral position on this. In this case, neutral is not benign. Neutral says that you're willing to live with the consequences. In the case of the Temperance Flat Dam of flooding, an area that another branch of the Interior Department has recommended for designation as a national, wild and scenic river. I think this points up a shortcoming of the AMP scorecard on what is green and. In their calculation. Apparently, the only way this river has any value is if money can be derived by sending water to agribusiness or generating power. And as as a previous speaker pointed out, it's not really going to be a net increase in power. This isn't the first time, by the way, that our municipal park company has been on the wrong side of the river, so to speak. About six years ago, when the Department of Interior recommended changing the water flow allocation on the Trinity River. Previously, up until that point, 90% went to agribusiness and power generation, 10% to the fish or the fishery. They wanted to raise it to 47% for the fishery. The rest to who? Agribusiness and power generation. What did our local power company do? They joined with the Northern California Power Association or agency filing suit to try and prevent implementation of that. Our city only withdrew from that lawsuit after there was a public uproar. Same thing happened in Palo Alto, Sacramento Utility District, Port of Oakland. And so I think. I think you should not remain neutral. You should take a firm stand. And some people may think, well, this is a little far afield. Well, it's no farther afield than sister city in Asia. You know, maybe we should have Sister Rivers take a road trip. All right. Well, thank you very much. And this is a lot closer than a sister city in Asia. This is right here in the state of California, in northern California. So I brought this as a referral. I think that the language in the letter is very straightforward. This year, the fate of three of California's outstanding rivers, McCloud, Sacramento, San Joaquin, are in our hands. And I agree with the last speaker that doing nothing is not doing nothing. And it is actually time. I submit it's time it is appropriate for us to take a position on this. And yes, given that there's enormous cost for dubious results and in the long term, I think we're we're better off following the approach that this letter supports. I move that we as a council sign this letter. I would second that. Yes. Member I'll just add that, you know, I've met with all three of the speakers on this individually and find their arguments compelling and I plan on supporting this and thank you for bringing it forward. You remember Ashcroft. So thank you, everyone, for your presentations. And I have met with staff and I understand the concerns of AMP. I will note that we do pride ourselves on having a clean, green utility. This is these rivers that are listed in the letter are not among the ones we receive our power from any of our hydroelectric power from . I do think you need to look on a case by case basis, and maybe there will come a time when we need to look at some of the hydro electric sources of AMP. But we I still think we do a great job with our electric municipal electric utility. I do give a lot of credit to the people who dig deep. Mr. Abbott has, I will say, hounded council. I don't know about others, but me and but I do appreciate those who go into depth and these and I also talked to a friend who's active in the both the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters and looked at all different sides of this. And so I am prepared to support Alameda signing on or signing this letter as a as a member of the city council. Remember, these are. A thank you. I've met on several occasions with Mr. Albert and on most on all occasions I indicated to him that I was going to predicate my decision on what our legal counsel and what our AMP staff members have to say. And in conclusion, what AMP recommended was this AMP's recommendation that his Alameda Municipal Power's recommendation would be for Alameda to take no position on this matter at this time. I'm going to I'm going to stick with AMP recommendation on this, but I will say thank you very much to Mr. Alberts for always bumping into me at the farmer's market. All right. That being said, there's a motion and a second. All those in favor. I have those opposed. Motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you. Next item nine b. Consider having council endorse one or combination of options for the future structure of the Association of Area Governments, including an option to merge with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which requires Council action.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to prepare a report on the status of retail commerce regionally and in Long Beach with a focus on brick and mortar establishments, including best practices and creative approaches cities are taking to manage changes in consumer behavior due to on-line shopping, and provide an update to the City Council in 120 days.

LongBeachCC_11122019_19-1126

Line Item 14, please. Communication from Councilwoman Price Council Member Pierce, Councilman Austin. Recommendation to direct City Manager to prepare a report on the status of retail commerce regionally and in Long Beach with a focus on brick and mortar establishments and provide an update to the city council. And 120 days? Yes. Do you have any county council comments on this? Very good hill. Mr. Encontraram. Are you going to work on this? Right. Okay. Surprise you. I asked my colleagues to support this item. As we have all seen, the Internet has changed just about every aspect of all of our lives, and there's no exception to that reality when we think about retail establishments and retail health in general, as we know almost daily now, there are articles and newspapers around the country talking about the end of retail malls closing nationwide as a result of Internet commerce and access to goods through the Internet. This has had a tremendous impact, if not already. I expect it will on many of our business corridors. We're not alone in this. The city of Beverly Hills has seen unprecedented vacancies on little Santa monica Boulevard. State Street in Santa Barbara has seen unprecedented vacancies just in the last two years on State Street, upper and lower. And we're starting to see that throughout the state of California in different business corridors. I'm hoping that our economic development department can really take a deep dove on this issue and figure out what is happening with retail and how can retail change so that it is more integrated with online commerce that we're seeing? I'll give you an example of a store that just opened in the third district at Second and PCH. It's called Nike Live. There are two Nike Live stores in the world. There's one in Tokyo and one in Long Beach, which is pretty exciting. And what Nike Live does is that they monitor online sales within the region based on zip code so that they know what people in the area are purchasing online and they stock the store with items that people are purchasing online to create a sense of community trends, community style connection. And that's just one way that they're trying to integrate online shopping with the brick and mortar experience. What are ways that our retailers, our current retailers can continue to stay competitive with an online presence of competing stores? So I'm hoping that our economic development team can come back with some ways that we can help modify the way we're doing things, some education that we can provide to our small businesses and especially our retailers. And some ways that we might be able to change as a city to allow businesses to continue to thrive. Whether that means changing regulations that we've held on to in the past in terms of parking, development, building, etc., to allow for companies to establish here in the city and to continue to help our business improvement districts thrive with both services, restaurants, with all services, restaurants and retail thriving alongside one another. So thank you in advance for your support, colleagues. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Austin. Yes, I'm happy to second this item. When this was presented, I thought it was very thoughtful and hopefully so give our economic development department something else to do in terms of making us smarter as a city, in terms of how we we look at, you know, how we help businesses. I know I brought forward an item a few months back to study vacancies and vacant properties, and I think this is somewhat in line with that as well. And I think it would also be good and helpful to understand the the impacts of e-commerce on on sales tax revenue or potential lost sales tax revenue here in the city. Because that, to me, I think, is one area that that we need to look at as well. But I'm happy to support this. And perhaps we can we can have that conversation further in another time. Thank you. Thank you. Our next step is Councilman Pearce. I guess I was happy to sign on to this item. I think it's a great start to a bigger conversation. I am happy to say that I've met with John with economic development this morning and had some conversations similar. Just this week we had another two businesses on Fore Street. The AIDS food store and a barber shop have their rent increase over three over three times. So I went from $3,000 a month to $9,000 a month in rent. And so I know that while there's online challenges, there's also the rental market challenges as well. Additionally, I know that majority of our retail stores on Fore Street also sell online. And so what is the capacity of our local mom and pop businesses to get access to resources and support, to be able to understand how to go out and get new clients, new returning clients as well. And so I look forward to our many conversations to come. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Good here in control. Want to speak to this item at Sink. Seeing nonmembers, please. Gordon, cast your vote.

Recommendation to Approve Joining and Participating in the United States Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Mayors Challenge for Safer People, Safer Streets. (City Manager)

AlamedaCC_02172015_2015-1340

Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council community members. I'm Gayle Payne, Transportation Coordinator of the Public Works Department. This item before you is a staff recommendation to join and participate in the U.S. Department of Transportation. Mayor's Challenge for Safer Streets. Safer People. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Initiative. The challenge is a yearlong effort and begins on March 12th with a kick off event. And it requires the city to make a public statement about the importance of bicycling and walking. It also requires us to form a task force and to take part in seven challenge activities that are shown up there on your screen. The first one is to take a complete street approach. The second one is to remove barriers for all road users. The third to collect data on bicycling and walking. The fourth to use best practices designs. Fifth, to implement bicycling and walking improvements with maintenance projects like resurfacing. And six out of the seven is to improve the laws and regulations. And the last one is to educate and enforce road user behavior, working with the police department on that one. We're really fortunate in the timing of this challenge because the Public Works Department is just embarking on an update, a required update of both the pedestrian plans and the bicycle plan. So we can easily fold this effort, this national effort, into our local effort that's required to update these plans. And we can use this as a national best practices checklist. And so we will be starting the work scopes of those updates next month. And so we don't foresee too much additional staff work on that on this effort at all. The questions and comments. I remember Ashcraft. Thank you. Thank you for that update. I. I thought, too, when I read this and I know it was recently added to the agenda because we just got this information. But I thought it was great timing because we're just about to do the ribbon cutting on this fabulous shorelines cycle track project. And I was just at a workshop that you led last week on the Cross Alameda Trail. And. But I did have the question in my notes about how much additional staff work and time and resources would be necessary. But it sounds like. What did you say that that Public Works is about to embark on. That we're about to embark on on required updates for the bicycle plan? Okay. That was and also the pedestrian plan to the bicycle plan was update was back in 2010. So it's required every five years. And then the pedestrian plan was back in 2009. Okay. And and I would just like to say that I would certainly want to see Miss Payne as a key member of this effort, because she is so knowledgeable and has been at the forefront of some really great projects we've been doing for bicycles and pedestrians in Alameda. And I think you did mention the police department because that was also my thought about the educating and enforcing proper road behavior would need to get law enforcement in on that. So other than that, I think this is really exciting. It's timely, and I think Alameda could be a good leader in this in this effort. So thank you for bringing this to us. Any other member comments? Up the nation. So I personally would like us to do this. However, I want to clarify my understanding that we can do as much as we can do. There are some things that would have to the issuing the public statement. My understand that does have to happen and then forming the look. The top three are things that I think are supposed to happen and then you do as much of the challenge activities as you can. You're not expected. You don't have to do them all. And it's not as so they'll be following up and seeing if we in fact are able to do all of these, but that we try to we try and we do balance depending upon CASM, whatnot. But the top three issue, a public statement about the importance of bicycle pedestrian safety, form the local action team, and then take local action through challenge activities. So, yes, I do understand. We do need a motion to do this. Moved. Well, okay, it's has been settled because I want some clarification about what it is we're voting on. So that we can sign up as it actually says. One of the steps to signing up mayor or a top elected official has or gets approval or and support from their city or jurisdiction to join the challenge. So I think we do. When when I read that, I think we do need council approval to sign up. Yes, I agree that we need council's approval. I would certainly not want to see us limiting our goals before we've even begun, because I, quite frankly, think we're capable of doing all of them. So I think you you start out and you set your sights high. And I think I have a feeling we've already done more than three of these and, you know, probably aren't that far away from doing all seven. So I think Alameda is equal to the challenge. Let's do it all. So we have a motion to the motion members. I just wanted a quick comment, you know, kind of second. What was their second to the motion? No, I'll do that. But then also I continue my comment. Councilmember Asker We can't just say we're going to do this and give lip service, do that to this. And you know, the mayor make a statement. Yeah, I commit to this, blah, blah, blah. You know, we want to have safe, convenient roads and then we don't do anything about it. It just seems kind of kind of silly if if we're not going to actually go, you know, full in 100% of this. We have emotion a second. Any other comments? All those in favor, I suppose, and passes unanimously. Thank you very much. And now we have City Manager Communications. None this evening. Oral communications, not agenda. We don't have anymore. No council referrals. Oh, sorry. Oh, sorry. Yes, sorry. We missed this. Came in. Carol Goldstein, City resident I just had a question because that was on the last slide. It was about the transportation plant. It said that it was to make streets better for not just bikes and pedestrians, but also personal mobility devices.

Recommendation to receive and file the application of The Pie Bar, LLC, dba The Pie Bar, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 450 Pine Avenue. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_05242016_16-0488

Item 30 Report from Police Recommendation to receive and file the application of the peer bar for an original application of an ABC license at 450. Pine Avenue District one. Councilman Gonzales. Is there a staff report on this item? Yes, Commander Joel Cook. Also my mistake. Honorable Mayor and City Council. Item 30 is an application for a new Type 41 on sale beer and wine. ABC License for a restaurant. The police department has conducted our investigation and do not anticipate any adverse impact with the issuance of this license. That concludes my report, and I'm available for any questions that you might have. That's it. I want to thank you and I look forward to this. I just passed by today and it's going to be a great addition to the downtown area. Thank you. It's delicious. Actually, yes. Mr. Motion, in a second, is there any public comment? Signal. Please cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Financial Management Department’s Purchasing Division to ensure a study of the current Local Preference Ordinance is included in the Extreme Procurement Makeover Project (which is remaking procurement policies, processes, and practices in Long Beach), including an analysis, assessment of the feasibility and options for implementation of the items. In addition, prioritize this study by modifying the workplan for the Extreme Procurement Makeover Project, and report back to City Council in no more than 180 days.

LongBeachCC_03012022_22-0223

Thank you. We're going to take item 11, please, which is the local preference medium. Communication from Councilwoman Allen, Councilwoman Mongo, Councilwoman Sara Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Financial Management Department's Purchasing Division to ensure a study of the current local preference ordinance is included in the Extreme Procurement Makeover Project and report back to City Council in no more than 180 days. Councilwoman Allen. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say, first of all, thank you to Councilwoman Ciro and Mongo for joining me on this item. And we all understand just the importance of keeping spending locally. And this policy has not been updated for over a decade. And this is something that I am very passionate about. Local businesses are the heart of our city and we need to make sure that we give them preference. These businesses have decided to invest in our city. They hire in our city. They also support other local businesses and restaurants. And local businesses who operate in the city. Need to know that if they decide to open up shop here or open up a business here in our city, that we're going to support them as a as a city and that we are also, as a city invested in their success . So I also want to thank Jeremy Harris of the Chamber of Commerce and the Delbert for their letter of support with this item. I appreciate I definitely appreciate the support, but also their interest in being an active partner in our procurement makeover. One of the things that I'd like to make sure that you reach out to the following groups as part of this makeover process. So that would include the Chamber, the Long Beach Economic Partnership, any business associations across the city, the deal, Bay, these groups and these members will be on the other end of the Nube procurement systems and they can help us. You know, have been included in this process. They'll help us be the best this can be. And I just know from from my past life in business, in business and doing a lot of pure procurement with the city and other municipalities across the state, how important it is for these cities to focus on on their local vendors. And I'm telling you, it does make a difference. It's better for us. It's better for our city. It's better for for our workers. The first step was taken in 2009 when our local preference was first established, but the cap of 100,000 was too low then, and inflation has almost made this comical now . So I think a preference of 10% was a good start. But it may not be enough to entice businesses elsewhere in our area to open offices or move their headquarters to Long Beach. So I want to thank the mayor and council who first took the step back when the mayor was first council member of the first District . I. A stronger local preference program will further empower local firms, many of which are designated small business enterprises, their minority owned business enterprises, their woman owned business enterprises. And they all need to compete successfully with established firms outside the city. And that may not share many of those characteristics. So it is my hope that all city employees who are involved in any purchasing decisions when possible, that we that we keep it local. So I do hope that my colleagues will support this logical next step in strengthening our local purchasing and our local economy, especially for small businesses . Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sara. Thank you, Mayor. And I also want to thank Councilmember and Councilwoman Allen for leading on this item, as well as Councilman Mongo for supporting it. You know, I think that this is a great next step because as we're in this opportunity to be able to work on recovery, it's great to be able to review our local preference ordinance because we want to make sure that as businesses as well as nonprofit are getting back on their feet, that we consider how as a city that we help them do that. So I appreciate this item and that I hope that, as Councilwoman Allen said, it'll help to increasing jobs but also increasing, hopefully internship and fellowship opportunity for those that we are getting from college or even our colleges that we're proud of locally, so that we're able to grow and retain those talents and keeping them in their city. So thank you. I appreciate this item and I support it. Thank you so much. Councilman's in the house. Thank you, Mia. And a huge thank you to Councilwoman Ellen Taro and Mongo for bringing this item forward. I think it's very important, especially right now as we're trying to recover from COVID and a lot of our small businesses are being affected citywide, nationwide, worldwide. Great. But one of the things that I'm I think that this council has is that we're always very focused on our small businesses and making sure that we support them. So thank you very much for this. And I also wanted to make sure that our staff while looking into into this thank you, also includes the LGBT Q plus chamber of Commerce, which I think is very important. And also the look into making sure that we extend this also to our disabled business owners. I think that's also very important. So thank you again for this item. And I supported who hide it. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I just want to thank Councilman Allen. She's been an advocate for this long before she was a councilwoman. I remember working on this with her and now State Senator Lena Gonzalez. And it's just such an important program. And we really need to do whatever it takes to get these bids to local businesses. It really comes back to the city ten fold. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up is customary, Ringo. Thank you. Thank you, Cindy, for bringing this forward, this long overdue. The limits were just too low, and we need to have more participation for our lives, as well as LGBTQ people who to participate in this process. But I think we also need to encourage them to participate in the procurement process by getting the education they need. A lot of them don't know the process of how to get a contract with the city or how to apply for a contract with us. So I think we also need to make sure that we include a educational component to improving our are our opportunities for how maybe we be applying for contracts with the city. So thank you for bringing this forward. A proposal we agree with. Thank you. Thank you. I have count. I have Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. First of all, this is a great item. Thank you, Councilwoman Allen and the COSIGNERS for bringing this forward. Tell you it's been a big item of discussion. I think these goals are great. Going from 10 to 20, right out of date. That's great. And I would love to see that. And I'll see how we can get higher. We talked about this a lot when we did the the listening tour and that everyone had planned. And there were some, some really good things that we learned, particularly, you know, when people do procurement in Long Beach and it's hard to navigate. You have folks who have to go to different departments and have different processes to certify as maybe we be and we we've got school districts and we've got transit and we've got all these agencies. We also have to certify the woman or to certify the person of color. You have a different process for each one of these, and there is a lot of interest in seeing if we can partner as a part of this and streamline and have one process where if you want to sign up and certify that you're an African American business or your local locally on business, your certification in the city can have a me too with other agencies. These were great ideas. I heard about an incident with a local business owner when she needed to produce her her birth certificate to show that she was African-American. She was clearly African-American, but she she didn't have a birth certificate. She didn't have a race on a birth certificate. So she needed to go prove it. She had to go get her father's military records showing he was African-American and show that he was her father on her birth certificate. I think that whole process can be updated. So I love an extreme makeover. The other thing I would say is so we should learn from some of those things. But we also pushed and made sure and I'm not sure how much if the city manager could say we pushed in the recovery plan to put, I believe it was $200,000 and or some number around doing a comprehensive study. And what I don't want is for multiple efforts, because that was just funding this past year. So I would love for all that to dovetail. So we have one comprehensive study that comes back, and it's a true comprehensive makeover. It is. John Cox, one on the line. This is Tom. So. I think I heard the question. But yes, essentially, the council women's item is. Dovetailing very nicely into the. Existing effort. That is our extreme purchasing makeover. So we believe it's all coordinated. We'll be able to incorporate this in and come back with all of those changes to our purchasing system, many of which will meet our goals of the reconciliation plan. And recovery as well. And are we using the recovery dollars for the extreme makeover? We'll get back to you on that. I'm not sure. I think we had already funded some of that. A lot of it is internal staff and then we have the Recovery Act money. So I'll get you back a response on that. Awesome. Well, I think this is this is incredible work. I'm happy to support it. Thanks so much, Councilwoman Allen. Great item. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Allen, Soli and Mongo, thank you very much for this item. As a small business owner, I think it's a step in the right direction. And I applaud your efforts to help all the small business owners, because it's not always what people think. As Councilman Allen knows. And it's it's really hard to keep things going. So thank you. Thank you for public comment on this item. 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 if dialing in by telephone. Seen none. That concludes public comment. Road covered. District one. High district to. By. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. Hi. Motion is carried. Thank you. I've had a request to do ordinance 18 and 19. So let's go to Ordnance 18, the first reading, I believe.

A proclamation celebrating Denver afterschool programs and the 2020 Annual National Lights on Afterschool Day.

DenverCityCouncil_10052020_20-1088

Councilman Ortega. Up next, we have no presentations. We have no communications. We have two proclamations on the agenda tonight. One is on consent and the other is being postponed. Councilman Hines, will you please put Proclamation 108 on the floor for adoption? No, Madam President. Just kidding. I move that proclamation 20 dash 1088 be adopted. I can thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Flynn. Councilmember Cashman. Your motion to postpone, please. Thank you, Madam President. I move that adoption of Proclamation 20 dash 1088 be postponed until Tuesday, October 23. All right. It has been moved and seconded by Councilmember Herndon. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Due to a clerical error, this proclamation was put on tonight's agenda. I would like to move this proclamation to Tuesday, October 20, which was the original intended date. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Cashman. I can teach I Ortega. I of all. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark. Right. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. All right. Madam President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. 12 hours. 12 I's Adoption Adoption Proclamation 1088 has been postponed to Tuesday, October 20th. And you know what? Okay. That's right. Tuesday, October 20th. Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction. From land use, transportation and infrastructure. 2965 A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4714 North Bryant Street in sunny side 2979 A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed assignment agreement between the city and county of Denver and School District Number one for the Northfield Sports Complex in the Harvey Park parking lot. 2983 A Bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1790 South Humboldt Street and University 2984. A Bill for an ordinance changing the Zoning Classification for 2520 South Marion Street and University. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Council Members This is your last opportunity to call out an item. Council Member Cashman, will you? Oh, you know, I think I've got a typo here. Council member Hines, will you please make the motions for us this evening? If Council Member Cashman would prefer, I'm happy to defer, but yes, I'll make a statement. All right. Thank you. Council Member Hines. Now we'll do a recap under resolutions. Council member CdeBaca has called out Resolution 923 for questions and a vote, as well as Resolutions 924, 941 and 976 for questions. Councilmember Herndon has called out Resolution 925 for a vote. Council member Ken Each has called out Resolution 980 for a comment and I have called out Resolution 921 for a comment. Under bills for introduction, there are no items that have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. The first item up is resolution 923. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Resolution 923 on the floor for adoption? Madam President, I move the council bill 20 dash 0923 be adopted.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Fire Code, adopting as the Seattle Fire Code the 2015 edition of the International Fire Code with some exceptions, amending and adding various provisions to that code; amending Section 22.600.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and repealing Sections 2 through 44 of Ordinance 124288.

SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_CB 118772

The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee Agenda Item 14 Council Bill 118772 related to the Seattle Fire Code adopting the Seattle Fire Code of the 2015 edition. The committee recommends the bill pass. Dan Simon GONZALES Thank you. And I. This is a carryover from last week. As I mentioned, last Monday, there is a slight technical amendment to the ordinance that needs to happen before we vote on it. So I am going to move to amend Council Bill 118772 sections one and 2.1 by filling in two blanks with clerk file number 319993 and Section 2.2 by filling in one blank with council number 118772. Second. It's been moved has been moved in second to amend council bill 118772. All those in favor of the Amendment four I. I opposed. The ayes have it. We have an amended piece of legislation. OC Council Bill 118772. This legislation contains updates to the Seattle Fire Code. The fire code is updated every three years to be consistent with the International Fire Code, Washington State Fire Code and other construction codes adopted in Seattle to name a few of the significant fire code changes. They include amendments to the two provisions around prohibitions around the use of sky lanterns. Open flames and used by fire performers, repair garage sprinklers, signage for commercial cooking appliances, fire department connection signs and tire storage. I would move for the adoption of Council Bill 118772 as amended. Thank you. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill. Recalled Johnson. Whereas. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzalez. President Herald. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passed and Cheryl signed it. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 15 Council Bill 118 786 Granting Swedish Health Services permission to construct maintain operated pedestrian skybridge over and across a minor avenue. The committee recommends the bill pass.

Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Lease Amendments for Rent Relief Program with Alameda Point Beverage Group, Auctions By the Bay, Building 43 & Associates, Faction Brewing, Group Delphi, Proximo Spirits, Saildrone and USS Hornet Air & Space Museum via the Non-Profit Spirits Alley Program for Rent Relief in Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. (Community Development 858)

AlamedaCC_12012020_2020-8484

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. You didn't want to, you know, have revisionist history and what the arguments were. But this is what you stuck with. So. That's just the way it is. You did? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Okay. So thank you, everybody. And thank you, all of you. Randy. So I cut him loose, thanked him for doing a great job. Andrew Thomas. Likewise. Thank you, everyone. Our public speakers and council for your comments. I would just listen to my colleague, Councilmember Vella, who sits with me on the Statewide Policy Committee for the League of California Cities on Housing, Community and Economic Development. And so maybe that's why we're very aligned in our thinking. But I also would have to say that this past November, the vote and I mean from the federal, state, county, local levels, there were a lot of mixed results. I mean, there just were. So what I am more than willing to concede is that I think Measure C was a very confusing issue. And it is true that what people don't understand, they tend to vote no on. And I think now we have an opportunity to do more community education and outreach and the kind of collaboration that I think will actually be helpful. One of the things that Mr. Thomas does really well is to demonstrate what does it look like? Because it's just so abstract. When you think of so many units for Adra, what does that look like? But when you actually see actual photographs of actual real units, dwellings, historic buildings in our city, it's it's a lot less intimidating than threatening it. And even some of it, I think would be welcomed. But I do think we need to have this series of community conversations that will help educate the public and to bring the community along. Will we get 100% sitting together singing Kumbaya? Probably not. But will we have a better understanding of where we fit into this housing crisis and what we can do to help alleviate it? I hope so. I think it's possible. So now we have time, as was laid out in the staff report, if these public forums going forward and I really want to make sure that it can be as widespread and to get the word out, we'll think of different ways to to get the word and the messaging out to people kind of meet them where they are, because this is just a very important issue. And the thing that I fall back on is not only do we we need to to take seriously our obligation to help house people. We do need to be compliant with law, with state law. But these are not mutually exclusive propositions. I think there's a lot of possibilities. So I look forward to meeting with the community going forward. As has been mentioned, a lot of this will take place in the new year. So with that, let's see, we are and we were asked to review and comment on the Big Housing Methodologies Committee's proposed methodology and staff proposed process and being scheduled to update the city's general plan housing element for 2023 to 2031. So again, huge thanks to everyone for contributing to this very important effort, which is to be continued. Look for some public forums coming coming up in the new year. So thank you all with that is going to close this item and we need to move hurriedly on to item six be madam clerk for you introduce that item for us, please. Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to execute lease amendments for Rent Relief Program with Alameda Point Beverage Group Actions by the Bay Building 43 An Associate Faction Brewing Group Delphi PROXIMO Spirits Dahlgren Drone and USS Hornet Air and Space Museum via the nonprofit Spirits Alley program for rent relief in response to the COVID 19 pandemic. Thank you. And who's presenting on this with? We have. It was. There she is. Yes, I see. Miss Butler and Miss Mercado. Yeah. Okay. All right. Are you there, Mr.? Kind of. We're getting. Her. We're looking. Really? Give her. It is falling asleep. It's getting late. Here is Lois Butler. Hi. We're looking for Miss Mercado, but we're confident we'll find her. I'll see if I can locate her. Oh, here she comes. Yes, she's here. Yes, I see your name. Hi. Good evening. How are you? Sorry to keep you up past curfew. All right. So if you're ready to go, we're ready to have you. And we just have to. 1155. You need to take all the money. So why don't you give us a quick overview? Okay. Can you guys hear me? Yeah, just. Okay. It seems like a lot of people are. Hey. So I will try to keep this brief over the. I. Can you not hear me? No, I can hear you. I just want to mute myself. And all of a sudden I couldn't hear you. But keep talking. Okay. Okay. I'm. I'm here. Now. I can see you and hear you. Okay. So I will try to keep this brief. Hi. Is there is your livestream still on tonight? Perhaps it is. I'll turn it off. That's. They're having a problem with, I think. Yeah. There's a delay with it. So oh yeah, the livestream is like 30 seconds later. So it's very like talking over. Okay, I'm here. Is it better? Yes. Yes. Okay. Because I was caught in that live stream. Okay. So I'll try to keep this brief. Thank you, Mayor and city council members. I'm Ninette Marcano in the Community Development Department. Over the last ten months, this council has been grappling with what to do and how to bring relief to our tenants and various buildings throughout the city. We have done a 90 day deferral initially, which grew into the loan conversion program that we we approved and then refined on October 6th and further refined tonight in the on the consent calendar. And just briefly, that is not the program we're discussing tonight, just employee. And at that end, in that program, right now, we have about two applicants. There's one pending. And I'll just tell you, it's Saint George Spirits and Rockwall Winery so that it does not include those in the program we're discussing tonight. That program, just briefly, is the program where we negotiate a six. We negotiate benchmarks that would result in an abatement of rent for the tenants. The maximum of rent abatement under the loan conversion program is six months. And in October, the council allocated $1.5 million to support that program. I don't think we're going to come anywhere near that because a couple of the people who are interested in the loan conversion program have now said they would like to be a part of the new program that the council approved in October, which I call the nine three program. But it actually should be called 933 because it defers nine months of rent. It will be paid back over a three year period. And and I say the extra three because up to three months can be abated if the tenant pays back early. So. It's a933 program. That's what we're discussing tonight. So the council approved that program in October and said, come back to us and tell us what it's going to look like and what the numbers might look like. And so tonight, we have attached the agreement that we would enter into with each of the tenants that have been identified on this list. I want to tell you that they're the totals. It might be a little confusing because the bottom of the I have nonprofit spirits, Ali total and the loan conversion total because what I'm proposing to do is end in this 933 program, the council allocated up to $400,000 because you might recall it at that time. I did the quick math of, what, three months if all of those tenants could total and it was about $400,000. And then the loan conversion program, as I said earlier, the council allocated $1.5 million and I'm recommending that we use that 1.5 million for even the tenants who are applying for this 933 program because they were not I mean, they may they they go outside of the nonprofit Spirit's Alley purview. And so since we had already allocated it for this other program, we may as well use it. And it's going to be far less than the 1.5, as you'll see. Okay. With that said, I do I would like to ask the council to consider adding two more tenants to this list. So when you when you consider the motion that you would also consider adding these tenants. One is Pacific Pinball Museum, which is a nonprofit, and they're a three month total. If they were to do all three miles, it would be 34,500. And then the other one is Wonky Kitchen, which you recall is, um, Spirit's Alley. It's the commercial kitchen, which originally was the dehydrated kale, which is turned into more of a commercial kitchen for for food trucks and sort of an A they want to create sort of a patio at some point with different food trucks, which would be a perfect amenity for us along Spirit's Alley when the beautiful day comes when we can congregate and be together again. So I think we would like to add those two to this. I have added the total and in the bottom line for you so that the nonprofit Spirits Alley total would be 149 632, which is out of the $400,000 that you guys have allocated before, 160 266 would be taken out of the $1.5 million that you guys allocated for the loan conversion program, because those were the applicants who were originally loan conversion applicants. So you'll you know, that's why it's it's divided that way. So to complete the presentation, I would just like to go over the list of the tenants so that you would understand who's who. Made a point beverage group which you might know as bricks that the spirits alis tenant auctions by the day. They were a loan conversion applicant that now wants to go for the 933 program building 43 and associates that is Spirits Ali Tenant Faction Brewing Spirits Ali group Delphi. This was a loan conversion applicant and but and as a reminder, this is a company that completely changed their business model to adjust to the COVID, the COVID pandemic. So formally, they made the conventions, booths and spaces, and now they manufacture pre-fab things for construction of multifamily housing units. And they've kind of kind of generated a new business making those things. So we're very proud of them. PROXIMO Spirits Again, A Spirits Alley Tenet Sale June an original loan conversion program applicant who wants to do the 933 and then again Pacific Pinball and. Wonky Kitchen. Those are the two that I would like to amend this staff report for. You also need to include the US as Hornet. Oh, I'm sorry I skipped them. Yes, the USS Hornet, which is a museum. And I see the city manager has his hand up and so. Mr. LEVITT. Yeah. Yes. I think because of the way the agenda is, I would recommend that the pinball museum and the wonky kitchen maybe would need to be on a future agenda. Okay. Yes, that's a very good point. Thank you. I see the city attorney looking very relieved and thank you. Yes, good point. Well, you you were to bring that back. Yeah, it'll be the exact same staff report, but with just the new names in it. Sure. Okay. So did I see council hands shooting up there? I think it said Councilor or you Councilor Vela Councilor voted. Go ahead. I just had a quick question. I mean, yeah. Thanks for this, by the way. I think it's exactly what we asked for, the wonky kitchen, even though we're not voting on that. What was the amount. For three months of wonky kitchen is 7700. Wait, stop, stop. We don't talk about it. This is not agenda as we cannot discuss it, it will come back to us. Did you have anything that was on the agenda to ask the council member? Well, it just said that I was sorry. Either we are not going to talk about items that are on agenda. All right. All right. Sorry about that. Okay, Counselor. We should have stopped that earlier then. You're right. And stopping it now, Councilor Rebello? Yeah. I was just going to ask about whether or not we should be getting into a couple of the things that were discussed. But with with it, yes, but I did have a question. If you could just reiterate in terms of what's within the agenda item, what the total she's asking for or it is excuse me for I time as it's in the staff report. Right. It's for the nonprofit spirits Ali Total. It's $114,000, 114 132 and that's out of the 400,000 that you guys set aside. And then 460 266 and that's out of the $1.5 million that you set aside for the loan conversion program. Thank you. I have a question and I actually emailed this to staff earlier today. I would like to add a clause to the agreement, to the ordinance, and to the effect that if a recipient of these funds is found to be in violation of an order issued by the county public health officer and I would say found by a code compliance officer, a police officer or a member of city staff, then they should forfeit any benefits received under this program because there have been instances in the not too distant future when people we gave them an inch and they took a mile. And when it comes to COVID 19 and holding risky events and exposing the public and prolonging this pandemic and increasing our COVID numbers, I am really no nonsense. So you do not you should not benefit from our largesse as a city in this generosity and at the same time be flagrantly violating a public health officer rules. So I would like that. And I checked with the city attorney's office who said that was doable, but that would be my request to council that we incorporate a language to this effect into the agreement. I saw that Councilmember De Soto hand Councilor Brady said. Just to clarify in question on that issue that you just raised. Do you mean for this to be going forward, if you're found in violation of something after this date, then you. Right. Okay. Right, right, right. Right. If you before we approve this tonight, let's assume we're going to approve it and go forward. People get the the these funds and then they decide to hold some large gathering, something that's in violation of the public health officer. And we've had a couple of instances, and I just I don't think we can afford to reward that kind of behavior that just puts us at risk. And our businesses are just. Hanging on by. A thread. So we don't we just don't want to prolong this the situation any longer. So it's just, you know, do what you're supposed to do, basically. But if you don't that. And so we've got to clarify questions. I should ask the city, do we have any public speakers on this item? We do not have any speakers. And usually when I ask that question, then they arise. But anyway, Councilor Odie, did your hand go back up. Yeah, I'm just curious on I mean, maybe the city attorney can explain how that's permissible. You know, because I wonder if there's vested rights with the lease amendment that. Well, first of all, I didn't see it in the agenda or in the alternative. And second of all, I wonder if that's even something legally we could do, because there'd be vested rights and we'd be asking somebody to repay. Hypothetically, it's group Delphi 180,000 without due process. Councilmember Odie I yes, the Councilmember Odie. I do believe that the Council could make this requirement. It would be before they signed the lease lease amendment, it would be in the lease amendment and then the businesses would sign it as part of the lease amendment. We're not granting an entitlement. We're simply negotiating a contract. And in that process, before they sign the lease. We can put that in as one of the provisions. That essentially revokes this grace from the council, so to speak, for relief if they violate the law. And I do believe that that will withstand judicial review. At least amendment exhibit one for at least amendment doesn't include that. So, I mean, anyone that looked at the agenda wouldn't know that we were considering putting that in unless they were on at 11:25 p.m.? No. Councilmember that that is correct. So the council regularly makes modifications to ordinances. And items that are. Fairly well agendas. And this is simply a provisional change. It's not, for instance, adding. Entirely different parties. And so I do believe that that is within the council's province to do tonight. Okay. Well, I don't disagree with the intent. I'm not quite sure it's permissible, but I'm not going to let that get in the way of me approving this. All right. Any further questions, comments, motion calls we were given. I'd like to move approval with the amendment language that the mayor has asked for to be included in in whatever whatever lease amendment we issue. And I just want to thank staff for working on this. I think this is just it's helpful to hear who's taking advantage of the different options that we have. And I look forward to having the conversation about how we can continue to help our businesses. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I can. Some of those things if you we have a motion to move a second second member, Odie has seconded any further discussion. We're not quite. Quite sure. I support the intent. I guess my question is, what is the actual language that we're inserting? Since we're proving it tonight. And the attorney, maybe. If I may, is. Yes. So, Councilmember Knox, why we will draft a language that's consistent with the council's direction, not dissimilar to other. Direction you've. Given us, so that we don't have to read in specific language tonight. Well, we think that the direction is fairly narrowly tailored, so we should be able to get your language. It will be something to the effect of if the lessee is found to be in violation of health officer orders by a law enforcement or a code enforcement officer, then this amendment shall be a no further forces act and so on and so forth. So we will certainly get that together and then you will see it in second reading. And my assumption is that that that any of those code enforcement violations that were found would be similar to the very few that have been found so far. We're not going to pull somebody's loan because somebody wasn't wearing one. One employee wasn't wearing a mask when somebody walked in. No, no. I just want to. I think. There's a level of severity where I think, yes, I agree completely with this, but I just want to ensure that whatever language doesn't lock us into if somebody gets caught, right. Somebody filed a complaint, gets caught and they're employed and have a mask on. And I just. Know. Whatever that language is needs to be clear that there's a there's a threshold level of violation that needs to be. Great. Right. Okay. Anything further? Okay. Madam, quickly, we have a roll cover, please. Let's remember de sag. Yes. Not quite. I oti. I. Well, I may as the Ashcroft high carries my five eyes. Thank you. Thank you, Staff. Good. Good work on this important item. Sorry to keep you up so late. Thank you. Thank you. Good night.

AN ORDINANCE relating to civilian and community oversight of the police; adding a new Chapter 3.29 to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); recodifying Subchapters VII, VIII, and IX of Chapter 3.28 of the SMC as Subchapters I, II, and III of Chapter 3.29; amending or repealing sections in Chapters 3.28, 4.08, and 14.12 of the SMC; and concerning Ordinance 118482.

SeattleCityCouncil_05222017_CB 118969

The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 118969 An Ordinance relating to civilian and community oversight of the police. Adding a new Chapter 3.29 to the Seattle Municipal Code record of filing sub chapters seven, eight and nine of Chapter 3.28 of the Seattle Missile Code as sub chapters one , two and three of Chapter 3.29. Amending or repealing sections and chapters 3.28, 4.08 and 14.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code. And concerning ordinance 118842. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you. So this is the reason we're all here today primarily. So I'm very excited about the introduction of this bill and our full council action on this. Just before we get started, I wanted to just for the benefit of the public, walk through what we're about to endeavor upon, because it's going to get a little procedurally wonky, really, really fast. So we have about six amendments that we need to go through that have come up since my last committee hearing. I have three of those amendments. Councilmember Burgess has one of those amendments. Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Johnson are advancing separate amendments as well for a total of six. So we'll walk through all of the amendments first, have a discussion if one is needed, and then we will move for the passage of those amendments before we move for the passage of the full bill as amended. So I'm using the word amended a lot because there's going to be a lot of amendments. And in large part it's because we continued our conversations with the Community Police Commission and have found some additional areas that needed some work, including in many of the areas that you all were here to testify about today. So the first should be go through the amendments first. Councilmember Burgess Okay. So the First Amendment will be my amendment, which is amendment number one. So I will move to amend Council Bill 118969 with Amendment 1/2. Okay, Members, you should all have the stack of amendments at your place. So Amendment one makes technical corrections and removes some unnecessary language. Included in this amendment is a change to CBCs representative at the annual Joint Status Report with the Inspector General. With that change, the CPC co-chairs will participate in the status report rather than the CPC Executive Director, although there's nothing to preclude the CPC Executive Director from also participating in the annual Joint Status Report, and I understand that Councilmember Burgess might have a slight amendment to my amendment. Yes, I do so in this legislation in section. 3.20 9.5 ten, which begins on page nine of Amendment number one. I will draw your attention to the next page, page ten, the paragraph, the first full paragraph at the top of the page, beginning on line three. And I make the following amendment to clarify some of the questions and concerns that we've heard from Labor representatives about the intent of the Council to make certain that it's clear that we recognize our obligations under state statute to engage in good faith, collective bargaining and our intent to do so. So my amendment strikes the parenthetical language that appears on lines four and five. That language reads, including those related to bargaining, the effects of the ordinance on wages, hours, and working conditions of representative police officers. If this amendment passes, the paragraph would then read. For these reasons, the city shall take whatever steps are necessary to fulfill all legal prerequisites within 30 days of mayoral signature of this ordinance, or as soon as practicable thereafter, including negotiating with its police unions to update all effective collective bargaining agreements so that the agreements each conform to and are fully consistent with the provisions and obligations of this ordinance in a manner that allows for the earliest possible implementation to fulfill the purposes of this Chapter 3.29. I move that amendment second. Are there any questions? All in favor of the amendment. Councilmember O'Brien. Yeah, I just. I'm just finding the pages here. So. So the between the dashes is you just eliminating those two parts? Well, you said parenthetical between the correct. Okay, great. On lines four and five. Any other questions? All in favor of the amendment. Vote I. I opposed vote no. That amendment to the amendment is adopted. Councilmember Gonzalez. I don't have anything else to add in terms of the corrections represented in this particular amendment as amended. There's a lot of technical changes in here, including getting rid of abbreviations that are. Referencing nothing. And the only substantive change here is your suggestion in terms of the striking of the language and making the change in terms of the report from the Executive Director to the CPC co-chairs. So if no one has any questions, I'm ready for you to call this to vote. Are there any questions or comments about. The amendment. On amendment number one as amended? Just just a point of order. Yes, Mr. Chair, if I'm not mistaken, we need to actually move the bill before we start adopting amendments. And I don't believe we've done that yet. Well, we don't, because the bill came with a do pass consideration. So it's in front of us. Yes. Appreciate that. Thank you. You're welcome. Didn't want I want to make sure that we weren't doing something funny. I don't even know what the words Council President Burgess used mean, but it seems beneficial to me. It sounded official. Yes. All right. So we have in front of us amendment number one as amended on favor, vote I, II, oppose vote no. The amendment amendment is unanimously adopted. And I would by comment here alert the city clerk's and Amy that this changes the base legislation for signature. So we'll have to make that correction, hopefully, before we're finished with this work. Amendment number two, which you should all have, relates to the disciplinary process, investigations and appeals for police employees. And it clarifies some of those provisions and makes technical corrections. It adds a requirement that complaints about disciplinary appeals and grievances include the notice to the complainant of any outcomes that result in modification of final findings and disciplinary determinations. When an employee files A or fails to file a timely referral to OPA, it requires that OPA investigate that matter. It specifies that police department tracking of disciplinary determinations must allow the public to access the fairness and consistency of that work, primarily through the OIG and the CPC. It specifies deadlines for the appeal process and it changes the current three year limit of the statute of limitations, in essence, to five years except for criminal behavior. Type three Use of force dishonesty or Concealed Misconduct. It adds language about the Public Safety Civil Service Commission and the three commissioners appointed there, and the process that the Public Safety Civil Service Commission will follow in reviewing appeals of discipline. So I move amendment number two. Second. Are there any questions? All those in favor of amendment number two, vote. I oppose vote no. Amendment number two is unanimously adopted. Amendment number three. Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you. Amendment number three relates to the budget for the Office of Police Accountability, the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety and the Community Police Commission. We've heard a lot about the budget. Today during public testimony, we've also had a lot of conversations with the Community Police Commission about the process of engaging in our ordinary budget making decisions. And so what I heard from community, both in emails, in public testimony and out of my ongoing conversations with the Community Police Commission is a strong desire to have this City Council strongly signal to community that we are aware of the need to to fully fund all of these or sufficiently fund these entities and to make sure that we take into consideration in the course of making those budget decisions the expanded scope of work that many of the entities will now have under this omnibus police reform package. So what we have done is accepted language that was submitted to us by the Community Police Commission to signal and make that commitment accordingly. And so the language that will be inserted into the base ordinance if approved by this body is reads as follows The city shall provide staff and resources that it deems sufficient to enable OPA, OIG and the CPC to perform all of its responsibilities specified in this Chapter 329. And so that's the language that's before us. And I just want to make very clear to community that what we have done here, instead of making the decisions about the budget for 2018 and a 2000 in 2017, we are going to have a conversation about the sufficiency of financing all of three offices in the context of our full budget, which will kick off in the middle of September. I'm sure we will see many of you there advocating consistent with what we're what you all are advocating for today. I encourage you to do that. I think it's going to be an important part of moving this this bill into implementation. And and and I hope that you all will return and help me understand and help my colleagues understand what the right staffing levels and right resource commitments will be for all three entities. But I assure you that this language for us is a commitment to take the budget conversations very, very seriously, because we recognize how important this body of work is to our community and to the city as a whole. As a whole. And I don't know if our budget chair would like to add. Or are you moving this amendment? I am going to move Amendment three to Council Bill 118969 and. I'll second the amendment. I know the next piece of legislation that will take up here in a few minutes is a modification to the budget to fund the Office of the Inspector General for Public Safety. We're taking that action out of the normal sequence. We would follow on the budget because we are in fact creating a new city office. And so we have to do that outside of the normal budget process in order to hire the inspector general on the staff that is there. But Councilmember Gonzalez's is right. Our commitment when we get into the fall and we prepare the budget for 2018 is to make sure that all three of these entities are funded at the level they need in order to do their work effectively and and efficiently. Are there any other comments or questions about this amendment? Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I just wanted to add one of. The. Parts of. Legislation that people don't often look at, the CBC and community members did look at this time around, and that's the fiscal note. And with thanks to amici as well as the Budget Office, there's been some additional language added in the fiscal notes for both this legislation and the inspector general legislation to signal the council's seriousness on addressing the budget needs. Associated with this body of work. Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. Also, I will also be supporting this amendment. I want to just echo what others have said and what we heard today from a lot of the community members that came out to testify. Obviously, the success of this reform package going forward, they're going forward is going to be partially dependent upon us making sure that we provide the resources to do the work that so many people have come together to make happen. And I look forward to working with all of you in just a few months when we get into our budget process to ensure that we fund the robust resources needed to make sure that the Community Police Commission and the other components are able to achieve the high level of accountability that that you all have demanded. All those in favor of adopting amendment number three, vote i. I opposed Amendment three as unanimously adopted amendment number four. Councilmember Herbold, thank you. Amendment four to Council Bill 11 8969. Second, thank you. This amendment ensures that the CPC retains the authority in the Seattle Municipal Code granted to the Office of Professional Accountability Review Board. The previous review board has existing ability in city law to review closed case files of EPA complaints. The paper emphasized the critical importance in maintaining this authority back in 2014. Review of these files by O Palm in the past has led to the discovery, for example, that SPD was doing criminal background checks on people who had made complaints and led to that being changed. Just as a little bit of history to the authority of the Civilian Review Board, whether or not we're talking about a part of our C.P.S. to have access to unredacted closed complaint files back between 22 and 25, only redacted files were allowed to be reviewed by by OPR. And that was a very difficult situation for OPR to manage, because when having much of the important information, such as names and details of cases blacked out on complaint files, it was difficult to identify trends and patterns, which was the purpose of reviewing these files in March of 2016. Spark was informed that an ordinance was being proposed by the City Council to change the redacted file and confidentiality rules. And in 2026, the City Council amended the musical code to provide a with that access to these closed complaint files with the duty that they maintain confidentiality. It became effective in 2007, but in September of 26, the Guild requested mediation and the first meeting was held in November of that year during 2007, and at the time of the matter, mediation continued. There was no successor agreement. But then in. Later on, in 2007, the unredacted file policy was implemented and in 2008, the public hearing examiner ruled that the city committed an unfair labor practice. Later in 2009, the perk for those of those of you watching don't know what PERC is. That's the Public Employee Relations Commission dismissed the complaint and overturned the ruling and decided that the right of the Council to grant access to these files. To OPR. Was a management prerogative and did not impact any term or condition of employment that would require the employer to engage in either decision or effects bargaining with the union. I give this history just because this is an effort that the council, together with the mayor, fought to retain this transparency in order to help the civilian review board at that time have an important oversight function, which is the ability to review these closed files without them being redacted in order to identify trends and practices that might need further changes in further reform efforts made to the OPA review process. And this is an important function for the new C.P.S. to retain. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Those in favor of amendment number four, vote I. I opposed vote no. Amendment number four as unanimously adopted. Amendment number five. Councilmember Johnson. Thanks. I'd like to move Amendment five to Council Bill 118969. Second. We're sorry. Thanks for that. Love to get a chance to talk for a quick minute about this. A moment in early conversations that I had with the CBC. One of the things that came up was about legal representation and brought forward this amendment to protect civilian oversight entities, to allow them to have representation in the event that there's a conflict of interest, a lack of technical expertize or capacity reasons that the city attorney's office would decline to represent them. So this amendment effectively allows the CBC to not only seek that outside counsel, but also ask the city attorney to inform them when they've declined representation about the reasoning. Why? I'm happy to answer questions and hope to count on your support. Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of amendment number five. Vote I oppose Vote No. Amendment five as unanimously adopted. Amendment number six. Councilmember Gonzales. Okay. We're almost there. Amendment number six is related to the OIG work plan. So we I have made an amendment to the amendment that we made in my committee hearing last week. I have heard very clearly from the Community Police Commission their desire to have more than the ability to make recommendations, but to really figure out how it is. We can incorporate those recommendations into the AG's annual work plan to instill in and encourage a level of accountability as it relates to the Inspector General's annual work plan. So what I have done is I have drafted some language in consultation with the Community Police Commission that would require the Inspector General's annual work plan to identify all work plan recommendations from the Office of Police Accountability and the Community Police Commission within his or her annual work plan. Once those recommendations make their way into the work plan, then the IG will have an obligation to also identify which of those recommendations were accepted, which were declined, and if for any reason recommendations were declined , the IG would have to provide a reason as to why that recommendation was declined. I think the strikes a good balance in terms of providing transparency to what the Inspector General's annual work plan will be focused on, while also giving the CPC and OPA an opportunity to have know clear, clear ability to be able to to add to the Inspector General's work plan while still retaining the Inspector General's authority and power to accept what falls into his or her predetermined sense of prioritization and decline others, while still also giving the public and the council a clear explanation as to why certain things won't be pursued. So I think this this is a recommendation that maintains the integrity of the independence of the IG from undue influence from OPA or CPC or other external forces, while also recognizing that we need to have very deliberate collaboration among all of these entities, including in the area of the workplan. So I want to thank all of my colleagues who helped me think through this one. And I especially want to thank the Community Police Commission for, for, for being receptive to what I hope you agree where reasonable concerns and I think we found a very solid solution to be able to move forward in a way that really does signal to community that we're serious about allowing the Community Police Commission to to utilize the IG in a way that will benefit systemic review and ongoing work in that regard. So I will move for I will move to amend Council Bill 118969 with Amendment six, as I've just described it second. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Councilmember O'Brien. Yes. Councilmember Gonzales, I want to thank you for your work on this. This is a discussion item in committee at length. And I really appreciate the expertize you brought to this to craft something that certainly addressed my concerns in a way that was very creative. So thank you for your commitment on that. Thank you. All in favor of Amendment six. Vote I. I opposed Vote No. Amendment six is unanimously adopted. We now have the amended legislation in front of us, and this is an opportunity for questions or comments from other council members. And then Councilmember Gonzales will close our discussion. Councilmember Suarez. Thank you. Before we begin today, I want to thank everybody who came here to provide public comment. It is very important legislation, as you know, the city has been dealing with for years. I want to thank my fellow council members who co-sponsored this ordinance with me, as well as a special thank you to our committee chair, Councilmember Lorena Gonzalez, whom for her leadership and her vision and working with her and certainly Councilmember Burgess. As we all know, this critical step towards meaningful police oversight has been long in coming. The work on this has been exceptionally deliberative, thoughtful and hard fought. It is the product of hours and hours of staff work by the mayor's office, council staff, and hours of comment and consideration by the dedicated members of the Community Police Commission. I would like to take a step back for a moment from the details of this very complicated piece of legislation. Long enough to acknowledge while we were here. I would like to acknowledge my friend John T Williams, who died in a crosswalk after being shot by a Seattle police officer. I'd like to recognize the Native American people in our community here today who remember that day. We are here because we need to address this tragedy and others like it that have occurred on our streets. We need to prevent them from re-occurring to ensure public safety, due process and professional policing. We need a system that will provide review and accountability. We also need a system that will garner public trust. One part of building public trust is ensuring that this oversight and review process includes the complete Seattle community and the engagement of all corners of our city. Democracy demands that we ensure a wide and diverse representation of Seattle. Communities throughout our city should not be turned away from the table, but rather be included regardless of where they live, whether it be Aurora, Lake City, Rainier or Delaware Avenue. That's why I spoke out for geographical representation on the Committee on the Community Police Commission. In summary, I am pleased to support a democratic, inclusive and professional oversight of our police services to ensure that our police are accountable to high public standards. And that is why I'll be voting yesterday. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I, too, would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to Council Chair Lauren Gonzales, her staff, Brianna Thomas, council central staff Amy Sy City Attorney Andrew Milberg has done exemplary work. My own staff nor Aldrich and really many, many warm thanks to the community groups that wrote to the DOJ in the first place, several of whom are represented here today. Please. Accountability is a living, breathing organism, if you will. I, in my time as an aide to Councilmember Lakota for from 1999 on, I would tell people who would call the office with complaints about police accountability to use the system. People who are. Skeptics, you have to use. It. If you don't use it, we won't know how to fix it. And this is an example of using what you all have helped us learn to make improvements to the system. But the ability. For. This to be successful long term, the success of police accountability reform continues to depend on all of us. A couple of items that came up in. A public. Comment that I addressed this morning and there's a handout up front about them are related. They they are. Two separate items, but they both relate to collective bargaining. One relates specifically to the accountability that the public is interested in having over the folks. Who do the. Bargaining representing the interests of the public as it relates specifically to police accountability. Currently, we have a system where prior to the beginning of bargaining and this only exists for for police bargaining. We have a public hearing that is co-hosted by the Council's Labor Relations and Policy Committee and the Public Safety Committee, as well as in the past. It was co-hosted by Obama. This public hearing was held specifically to solicit comments from the public around changes that are necessary prior to going into bargaining. To the. Police accountability system. It's been a practice that after this public hearing occurs that there's a a resolution that the council passes, sort of recognizing the themes and the issues that the public has identified. The. I think an important step forward in having more transparency prior to going into negotiation, while also protecting the important leverage that. Labor. Rightfully has in negotiations by negotiating and in confidentiality would would be a new requirement that after the hearing and prior to the commencement of negotiations in the Council's resolution, that they also make public the city's goals in bargaining with the police labor organizations. So that's one element that I'd be interested in, in bringing forward in a future, future ordinance. The second element, as I said, is also related to to collective bargaining, but it specifically relates to the issue of the technical accountability advisers and making sure that the CPC and the OPA director and the Inspector General have individuals who can act as technical accountability advisors during the bargaining process, while also having a strong expectation that they observe the legal requirements. For. For confidentiality during the the the the time of those bargaining efforts. And so as it relates to the first part of of this this proposal, I understand that many from there's there have been conversations with labor, and labor is supportive of of this element. The second part of this proposal, I think, needs some additional conversations with our with our labor stakeholders. I didn't bring forward the first part of this proposal, even though I felt like there was some good, strong support, both publicly and internally for moving in this direction because it requires a a new A, it would have required a new title change because it amended a part of the code that we weren't currently amending. So I just wanted to share that with the public because there was a lot of test public testimony about both those issues. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson. Just briefly want to say thanks to a couple of folks. You know, I didn't walk into this job with a subject area expertize on this topic, and it resulted in me spending a lot of time with some folks that I want to say thank you for spending time with me to help me understand better about the decisions that we're making today. So to Diane Ozaki, to Faye Lopez, to Enrique Gonzales, to Allison Eisinger, to Betsy Graff, and to list Dugard. Thank you for spending so much time and energy educating me on this topic, and thank you for all your really incredible organizing and coalition building around this topic as well. I know how hard it is to do community organizing and coalition building and how hard is to keep that together so that we're here today with a consensus package of amendments and consensus underlying legislation. You deserve a whole lot of credit for two city staff, both Andrew Meyer, Berg, Spencer Williams, particularly Brianna Thomas and amici for spending a lot of time with me as well to help take concepts and turn them into actual words on a piece of paper. That was really great and thank you for all your time and energy. And finally, to my colleague, Councilmember McDaniel. You are the subject matter experts in a whole lot of ways on this topic, not just personally and professionally, but I just want to say thank you for your patience, for your leadership. And the city is a whole lot safer today as a result of all your great work. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw. Oh, good. Thanks. Since so many people have already been recognized, I want to hear to and really appreciate Lisa Dugard and Reverend Harriet Walden. Thank you so much for your mid-night emails. I mean, rarely, rarely have I seen the kind of advocacy but advocacy looking for solutions. And I personally want to say thank you to that. My council colleagues, of course, Lorena Gonzalez, you have been recognized, Councilmember Herbold as well. Johnson and Councilmember, our current president, pro tem, Councilmember Burgess. I just am thankful to all of you because what I have seen in this process and seriously in the eight years that I've been on council, I don't think I've seen another piece of legislation where people have worked as hard with the community, respectfully listening to each other and that deep listening. And I also want to recognize today the fact that the police came and our firefighters came and Levinson, you're back there. Thank you for the work that you have done over the years. And I just appreciate that there really is unity around this and that when we do get together and we do listen to each other, we can come up with this kind of solution. And I think the answer is yes, we try this, we really all can get along. So thank you. Councilmember So on. Thank you, President Burgess. My comments right now will also apply to Agenda Item eight, which is about the Observer's Bill of Rights. And I thank two memorable for bringing that forward. I would like to thank the Community Police Commission. For their dedication to police accountability and the dozens, if not hundreds of hours they have put into amending this legislation. When the mayor's office first sent the draft legislative legislation to council, I heard the commissioners and community advocates expressed concern that if it was passed without amendment, it would have been a step backward, not forward, and a net loss of accountability. Since then, however, the Community Police Commission has worked and organized to amend many of those original problems, and it is due to their determination that we have this legislation today a step in the good direction. And I also thank Councilmember Gonzalez for listening to the concerns of the commission. I intend to vote yes on this bill as community activists and organizations like the NAACP welcome this progress. They are correctly urging the council to follow through on the words and this legislation. They are also correctly urging that this legislation be viewed in proportionate light with a sense of gravity and avoid setting up false expectations. For example, the position of the inspector general is described as independent. But independent from whom? According to this bill, the inspector general is independent from the Seattle police chain of command. Yes, but is not independent from the power structure of the Seattle political establishment. If we have some future mayor running for reelection who does not want a police scandal on their record. The question is how independent will the inspector general be in that situation? The reality is in a society with massive wealth and racial inequality, such as the current one, institutions are not independent or neutral. Regardless of claims otherwise, everyone has a social base, different classes and different political forces that they depend upon or are allied with. I do not try to hide the fact that I represent regular working, working class people and those at the receiving end of police violence. I do not pretend to represent big business. I have always advocated that for genuine police accountability. It will not be enough to have someone who claims to be independent. We will need a democratically elected and accountable community oversight that is unapologetically on the side of working people and oppressed communities, and which will doggedly fight for the rights of victims because they are elected by and accountable to communities not appointed by the political establishment . We need to have a separate democratically elected civilian review board, a body that has full powers to hold the police accountable and that can itself be held accountable if it fails to defend our community members impacted by discrimination and excessive force. This legislation takes a step towards that goal, but in truth, a small step. The closest that we have in this legislation to an independent review board is the Community Police Commission, which, while not elected, is currently made up of people with genuine community roots. However, the Commission has no direct power beyond the ability to speak out. It has no structural authority over police rules, policies or power to subpoena officers. I do, however, greatly applaud the current Community Police Commission for retaining and strengthening their ability to call out the police establishment, the political establishment, if it fails to produce genuine accountability. And I pledge my full support to you all in using that power to its full potential. The legislation by itself will not end the excessive use of force and racial profiling by Seattle police. It will not stop the police from targeting regular people who use their cell phones to record police violence, street medics, independent legal observers, journalists and activists like myself at peaceful protests. It will not stop the political establishment from sheltering officers who violate people's basic rights. We live in a country with over 2 million people in prison, disproportionately people of color. No other country, including brutal dictatorships in the past, have imprisoned so many. It is not an accident that many black and brown people and poor and working class people view police officers as an occupying army rather than an institution that serves the community here in Seattle. Donald Trump received only 8% of the vote, but was endorsed by the Seattle Police Officers Guild. Imagine how terrifying it must be for our immigrant, refugee, Latino and black sisters and brothers to know that many of us city police are among that 8%. The same police who have the authority to use violence against our people of color and our working class people. On February 5th, 2017, Seattle King County ACP President Gerald Henderson published an editorial in the Seattle Times that asked several important questions about the fatal shooting of Jay Taylor at the hands of Seattle police. He asked why after Chief Taylor was shot multiple times at point blank range, was he left bleeding on the ground for seven and a half minutes without any officer providing medical attention. Why did Seattle police released to the media information of his past criminal record immediately after they shot him? Does the leadership of Seattle police believe that criminal records authorizes the use of deadly force? Why did the mayor and the police chief tell the media that they thought officers acted appropriately in the days following the shooting before any investigation had been done? So far, no real answers have been forthcoming from elected officials. Chad Taylor and the countless others impacted by police violence are a grim but important reminder that we need to continue building mass movements for racial justice. The Black Lives Matter movement in Seattle and nationwide, the union movement of Seattle and King County and the successful BLOCK the bunker movement have shown that when activists get organized, we can make a real impact. Congratulations to the Community Police Commission for their hard work, for our thanks to central staff and city attorney member of staff members who worked on this legislation and above all, thanks to community activists. And yes, stop the sweeps and no new jail. The city's journey with this issue of police reform and accountability actually goes back many decades. I remember the early 1990s when we appointed our first OPA auditor and we had a citizen's commission that made a series of recommendations on how to include improve policing and the performance of our police officers. And we've repeated that cycle several times since then. This legislation is intended to stop that cycle so that we can actually have the type of constitutional, fair, respectful policing that we want in our city. And I would add effective policing. We actually want our police officers to do their jobs well. And thankfully, most of them do all of the time. And so I want to thank the women and men of the Seattle Police Department for their good work. They often have a very dangerous job and they keep reporting for work every day. And we're grateful for that. I also want to thank Cathy O'Toole, the chief of police. She has set a wonderful example of leadership and she has really led the reform effort inside the police department. And I hope she's here for many years into the future to continue doing that. I want to thank Mayor Murray as well. He came into office when this was all very active and quickly got up to speed and has done a really good job of through his staff members, ushering this forward and getting us to where we are today. Councilmember Bagshaw, I know you made a comment about at least two guards emails coming at midnight, but I've received multiple emails from Amy, say two and three and four in the morning and your boss is here, Amy. And I think she's earned a lot of time in the next few weeks. Earlier today, I spoke with Sam Walker. He is a professor emeritus of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and highly regarded as one of our country's leading criminologist and experts on police accountability and the effectiveness of policing. And here's what Sam Walker said to me. By passing this legislation, Seattle leaps to the head of the class nationally on police reform and accountability. Establishing three entities the Community Police Commission, the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety and the Office of Police Accountability. Establishing these three entities to provide oversight of police practices and policies is a bold and exciting experiment that hasn't been done anywhere else. This is a solid example of community driven police accountability, and I'm optimistic about where Seattle will lead the nation. It will be very important. This is his cautionary word. It'll be very important that these three entities work very closely together, meet early and often, and learn how to honor and respect their unique roles and responsibilities. The people of Seattle deserve this, and so do your police officers. Working for constitutional and effective policing is an aspiration we all share. And I think Sam Walker got it right. Exactly. I also remember when the Department of Justice opened their investigation, and actually the Department of Justice was the first to suggest that we needed a community body that was heavily involved in this work. And I appreciate their contribution and the stimulus that they brought to city government to make sure that we do this work and hopefully get it right. Councilmember Gonzales. I do want to close our comments. It would be my honor. I would like to also start my remarks by saying some very important thank yous before we take the final vote on this incredibly important piece of legislation and a body of work that truly does reflect our next step in moving forward. I'd like to thank all of the council members who volunteered so much of their time to show up in my in my very, very special, special committee hearings. They just happened all the time. So they became special committee hearings instead of just regular ones. I'd like to thank Mayor Ed Murray for his work on getting the legislation primed and ready for city council to consider. I'd also like to thank his legal counsel, Ian Warner, who also played a significant role and in making sure that we received a package of police reform legislation that was ready for us to work on. Of course, our city attorney, Pete Holmes, Assistant City Attorney Andrew Marburg, Seattle Police Chief Cathy O'Toole. And like Councilmember Burgess, I'd also like to thank the officers of the Seattle Police Department who in reality we need them to be on the same page with us. We need them to recognize the importance of constitutional policing. I believe that a vast majority of them do, and I recognize that that the requirements that we impose upon the police department certainly do trickle down to the men and women of the police department who we rely on to implement constitutional policing every day. And that implementation of constitutional policing is not just good for us. It's not just good for the residents of Seattle who don't have a gun and who don't have a badge. It's it's good for public for for the public safety aspects, of course. But it's also incredibly important to keeping our officers safe as well. I'd also like to thank our OPI director, Pierce Murphy, who also provided us with with valuable technical assistance, as well as our former auditor, retired judge and Levinson, who's standing in the back who really gave us on council and the Community Police Commission a ton of technical assistance in making sure that we understood, based on the years of her work and the volumes of reports that she has generated, that we got some of the important aspects on the back end related to discipline, appeals and grievances. Right. And I think we have and there are so many others who contributed to the process of writing and reviewing this legislation. I want to thank all of those folks. But my deepest gratitude goes to Councilmember Tim Burgess, who is the vice chair of my committee, who is the chair of our budget committee, who has really worked tirelessly alongside with me to be able to do this massive overhaul of the base ordinance that we received through his unique lens of having been a police officer for for the city of Seattle at one point in time and lending us his expertize of having chaired the Public Safety Committee, I think at least, at least once, maybe twice. And so I really do appreciate all of the work that you have done to assist us in getting this bill in the right place. And let me tell you, if if senior rate us is a concept, which I think it is, it certainly does not apply to you because you even though this is your last year , this is quite a legacy that you are leaving behind for this for the residents of Seattle. And I want to I want to thank you for your commitment to continuing to work diligently and very hard for for the people of Seattle. I also want to take a moment to thank Amy Sy from Council Central, a staff. Amy, you are a machine. I just don't know how you do it every day. And I am so grateful for all of your help, your sacrifices. You have two small children. I know that you had to make a lot of sacrifices to to help us get this across the finish line. And I will be eternally grateful to you and my offer for a desk inside my office. It still stands. You're welcome. Anytime. Brianna Thomas, of course, from my office, who came to this body of work as a community organizer. And when I told her she was going to take over public safety and police reform, she made a very particular face that if you know, Brianna, you know which face I'm talking about, that you have really risen to the challenge and I have been impressed by your intellect, your commitment to listen and your ability to bring together very divergent beliefs, to get us all to a place where we can feel very good about the legislation that we're about to pass. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the Community Police Commission, and I know so many of you are in the room, so I'm going to ask that if you are on the CPC or were ever on the CPC, including staff, if you would be willing to stand on your feet so that we can recognize you. I. I know that our work is not done. This is, like I've said before, just a step in the right direction. But I just deeply appreciate all of the work that we've been able to do together with the CPC, including, you know, going to New Orleans and dancing in the streets while also learning about police accountability. And. And and but also having those serious conversations and literally locking ourselves in a room for two Saturdays in a row where we spent a total of 15 hours together to really try to figure out how to make this a big win for community and a big win for the entirety of the city. So I want to thank you for that. There were also, you might have heard in testimony, dozens of original members of the 35 organizations, which is growing, who worked with the ACLU of Washington to advocate that the Department of Justice come to Seattle and help us do what has always seemed within reach, but yet unachievable. And I know a lot of you are in the room today. And so I would ask those of you who are part of the original group six years ago to stand and be recognized for the fact that you did all this work. And I hope Reverend Walden doesn't punish me later for making her stand up a third time. But I'm going to ask that you stand because so much of the work that we have been doing in our community is was really started by you and by so many of the other women moms that that you organized within our community to to be brave and courageous and to stand on the right side of justice and on the right side of history. And in a lot of ways, I feel like today is a culmination of so much of the advocacy work that you have been doing for free. And I know it sometimes can feel like like it's ungrateful work. Like, nobody is going to recognize the work that you're doing. But I want you to know and believe that I.C.U. that we see you and that we so deeply appreciate all of the years, years and decades of service that you have provided to our community. So thank you, Reverend Weldon. It is because of the deep and steadfast commitment of so many in this community. That brings us to this truly historic moment. In so many instances, the fight for 15 secure scheduling, paid sick and safe time, monumental investments in human services, transportation and early education. Seattle continues to show time and time again that we lead. This ordinance is no exception. It is a model of what other communities across the country can expect to see as a result of Department of Justice consent decree processes that are fueled by community support. In Seattle, that community call to action and the DOJ's acceptance of that call is now paving the way to sustainable long term police reform without compromising officer or public safety. I truly believe that this that this will be an accountability system that will have legitimacy among our officers and police reform advocates. That is quite the achievement. But our work is not done. Although this is a significant step forward in our efforts to reform the police department and our accountability systems, this is but one additional step. Over the coming months and years, we will need to see these reforms over the finish line. Many of you know that I approach this work through a unique lens. As a civil rights attorney, I focused my practice on representing people who were subjected to excessive force and bias policing. And yes, I've even sued the Seattle Police Department. That work gave me firsthand knowledge of the complaint and investigation process, and I put that knowledge to work. As we struggled with this legislation. Indeed, it is this very issue that motivated my initial desire to want to serve the people of Seattle as a member city wide. Over the past 16 weeks, I have proudly led the city's work to ensure that this legislation adequately reflects the significant work previously done by the Community Police Commission to assess, analyze and incorporate the needs of community members most adversely affected by policing. That process has included seven committee hearings, two evening public hearings, over 50 meetings with C.P.S. leadership and staff. Multiple meetings with my colleagues, the mayor and the mayor's office. And a trip. And three trips across the country from Los Angeles to New York City to New Orleans to learn about best practices and standards. All of this has informed the work of my committee, and the results show in today's legislation, which has wide consensus within community and beyond. This legislation will set us on the path to take to changing the culture at speed, enhancing public trust in our officers, and always turning a mirror on ourselves to continuously improve rather than waiting for a crisis to reform. That has been my vision all along. This bill represents our collective vision of sweeping reforms designed to advance constitutional policing, which is good for community and good for public safety and good for the safety of officers. Thank you to all of my colleagues for indulging. Special committee hearing after special committee hearing. And I am deeply grateful to all of you in the audience today who weren't in those rooms. But I know you were pushing. I want to thank all of you for advocating for community driven police accountability and reform. Today would not be possible without you. So thank you. Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll on council? Bill 118969 as amended. Gonzalez. Yes. Herbold, I. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Hi. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. High eight. In favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Oh, my gosh. So just a note. We're going to take up a budget bill now related to the same topic and then the Public Safety Bill of rights. If you are going to leave. Would you please take your conversations outside so we can continue our work here? Thank you very much. We'll now move to agenda item seven. Will the clerk please read that in. Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118908 An ordinance amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, creating and revising budget control levels, modifying positions and changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels all by a three quarter vote of the city council.

Petition of Seattle City Light to vacate Pontius Avenue North between the south margin of John Street and the north margin of Denny Way.

SeattleCityCouncil_08172015_CF 313195

Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments listed in agenda items 12 and 13 vote. I oppose Vote No. The appointments are confirmed unanimously. The report of the Transportation Committee. Please read item 14. The Report of the Transportation Committee. Agenda Item 14 Clerk File 313195. The petition of Seattle City Light to vacate Pontious Avenue North between the south margin of John Street and the north margin of Denny Way. The committee recommends the full council grant the petition as conditioned. Please read item 15 as well. Agenda Item 15 Clerk File 314305 Council Concept Approval and waiver or modification of certain development standards to allow development of an electrical substation. The Denny Substation located at 1250 Denny Way Project Number 3014772 Type five. The committee recommends the full council approve the project. Councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you. The Council is requested to take two separate actions to enable the construction of the City Lights substation at Denny Way. First in item 14. The council is being requested to approve the vacation of Pontious Avenue North between John Street and Denny Way. The second item is item 15, and that would grant the waiver of several land use standards to allow the construction of the substation. This new substation is being built to meet the increased need for reliable electricity in the South Lake Union area. The project includes construction of the substation itself at John Street and Denny Way, and the construction of an underground distribution network that will connect power to the surrounding buildings. And finally, construction of a transmission line from the existing Massachusetts substation in the Sodo neighborhood to the new Denny Way substation. Our street vacation policies provide that vacations may be approved only when they serve the public interest and when a public benefits associated with the project are provided by the petitioner. After several discussions before the Transportation Committee, including a public hearing, the committee has determined that the vacation is in the public interest because vacating a Pontius will allow for construction of the substation in a manner that will include public benefits sought by the neighborhood. And it is supported by our Department of Transportation, which is determined that this portion of Pontiac's Avenue North is a minor street and its closure will not negatively affect the street cred. And then finally, the project does have the support of the adjacent community. Following extensive public involvement with the community to determine what they would like in terms of public benefits. There are nine distinct public benefits associated with the project and their value totals approximately $10 billion. Benefits are listed on page three of the attachment in the Clark file, but to comment on upon several of those are outlined a couple of those several of those there are improved pedestrian crossings that Danny way a 6000 square foot off leash dog park a community meeting room a public art will be provided on site and a new covered bus, shelter and transit hub along Danny way. I'd like to thank Seattle City Light for their work with the community and also to those in the community who have participated in our community meetings and attended the public hearing and work with City Light to develop the public benefits for the project. With regard to the hour, would you like to take action on this proposal to vacate first and then we'll I'll talk about the land use action and we can vote on that separately. Okay. So that's the recommendation of the committee to grant conceptual approval of the vacation. Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of granting the petition as conditioned vote I. By. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries, the petition is granted as conditioned and the chair will sign the conditions of the City Council. Item 15. Thank you. This is the second part of the approval that's being requested of the council now to enable the construction of the Denny Way substation. The project also requires waiver of several land use standards by the Council. This is the first project of its kind in Seattle in 30 years, and when the South Lake Union land use development standards were developed, they weren't done with the construction of an electrical substation in mind. So for that reason, in order to build a substation, there have to be seven land use waivers made by the council. Each waiver was reviewed and discussed twice in the Transportation Committee. And the findings, conclusions and decision statement that's included in your Clark file provides a complete and succinct summary of each of the waivers. Following the committee review and discussion, the committee determined that the requested modifications of development standards are necessary to allow the project to be constructed and the site to effectively function as an electric substation again . The Transportation Committee unanimously recommends approval of this action to grant the land use waivers. Thank you. Questions or comments? We're voting on item 15. Those in favor of approving the project and granting the modification of development standards. Vote I II. Those oppose Vote No. The motion carries, the project is approved and the chair will sign the findings, conditions and decision of the City Council. Adoption of other resolutions. Please read item 16. Agenda Item 16. Resolution 31608. Setting the public hearing on the petition of City Investors for LLC for the vacation of a subterranean portion of the alley and block 89 Denny's Fifth Avenue, fifth addition to North Seattle in the South Lake Union neighborhood of Seattle, according to Chapter three 5.17 Revised Code of Washington. Seattle in this code 15.62 and Clerk's file 313894 Introduced August 17, 2015. Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen. This is a routine resolution that establishes September 22nd as a hearing date for the vacation of a requested proposal to vacate a subterranean part of the right of way in the Denny Triangle neighborhood. The alley is in the block where the Denny play field in the South Lake Union Discovery Center allow her now located. Do you want to move adoption of the resolution and. The I would move adoption of this resolution setting September 22nd as the hearing. Date. Second, are there any questions or comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I oppose vote no. The resolution is adopted unanimously and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? The Select Committee on Affordable Housing will meet beginning at 345. 5 minutes from now, the council's adjourned. Thank you.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance to repeal Long Beach Municipal Code Section 8.97 relating to Tenant Relocation Assistance effective December 31, 2019; and Direct City Manager to create a Senior and Disabled Household Security Deposit Assistance Program for qualified lower-income households and identify up to $250,000 in non-General Fund funding for the program. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12032019_19-1203

Actually, 1/2. We're doing that. We'll go ahead and do this 1/1. But we actually did we I think we skipped over item 26. So we're going to that's on this agenda. So we're going to go we're going to come back to item 24 and go back to 26 and another 24. Item 26 Report from Development Services Recommendation to Request City Attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance to repeal Long Beach Municipal Code Section 8.97 relating to Tenant Relocation Assistance effective December 31st, 2019, and direct City Manager to create a senior and disabled Household Security Deposit Assistance Program. City Wide OC First time to read public comment. If you're here for public comment, please come forward in this order. She's not here. Kieran Reside, Nadia Tushnet, Leanna Noble, Holly Stewart, Myron Wallen and Cynthia think doesn't see us. Please come forward. Are those folks here? Karen Reside, a resident of the First District. The last couple of weeks. I'm going to share stories that what I'm seeing from this relocation fee. The landlords are not telling the tenants about it. I have people coming to me at the senior center. They don't know anything about the relocation payments. The landlords are also not giving them any instructions about it either. Out of six tenants that I've talked to in the last two weeks. Only one person was. Given a piece of. Paper. That mentioned the relocation payment and that they might be eligible. So they have no idea. The landlords are not telling the tenants what this is for. And I'm hoping that this motion is not to. Take away benefits from people that need them very badly and the landlords are still giving out eviction notices. So that's another issue, too. So I hope that we're going to have a discussion that's going to create an opportunity to discuss these elements and come up with some solutions. Nadir Tushnet and I live in the third district. Sorry, Susie. The third district. I am. I do support the $250,000. But in my work with seniors, a lot of them don't even know that it exists. So I think that this needs to be amended and it also needs an enforcement mechanism that landlords need to tell seniors and disabled individuals about the ability to access some money to help them relocate. There are other issues, but this is the one that I keep hearing about. If I'm the one telling people there's something wrong and. I think. That it should be from the city. Thank you. Thank you. Lee and Annabelle. I'm a downtown resident. I'm here also as a member of the advisory board of Libra. And the message is very clear, amend and continue to protect the residents of your city. Do not repeal. Which equals abandoning. The residents of your city. In my downtown neighborhood, there are no less than five buildings in the last. Eight months that have been. Completely empty. That is more than 100 families that were my neighbors. They were kicked out. Something was done to the apartments. It wasn't easy to tell what and the rent was jacked up. So those are a hundred of my neighbors who had been forced out of Long Beach. We have now a good state law. All we need to do is to make that. Law absolutely. Recognized. Here and to keep the current amount and formula that we have for relocation. Benefits. That will put you standing with the majority of the people who live here in our town who are residents. That is what we ask. Of you. Tonight. Thank you, Speaker, please. I was Stewart. Yes. I hope you can hear me okay. My name is Hollis Stewart and I live downtown. Also a gray. Panther. And I belong to a lot of other organizations around here. And I'm here to say that, you know, amend this municipal code, 88.97 instead of, you know, dropping parts of it. Keep us. There is better addiction protection. We just heard from other people from a few minutes ago. By the way, I'm a senior. Citizen of the 80 years old in January. And I care a lot about these things because I see people my age being put out in the street and none of you should be responsible for that because you shouldn't be. The Grinch stole Christmas by getting rid of this protection we need for the people who are under threat. Thank you very much. Keep it amended. Keep it so that people are protected from eviction and from rent increases and keep the money up there so people can relocate when they do have to. Thank you very much. Thank you. Myron Wallace right here. So before Cynthia speaks, Maria Lopez, Alex Flores, Jonathan Gibson and Gretchen Swanson. In that order, please come forward. Ray Lopez is here. Alex Flores, Jonathan Gibson and Gretchen Swanson. Thank you. Good evening. City Council and Mayor Garcia. My name is Cynthia macias and I am a member of the second District and also. The board president for housing Long Beach as a housing advocate who worked in good faith. With this council to pass the tenant below. This past June. Excuse me. To be honest, I'm very disgusted. Is sadly not surprised that you are would deliberately undermine all the hard work of fellow orgs and community members because this is what it looks. Like to us. You all claimed an urgency about keeping families and homes for the holidays and thus passed the moratorium. Was that done just to appease your conscience because you knew. You would repeal. Reload right afterwards? If so, shame on all of you. Of course, except Mary Sun has, because she was not here. But you all have a duty to your constituents, and I hope you do what's best for them, which is amending the Long Beach Reload Ordinance to incorporate state Senate protections in its entirety except to keep the Long Beach hire relocation assistance amounts, do surgery with a. Scalpel, not a hacksaw. And as far as the senior citizens. I work with these senior citizens all the time. And it's not about the money. There's no ADA accessible. Units. For them as well. And we have to think. About the bigger picture. Not just the money. Thank you. Thank you. Relevance, please. Good evening, city council and Mayor. My name is Maria, and in the time of breaking glass ceilings, I'd say I'm undocumented, unafraid and unapologetic. I migrated to Long Beach at the age of three into District one, and now I'm the director of community organizing for housing lobbies and organizing with the Long Beach Tenants Union. I have been connecting with tenants through organizing for the past three years, and one of the biggest wins was our Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance. Tenants organized, unified came to council with their stories and their pain, and on June 11th, they took home a win to mitigate displacement for thousands of families in the city of Long Beach. A repeal of such fundamental policy that those directly affected advocated for. On the Week of Homeless Awareness. Veiled itself as a direct undermining of these stories and these families. This is why we asked for an amendment of this policy to keep the promise and commitment to the majority renters city. The amendment is simple incorporate this that the Tenant Protection Act in its entirety at SAP to keep the Long Beach hire relocation assistance amounts as it helps to mitigate the impacts for tenants. This is a common sense approach as it is completely legal feasibly under the TPPA because the amendment ordinance would be more protective than TPA due to its higher relocation assistance amounts. Again, when renters rise cities. Thank you for your support today. And next week or please. Good evening. This is Alex Flores. I'm an attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation working out of our Long Beach office. I wanted to talk real quickly about the Tenant Protection Act and the fact that it allows to do it. Most of the speakers have been talking about, which is amend the ordinance. The Tenant Protection Act is clear. It is a floor. It specifically details what a city must do in order to make a more protective ordinance. Section g1b is very clear and it's very easy. What it would require is a city to pass an ordinance with an ordinance which says that they are passing the Tenant Protection Act with no changes, not making it weaker in any way that they're adding something higher like relocation amounts, which is an example already in the Tenant Protection Act itself. And three are binding finding that their ordinance is more protective because of that higher amount. So instead of repealing the relocation ordinance, what the city can do is simply pass that ordinance and make sure that these higher amounts of relocation, which have already capped a lot of tenants that have come into our office in their homes, that those tenants don't lose that protection. Thank you. Thank you. Jonathan. Jonathan Gibson and Gretchen Swanson. Good evening. My name is Jonathan Gibson. I'm a Long Beach resident and a Lafleur's staff attorney. I want to talk a little bit about the city's ordinance and how important it is. It gives two months of relocation assistance, whereas the TPA is a good start, only gives one month. Now, what does this mean for tenants? What we're seeing a lot is these no fault evictions for substantial renovations going through. And with the extra two months of relocation benefits, that means that someone can pay for their security deposit, first month's rent and moving costs. It's so much easier. The TPA, which is simply a four. When someone's facing eviction, these costs mount and this is incredibly important. Just one example we had recently was on Cedar Avenue, where we had tenants who had been living there for 30 to 40 years and they were evicted, but they were able to be given a soft landing by having this extra relocation assistance. And this should continue. It should not be abandoned. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Gretchen Swanson. Before Gretchen speaks, the following folks in the lineup is Ailsa Chang here, Andrea Donato, Myra Garcia and Roberto Lopez and Jordan Wynne who is here. Ailsa Chang. Andrea Donato. Please line up. Myra Garcia and Roberto Lopez and Jordan win in that order. Thank you. Good call. Good evening. Gretchen Swanson, CD2 I am in support of my colleagues who just thought about maintaining and then building on the tenant protective effort here in the city of Long Beach. I want to speak particularly about the older adult and people with disabilities, a portion of it. First of all, the language is old. I was just recognized today by a board of county supervisors for the fact that I'm an expert in keeping older adults safe. So when I come here and look at something that is at best disingenuous, a security fund which they would get back, it boggles my mind that I live in this city that is not addressing the needs. There was a whole group that just walked out of older adults that are disenfranchized from a process of protection. So we need a well defined program, not this security deposit fund, and we need someone to reflect that. We now have a council member who is an expert who has lived the life of housing needs, rental housing needs for people with disabilities. Let's reflect that. Let's use that and do something meaningful. Let's go to older adults and people with disabilities and ask them what they need. Not throw a couple thousand dollars at them and hope that we get that money back. Thank you. Thank you so much of the time. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Ailsa Tang from Long Beach Forward. Now this past spring and summer, housing advocates worked in good faith with this council to pass tenant relocation assistance. And last month we worked in good faith again with this council to enact an eviction moratorium. And we thank you for that. But now we're here to repeal what we all worked so hard to pass. That's not right. Look, the staff report is crystal clear. It says, quote, Generally, the state regulation will apply to more tenants than the city regulation. And the city regulation will require higher relocation payments when it does apply. Indeed, Long Beach tenant rule adopted by this council allows double the relocation than the state to pay. So the solution is to take the best of both worlds. The solution is to amend, not repeal. Amend the Long Beach Ordinance to incorporate the State Tenant Protection Act in its entirety except to keep Long Beach's hire relocation assistance amounts. This is the cleanest and most effective way to comply with both state law and this council's intent to provide two months of relocation assistance to Long Beach tenants , especially those who face no fault evictions due to rehab of their unit. Those families we just protected under the eviction moratorium. Council members. A vote to amend is a vote to protect. A vote to repeal. As a vote to abandon. Do the right. Thing. Thank you very much. I decision not to please next speaker. I'm going to ask the rest of the folks who are here to line up. I know. I see Jordan went into the back after Jordan to be Marlene Alvarado. I think it is Malik Watson, Ivan Garcia and Andrew Montano. And that's the the final closing of the speaker's list is tomorrow. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Andrew L.A. and I'm the associate director of the Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization. And I'm here with the same. Message to all my friends that have spoken. I will just like to encourage you. To step up on the leadership, on renters rights. That's an area looking to. An assistant was the. First to step up. That Long Beach took really long time to protect tenants in in Los Angeles County. We are already talking about the right to counsel there at 3% in rent control cap. And if you like the Long Beach, we are still. Trying to defend the little. That we have. So I highly encourage you to amend what we have to, as they have said, to keep the rates of the relocation assistant and to comply with the state law. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Myra Garcia. We need an. Interpreter. Mr. Modica. I defer to the city clerk on whether interpreted services were requested for today. Why do we keep going? We'll get back to Promises. I thought we had an interpreter. Here, but yeah. There was an interpreter here for the swearing in ceremony. They did not stay for the entirety of the council meeting. We didn't receive a request in the office for a public comment. Well. So what do you want to say? But it comes in the months ahead. Okay, look, we'll do that a minute. Madam Clerk. We can just try to get a solution to that. Thank you. Very little. Hello, many. Hello. I'm Mayor and City Councilman Lopez, project director at Libre, and I am here to speak against the repealing of ten and below. I think a lot of the colleagues have said, you know, that this was a huge victory for tenants, especially for tenants who are already being displaced. And some of the tenants that you helped protect the last like two weeks ago. And at the end, they they'll be affected once again starting January 1st as they will receive the same notices that they received due to substantial rehab. We are asking you to now repeal, but amend the ten and reload to protect the larger group of renters that fall under AB 1482. Stand behind your words from June and continue to protect tenants and your city. The same tenants that you help protect this holiday season will be affected by this repeal. All tenants deserve higher relocation amounts. Long Beach Re Low amounts are unique. Long Beach Unique. The right thing to do is to protect our seniors and also members of our community with disabilities and our tenants. I really do hope that you do the right thing and help protect the tenants of your city, especially the ones that you just recently helped protect. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Hi there. My name's Jordan Winn. I'm a resident of the second district. I want to echo the sentiments of my colleagues and urge you to not repeal this and to instead amend this. I wanted to address two points. One is a personal story. So, as you know, I recently moved from District seven to District two. I recently relocated, and I've been saving up for a while to actually do that. I wanted to focus in on the costs of moving. I moved into a two bedroom apartment and just to move in. It cost about $4,000. And if I were doing that, you know, in one fell swoop, if I was getting evicted, that would be much more difficult than what I actually had to do, which was save up for about a whole year to actually be able to do that. So I'm thinking of the families and people on fixed incomes, people who are working paycheck to paycheck, who are unable to pay for a new place to move, even with. The time that they have in the lower state amount. So this is one of the important reasons that I think. We should consider keeping our local element. The other thing that I want to say is this isn't the only time that. We're going to have to talk about how we enforce TPA and how our. City relates to it and the way in which our policies work around that. We're going to have to figure out enforcement mechanisms. So I think it's much smarter to. Amend rather than repeal. Don't do this haphazardly. Take some time to think about it. Don't throw it in right now and repeal it with. I like the chainsaw metaphor. We need to use a scalpel for housing policy. Thanks so much very much. Our next speaker, please. Marlene Alvarado. Is Venezuelan. Alvarado, District one. Don't repeal. Amend, keep the 2% monthly assistance of $4,500, especially for no fault eviction. If you need to save money because you know. We're going broke. You can take some of that money from the 48% of the budget. For the police department. Because according to 0 to 2000 people. Become homeless with a 5% rent increase. So with the amendment to. Keep the two month assistance, police services will be reduced with the senior and. And deceptively household security assistance program. I would like to know how does a tenant qualify for this program? How will the city ensure this program is rich and benefiting the city's most vulnerable. Seniors and persons with disability? How will the. Funding of this program be sustained over time? Well, the city come to fund the program. In order to leverage state. And federal funds. And I think it's really tacky of you to get rid of the $4,500 assistance program amend don't repeal. Thank you link Watson. Amendment Repeal Amendment bill. I can see. Hello, my name is Malik Watson, a son and a brother to a beautiful seven year old sister. My family and I are familiar to relocating to different areas and it's hard to find a stable home. We've moved to different areas in the city across the country for the past seven years I've lived in the riverside area, but now I'm back in, back in my home city I call home. And I am a part of the education system attending Long Beach Poly High School, even Central Elementary. Now that I've returned, I want to do my part and serve as an advocate for my community. You all yourselves have a connection to the city, whether it be because of your whether it be because of your position or due to your family. Just as much as you care for your family, we ask for you to care for us and amend, not repeal the ordinance for you to the ordinance for you to care for hours and amend, not repeal. Give me give me that. Just as much as you care for your family. We ask that you care for us and amend, not repeal the ordinance and incorporate the Tenant Protection Act, but keep Long Beach Haven relocation assistance amounts. Families are consistently displaced in the city and have difficulty finding another another home. This is why we need to hire relocation amounts to ensure our families remain connected and separated. I kindly request for you to amend, not repeal and keep the high relation amounts to provide justice for communities historically marginalized through racist policy practices. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Ivan Garcia. Hello, Mayor. Hello, Council. My name is Ivan and I live in the First District. And I'm just going to start off by saying we don't need to send more people to live in the streets. We have too many of those people already. And by removing this protection, that would just only create. That effect that we want to. Avoid. Like as many others have said already, we all as a community have worked together to provide protections for these renters. That way, they don't have to save up so much money in so little time that they end up living on the street. And with that, I simply say that we should amend it. And amend it and look more deeply into it and make sure that we don't just repeal and therefore strip the protections away from these people in one fell swoop. And in this, like as someone else has said already, this is actually consistent with the TPA that was passed earlier this year. Therefore, in short, I simply say amend, do not repeal. And that's all for me. Thank you. Thank you. Andrew. Hello. My name is Andrew Montano with Long Beach Forward supporting the best large central Long Beach initiative. Over the past couple of months, I've gotten to witness families come together and pressure council to adopt an eviction moratorium to have them home for the holidays. Arriving at that building, you heard children laughing, crying, playing, saw them gathering around the table. We had set up outside waiting for their plate of food, not realizing the stress their parents were feeling. One of the small feelings of relief came when they realized they had access to an equitable amount of relocation assistance. If you repeal, you are harming those children who were in the arms of their mothers a few weeks ago. Where I'm standing right now, these tenants under our local law are eligible for 3000 to $325. Now, folks want to take that away and leave them with a third of that amount, not enough for a down payment, childcare , new rent, moving costs and many more expenses. According to a recent study, average rents rose 24.6% in a three year period and are likely to continue doing so in the future. And friends are rising and more people are rent burdened. Then the conversation shouldn't be around repealing our local law, but on amending it to incorporate the Tenant Protection Act and strengthening it further with our local relocation amounts and go as far as filling further gaps, like adopting a fresh right to refusal policy like the city of Berkeley to ensure families are able to return to the units after substantial repairs are made, which is the type of no fault notice to vacate that sparked our eviction moratorium. Again, amend, not repealed. Also, there's another another Maria that signed up without. And we're going to go back to her home in San Antonio. Was there a second, Maria, that didn't leave a last name? And my miracle is miracles. Okay, so both. Both ladies, please come forward. Maria and Myra. Good evening, city council and mayor. My name is Maria Dela Cruz. I'm a resident at the district and I was one of the tenants that advocated for the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance. This law was the first time I ever saw something that benefit renters and made me happy. I met other renters also fighting, which was powerful and beautiful. Repealing this law will erase this and we don't want that. We also want to be able to keep our relocation assistance amounts as they are higher today. Listen to those tenants like myself that fought for this law and meant to protect tenants and offer more financial financial support. Thank you for your time. I'm halfway through. So when I'm not through with Garcia, I think we need a central district, sort of, you know, if we want to modestly eliminate bazaar, inconveniencing maybe a mutual thing, which clearly, I swear you will not existed. But I mean, if you feel a little familiar. There are corridors of where we need to have it is Gucciardo Doral as Historias de la Familia in Lena Copperfield, Chipperfield Romero Little mural, those competitions as Historias Perabo their powerful installation. Ibaraki is the briefly Carolina city that is killing us all we know Karimov, Jerry Lee Pelosi, Kayleigh MCENANY, Fishkin, but oppo their kiranas countless country that is as he stands here. Being in the housing authority is to be important. Simply get him on with the local guillotine killing all channels for gun control, others locales health protection is there alley cat also chin they those that mean you don't say lethal well Keegan Bailey no no affect a catena seguro socially medical boys UK There were a lot mild already let's get dental health benefits of mutual support would be ample lay and then we won't get emotionally local you cannot give them any capable of killing of Lucero just. Have half of it translated. So the other one I'll do verbatim. Good evening. My name is Myra Garcia. I am a tenant and resident of District two. I was one of the tenants who fought for this law and saw it passed June 11th. It brought me much happiness to know that a law existed for the benefit of families struggling and with low income. It was beautiful hearing the stories of families who are tenants and finally breaking through fear. Everyone shared their stories to pass a tenant reload that reflected the needs of community. Today, we don't want a repeal of our hard work, but we want it. But we do want is for it to be amended so we can keep our amounts dictated by the formula of the housing authority. This is very simple. What we want is to keep our local amounts so that tenants who are struggling can. Can still be protected by the strength of 1482 and our higher amounts. Thank you so much for your time. Again, we want a local policy with the with the protection of the 1482 and the same amount, the Limited Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance. Thank you. Thank you very much. Guests at a. One thing that that we didn't do as a staff report, which we jumped I jumped ahead to let me apologize for that and turn it over to Mr. Modica to do the staff report and then we'll move forward. And then I think that will clarify for the council kind of where this is at. So. Mr.. MODICA Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the reason that we're here tonight is to really talk about the tenant relocation ordinance, to give you a little bit of a history, and then the staff recommendation on to why we do believe that repeal of the city's local ordinances is in our best interest, and also to create a new program where we really are talking about providing additional assistance to senior and disabled. So on June 11th, 2019, the City Council adopted the Tenant Relocation Ordinance, and that really requires a rental property owner with four or more units to pay relocation assistance between 20 $700 and 4500. If you recall, there was a lot of community discussion that went into that. There were a lot of things that were either included or excluded, depending on all the public input that we heard. Essentially what it boils down to is if you receive a notice of rent increase of 10% or more in any 12 consecutive month, you would be eligible if you received a notice to vacate due to the landlords rehabilitation of the unit, you'd be eligible. And if you were in good standing and received a notice of non-renewal or notice to vacate, it's important to notice. Note that this is a tenant relocation assistance program but does not restrict rent increases and did not require just cause for termination. And so what happened after we passed ours, we spent a good deal of time really crafting something that worked for for our community, as we have seen in the past. When local cities take the lead on these big, big issues, the state often then comes afterwards and and kind of on the heels of a progressive city says, we're going to do something that will be applied statewide. We've seen that happen with polystyrene. We've seen or I'm sorry, with plastic bags, for example. We've seen it happen with minimum wage and that happened here as well. And so the state basically took effect, a bill that's going to take effect January one, 2020, and has two major provisions. Essentially, it prohibits annual rent increases of 5% or more. Plus the change in CPI or 10%, whichever, is lower. And then it also requires that landlords and they only terminate tenancies if they have just cause, which is significantly different than our local ordinance and provides additional renter protections. It includes at fault just cause is the tenant violation of a lease or a no fault just cause where the owner can terminate under a certain requirements. And so the state regulation also includes rent control and just cause provisions, which is significantly more protections for tenants than what the city ordinance had been crafted since it was a different framework. And so the dilemma is that if nothing changes, we're going to have two sets of laws on the books. One is the state law that applies statewide. And then there would be a city law that would basically be superseded in most cases by state law, except for in very slim areas. We do believe that this is going to cause a lot of confusion for both landlords and for tenants who don't know which one applies in which case. And that in general the relocation required under the state is going to apply to more tenants and actually be more money. There are certain instances where the city's ordinance would apply and have a small a an increase, a higher payment amount. And we'll show you what we expect those numbers to be. Just so you can get a sense of the magnitude. So to walk through the finer details, I'd like to turn it over to Patrick here, who will go through a couple of charts on how we believe the ordinances or the laws would work and, you know. Would each work. Thank you, Tom. Mayor and City Council. This chart shows how the city relocation triggers are impacted by the state regulation. The first two triggers of the city's relocation ordinance basically will be rendered inoperable by the state regulation. That is, the relocation upon a rent increase of 10% or greater, or the relocation assistance when a tenant in good standing receives a notice of non-renewal or a notice to vacate. The third city trigger requires a relocation assistance upon removal or relocation of the unit, and that is effectively the only trigger that will be remaining now once the state regulation takes effect. The state regulation offers both rent control and just cause provision and applies to single family, duplex and triplex units. The city regulation effectively applies to apartment buildings with four units or more, but now only two units where tenancy is terminated until rehabilitation. Prior to adoption of the state regulation, about 49,000 units were covered by the city regulation. Based on building permit data that staff assembled. We estimate that 6.75% of rental units in the city are being rehabilitated annually. So the number of units now covered by the city regulation is actually much lower. 6.75% of that 49,000 equates to 3311 units. But in reality, we think that the actual number of units that will be vacated is much less. The state regulation will assist more than 69,299 households. The city. The city regulation includes a requirement that landlords notify the city when entire buildings are are vacated in the first quarter of implementation of the city's policy. That's August through October of 2019. It was reported to us that a total of 45 units were vacated. That is a small sample, but it's the only sample we have. That is true telling of the units that are being vacated in the market. And if you take that 45 unit number and extrapolated over the full year, that would result in 180 units that would likely be vacated due to rehabilitation. That's about 5.5% of the 3311 units. I'll turn it back over to Tom. Thank you, Patrick. So while we are recommending, given those numbers and the way that the ordinances and laws interact, that we are recommending that you repeal it, but we also are making a recommendation that you enhance one particular area that we've really seen through the community conversations as being the biggest area of need. This is an area we would go beyond what the state requires and have a program in Long Beach set up for our seniors and disabled residents who can be, you know, have needs beyond what we believe the state is going to provide. And so what we're requesting is authority to create a senior and disabled security deposit assistance program for qualified lower income households. We are still working on this program. This you would be giving us direction to create it and come back to you with the final funding sources. We expect this to be non general fund but have about $250,000 combined out of federal home dollars, as are housing dollars and the state homeless prevention assistance and housing funds that we will be getting later in 2020. And so we imagine that this fund would be providing assistance to our most vulnerable populations and go beyond the state protections. The exact amount of subsidy and how that would work and where they would come. Those are all things that we're continuing to work on and we would give you a report back. But it was pretty clear the council really wanted to do this in the in the first part, but we didn't really have a mechanism to do it. So this is we've been putting our heads together to get to the goal of what you had said was one of your highest priorities in this. And so the next thing we're asking is the next steps. We are requesting that you tell the city attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance to repeal this code so that it can line up with the implementation date of the state law, which goes into effect January one. So we would repeal as of December 31st, you would direct the city manager to create that fund, that $250,000 fund, identify the funding sources and get that created and underway and report back to you that you would work with the city attorney to prepare the urgency ordinance and bring that back and identify and fund the program that we've talked about. So with that, we are available to answer questions. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, first of all, thank you to the public for coming out and speaking on this issue. It's been a we've been talking about this issue for a long time, and many of you iterated that. And I want to thank staff for really following and being a part of this conversation and picking up where the council wants to go. The conversation here was not about not about removing protections. When we started this conversation, the city manager mentioned this. When we started the conversation, there were no state protections. And as the state developed their protections, there was a, you know, a lot of disarray in the market and in fact, a lot of people. And there was significant interest in having a very clear policy and rules of the road on January 1st of January 2nd, and a very clear policy, the state policy, we did a moratorium to make sure people are protected until that kicks in. And then we're coming in today and the city staff is presented a repeal to go to the state policy in the areas where city staff heard from counsel, from the public that it needs to be enhanced. Seniors and disabled individuals, those you know, we've created a way to enhance one policy with enhance the policy with a local fund. It's not burdened by the public, not administered by the public and by the private sector, but administered publicly now in many ways. And I think I think staff are putting forward the table in many ways. In most ways, the state regulation is superior to our local law. More people are covered under the state law. Our policy does not have a hard just cause backstop. The state has a just cause backstop. That means that it protects more people than what our original Long Beach policy did. It also has a lower threshold on the rent cap. Ours wasn't a rent cap. It was 10%. But it wasn't a cap. If you pay higher than that, you have to pay reload. There is a cap in the state of 5% and it's a period in many ways for renters and what we have here locally. So the narrative of this is a take away. It is not. Now, the public has done a really good job in educating us on some some, you know, areas where, you know, we might need to do more work. The rules of the road here are about clarity. So the recommendation is to is to repeal. Now, as a part of the second part, where it says create a senior disabled household security deposit program. That's where the enhancement is and that's where the really the opportunity is. So on, you know, in the staff report, the line just below table, it says, as can be seen above, the city wrote The city regulation in the higher reload amount will only apply when it is asked to vacate due to rehabilitation. That's a narrow there's a universe and we did a little work. It's not really a big group of people. It's a small group of people that we that we know that would receive essentially one month of rent in the new law instead of two months. Right. And that's not what the intention was here. Right. So so I must recommendation. I'm going to ask Rich and I had a conversation when we looked at and we found these are the very people who brought this issue forward. The idea wasn't to cut you out the ideas we know we want to expand the protections to everybody and be under one law that a conversation the mayor had a conversation with rich about is it a way to make sure that what that difference is and that very narrow universe we're talking about can this find can actually can we bring back options, bring back a solution for this fund to help people under that very narrow scenario? We still have one policy. The rules of the road are the same, but we add an additional enhancement. Can we bring back options for that rich. Mayor and council members? We certainly can. And I, in turn, have had a conversation with staff to ensure that that is something that we can do. So basically the direction, as I understand it, Council Member Richardson is in addition to an enhanced program for the elderly and the disabled. As staff recommended. Staff should also look into the addition of a city funded, enhanced either relocation payment or security deposit assistance for people that received re low under the state program because they received notice of termination of tenancy due to rehabilitation. We would effectively be trying to address through a city administered program and I'm sorry I'm going on long, but I want to be clear so everyone knows exactly what we're talking about. We would effectively be trying to address through a city administered program the exact people that would otherwise be getting a smaller relocation payment due to this repeal. In our initial sort of review of where the gap is and where the staff report is really a very narrow group. And so if we can make sure that that group moving forward has access to that fund, so they essentially receive the same amount, whether it's in the form of down payment assistance or not down payment, excuse me, running issue in the form of security deposit assistance or in the form of a reload. We want them to be able to have the same amount and we want that to be a part of the fund, not something that we pass on to the landlord. Exactly. That's something I think we can do. Let me let me clarify one thing to just just to be sure. I think what's important here and I want to I want to just echo something that that Councilman Richardson said is the state policy in in 99% of the time is going much further than what we obviously adopted as a as a city. And what there is a and in fact, I know that some folks had mentioned that the state re low amount is less than the city amount. That only is the case in a very, very narrow piece of that whole pie. In fact, dramatically more people will get the higher reload payment that the state has than the than the city currently allows for. And so I think what Councilman Richardson is describing is there is a very small piece of the pie. It could be, you know, and obviously, depending looking at the numbers, it could change year to year. But it's always going to be a very small group of folks that in the current system of repeal would receive a different tenant reload benefit when in fact a vast majority of folks would almost all the time receive much more of the tenant reload. I just want to clarify that we think that is correct and. And so I think what what Councilman Richardson is describing is that it could be and you and I have discussed this number. This number could be as low as ten folks a year. It could be one building, but it happens in a certain year, could be 40 units a year. It's really dependent. It could be higher than that depending on what the building size is. But it's really on this issue of what do what does rehab on the tenancy issue and how that's affected by the higher we low amount . Is that correct, Mr. Modica? Yes. So that's our understanding as well. I think that was well put that we really don't expect that portion of the city's law to to come into effect that often. We can certainly look at the request to modify and add those people who would be affected there into the $250,000 fund. I do want to point out that the way that we have identified some the resources for this, it can't be used for tenant reload. It is done for housing assistance for qualified households. So we would take them and put them into the as a as an area of of eligibility provided they meet with those funding sources. Or if we find that that's not a case, we'll have to come back to you on a different approach on how to fund that. And I think, again, the request, as simple as just how do you address that, that small sliver of folks. We want to make. That small sort. Of come home. We don't want. I think you're right. I think that's I think we're on the same page. There are contractors. Thank you. Sorry that came up fast. You guys are still talking. So I want to I want to say to the residents that are here today that this item, when we talked about it ago, that it was never an intent to remove protections, remove dollar amounts, or to loosen protections again, for for renters. And so I think when these items move forward quickly, that often we it takes us all a little bit of time to make sure that we understand what we're all talking about, that we all understand what the state policy is, what it is that we have in the books on the city side. And so I'm going to ask just a couple of more clarifying questions. So the mayor just recapped the fact that the state ordinance covers more people, and that is, in fact, true. Yes. Yes. And the dollar amount of reload for the majority of people. It was a comment was made from the audience that it was only one month's rent. Can you or Patrick talk through what is a very low amount for the state and what is it that we have on the books right now for the city? And I know that that Councilmember Richardson is addressing this. I just want to make sure we ask and get clear answers. Councilwoman Mongo, the state's policy. Go for it. I'm sorry. I've never. I've never. Never. Go ahead. The state's policy offers one month's rent for relocation assistance. And so that would depend on the month, the rent that the tenant is actually paying and the unit that they're living in. So we don't know exactly what that is, but we do know what average rents are in the city. The city's relocation schedule is $2,706 for a studio apartment $3,325 for a one bedroom. Apartment $4,185 for a two bedroom apartment and 40 $500 for a three bedroom apartment. And it caps at 40 $500. And can the city attorney talk through for me the urgency of this item? Certainly. So to be clear, and I think it was clear in the staff report, but if this item, if you give direction to bring this item back next week as a repeal and an urgency ordinance, it would not immediately become effective with the intention, of course, I think by everybody is to ensure tenant protections through the end of December 31st until 1482 comes into effect. So if you do not adopt it as an urgency ordinance, then I think you're defeating one of the purposes of repealing, which is to not have two competing relocation regimes at the same time. If it's not an urgency ordinance because of the requirements of the city charter, the repeal wouldn't take effect until sometime in mid to late January. And so for that margin of time between January 1st and whenever it became effective in late January, it would be quite confusing for tenants and landlords. There would be two different relocation regimes that they would have to comply with. That is, in effect, why we're requesting urgency. One more question. The Long Beach ordinance that we had passed, we had asked for notification pieces. And I'm just wondering, are those are we intending on those staying in place or will we have to return at a later date to ensure not only notification of buildings that are being rehabbed, but also I know that staff worked for a long time on making sure we had notification that would be provided to tenants about their rights and that we had asked landlords to provide that. Would a staff see that landing right now? Well, our current ordinance still does. Still does that. But if it gets repealed, we have a lot of information on our website that could be enhanced to explain in greater detail what the state's regulation entails and includes. And I believe in terms of the rights of all that, that has already happened. So we put a lot of that information out already, I believe. So that has, you know, that that's. An ongoing process, right? I mean, you've got new people that move in. You know, we want to make sure that our landlords have that information. They're providing it to their tenants as well. And lastly, AB 1482 has notice requirements as part of. It as we had additional ones that I, I know there's a reason why we're trying to keep it simple tonight. And I know there there are a lot of things and I. It's frustrating because I know that we've had lots of conversations and for me tonight was supposed to be about following the state and then making sure that we kept in place all the things that Long Beach said we wanted to do. And so I'm trying to understand tonight for being able to make this vote and understand what next things need to happen to make sure we don't go back on our word after all the months of work that we've done. That's why I'm putting us through asking these questions. There were other notices, notifications around credit reporting around renters insurance. Those little things that I think were only really important to me. And I just wanted to know, do I need to come back with an ordinance to request some of those items? Now, as I recall. Those items that you requested. I remember you doing that were not to be part of the ordinance and they're not part of the ordinance, those that was direction that the rest of the council supported to give the staff that correct. And the information didn't. Need to be in the ordinance, but something that we will continue to do. So those were in the information sheets that were sent out and those will continue to be available. Yes. My last question is, when, Patrick, you were given the presentation, you talked about the steps that needed to happen, set out in G, one, B, which was pass the ordinance and possibly add a higher threshold that the city wanted to in a binding ordinance. In the recommendations that you guys have in front of us that says request the city attorney to prepare to repeal that it's got the senior disabled fun prepare emergency ordinance and then again disabled fund. Do we need to take a vote to do anything to make sure that the state policy is in fact adhered to in the city? Because that's what it sounded like when you gave the presentation at the beginning. If I may, Councilman Pierce. No, I don't. I think the answer is no. The city does not need to do anything to ensure that a 1482 is effective in the city of Long Beach. I mean, it will be okay. I just from the staff presentation, I thought that there was an action that we had to take. No. And so what I want to make very clear for the residents constituents is that. Where. There is a policy on the books, that is just cause, which is something we couldn't get done on council. So there's more rights. There is tenant rela, although it is not the same amount that we had talked about. And then there is a proposal on the floor to make sure that for that small subgroup of people that are been in rehabs have enough money to get them whole as well. And so I it's a tough vote. I'm going to vote yes tonight. But I want to make it clear that there are still rights and there is still relocation and that we possibly have work to do in the future. So that that is what I just wanted to ask those questions and make sure that everybody was clear, because I know a lot of us had conversations beforehand and there was there's no reload, there's no protections, and there are protections and we we can do more. And I think that we will do more. And so I just I want to thank all of our advocates for continuing to be brave and come out. Thank you. Thank you. Council member members, please. Gordon, cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. We're moving on now to item 22, please. We've read item 2224.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to designate the property located at 260 East San Antonio Drive as a Long Beach Historical Landmark. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_05102016_16-0410

Next item. Report from Development Services recommendation to request the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to designate the property located at 260 East San Antonio Drive as a Long Beach Historical Landmark District eight. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Is there any public comment on this item? Councilor. Thank you very much. I am very happy to support this recommendation. I had the opportunity to tour the home and am very, very impressed with the work that the listeners have done to restore this House and to preserve its historical significance. As a footnote, it's a and he probably would be embarrassed for me to tell, but but our lieutenant, Steve James, actually grew up in this home as a child. This house would be the first private residence to receive an historical landmark designation under the new ordinance. And I look forward to a full staff presentation when the ordinance comes back to council, I ask for your approval. There's a motion and a second public comment scene and please cast your votes. Motion carries.

Consider Outreach Efforts to Provide Immigrant and Refugee Support Services and Programs with Nominal or Minimal Expenditures. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)

AlamedaCC_02072017_2017-3844

All right, so this referral is something. So I was able to attend the US mayor's conference recently in D.C.. During that time, I was able to hear from the mayor of Seattle and he shared things that they are doing in their city to. Assist immigrant and refugees. Immigrants and refugees. And and trying to do it utilizing volunteers within their community or people that want to volunteer and provide services to assist. Whether it's including. Counseling, psychological counseling, things like that, but also legal services for immigrants and refugees that have legal issues. And in a conversation with our vice mayor, as we were speaking, I said my number one takeaway from the conference was, in fact, that I think our city, because of the people we have here and we've heard it all all night, I'm going to say we have people that like to volunteer. And I think within our community. And then we also we have people that are immigrants and refugees. So if we can connect the dots and provide those services, to me, that was the number one takeaway from the mayor's conference for me. I was able to share it with our vice mayor and then she said, and I'm going to pass it to her. So I was in Seattle the weekend of the Women's March for my niece's first birthday, and we participated in the march. And I connected with some activists from Seattle and folks who worked for one of the council members office in Seattle. And they shared with me that they were doing a program to basically facilitate volunteers, volunteer assistance, attorneys coming in, working with the school districts to provide different services. And so essentially, I heard about the same program that the mayor had heard about, and it was serendipitous that we both heard about it independently, but we came with the same takeaways, which is that, you know, our city had just become a sanctuary city. We want to make sure that this is and, you know, that we are actually doing things to support our children, our families. We have a number of families in Alameda who and faith based organizations who are supporting refugees and refugee families. My partner went to school with a number of refugee children who had been taken in by Alameda families and, you know, really going and using, partnering with our schools to educate our our schoolchildren about what's going on. Give them context, allow them to know what resources are available oftentimes. That's a great audience that we can engage with. Our students are very thoughtful. They've been very active and activated by everything that's been going on. And, you know, I feel that it's a good opportunity to also empower them with information and knowledge about what their rights are, the rights of their classmates, friends, families, neighbors, that sort of thing. I do want to share that today. Actually, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors has approved $750,000 to go towards immigrant and refugee defense of immigrant and refugee populations, which will be administered through our social services agency. And that's going to go with an additional $750,000 that was given from an anonymous donor. So it's altogether 1.5 million that's going to be going towards immigrant and refugee defense. And a lot of that having spoken with some of our supervisors who are very excited about this. And is is the education and training aspect of it. And so if you look at the referral that Mayor Spencer and I put forward, we really want to facilitate this. And so many, so many members of our community have contacted both of us to say, I'm an attorney, I'm an immigration attorney. I have these specialized skills. How can I help people? How can I let them know what their rights are or provide services? In law school, I participated in a number of legal clinics that were free naturalization clinics where we were doing one on ones, giving just kind of cursory pro-bono guidance and counseling as to timelines, fees, costs , what type of paperwork was involved, what kind of documentation was involved. And so to the extent that the city can act as that facilitator and really do that to bring our community together and to offer these services, I've also heard from a number of business owners, nonprofit executives, who are saying we want to make sure that our staff is educated as to what they should do if they're under different events and how we can help our staff who might have concerns whether they be about clients or fellow employees. And so one statistic that I do want to put out there is 439,000 residents of Alameda County are immigrants or refugees. That's approximately 30% of our residents countywide. A number of those do live here in the city of Alameda. And I think that this is a step for us to take to actually connect them with those services that are readily available in the community to help facilitate that. To help. In ensure the fact that we are in fact giving them an opportunity, an opportunity for clear pathways and to actually activate and make sure that they are using all of the laws and resources that are available to them and at that. And I do want to add so I appreciate the vice mayor joining me in this referral. And so thank you, member Ashcraft. Thank you, Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella. So I'm not sure in the referral, the piece about what the school district does is a little clear, a little less clear to me how we would implement . Although I will hasten to add that the Mayor and I sit on the liaison committee between the city and the school district, but I did a little digging around myself today, and I see our library director, Jane Sasaki, there in the back of the the the chambers, because the Alameda County Bar Association has long had a program called Lawyers in the Library. And you may or may not know that our main library is one of those locations. The first Wednesday of the month, the lawyers who are volunteering pro-bono come and they all have different expertize and you go in the order of a lottery. But Jane tells me, just like he tells me, that everybody manages to be seen. And in fact, the library has now added another evening, which is lawyers in the library at the West End Library branch on the third Monday night of the month. And I appreciated her saying it's a little less private because they don't have the individual conference rooms that the main library does. But staff and we have great library staff has created a semi-private corner for those meetings because confidentiality is always important when you're dealing with a lawyer. So what Mr. Sakai mentioned, and I thought it was a lovely offer and I think it dovetails with what the mayor and vice mayor have said, is if you can arrange for a pro-bono lawyer with immigration and refugee rights expertize, we could offer library lawyers in the library on another night, Monday or Tuesday at the main library . I would leave the details to the folks who are who are doing this. But like the vice mayor, we actually attended the same law school but few years apart. But Santa Clara Law has has a very good legal clinic and I volunteered for another one when I was practicing in San Francisco. And it's just it's really a very satisfying, fulfilling work to help people understand their rights. So, yes, I know my community enough to know we have really dedicated, smart, talented people. And so if there is a way that we can connect them and the library, which we're also proud of and I love knowing that it's also at the West End branch is willing to step in. I think we're we're off to a good start. Thank you. And Birdie, did. You want me doing concerts? So we, you know. Should we wait. Till we do have public comments? I'll hold my comments till the. All right. So I'm going to go ahead and call the public at this point. Anna Rossi. Polly Lim. Fred Engel and then Michael Yoshi. Mayor. City Council people. Staff. My name is Anna Rossi. I am the chair of the Alameda Deanery. Welcome the stranger refugee group. We've been in existence for about one year now, and I got to go sideways for a second and say I also graduated from Santa Clara Law School. I have a reunion. We can. We can. First of all, on behalf of the Refugee Project and our group, we want to thank you very much for having this conversation. We've been struggling for a year to bring the refugees to the front, to the forefront of Alameda so people would understand how much assistance we can give to them and how much help we need. We started off thinking, this is easy. We can transition a family and I could do it by myself. And reality is, it's a really hard thing to do. Our group consist of volunteers from the four Catholic churches in Alameda. And we have about 80 volunteers, not all at once. They go up and down. We have a core group of 2020, but we have 80 people who have offered to help at various times. Our current family has been here since the summer of 2016. There are young father and even younger mother and an 18 month old baby. The father assisted the US government in translating in Afghanistan. He spoke fairly good English. His wife came, not speaking a word of English. They knew one person in Alameda before they knew us. Now. The husband has a full time job 40 hours a week. He just got his driver's license, which was really exciting. The wife has learned some English, and she can she can talk to all of us. And they're starting to make a home in Alameda. In what was originally a very strange community to them. It wasn't the hills of Afghanistan. Our current family is on the cusp of really being self sufficient. Which means that our next task will be to look for yet another family. When we started this project and have a company, this family. Through their transition to a home in Alameda. We've all shared in this wonderful journey not not just the family. We've learned so much and we've grown so much from it. But what has been the hardest for all of us? What has caused us nights of not sleeping. Nights of crying. Nights of laughing. Out of hysteria. Is housing. We had a very difficult time in this wonderful community. And Alameda is a wonderful community. Finding somebody who would rent a house to a refugee. I personally said I will guarantee one year rent. And they said, we don't rent to refugees. Now, I know that's illegal. I'm an employment lawyer, but you're not going to sue every landlord in Alameda. So we've. A few more seconds. But we've decided that what we need to do is have a breakaway group to start up a transition, a transitional housing research project for refugees and immigrants. And it will be multi denominational and non-denominational throughout the island of Alameda. We've had a first meeting of four people and we're planning on growing that shortly. But what would be really helpful to us is to have the support of the city of Alameda. And I read your a little blurb that said you wanted to support without having a lot of money. And I understand that. And one thing that we figured you could do for us, you could do for the refugees and you could do for the immigrants is designate one house when you're doing low cost housing, one house for refugees and one house for immigrants wouldn't cost you a penny more than whatever you rented out for it to low cost housing. And it would give recognition to the refugees and recognition to the immigrants. It would be a way for the city of Alameda. To show the county, the world, the United States. That you're really, truly willing to support these people. They're people just like us. And they've come to this country looking for something that I sure hope we can give them. It would truly represent the city of Alameda support of refugees and immigrants situation. And we ask you to consider that. And we thank you very much for raising this issue tonight. Thank you. Holly. Good evening. My name is Holly, Ronnie Lim, and I am a board member of Filipino Advocates for Justice and a resident of Alameda. And as a Filipina immigrant, I encourage the city council to adopt efforts that will provide services to immigrant and refugee residents and students. The last time I was here, I spoke to you about adopting a sanctuary city policy and the importance for a community to offer safety and support to its immigrants and refugees as a way to create thriving individuals who can engage and contribute to their communities. I am proof of how safety and support can do this. I am also an educator teaching ethnic studies at Laney College. Last night I taught how stereotypes like the Yellow Peril stereotype deemed Asian-Americans as a threat and how this imagined threat has caused implications like the wrongful internment of Japanese-Americans. We are at a critical time where the present measures are passed, and we have the choice to learn from our country's mistakes and make the right decisions for our community. For me, that means offering resources to our community, like Seattle's Family Unity Project counseling and peer support for our immigrant and youth. Sorry, but our immigrant and refugee youth. Clear avenues for the public to support. Site for the public to report. Incidents of bias, hate speech and violence. And the formation of a city supported group that can support these programs. I know these programs are needed because research proves it. I once worked for Human Impact Partners, a public health nonprofit organization which released a study in 2012 about the health impacts of deportation on the children of undocumented immigrants. At the time of its release, an estimated 4.5 million children nationwide who are U.S. citizens by birth live in families where one or more of their parents are undocumented. Nearly 30% of undocumented parents reported that their children were afraid, either all of the time or most of the time. Nearly half reported that their children had been anxious, and almost three fourths of undocumented parents reported that each child had shown symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. We can all agree that we want a safe and healthy place for all of our residents. I encourage the City Council to not only consider efforts but to adopt and implement an immigrant and refugee support programs and services rooted in community needs and input. Thank you. Thank you, Fred. Michael and then Alan Prior. And if anyone else wants to speak on this item, please submit your slip. Mary Spencer, vice mayor and council members. Thank you for your time. My name's Fred Pringle and I'm here representing Philippino Advocates for Justice. We work with young people and their families in the Filipino community here in Alameda and we. Are. Hearing from a lot of them that there is a lot of unrest and worry from our community members with the current political context in this country, specifically executive orders and other policies that are coming down and don't know what it means for them and their future in this city and in this country. And so we wanted to take the time to thank you, Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor Vella, for making this referral and to the council members for and staff for seriously considering the needs of our immigrant community here in Alameda and the supports that they need that can be facilitated by the city as a group that particularly works with young people here in Alameda, we understand the role of young people in immigrant families. They often have to take on the load of translator and as sort of bridges for adults in their families to the larger world. And so the focus on the referral and the Seattle model on schools and outreach to young people we think is particularly powerful and hopeful. And we think that it's a really strategic way of focusing your outreach efforts to support as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. And so thank you again for your commitment to all of the people of the city, including immigrants, refugees and everyone else affected by the recent developments at the national level . Thank you. Michael Yoshi, then Alan Prior. I put my trying to put my alarm. Watch out here. Okay, I'm out. Madam Mayor and City Council members Michael Yoshi from Buena Vista Methodist Church. I'm the pastor there. You may have known that we have a refugee ministry that we are engaged in, and we're accompanying a Central American family currently and as part of the East Bay Interfaith Immigrant Coalition that is also participating with a number of other current Haitians in the East Bay and. We also I wear another hat and that is I chair the Advocacy and Justice Committee for our conference in the our church belongs to the largest denominational conference. So Northern California Nevada is our conference. We have this committee that under that has an immigration task force as well. And so we're very tuned in to what's going on with immigration issues around us today. In fact, we'll be having a consultation on February 20th in Berkeley with our immigration task force. You're invited to come, if you'd like to, will be networking with attorneys and with community organizers around what they're doing around immigration concerns at this time. Our new bishop Bishop Maneuver Carcano, who just came to us this past year, is also our national chair for our immigration task force for the United Methodist Church. We have 60 sanctuary congregations across the country. We have a large network of congregations working on immigration issues. And so what I offer to you today in first of all, thanking you for Mayor Spencer and for Vice Mayor Avila for bringing this forward. As you talk about wanting to network with different groups, including faith communities, we offer the resources that we have and some of the experiences and expertize that we have on this issue. And we look forward to having meetings with you to consult, talk about best way so we can work together as a whole community. I really think the idea of working with the schools is a great idea because I think children and youth are being impacted in ways that I think, as some of the other speakers have talked about, are not always recognizable for them. But post-traumatic stress is definitely happening among families. We see this taking place in particularly around children and young people who really are assimilating feelings about the larger climate that's going on today. So with that, you know, I just want to lend my support to the proposals that you have before you. I also echo my concerns about housing, given that we're concerned about that as well. And if there's ways that we can collaborate on working on transitional housing for refugees, we really would be interested in working with you on that. So thank you very much. Thank you. Alan Fryer and then Sister Pat Nagle. Thank you, Mayor and council people. I just want. To applaud you for what you're doing here. This is great. I'm. Took public speaking with gym back there, but he got all the. Smarts out of it. I mean, I was just. Blown away with the number of people that were at the march, the gathering that we did at the. Islamic Center. Yeah. And, you know, and the stories that I hear, you know, from teachers about students that are, you know, afraid when they get to school, you know, Monday morning, because they don't know what's going to happen with their family and where they're going to be living. And. And I also want to share a friend of my wife called this weekend and she's an immigrant and it doesn't quite documented. And she had some really bad pains in her gut. And she was afraid to go to Highland because she might be turned in. And my wife called one of the council people, and she got her in touch with a super advisor in the county. And they assured her and she went to Highland and everything was fine and they didn't turn her in and she came home. So, you know, this we've got a really good community here and it really is inclusive of everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Sister Pat. They don't. She's our last speaker on this item. Mayor Spencer, council members, staff and and everybody here still. Well, I can't tell you how heartened I am by this effort. I am deeply moved and I really appreciate your commitment. This is the way that we can change the world. We come together around what we have in common. We can change the little place where we are now. We can really strengthen our relationships with each other. And that will affect the larger system. It'll affect the world beyond. So I am very heartened by this. I want to speak, though, as you know, in support of the efforts to address the housing issue here. We cannot say that we welcome refugees and immigrants if we don't help to provide housing. I had one very difficult time finding housing for the family that we have worked with. And so I encourage you to think outside of the box and to find ways to bring us all together property owners, landlords, realtors, citizens, renters, owners to talk about this issue, to Facebook, and to create a response. We all share. Every single one of us. The right to safe, secure housing. So thanks again. And you can count on my efforts to collaborate with you in whatever way. Thank you. And she's our last speaker, council member. Do you want to go. Next or go next? Yeah, you can go first. Remember matter arresting. I think you've laid a nice outline of a plan that we can adopt. Here in Alameda. And I'm hoping to get a recommendation from the Social Service Human Relations Board as as a body so that we can understand in the context of what resources we have and what resources have been offered, how this plan or elements of this plan can be implemented. So I'm willing to support this to get the ball rolling and. If we can do. Thank you. Member Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing forth this referral. When we did the Sanctuary City Resolution a few weeks ago, one of the arguments I remember making was that if we're going to have a saying that everyone belongs here, then we should actually have policies like the sanctuary city that reflect that saying. And this is kind of the next step. If we're going to have a sanctuary, we're going to be designated as a sanctuary city and say that our immigrants and refugees are welcome here and we're not going to turn anyone in and we're not going to discriminate. Then we need to take that next step and back up that resolution with services. So I think this referral does a really good job of starting that process. Now, every day in my job, I do this type of work. You know, people call in with issues. They're more than just refugees and immigrants. But everyone in Alameda and Oakland and San Leandro and you know, we do have the Blue Book, The Eden, you know, two, one, one. But that's not enough. I mean, we have to rely on, you know, all sorts of different resources, like the referral talks about our schools, our folks, like the Filipino advocates for justice and counselors and social workers and attorneys. And that that's one area where I think, you know, our city could do a lot better job of is connecting our residents with services so like a council member matter. So you know I look forward to seeing what shrub comes comes up with and you know, I know that we're hiring a new city attorney or assistant city attorney. And I think that individual is going to be focused on constituent type services problems, issues. So I think that's a very good start. Not all ideas. Great ideas come from me. So I know other people have great ideas and I don't want to steal the vice mayor's thunder. But when her and I were talking about some of the things the city could do as far as assisting our tenants, she came up with an idea that, you know, we really hear from a lot of tenants and a lot of residents that, you know, they their housing problem is is really symptomatic of larger problems, you know, that have festered or gone, you know, unchecked or, you know, it really even looked at. So the idea that the vice mayor came up with was that, you know, we actually have as part of our housing program, you know, a social worker or a case manager or somebody that could, you know, do intake and say, you know, this person, yes, they have a housing issue. Yes, they have an issue with their landlord. But, you know, they're also not receiving the health coverage that they need or they need other services or maybe they do need help paying their rent and they can connect with Catholic Charities or other social services that help paying the rent. So I think, you know, not only do I think this is a great referral, you know, I think we should even do more than just as the thing says, minimal and nominal expenditures. I think we have a responsibility to connect our residents in need and in trouble, whether they're immigrants, refugees or not, with different social services and different services that they may they may be eligible for. And I will say before I close that, you know, Yusef Law School does also produce some really good people. And I went there because of their social justice commitment, and I'm glad that I did. With that, I'd like to move approval on the referral ticket. And I'd like to add that I recently attended the first Latino Hispanic roundtable. That's part of our we started it through our Alameda Unified School District, I can't say. And they have offered to provide translators, which is another issue translators. And I also reached out to Dr. Sean McFetridge, the superintendent of the school district, and he does also support the referral. So I reached out to him before I submitted it because a lot of it does include working with the school district and its member, Ashcraft Church. We already have our liaison committee with the school district, so that that would be a natural way to work, work on these issues. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor I motion carries unanimously. Thank you, everyone. Council communications. Vice mayor. I think this is the point in time that I let everybody know that I attended the League of Cities. New council members boot camp and training in Sacramento a few weeks ago. It was very informative, met with a lot of other elected officials from the area. I also attended the League of Cities Dinner for the East Bay a couple of weeks ago. Along with a few along along with all the women on the. Women on the council. And again, I think this is these are the types of opportunities that also help us to connect with our our fellow elected officials to hear what they're doing in their communities. And then I attended the Airport Noise Forum as well, that same the same week as the League of Cities Training. There was at that committee, we voted to move forward with a proposal from the subcommittee addressing the noise issues at the airport, having to do with the gen implementation for those of us who aren't as familiar with all of the terminology. It's basically the new flight patterns that have been put in place since 2014, 2015, that have caused an increase in noise complaints from our constituents here. Both the mayor and I are the liaisons to the airport noise forum. We also had a meeting today and a briefing with the folks from the Noise Forum to help us learn all of the terminology, among other things. And I also attended the LED abatement meeting with the county JPA. And on that board, we've been talking about the different ordinances in place in all of our cities. And in specific regards to the report that came out recently about the lead levels mainly in Oakland, but also countywide and what we can do to work together. With regards to our ordinances. And Brody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Quick report out. I attended the Starboy Stalk meeting, as I always do, and there was really nothing of critical import for Alameda. But we did sign off or at least do our part in signing off on the landfill out in Livermore. And I was honored to attend with many of my colleagues the Kona's Barbecue and love with a big basket of Cuban. You've been bought some stuff that I bought that was made in Cuba, so that was kind of cool and I was really honored to participate also with a number of my colleagues at the Islamic Center. And and then we actually marched around the block, which was kind of. Fun, past my childhood. Home. Remember Ashcroft. And I was going to say that I also took part in the gathering at the in front of the Islamic center. It was a Sunday afternoon. Nice weather and it was really sweet. I heard the count was something like 400. But as we were approaching, I brought my husband. I think it's the first march he's ever attended because we're very different people. But as we were approaching, we saw families coming, pulling children in wagons and on bicycles and tricycles and people with their dogs and just all generations. And yeah, it was lovely. And the folks, the imam and the and these very gracious ladies from the Islamic center served refreshments and were just so pleased and so gracious to have us there. And I told other other folks who were there that it made me proud of my city to just see that spontaneous, because I think it was just organized online the day before and folks just came and made their signs and that was great. Then a week ago today, early in the morning, 5 a.m., a number of us gathered to help with a countywide homeless count. The mayor was there and city manager was there. Debbie Potter, head of our Community Development Department, Jim Fran's Social Services Department, and some residents, just some Alameda residents. We all we went first to the West Oakland Youth Center at five in the morning and then we got our census tract maps we all asked to be assigned in Alameda because we want to understand the homelessness situation in our own city and the city manager and I partnered upon because we are also asked to respect confidentiality. We can't really tell you how many and where we saw them, but just let it be known that homelessness exists in our city. And and as the city manager and I observed, sometimes hiding in plain sight. So it's sobering, but it just it speaks to the fact that we are part of this, the Bay Area and this situation exists everywhere. And we're not immune. We're a wonderful city, but we're not immune and we're going to work together and find solutions. But the first step in that and oh, another Alameda resident was Sarah Otis, daughter of my colleague, who is a staff aide to our county supervisor, Wilma Chan. But the first step and these are numbers that go to head at the federal level where I hope they will still be counted in any way. And then that's the first step in knowing what the situation looks like and then to start addressing it. So but anyway, kudos to everybody for getting up at the crack of dawn. Embarrassing. So I already shared, of course, my highlight from the U.S. mayor's conference. And of course, I joined vice mayor at the Airport Noise Workshop. And I want to thank the Port of Oakland for hosting us and as an extremely informative meeting. And then I also had the opportunity to meet, along with staff, the new president of the College of Alameda that I want to share with the public. Jim Karas, he's been he's been there for approximately three years, and he will now be leading the college. And I and I'm actually really looking forward to it. For those of you that are familiar with our college, we seem to have had quite a few turnovers of presidents lately, and I'm really hoping that he stays and that we are better able to serve the needs of our community members that attend the local community college. I think that's very important. And I also had the opportunity, along with, and I believe, member Ashcraft, to attend last night's meeting that I also thought was extremely informative. That being said, I will now adjourned the meeting. Thank you. And it's 9:45. P.m.. I'm sorry. I just wanted to say I just wanted to recognize Brett Webb, who actually organized the Islamic Center event that we had and stand in solidarity along with his partner, Amanda Cooper, who's not here. So thank you so much for taking the initiative. And it was really great to see the outpouring of everybody there. That being said, good evening. Turning the. Point left. For Bret. There's.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2015 Budget; amending Ordinance 124648, which adopted the 2015 Budget; changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation and to the Human Services Department; creating both exempt and non-exempt positions; authorizing the Director of Finance to enter into an interlocal agreement with the State Department of Licensing; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by at least a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_05262015_CB 118391

Agenda item one. Council Bill 118391. An ordinance relating to the 2015 budget amending ordinance 124648, which adopted the 2015 budget, changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation and to the Human Services Department, creating both exempt and nonexempt positions. Authorizing the Director of Finance to enter into an interlocal agreement with the State Department of Licensing in ratifying and confirming certain prior acts, all by at least a three quarter vote of the City Council held on May 18th, 2015. Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you. You'll recall that we held this council bill at the last council meeting in order to develop language for an amendment to the legislation, which will help to ensure that we closely watched and monitor the cost of administration of the vehicle license fee rebate. As I know all of you know, the city was fortunate to have Proposition one passed last November, which authorized a $60 increase in the vehicle license fee and a 1/10 of 1% increase in the sales tax in Seattle. And this will allow the increase of about 230,000 new transit hours of service in Seattle. And the first increase in service will occur in June. And then the second round of increasing of services will occur in September. What this legislation does is amend the 2015 budget of the city of Seattle, and this has to be done in order to implement the new bus service coming. It has $31 billion in 2015 appropriation to the Department of Transportation to reflect the new revenues coming to the city through the Transportation Benefit District, and 1/10 of 1% sales tax increase and a $60 vehicle license fee increase revenue. That also adds to new positions to the Department of Transportation to help manage the new transit service the city is purchasing from Metro. The Department of Transportation positions are critical to ensure that the city has sufficient staff to monitor and oversee the use of city funds and to ensure the supplanting of city of dollars does not occur when the service begins. Of the $31 million in revenues that are being added to the city's budget, 278,000 will go to our Human Services Department Utility Discount Program, which will be responsible for administering the vehicle license fee rebate program. I know that a number of council members had concerns about this level of funding going to the Human Services Department because it allows the funding of four and a quarter full time equivalent positions over the next seven months to process and distribute what is estimated by the executive to be 20,000 vehicle license fee rebates. The concern that I have is that there are only a total of 17,000 households now enrolled in the utility discount program, which is the program for low income customers. That has been underway for decades now. I had concerns that we would see that many applications coming to the Human Services Department to 20,000 rebates this year because first of all, there's been no advertising and publicity about the vehicle license fee rebate that's going to begin coming soon. So word has to go out about the eligibility requirements and the potential for a rebate for those who are income eligible. We also haven't seen a clear and specific plan for how the Human Services Department will work to distribute the orca lift cards, which is the low income fare card to Seattle residents. And that's another responsibility under Proposition one that the Human Services Department will have. So because of the concerns about the what I would anticipate would be a relatively low volume of applications for the vehicle license fee increase rebate. That is, I was concerned that fall $278,000 to the Human Services Department would allow the hiring of people who would have far less to do than was being projected by the executive. So the original amendment that I proposed last week would have cut $100,000 from the 278,000 from the Human Services Department. But we heard strong urging from our budget office and from the Human Services Department that they wanted to make sure that we had sufficient staffing in the Human Services Department to handle the volume of vehicle license fee rebate requests that would be coming in. So they didn't want people to have to wait. And I would agree, we want to have good customer service and we wanted to ensure that the rebates could occur as quickly as possible. In discussing the concerns that the. I could have had. I think that we've come up with a good compromise, and for that reason I have a substitute amendment to this council bill. And the council bill would now do with this amendment would appropriate the full $278,000 to the Human Services Department. But we are withholding their authorization to use $100,000 of that until the executive submit a report showing how the $100,000 are going to be used by the Human Services Department. And that's essentially what the amendment says the executive has to report on how many vehicle license fee rebates have been issued, how many Orca Lyft cards have been distributed by the Human Services Department at the time? This report is submitted to the Transportation Committee in the City Council. It also requires an outreach and enrollment plan for the vehicle license fee rebate system, and that has to be provided by the executive with clear, measurable, short term and long term goals for how many VLF I'll use that and for short rebates will be issued in the future. And how many Orca Lyft cards will be distributed as well? The executive is also required to look at strategies for lowering the cost of processing. We heard that it may cost $17 to rebate a $20 fee, and we're concerned about that high administrative cost, of course. The the report also requires the executive to work with other organizations. I'm thinking of community based organizations and nonprofits to develop strategies for outreach and for boosting enrollment in the low income programs. So that is the substance of the amendment, the intent of the amendment. And I believe that each of you has the full text of the amendment to the council bill. And if there are any questions, I'm happy to answer those. You're moving amendment number two. Yes. To our blue sheet from this morning. And I think it's on a white sheet at our desks here at the surface. On a white sheet for this afternoon's council meeting. It was on a blue sheet this morning. Is there a second to the amendment? Any questions or comments for Councilmember Rasmussen? Council member Gordon and Council member. So what? Well, I would just like to say thank you very much to Councilmember Rasmussen for negotiating this amendment. It seems very, very question that it would be great, that there is no question that we would be keeping our promise. And I, while trying at the same time, to make application for low income discounts easier. Thank you very much. Council Member So one. Thing you guys remember, Brian, for those comments. My comments are on the sorry. Rasmussen Yes. What did I say? O'Brien Oh, we're often mistaken. I just dug in two guys over. O'Brien I met Councilmember Rasmus and. They're often mistaken. And my comments are on the new version of the amendment, which I appreciate you bringing. And I want to say that like a lot of people in Seattle, I was concerned to read the Seattle Times article that revealed that the city had to spend would have to spend $37 for each $20 rebate it sends out to low income people who are paying the Ghadafi from Prop one. Part of the $17 overhead goes to profits for Wells Fargo, which is, in my view, unacceptable. But the bulk of it will go to processing applications to confirm that people are actually low income. You know, that is that they satisfy the requirement of low income. But I think that just going by economic research, which shows that people tend to under enroll, not over enroll for these programs, I think a lot of this overhead would be unnecessary. Every time there is complicated application process to get some public benefit, as a matter of fact, many people who qualify for it do not successfully apply. In other words, the you know, the city's worried that a few people who do not qualify might take advantage. But effectively, when we have such a program, it effectively ends up excluding large percentage of the people who should qualify. And in Anaheim, speaking from economic research, not from a not as a matter of opinion. And as some of you may know, the Seattle Transit Writers Union has suggested an elegant solution to the excessive cost of administering this much needed rebate. We can use an honor system. When people pay their card tab, they can have a check box where on penalty of perjury, they can swear that their income is below the required threshold of 45% of area median income. Then they would pay less than $20 less. So there's no question of rebate when they go and full and they are paid $20 less right then. So it is a system which would have much lower overhead and no discount cards have to be issued. No processing of obligations is required. It's possible that some people would lie on the inject the box even though their incomes are higher. But even if that were to happen, which as I said, from economic research, is not the overwhelming reality. Ironically, even if that happened, it would cost the city far less than the cost of checking to make sure that it doesn't happen. So I support this amendment to have the mayor's office come up with a plan to better administer these rebates. But I would suggest strongly to the mayor's office that they use the Transit Riders Union's plan, which is quite sensible. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Bagshaw. Thank you, Councilmember Swan. I appreciate that. I was also at the transit union meeting last week where they brought this up. Councilmember Rasmus and I totally support what you're doing here and appreciate that. And I just want to let the public know that this conversation about making our utility discount program and others something that works for people rather than making it difficult. We're exploring in my office as well this Friday, 2:00 at our Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhood Committee. The reason for that is we have this utility discount program already underway. It is operated by our Human Services Department, but Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities, King County, Seattle King County Public Health. Our Do It program also has a lower income program that it operates for Internet and cable franchises. And then our Orca Lift project, that's like six or seven discount programs that low income folks can access, but we're not making it simple for them. So we're going to move ahead with this two in my committee on Friday at 2:00. And I just really welcome everybody's ideas so that we can make this simpler and like a single portal for people. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Councilmember Rasmussen, you'll be our last speaker. Thank you. Good comments, everyone. We definitely we want the simplest system possible to keep the administrative cost as low as possible. I know that our Department of Transportation and Metro did work with the State Department of Licensing to determine if the Department of Licensing could have a simpler system or to develop a simpler system than what we have. But as we heard in the committee, their computer system wouldn't allow some more elegant systems, such as checking a box to make the administrative costs less. But still, we'll continue to work with the Department of Licensing to see if they can help us reduce the administrative costs. I want to thank the council members who have worked most actively with me on this, and that includes council members Okamoto, O'Brien and Bagshaw. And then also there have been a number of human service providers and transportation advocates who have helped us as well. And that includes the Transportation Choices Coalition, the Human Services Coalition and also the Transit Riders Union. So thank you to everyone. Thank you. Please call the roll and the passage. Excuse me. The amendment before us is amendment number two, as proposed by Councilmember Rasmussen. All in favor of the amendment. Vote. I oppose. Vote No. The amendment is unanimously adopted. We now have the amended ordinance before us. Are there any further comments or questions? Please call the role and the passage of Council Bill 118391 as amended. Licata, I. O'Brien. Okamoto. All right. Rasmussen, I. So want a big shot I got in I Harrill President Burgess high nine in favor. An unopposed bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Education and Governance Committee, please read item two to the end of the second line. The Report of the Education and Governance Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 118398 An ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the first quarter 2015 employment ordinance.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending terms and conditions pertaining to the emergency bill assistance program and temporarily expanding access to assistance to certain eligible households for a limited time in response to the COVID-19 emergency; and amending Section 21.49.042 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_04192021_CB 120035

Agenda Item two Council Bill 120035 An ordinance relating to the City Department amending terms and conditions of pertaining to the Emergency Bill Assistance Program and temporarily expanding access to assistance to certain eligible households for a limited time in response to the COVID 19 emergency. And amending Section 21.4 9.04.042 of the Seattle Municipal Code. Thank you so much. Move to pass Council Bill 1 to 0 035. Is there a second second? Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilman Piercing and sponsor of the bill. So I'm going to hand it over to you to walk us through the legislation. Thank you. Also, president colleagues, as I mentioned at council briefing this morning, Council Bill 120035 and Council Bill 120036 are two straightforward refinements to key COVID relief measures from both City Lite and Seattle Public Utilities. Both council bills were posted on our introduction referral calendar a week ago, and they simply expand the utilities emergency assistance programs for struggling ratepayers for 2021. Our central staff analysts circulated a brief memo about both bills last week. In short, both bills are a helpful expansion of the emergency assistance programs during these difficult economic times. These ordinances are required even for these simple modifications just for 2021. I encourage my colleagues to support both bills today to benefit low income ratepayers. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments. Will the corpses callable on the passage of the bill or both? Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. MORALES Yes. Mosquito I. Peterson. Yes. Excellent. Yes. Council President Gonzales was I didn't favor not oppose. The bill passes and then chair will sign it will please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read item three into the record?

A RESOLUTION stating the Council’s intent to make changes to zoning and land use regulations to implement a mandatory inclusionary affordable housing program for residential development and an affordable housing impact mitigation program for commercial development recommended by the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda Advisory Committee and the Mayor; clarifying the scope of changes to be considered; establishing minimum outreach, planning, and implementation requirements that must be met prior to Council consideration; and requesting regular reporting.

SeattleCityCouncil_11092015_Res 31612

Agenda item two Resolution 31612. Stating the Council's intent to make changes to zoning and land use regulations to implement a mandatory inclusionary affordable housing program for residential development and an affordable housing impact mitigation program for commercial development recommended by the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda Advisory Committee. And the Mayor clarifying the scope of changes to be considered, establishing minimum outreach, planning and implementation requirements that must be met prior to council consideration and requesting regular reporting. The Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. I don't have a lot to add. This is the resolution that identifies what we're going to do on the residential side. The reality is that the it's going to take a number of months longer for us to get the actual bill that would implement the mandatory housing affordability residential program or the inclusionary housing program that we've talked about in place. But it's important that we pass this resolution today of this council to say it is our intent to move forward with that. It also outlines the the series of steps we're taking with the zoning changes to make these both the bill we passed today and the one will pass early next year, hopefully. And of course, it's always great to start off with a task force or a task list that includes something we just did, which was pass the ordinance. We just did so we did the commercial side. Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of adopting resolution 31612 vote. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come? Sir. Any other business to come before the council? With that, we're adjourned. Excuse me. Councilmember Harrell moved to be excused from November 16th meeting. It's moved in second. And that council member Harold be excused. That's next Monday. All in favor. Vote I. I opposed. You are excused. Any other business? We are adjourned. Thank you.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP PW-14-005 and award contracts to Aetypic, Inc., of Long Beach, CA; Dougherty + Dougherty Architects, of Costa Mesa, CA; Frank Webb Architects, of Los Angeles, CA; Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio, Inc., of Santa Monica, CA; HMC Architects, of Los Angeles, CA; IBI Group, of Irvine, CA; Kardent, of Long Beach, CA; Mary McGrath Architects, of Oakland, CA; McDonald, Soutar & Paz, Inc. (MSP), of Long Beach, CA; RA-DA, of West Hollywood, CA; and Studio Pali Fekete Architects, of Culver City, CA, for as-needed architectural services, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $9,000,000 for a two-year term with the option to extend the term for three additional one-year periods; and Authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contracts and to execute any necessary amendments thereto regarding scope of services, adjusting individual agreement amounts without exceeding the aggregate amount, or extending the terms, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06022015_15-0485

Report from City Manager, Financial Management and Public Works Recommendation to award 11 contracts for as needed architectural services and an aggregate amount not to exceed $9 million citywide. Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Tomorrow we'll have a full report on this. Thank you. Madam Vice Mayor. Members of the City Council. This is an item where we're awarding contracts to 11 firms for as needed architectural services. Three of those firms are local Long Beach firms in an aggregate amount not to exceed $9 million for a two year term. This is essentially to have firms on board to be able to do feasibility studies, conceptual schematic designs, mostly for smaller projects. Larger complex projects would still go out to RFP. And it's important to note this is an actual dollars being spent. This is contract authority, and the dollars will be appropriated through. The city budget process. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second with Councilmember Austin or Councilwoman Pryce. Would you like to address your motion? I purport motion as recommended. Okay. So any member of the public that wishes to address item 17 seeing nonmembers cast your vote. Motion carries nine zero. Item Meeting Report from financial management. Recommendation to adopt a resolution requesting that the Board of Harbor Commissioners approve the transfer of 5% of fiscal year 2015. GROSS operating revenue from the Harbor Revenue Fund to the Tidelands Operations Fund citywide.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Fiscal Year 2022 Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Operating Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Health and Hospital Authority, providing for the amounts to be paid for services by the City and County of Denver and by the Denver Health and Hospital Authority for Fiscal Year 2022. Approves the 2022 Denver Health and Hospital Authority operating agreement (ENVHL-202160644). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-31-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-10-21.

DenverCityCouncil_11222021_21-1219

13 I's Council Resolution 21, dash 1271 has passed. We want to thank Michael Carrigan and the other representatives from the organizations that were here and the members of the public. Council is now convened as Denver City Council. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put council bill 20 1-1219 on the floor to be ordered published. Thank you. Madam President, I move that council bill 21. Dash 1219, be ordered published. Thank you. We have it moved and we've got it seconded there. Thank you, folks. The public hearing for Council Bill 21, Dash 1219 is open. And may we have the staff report, please? Thank you, council members. My name is Megan Presa and with the Department of Public Health and Environment and I have a brief presentation I'll go through fairly quickly here. Many of you have seen it. So we will go through rapidly. In addition to myself, we have a number of our Denver health colleagues on the line virtually, and they're available to answer questions as well as some of my city colleagues over here. The 2022 operating agreement between the City of Denver and Denver Health and Hospital Authority covers a number of services for the city. Those are included core services. And some examples are listed here noncore services and then some services that the city provides. Back to Denver Health. The contract for 2022 includes 36 services total. Relatively few language changes in 2022, with the exception of section 83, which is the public health section. As you can see, 27 are unchanged and nine of those sections had relatively minor changes other than a three. And two of them were removed. Because they're handled in another agreement are no longer necessary as a capital project. Some highlights of the core services. Patient Care Services just received some minor updates to the metrics to align with COVID 19. I'll get to the public health services in A-3 in the next couple of slides. And the third section of aa3 or eight just had an updated call answering protocol for the Rocky Mountain Poison and drug safety, digging into a3a little bit more. The Public Health Institute at Denver Health transferred a number of services back to the. City this year, including. Epidemiology and disease investigation, preparedness and response informatics, the chief medical officer, position and Vital Records. This will provide future cost savings efficiencies and a more seamless public health response and services to the city. Reduce the risk of redundancy. And this was further highlighted by the COVID response and the need to bring those two entities under one umbrella for emergency response. This resulted in 23 plus new F2, EAS and DDP. The remainder of a three that stays with Denver health are the four public health clinics listed here infectious disease, immunization and travel, sexual health and tuberculosis clinics. And there were some minor language changes around communication and data use, as well as further defining invoices and financial requirements. A few highlights from Appendix B The Caution Outline updated updated. The allowable time to respond to a records request and updated some protocols to address when the provider exhibits a pattern of. Performance inconsistent with. Existing standards of medical care. And the there is a section added to the health care at the Denver County Jail and Downtown Detention Center to work towards an electronic medical record system in the jails. A few minor changes to Appendix C Denver Health Approved Paying for two additional emergency communication operator positions. This is to support the EMS calls and to 911 and then some minor updates to the minority and women business enterprise program. The budget for 2022 is roughly $63.6 million. Almost half of that is for that patient care formally referred to as the AMA payment. And the other 33.9 million is for other core and non-core services. The city will also have an approximate revenue of about 3.5 million for the services we provide to the hospital. I won't go into the details here, but this is the details of the budget increase. A few of them are related to reductions that Denver Health took during the COVID economic downturn. A number of them are related to wage inflation and a few other minor changes to budgets and different sections of the agreement. That's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have 13 individuals signed up to speak this evening and all of them are joining us online. Our first speaker this evening is Robin Wittgenstein. Do we have Robin in the queue? Okay. We'll go ahead and move on to our next speaker. Jesse Paris. Yes. Good evening. Members of council cannot be heard. Yes. Yes. My name is Justin Boston Paris and I'm represents the black swan symbol of the self defense housing vaccine command for social change was the Unity Party of Colorado and front line black males. And I'll be the next male member in 2023. I'm in favor of this budget proposal tonight. Please pass this. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tess Dougherty. Hi, Councilor. My name's Test and I'm live in District nine. I, I, you know, I was in the board meeting when Bob McDonald announced that the, the switch was happening and that they'd been working on it to take, you know, give control back to the city instead of Denver health. And I guess I, you know, my own experiences at Denver Health have been pretty, pretty terrifying. I, I appreciate the services like the, you know, the STD clinic and the immunization clinic that they have. You know, I think that that those are very helpful services and actually deserve more funding but but personal experiences at Denver Health, my experience with hearing people tell me stories about Denver health have been pretty terrifying and gravely negligent. The the amount of people who are unsafely discharged from Denver health after being taken there if they're experiencing homelessness is is just absolutely alarming and terrifying and and not to mention the treatment of people. Denver Health regularly ignores requests from from service service providers who are sending in orders for people experiencing homelessness, and they just somehow get lost on the way to Denver Health in a fax machine, I guess. And that's pretty just despicable. But you know, what's really, really sad is that I don't I don't have much faith that the city of Denver is going to do much better. I actually am more scared that it's going to be in the hands of the city of Denver based on the treatment of people experiencing homelessness by the city of Denver. And that's really, really fucking sad and scary. Do better, please. All right. We're going to move on to our next speaker and I believe we've got Robyn Wittgenstein in the queue. Robin, you might need to unmute. I don't know if you intended for this to be Dr. Wittgenstein or me. But I'm in the queue, so. Well, we have Dr. Weinstein signed up as one of the public speakers. We're going to go ahead and we'll move on and see if we can get that figured out. Our next speaker is Connie Pryce. Hello. Thank you. I'm Connie Silver Price. I am the chief medical officer at Denver Health, and I'm also a resident of the city and county of Denver as a mission focused safety net provider. Denver Health is proud of the role we have played in Denver for over 160 years. While the COVID pandemic has continued to challenge us in ways we could not have imagined, it also demonstrates the essential value Denver Health delivers to everyone in our community. Two years into this pandemic, our dedicated Denver health staff continue to rise to the challenge. Since the pandemic began, care has been provided to over 3000 COVID 19 patients in the hospital, countless others who have received care remotely via our virtual hospital at home program, saving hospital beds for the sickest of the sick. And we have given over 100,000, 140,000 persons, the COVID 19 vaccination, to help contribute to over 80 to 90% of the city of Denver being vaccinated in all but the youngest age groups. Over 27% of our 5 to 11 year old age group has also recently been vaccinated, with the recent approval by the FDA. In this age group and our school based health centers and our vaccine outreach teams in partnership with our city have been hosting events at schools and in low income areas of Denver this week and for the remainder of the semester. And when monoclonal antibodies which prevent progression to those at risk for severe disease from COVID and prevent them from getting hospitalized or getting severe illness. When those became available, Denver Health was the first institution to make it available to our community. While dealing with this pandemic, we continue to provide everyday health care exceeding pre-pandemic volumes for many of our services. Now in our emergency room and urgent care centers, our hospital, our ambulatory care centers, and in outpatient behavioral health visits due to the well-documented impact of the pandemic on mental health. We did this while maintaining high standards of clinical care meeting or exceeding performance goals across a range of services. We also maintain our reputation as a leading trauma center and currently are caring for record numbers of trauma patients. Also, an impact of this pandemic. Even with all those accomplishments in our medical care, we are well aware that this is only part of the solution. That is why Denver Health continues to invest in our community and social determinants of health. We have been improving access to food, education and well-paid jobs in housing. And so in partnership with the Denver Housing Authority, we continue to work to convert a former administration building to a transitional senior housing project to allow for safe discharge for patients who are too frail to go home. We are also working with our community to help people who are experiencing homelessness get back on their feet. And thank you very much for my 3 minutes. Thank you. Our next speaker joining us online is David Hagan. Thank you, Counselor, for allowing me to speak tonight. This is going to be one hell of a sandwich. Back in September. A friend of ours that we've been advocating for experiencing homelessness was left in her bed for two weeks after being struck by a car. I met in two weeks without being taken out of her bed. You could smell or moved. You could smell her from two doors down. We were assured that she would be given a bath, cleaned and moved after that. And we were also assured that she would be released to some sort of housing that would be of assistance to her because she was not going to be able to take care of herself. What the Denver health do they release her to the 48th Street shelter. It took them half a day to get her there. They not they kind of knocked her over. She was laying on the sidewalk and then they made her stand up on a leg that she almost recently had amputated. This is what experience she had. Mine wasn't that bad, but I was definitely left alone there. It wasn't the greatest experience, but I'd like to focus on her experience. And then I'd also like to think in the jails. Why is it that we take Medicaid away as soon as you get to jail? Then why is it that we're making the the inmates pay for everything out of their own pockets without having any money because they're in jail? So it makes it really difficult to have any money. And getting services while in jail has been very difficult for the people that I've spoken to. It's been almost non-existent, to be quite honest. Meds, medication is not been provided for people that we've spoken with. Mental health. That's just a joke. I mean, that might as well not even talk about that because it's not it's completely non-existent. So I hope that in this budget that's going on. We have some money for these things and we're going to start paying attention to and advocating and making sure that these things happen and that the people that are marginalized in our community because this is not acceptable, it's disgusting. And then also, I just wanted to say before I get off here, Hines, that Walnut, Larimer, Lawrence are all in the right now. And then that stuff spreads over and then gentrification happens, money goes up. So it's not just. Asking that you stay on the tour. Thank you so much. Have a good time. All right. We'll go to our next speaker, Pastor Topaz McBride. Good evening. So. I feel a little a little kind of. Out of sorts just because I just. Jumped on. So I don't even know where I'm coming in at, however. I do want to. Express my concern on behalf. Of the different organizations. That I am representing this evening, which include the Greater Denver Ministerial Alliance. And. Community. I'll just stick with that. And community concern about the respect of. Workers. Across the board as it relates particularly to. Employees of color and and really. Allowing them a voice and. The. Support. That is deserved and necessary in this particular climate in which we're living in being treated with the same professionalism and humanity that all workers deserve. In a press conference and prayer meeting that was held in front of Denver Health a few months ago, back in the summer, I had an opportunity to hear from several Denver health workers and how they were being treated and the evident discriminatory practices and lack of equity that comes from Denver Health. Even with the. Support of the Union, there is a lack of equity. And so I'm here to speak against that. I'm here to speak against the. Implicit. Biases within the health care system that are. Reflected from employees to patients. To differences in how. Patients are treated. There were a couple of. Families that came. To the Denver Ministerial Alliance, and I was saying a couple, but actually there were several, but there were a couple, a couple who were willing to be public with regard to their specific cases and names. And it was evident that they were treated with much bias. And and it was because of the color of their skin that was evident. Once the investigation was done and there was a comparison in the. Outcome of those particular cases and other cases. The community is what Denver Health is supposed to be available to support community. At large regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.. And when you take an oath as a health care professional, then the expectation is that you are going to be. Committed to the oath that. You've taken. To support. Patients, that that's the. Time we have allocated for you before. Thank you. Thank you. Our next. Speaker. Is Juliana Thomas. Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to address you today. Members of the Council. My name is Juliana Thomas and I am a proud retired union member and I am very active in our community. Presently, I am a volunteer at the Redeeming Love Fellowship Church. I helped to run a food bank there, along with the volunteer at Sidney Elementary School as a substitute teacher. Social emotional. So my thoughts tonight are the same as present as the previous speaker about the injustice that has been taking place at the U.S. health. Most humanitarian efforts, I would like to say, such as hospitals, daycares and orphanages where initiative by Christians. My faith in God tells me that there must be a difference in the world in how we treat one another. We are taught to love our neighbors and ourselves is when we as Christians use our influence to try to correct the moral and ethical issues that go on. This is where we are meet with the contention, which I'm glad to be to be a part of. When a group in society is oppressed or is suffering and is constantly denied the privileges and rights of the institution that the majority enjoys. It is called social injustice. Therefore, it is unfair and will ultimately lead to contention, discourse and uprising such as what we are seeing in our society today. Injustice is sin and it should not be tolerated. There should be no respect to persons. There should be no differences. And in how we treat one another and how we do our jobs and how we go about serving our community. One thing that I stand by, God is not mocked whatsoever a man. So that's what he's going to reap. Now, I was also a part of the community praying for racial justice at the Denver Health. We prayed that day for Denver health leaders to do a couple of things. Three things in particular that I remember. First, that Denver health leaders would have the courage to honestly face institutional racial injustice. Second, that Denver health leaders have the humility to accept community responsibility. Third, that Denver health leaders have the moral strength to respect the rights of their workers. As Denver Health Council, one of our pastors who prayed that day said, We wanted to ask God to shake every house so that our elected officials use their power to guide Denver health on a path of demonstrating racism or dismantling excuse me, racism and protecting workers rights. I ask you all tonight, have you done all that you can do to support the workers who are courageously united to make Denver health the best place to give and receive care? It is our responsibility to stand up for those that are treated unfairly, and I stand with those that are fighting against the injustice at Denver Health. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you. Our next speaker is Brook Bender. Nor can you hear me? Yes. Wonderful. Thank you. My name is Brooke Bender. And I am. The administrative director of our Center for Addiction Medicine at Denver Health. I am representing the entire entity of Denver Health as our Center for Addiction Medicine crosses over all of our services. Denver Health Chem Center for Addiction Medicine aims to do things differently than many traditional health care systems. By identifying patients wherever they enter our system, assess their substance use needs, and link them into inclusive and compassionate ongoing care if and when they're ready for treatment. Much of our. Model would be impossible. Without funding. From the City Operating Agreement. For our Treatment on Demand program. This program funds three full time substance treatment therapists to meet patients in the emergency department and hospital at bedside to conduct a full bio psychosocial intake, assess needed level of care, and link patients to next day outpatient follow up. A Denver health or within one of our community partnerships. The City Operating agreement has allowed us to innovate and expand. Over the last few years. We started in 2019. As a city pilot program just in the emergency department, and over the last couple of years have expanded to our inpatient unit and serving patients with opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder, stimulant use disorder and poly substance use. In addition, we've expanded to also outreach to patients post overdose in our emergency department. We've been over the last couple of years due to COVID increased numbers of overdoses. Occurring within the city and county of. Denver. Many emergency departments are stabilizing those patients that they can and sending them back out into the community. Our treatment on demand therapists outreach. Those patients offer support and linkage to treatment. What we've seen so far is an increase in patients entering treatment through this program every year, including during COVID. As of this. Year. In October, 380 patients were served by this team with an average linkage rate of 60 to 70% to ongoing services. Our patients are showing gratitude for this program. A couple of quotes they've shared with us are the compassionate staff at Denver Health saved my life by helping me believe my life was worth saving. They were super kind and genuinely there to help me. No judgment. Our hopes for next steps for the treatment and demand program is to expand beyond the three treatment providers we have . We're only reaching a small portion of the patient population within the hospital that have substance use disorders due to a limited capacity of the team. We also want to offer learnings and technical assistance, including for clinical consultation to other emergency departments and hospitals interested in building their own treatment on demand models. Thank you very much for your time tonight. Thank you. Our next speaker joining us online is Julia Aureliano. Hey, can you hear me okay? Yes, go ahead. Hi. Good evening. I'm Julie Ariana. I'm assistant chief paramedic for Denver Health X. I've been with Denver Health. I'm the paramedics first. Our operations. Let me see. Your microphone seems to be going in and out a little bit. Maybe if you go ahead and speak louder and we'll let you know we're here and. Yeah. I'll talk louder. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. So I am currently overseeing our operations out of the airport. We have paramedics there 24 hours a day. As you know, Denver International Airport is very busy. It's the third busiest airport in the nation, the eighth in the world. They see about 69 million passengers every year. Just in 2021, Denver paramedics have run over 6000 calls and transported almost 2200 patients from the airport alone. You know, this is an important operation for us, the airport being. You know. Kind of a vulnerable population out the location wise from where any medical help could get there. So those 60 over 6000 patients would be calls that would have to come from our downtown 911 system. So having our paramedics there is is vital to serving that population. That number is also significant considering that the first five months of. This year there was. Very limited airline traffic. So our numbers are very close to what they were in 2019, which was 12 months of a busy airline traffic. So we are committed to being a great partner with the airport and a great partner with the city. We play an important part with our our partners out there in public safety, the police department and the fire department, and supporting taking care of all of those those passengers out of the airport. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Elizabeth Epps. Elizabeth Banks. Evening. Thank you. Go ahead. Good evening, City Council. It's been a while since I've been with you, but I'm still Elizabeth Epps. And I founded and served as the executive director of the Colorado Freedom Fund. The Colorado Freedom Fund. We pay ransom. We pay cash bail for our neighbors trapped in Colorado cages most often the Denver City cage. The Denver City cage, where far too many people are transported after incidents that happen there at Denver Health. I'm here this evening just to briefly address the patient to prisoner pipeline. No one who seeks medical care at Denver Health should ever have to think about seeking that care because they may delay that care because they may encounter law enforcement. We we should all agree that hospitals should be patient sanctuaries, which balance the rights of vulnerable patients with the need for public safety. We know from our work at the Colorado Freedom Fund that Denver Health at times functions as a really active, aggressive, willing participant in this patient prisoner pipeline. I mean, this in the most direct, direct way, counselors at the Colorado Freedom Fund, we regularly pay bond several times a month for people disproportionately black and brown women who are accused of assault, where the assault at issue is flinching, panicking, spitting or otherwise being less than one's best self when in the custody of a Denver health employee. Institutional racism impacts everyone, and our health care system is not immune to that. Denver Health Hospitals Already it's really, really must meaningfully acknowledge, confront and work to dismantle these oppressive systems within those halls of Denver health. So counselors, even as we ask you, of course, to vote yes on the operating agreement. We also want to remind you that, you know, Denver Health can start with transparency around the report that the executives commissioned the equity project to complete and can continue by honestly posing the question, how does racism operate here? We're here. Is at Denver or how Denver Health should partner with community with their workers and their union patients to learn the answer to that very question. Denver Health really does need a careful and transparent review of policies which allow racism to operate. Just one solution is safe staffing so that workers have the support they need to provide the best care while also actually interrupting racism. Another solution would be providing real anti-racism training for workers building systems which support them in coming forward when they experience or witness racism together with his patients, the community and workers. Denver Health really can disrupt this patient, prisoner, pipeline executives and top leaders. They just can't do this alone. So while we need you to approve the operating agreement, of course, we also need you as councilors and the mayor's office to do everything in your power to support community members and workers who are actually doing the work to dismantle racism at Denver Health. We call on you to do just that, to create more accountability and transparency in the city's contract with Denver health patients. Workers, indeed, very community health depend on it. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Carmen Casali. Hi. This is Carmi. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi. I'm Carmen. Sally. I'm a registered nurse. I'm also the health services administrator at the Denver Sheriff's Department for Denver Health. I worked at the. Facility for 22 years. I am certified in correctional care. I'm also a NCC HD. Survey surveyor for jails across the United States. I was very excited to see the electronic health record. In the operating agreement going into next year. At 22 years we have utilized a paper record and we have been very effective and very efficient with the paper record, but we have not been able to be as efficient as we should be able to be. Patient safety is our number one priority and electronic health record is going to help us expand and increase our patient safety. Right now, with a paper record, we have paperwork that we have to locate, that we have to find. One person is only able to have the chart at one time. So, for example, of both a psychiatrist and a doctor need to see the chart. They have to wait. They have to take turns. Legibility can be an issue with the paper. Record storage is an issue for the paper record. We are having to transport our charts back and forth to a warehouse between both jails. When patients book in, we do not have the patient history, so. We often have to start all over with our patients that are very well known to us. And until the chart does arrive, at times, finding information can be challenging in a paper record. There is nobody outside of the jail that can review the paper record, such as outside Denver Health Doctors. There's really no ability for data collection. It can be challenging to determine. Medication compliance on current medication paper records that are going out to the housing units. It's a manual transfer process to transfer information from one jail to the next jail. The cost to maintain staff at the Denver Health Warehouse, which staff that could be rerouted to help at the jails would be beneficial. Miss filling in charts. Is definitely. Occasionally happens. At times we cannot. Find a chart urgently when we need it. The Denver Detention Center is five floors with multiple exam rooms. There's no audit. Trail. A paper record can be altered where an. Electronic health record has a very robust tracking system. Cost of just a paper chart, I think, eventually will outweigh what the. Cost of an initial chart will run us. And it's definitely a challenge to complete release of information, requests of information for community members into facts and scandals. So super excited for the electronic health record and look forward to hopefully. Being able to start the process and implement that into correctional care for the patients. Denver Health serves at both Denver jails. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sarah Rowan. Madam Chair and City Council Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today and also thank you to all the other speakers who brought forth so many important points. My name is Sarah Rowan and I'm an infectious disease doctor at Denver Health. I live in Denver and I'm fortunate to live one block from the Park Hill State outdoor space. I'll be speaking about our four public health clinics, each of which serves a vital role in the Denver metro. I personally see patients in two of those clinics, the sexual health clinic and the infectious disease clinic. The Sexual Health Clinic is the largest provider of free and low cost sexual health services in the Rocky Mountain region. We offer those services to about 15,000 patients per year. In addition to testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, we also provide access to contraception and comprehensive HIV prevention services, including the HIV prevention pill. Also, if patients test positive for HIV anywhere in the city, we've worked hard to make sure we can offer immediate HIV treatment at no charge. Our outreach arm, which I supervised, provides free HIV, Hep C and STI testing at community sites throughout the metro. When the pandemic hit, our team leveraged our experience, our medical expertize, and our community partnerships to be the first agency to provide free community based COVID testing in conjunction with numerous nonprofits and shelters. Additionally, we provided technical assistance to other agencies and testing infrastructure as testing infrastructure was developed in the city. We worked closely with homeless service providers in our community and we spent a great deal of time serving those who are houseless and unsheltered caring about the tragedy at the rescue mission. The reference to Salvation Army. These are all very familiar sites. Our infectious disease clinic provides care for 1500 patients living with HIV. We're one of the largest insecure sites in the state. We have national leaders in HIV research and treatment. We treat hepatitis C, which is prior to COVID, was responsible for more deaths than all other reportable infections combined, and the incidence has skyrocketed in the face of the opioid epidemic. Through our community partnerships and coalitions, we're continually innovating new ways to bring Hep C and HIV treatment to people where they are, rather than rigidly demanding that people come to us. Our other two public health clinics or at the immunization clinic, which provides free and low cost vaccines to anyone who needs them and their role in the COVID vaccine response has been invaluable. The Metro Tuberculosis Clinic provides free services for the region, ensuring that tuberculosis does not spread in our community. And the patients with active and latent TB, many of whom recently arrived in the United States, receive excellent medical care. In summary, our clinics are instrumental in treating and managing conditions of public health significance conditions that, if gone untreated, lead to high costs for our community through outbreaks, costly hospitalizations and unnecessary suffering. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker this evening is Rosario CdeBaca. Rosaria, we might need you to unmute. I think we're still showing that you're muted. Okay. Our producers are letting me know. It looks like you're. Not they are now. We're not seeing anybody at the computer. So we're going to go ahead and move on here. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1219. Council members say the Barka. Yes. Thank you. I have a couple of questions that were sent to me from workers at the hospital. There was a an equity study that was done by the equity project. And workers are wondering why Denver Health is refusing to produce the study and share the results, specifically with workers who participated, even if not with the rest of the general public. I'm going to have to defer to the Denver Health Partners if we can promote Stephanie Signer. Take your money. Hello, this is Robin with the CEO, Denver Health. I apologize for not being able to speak before we had some technical difficulties. The equity the equity study that Councilman CdeBaca asked about was conducted under attorney client privilege. And it was done so so that the confidentiality of the employees who participated would be protected. We have shared generally the results of the equity study with our organization, and I have offered to sit down with any member of city council who would like to hear the results of that study. Thank you. Abstract. Of that study. As we said, the study was conducted under attorney client privilege and is not going to be released its entirety. But we're happy to sit down and share with you the same information that we shared with our with our employees that came out of that. So does that mean that there were no disparities found or what was the point of doing the study? So the study was intended actually to, uh, to hear the voice of employees at Denver Health, and it was not just employees. We also conducted stakeholder interviews with people both inside the organization and now. And it was intended to allow people to speak frankly about the experience of being a person of color inside Denver health the findings and that. And we shared them with our our employees as well as with community organizations outside of Denver Health and certainly with our board of directors really fell into four buckets. One of them was that race matters. Denver Health, like all organizations made up of people, have issues dealing with systemic racism, disparities and issues that affect the day to day lived experience of people of color in our organization, as in our society. And our employees came forward and told us about some of those. There was also some concern that, um, as the institution dealt with issues of systemic racism, of health equity, health inequities that exist in our society and that affect our patients as all patients unfortunately are affected across the country, that there would be there was some concern would we take this seriously? Would we move forward to address these issues? There was there were themes around transparency and communication, making sure that we did, in fact, actually share the results of this of the work out. And then, more importantly, give voice to people in our organization in developing the plan that we would use to address the findings. And then finally, the last finding was around our role as an anchor institution, which, as you might imagine, is extremely is supported by by our entire workforce. The idea that Denver health can be part of the solution to both economic challenges that our our patients face, our communities face, but also issues around how to promote opportunity for people of color, especially those who historically may not have had opportunity, was something that was embraced by our employees. But the point was also that we have many employees who have who've experienced the same the same lived experiences, the same economic challenges, the same issues that the people throughout our society have. And so we pulled all of that together and working within the organization, with our city council, with employees across the organization, with our equity steering group, we have developed a three year strategic plan that is Denver Health's commitment to addressing issues of systemic racism, of of the challenges that people of color face both inside our organization and their everyday lives. And we are now we've released the draft to to our CEO council, to others, to our board of directors. And we're in the process of releasing that to the organization as a draft. And the reason we're just we're releasing it as a draft is because these issues have been widespread and historic. And we fully expect that even with the initiatives that we've identified to address some of the feedback that we've gotten, this is going to be a work in progress for a very long time to come. We've identified a number of things in each of the the findings around creating and engaging work, workplace, engaging, inclusive, workplace, addressing issues of inequity for patients in conducting and creating and ensuring that we have a fair and accountability system and a fair and just climate and then making sure that we have the infrastructure that we need to address these issues. We released the report, the the study, the three year strategic plan. And we're now in the process of actually developing very detailed work plans for each of the initiatives again. And as I've shared with you, Councilwoman. These are longstanding issues and problems. Denver Health has never and we'll never say that we don't have many of the same issues that every other organization in our society has. What we are trying to do is understand what those issues are inside our organization, how we can address those working with our employees, and how we can address those issues, working with community members and patients to address the health inequities and disparities that exist. So we're moving forward with that plan. And as I said, I'm happy to sit down and go through that with you, and we'd be delighted to hear the ideas and suggestions you have for how to move forward on some of the things you hear from your constituents as well. The study conducted. I'm sorry. I didn't hear your question. When was the study conducted? The study was conducted in late in 2018, 2020. I believe going into 2021. Include attrition rates disaggregated by race and ethnicity. No, this study does not. This was intended to give opportunity for the voice of our employees in our community to bring the issues forward. Do we have attrition data over the last couple of years disaggregated by race and ethnicity? We we have we have some employee data, although I will tell you, we're in the process right now of working to gather that information. The most recent information is, of course, challenging given what's going on in the labor market. But we are we are working together that. And what is the current attrition rate? I don't have the answer to that question right now, but we can certainly get that to you. Additionally, what efforts are being implemented or taken to secure hazard pay or premium pay for the frontline workers that took on the risks early on in the pandemic? So Denver Health is not paying hazard pay to any of the health care workers. However, we have done a number of things that are intended to address the the workload that our staff has been experiencing over the last. 18 months. I'm just going on two years, frankly. We have introduced critical staffing, incentive pay. We have introduced and increase specialty pay for those health care workers that are particularly impacted by COVID. We have, unfortunately, like all other institutions in the entire country, we have we are experiencing labor shortages and oftentimes are asking our employees to work extra overtime shifts. We have voluntary overtime agreements in place with them so that if people volunteer to step forward and take on extra work, if that fits within their their particular life situation, they get paid not only their their pay plus and overtime rates, of course, if they're working overtime, but there are additional bonus payments made to them after they can. They conduct a certain number of shifts. We have recently announced are in the process of implementing an increase for all in compensation for our employees, raising our minimum wage to $17 or and giving 3% salary increases. So $70 or 3%, whichever is higher and making sure that we have that available. As you know, Denver health is a safety net institution and we are using the resources that we have available to target those dollars as best as we can at the front line and the central hospital workers who have struggled throughout all of COVID . So the employees, the frontline workers got a 3% increase in salaries. Will there be another 20% increase for the executives like there was last year? So the 3% increase will actually be effective December 5th. So employees will seed in their, their salary, their paychecks. Uh, I think it's December 28. The increases other than just the 3% increase, um, we also could doubt that, like shared with you every year we conduct salary surveys where we look at the wages that are paid at Denver Health and we compare those regionally to wages paid for similar roles across across the region. Where necessary, we make market adjustments in compensation for any role that has fallen out of line with the market. Um, Denver Health organizational philosophy is we look to pay at the 50th percentile for all roles in the organization. When those roles have when the compensation for those roles is different than the market surveys show us, we make adjustments for those. So it will depend on what has happened in the marketplace for any given role. We will be looking at additional market adjustments in the beginning of 2022 as we get the salary of the salary survey information for, um, for roles here at Denver Health. Are you seeing that any of those efforts are improving the attrition rate? That's a really good question, Councilwoman. Um, I would say this. The answer is yes in that Denver health at the last point in time where we could collect information about vacancy rates at hospitals, nearby hospitals in the region, Denver Health was actually faring somewhat better than other institutions. But I'm going to say that's within the context of we are all in crisis at this moment in time. So everyone is struggling with staffing. And again, it's not just Denver Metro, as I'm sure you know, it is. Hospitals across the country are having a really difficult time right now. Institutions are somewhat less willing to share information more recently. So we have not been able to update that in the last month or so. But um, through the time period that we were able to get information while we were also in crisis, we were doing a little bit better than some of the other hospitals. And I know you don't have the actual attrition rate for Denver health, but it sounds like, you know, the area's typical attrition rate. Do you what is that? It's again, it's going to vary pretty significantly by job role, I can tell you. For nursing, for example, at Denver Health, our, um, our turnover rate has, has historically been significantly lower than national rates for nursing nursing personnel. So, you know, again, it will vary by job click, job, class and role. Denver Health generally has run a lower turnover rate than many institutions and where there are national numbers available, like in nursing. Denver Health has historically done better than the national averages. Benedict. We had information and we're taking note the whole ceremony to get back with you from the safety committee to give us a presentation on the study. It would be nice to see the actual attrition rates and the comparisons by job classification as well as if it's possible disaggregating by employees by rate that race and ethnicity as well . Thank you. Thank you. Council members say to Barker and thank you, Doctor Wittgenstein, for your answers. I've seen no other folks in the queue for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 1-1219. Not seen any. Give it a second. Councilmember CdeBaca, you're up first. Thank you. I would just like to share that I have been appalled by the lack of leadership of this organization, especially when it comes to racial equity within the organization. Several times I've had conversations with leadership to really discuss what it means to create equity, and it falls on deaf ears over and over. And while we desperately need this agreement to pass tonight, I encourage my colleagues to dig deeper with this organization. Talk to board members, continue to raise the concerns because what is happening on the inside of this organization is really disappointing, given this is our health authority. And so tonight I will be a yes, but I am extremely disappointed. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca, Council Member Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I have some concerns as well. I really do appreciate Denver Help's partnership with the city. You know, they provide an invaluable service to the residents. And I especially want to thank our nurses, our tax, our doctors and the staff who continue to put themselves in harm's way during the pandemic to protect the health of our community. Like I said, I've got concerns. I'm I'm not convinced by some of the answers that I've heard this evening. I wasn't convinced by some of the answers I heard in my briefing. I wasn't convinced by some of the answers I heard at committee. We don't have a choice but to approve this agreement in the middle of a pandemic. This is our. Hospital. Authority. So, you know, I want to again stress the importance of partnering with all employee representatives. I think it's important to find solutions that make the staff feel supported and included. We've had this discussion before, and I think, you know, it's not a it's not an overnight fix. And I appreciate that the leadership of a DHS is working hard to do to implement some changes. I'm not sure it's enough, and I'm. Not sure it's. Happening fast enough. But that said, I believe in the mission of DHS and the services that they provide to our community. So I will be a yes tonight. Thinks that a president. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I have similar concerns with my colleague when you continue to hear from paramedics who are leaving the industry. Yet at the same time, I have a friend who's an ER nurse and the industry is suffering because of the pandemic. And I believe that Denver Health plays a vital role in the history of Denver and for all of our residents. I support the workers who are trying to unionize. I hope you I stand in solidarity with you. And I hope that. People don't always the general public doesn't always understand that there is a separation between Denver health and the city county of Denver. And so if they look bad, we look bad. And I just want to support all of our health care workers. And yet, at the same time, this is the second year that we've had public comment during a hearing on this contract where people are coming, complain that is a sign of something that is not working. So I hope that we can work on this and make sure that there is not this type of discord when this contract comes forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council president, I think. You know, a hospital is a location where people don't want to spend time. They're not. No offense to all the workers and in the institution. I would say that I've spent too much time in as an inpatient in Denver health since the last hearing that we had. I spent 16 days in Denver Health in August. And I just I want to commend all the people who work at Denver Health. I heard time and time again, you know, as a as a you spend too much time in the hospital. You get to interact with a lot of employees who work at Denver Health. And I just I heard so many times that people really buy into the mission level one care for all. And people said that they work at Denver Health because of that mission. And I just I want to thank the workers so much from the techs for the janitorial staff up to the positions because they really are passionate about making sure that they can heal those who are are are hurting. So they certainly helped me. And again, it's not that I wanted to be there, but but I was there nonetheless. So I just wanted to thank the workers. As I understand it, this is you know, this is something that the city is interested in. Denver health, um, you know, doesn't make a lot of money from this. So it isn't as if it's, you know, just the hospitals losing a lot of revenue. So I think it makes sense to support the what we're talking about this evening. Um, I recognize that Denver Health has some work to do with the relationship between the authority and the employees. Ah, the administration and the employees. And I hope that continues. Thank you. Council President Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And I'll wrap up here. I think it's very clear that a lot of our institutions are taking another look at how they look at implicit bias, how they really walk the talk or implement the work to make sure that their institution is an anti-racist, anti oppression institution organization. And that work is going to take decades to accomplish. But it's important that we show progress to the folks who are spending day in and day out serving others. And, you know, the paramedics are a group of folks that are important to us as well. And our certified nursing assistants, a lot of folks just go to nurses, doctors, etc.. But really the certified nurses assistants are the seniors are the ones that really do a lot of that work and they're telling us their stories. And I think that we should listen to them and make sure that the board and the leadership are implementing different procedures, different trainings, whatever they need to do to address this need, they need to be doing it. And I have to believe that they are working on that. And I look forward to the upcoming reports on where they're at and the next plans. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 1-1219, please. Ortega. Right Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. When I. Herndon, I. Himes. Cashman can reach Sandoval. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. There are 13 eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-1219 has passed.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP FM15-019 and award contracts to Barbara A. Lloyd, Municipal Advisory Services, of Los Angeles, CA; Frasca & Associates, LLC, of New York, NY; KNN Public Finance, of Los Angeles, CA; Montague DeRose and Associates, LLC, of Westlake Village, CA; Public Financial Management, Inc., of Los Angeles, CA; and Public Resources Advisory Group, of Los Angeles, CA, to provide financial advisory services on an as-needed basis, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,200,000 per year, for a period of two years, with the option to renew for three additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03242015_15-0261

Motion carries eight zero 16. Item 16 Report from Financial Management. Recommendation to award six contracts to provide financial advisory services on an as needed basis in an aggregate aggregate amount not to exceed 1,200,000 per year. Citywide grant has been in motion in a second. Is there any public comment on this? Do you, Mr. West, you want to briefly just inform the Council what this process is? Certainly our Treasurer, David Nakamoto. Thank you, sir. Honorable mayor and members of the City Council before you as a recommendation to a ward. Both. Excuse me, honorable mayor and members of the City Council before you as a recommendation to award as needed contracts for six advisory service firms to provide the city specialized financial and advisory services only on a as needed basis . The city has historically used financial experts for various on call projects, access to specialized financial and industry expertize as necessary to preserve the city's ability to address priority issues, as well as shifting financial and legal and regulatory developments in a comprehensive and timely manner. City Council's action is requested on March 24th, 2015, to ensure that the appropriate financial expertize is available to support city initiatives. This concludes staff support. Thank you. I do have the make or the motion in the second. Do you have any comments? If management's over to Councilman Gonzales, who has a comment that Councilman Gonzales. Just had a question in the item here, it says, Local business outreach, how are we outreaching to our local businesses for this process? Councilmember Gonzalez We align ourselves with the purchasing department's practice. We've outreached through their monthly of our proposal, which reaches 30 local, minority and women owned businesses. In addition to that, the purchasing department itself published our item to 376 local businesses. Okay, so are we sending them a is it an email or what format would we I mean, how is that? I believe it's electronic format. Yes. Okay. Just wanted to thank you. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. Motion carries eight zero. Item 17 Report from Fire. Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Identifying the terms and conditions for the Fire Department. Response to incidents outside the jurisdiction when when the Long Beach Fire Department is compensated or reimbursed for such responses citywide.

A proclamation honoring and recognizing the 2019 University of Colorado Denver Latinx Cohort and all Education Doctoral graduates of Colorado.

DenverCityCouncil_05062019_19-0436

Thank you, Councilman Brooks. That concludes our announcements. There are no presentations and there are no communications this evening, but we do have three proclamations one will be going through on consent, but we have two to be read this evening. So, Councilman Brooks, will you read Proclamation 436? All right. I was just talking about this. I will be excited to read this proclamation. 436 A Proclamation Honoring and Recognizing 2019 University of Colorado, Denver, Latinx cohort and all educational doctoral graduates of color. This is really exciting. Whereas it is a fact that this is the largest graduating class of educational doctoral degrees conferred in a single ceremony from an institution of higher ed by Latinos, African-Americans, Asians, women, white allies. And. WHEREAS, The Denver City Council recognizes the exceptional work that all the doctoral students undertook to change the educational landscape of Colorado for the greater good. And. WHEREAS, the 25 doctoral graduates all have been strong advocates of all students of color engaging in research in the end of school to prison pipeline, restorative practices, linked linguistic learners, cultural responsive learning, leadership bias, student centered supports, and many, many more issues. And. WHEREAS, the Class of 2019 has endured many challenges in their lives from homelessness, societal and economic barriers, and many doors closed due to the color of their skin. And yet these 25 has still prevailed. And. Whereas, collectively, these graduates have over 500 years of experience working in education in the state of Colorado. And. Whereas, lifelong commitment of graduates to earn their doctorate degrees and continue to serve the youth of Colorado and make them outstanding citizens. And we're, as graduates, are committed to promote and enhance and increase the asset, strength and skill sets of our young people by helping provide the necessary services and resources, including opportunities and options for mentoring . Social. Emotional. Intelligence. Education. Financial. Literacy. Education. Financial. She education and post-secondary secondary education, skilled trade, trade training, entrepreneur education and health options and access to increase their odds of success. Now, therefore, being proclaimed by the Council of the City County of Denver, Section one to the Council of the City, County in Denver and the entire community express their heartfelt congratulations to the 2019 University of Denver doctoral students of color and the Council of the City and County of Denver. Hereby officially proclaims that May 18, 2019 be known as Doctors of Education Day. Section two. The Clerk of the City County of Denver shall test and fix a seal upon the city in county of Denver . This be pro proclamation be transmitted to the graduates of and if I mess up any of your names charged to my head and my heart. Okay, Cynthia. Bottom duty. Judy. B, Elizabeth, Elizabeth B, Eleanor Burns, Melissa Conley and Catherine Gaddis and Kasey Green and Tanya Holguin. And Clara Hernandez. And Dominique Jones. And Gabriela maldonado. And Jenna martin. Bonnie Martinez native the Miller. Angelique Montoya. Angelica Ramirez. Michael Ramirez. Teresa Rosado. Jose Silva. Marin Stewart. Artan Thomas. Diana Thompson. Cynthia Sheehan. Thomas Velasquez and Hank. Chunk. You know what I'm saying? Okay. We congratulate all of you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Your motion to. Adopt? Yeah. I moved that proclamation for 36 to be adopted. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks ment. This is so exciting. You know, when we talk about barriers to opportunities in our country, in our city, you know, I was I was raised on this because my my mother and I always talk about this, but she was the first African-American born in a hospital. She's the first African man born in a hospital in Arkansas, southeast Arkansas. And they put her in a box so she wouldn't contaminate the rest of the white babies. She was born in a very horrible time. Yet she fought through those barriers and became a Ph.D. at UCLA, and she was pregnant with me doing her dissertation on a typewriter. I don't know how she did that, but that showed me the type of barriers that it takes for some of us who are folks of color in this society, and to see the number of folks of color who have become PhDs. And I got a chance to go to one of the doctoral defenses by Jose Silva. It was one of the most incredible things. And I just want to share this with you. Jose was defending his his. You know, his thesis. And it was amazing to be able to see Jose, the community person, and now Jose the scholar. And one of the doctors said passion is great. Passion with scholarship is unstoppable. And I like I got choked up. I was like, man, this is a serious deal. But we are now getting our folks of color who are from these passionate, desperate backgrounds with incredible barriers to have scholarship in their work. And that is tremendous. And so from all of us on city council, we salute you and we thank you. You are the real leaders of this city. You are the real leaders of this region and state. And we tell you, continue to move out, keep going and go forward, because all of these young people, you're setting an example. You are exploding ceilings for them. So this is an amazing day. And we we congratulate you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Brooks, thank you for bringing this forward. And I just want to say, I know a couple of folks on this list, but I want to say congratulations to all of you and go forth and shape the minds of our our young people. Whether you're going to be teaching in our schools or our universities, you all will be influencing the minds and the the thoughts of of many people that will then continue to influence others in our community. So thank you for the the. Entire journey that you have been through and in just for your dedication and commitment to giving back. Because this is another example of public servant. See, if you will, and I. Hats off to all of you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to my comment to commend you all for this. I am a student, a graduate, not the doctoral program. But I will also say my wife is one year into getting her Ph.D. And so I know. I know because I hear about it, the. Rigor. That you all went through. So congratulations on that and job well done. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. I will just add my congratulations and thank you to Councilman Brooks for bringing such a great proclamation forward. Madam Secretary. Raquel Brooks. Hi. Black Eye. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn Hi. Gilmore I earned it. I. Cashman All right. Can I. Lopez Hi. Ortega Hi, Cessna. Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close voting. Announce results. 12 hours. 12 eyes proclamation. 436 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for a proclamation acceptance. Councilman Brooks, is there anybody you'd like to bring up? Yep. I just want to do two things. One, can all the FD stand up, please? Give them a hand. You know, for all the work you guys have done, we could be clapping all day. Be honest with you. I'm going to bring up Dr. Jose Silva to receive this. Regardless of the situation. You can right there. Yeah. Good morning, counsel counsel President Clark, thank you so very much for allowing us to be here and inviting us to be here on behalf of myself and our cohort, the latte next cohort. We are just so honored and thankful that the City Council and you all would be willing to honor all of us in the work that we've done. Some of you know me, some of you don't. But I come from the projects here in West Denver, the North Lincoln Projects, and the Sun Valley Projects. And I'm a proud graduate of Denver West High School, class of 1998. And when I went to West High School many times, I was told my friends we all would end up dead or in jail. And for many of my community, that has been the result. But for many of us, we have decided to stand in the gap, show up and be better representations and better representatives of our community . And for us to join this Latin next cohort, when 25 of us were accepted, 25 of us will graduate. And we will be the largest number of Latino graduates with doctorate degrees in the history of the United States in a single ceremony from the city and county of Denver. That is remarkable, not just for us, but for the young people that are going to come behind us. And so I challenge all of you as our leaders today, to continue to stand in the gap for young people, to continue to find ways to open doors for other young people. And currently, right now, the university is raising more money to provide more scholarships to young people to be able to get in the E.D. program. Many of us received a half scholarship. I was fortunate enough to not only receive a half scholarship, but a full ride. So I would ask you to think about how you has council members might be able to stand in the gap for the next generation of doctors by maybe contributing, opening up some of your opportunities and standing in the gap for the next generation of leaders. I will now yield my time to Dr. Trinidad, to Dr. Cynthia that she had. Good evening and thank you very much for having us. I know this is an evening that we're all going to cherish very much for many of us. We became a chosen family and we talk about that a lot, about being a chosen family. This group of. Strong individuals have come together as such a. Strong group. Chosen is the key word for the fact that many things in our families and our family's journeys, as well. As our own journey was not chosen. We did not choose discrimination. We did not choose for the doors to be closed on us. We did not choose for people to try to get us to fail to weed us out at the beginning of our program and even through our. Journey to get to higher ed. But we chose to stay. We chose to rise to the occasion. We chose to take the opportunities that were given to us and to also open those. Doors for more opportunities for up and coming students of color. Because of the courage that each of us have shown every day and together. Whether it was through texting, phone calls. Keeping each other on track. We made it. And this family, this chosen family will forever. Be together. And. Forever bound by the moment. Tonight and the moment that we will share on May 18th, a chosen family of individuals who did not waste time, did not. Waste opportunity, and we surely did. Not waste the journey of our. Ancestors. So congratulations to our cohort, and thank you again for having us. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, for bringing that forward. We have another one, Mr. President. I just want to tell the cohort we have another proclamation than we have. We're going to give you a bunch of proclamations. So if you guys could hold on for just 5 minutes, that'd be great.

A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Taylor Atkinson, who resides in council district eight, to the King County solid waste advisory committee, as a citizen representative.

KingCountyCC_03172021_2021-0012

It'll be on consent. The consent agenda for council a week from yesterday. This coming Tuesday. Thank you. Next item is proposed motion 2021 12, which confirmed the executive's appointment of Taylor Atkinson to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The application materials were sent out to council members separately. Three rows from council staff would provide a brief staff report. Then we'll hear from Ms. Atkinson, who is with us today. Ms. Rose, the call is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Cara Rose, Council staff. As the chair noted, Agenda Item eight concerns the appointment to the King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee, or. SWAC. Proposed motion 2021 12 would confirm executive's appointment of Taylor Atkinson as a citizen representative to the SWAC and the materials begin on page 80 of your packet. Briefly provide some background on the committee and then briefly introduce the appointee. State law requires each county to establish an advisory committee to assist in the development of programs and policies concerning solid waste handling and disposal, and also to review and comment upon. Proposed. Rules, policies or ordinances prior to adoption. Under King County Code, King County SWAC is composed of at least nine and not more than 20 members representing a balance of interests. And these interests include interested citizens, local elected officials, industry and public interest group representatives, among others. Code also requires that the committee shall include one representative from each of the two bargaining units representing the greatest number of solid waste division employees and one representative who resides within a mile of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. To provide some brief background on the appointee, Taylor Atkinson is the owner and operator of Atwell Design, which is a real estate agent company. Ms. Atkinson's application notes that she is passionate about zero waste, highlighting that she runs a zero waste household and a business with zero waste at the forefront of its vision. According to her application, she also. Serves on the board of. The Real Estate Staging Association and is useful. Platform. To bring to life waste in the industry. Staff have not identified any issues with the proposed appointment. It appears consistent with the requirements of King County Code. And as you noted, Ms.. Atkinson, the appointee, is here today and we also have Kate McLaughlin, Solid Waste Division Director, available, and that includes my remarks. Mr. McLAUGHLAN, any opening, any introductory comments on your part? Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to say that we are on a mission of zero waste, as we've talked about many times before. Most of what goes to the landfill every day doesn't belong there. 70% of the truckloads of material that will go to the landfill today could be and should be recycled instead. So we have huge opportunities to divert those resources, get them back into the economy and truly live a zero waste lifestyle such as Ms. Atkinson is demonstrating both in her personal life and in her businesses. And we're excited about the prospects of having Ms. happens join the swag committee and help us really think through the policies and practices and the partnerships that will get us to zero waste. And so I'd be happy to to endorse this candidate and answer any questions that you may have. But as you're going to get to know this. ATKINSON She's really a stellar candidate for this purpose. Ms.. Atkinson. Good, good. It's still morning. Good morning and welcome the morning. Thank you for having me today. You're very welcome. If you'd like to introduce yourself and speak to your your interest in serving in this position. Yeah. I mean, Terry's pretty much touched on everything pretty good. But I would just say that I am also passionate about public education because I believe that once you know something, you can't unknow it. And the more informed public will also make better decisions. So I am excited to have talked about that kind of a roll out of the zero waste campaign, because that is like my personal passion. That's what I try to teach on our social media for my business. And I also believe that businesses and government entities need to work together and educating the public and making change across the board. Thank you so much. Taking questions. Ivan. It's good to see I want to see a bottle native coming on board, Mr. Chair, but they can't all be Indians. I would entertain a motion to approve give a depart recommendation to motion 2021 12. So moved. The motion is before us. See no further discussion. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Excuse me. Thank you. Chair Council Member Bell DG i council member DEMBOSKY. I Council Member Dunn. I Council Member Chorus. Council Member Lambert. I council member of the group. I. Council member. Gone right there. I council members are high. Hi. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. The US is no nice hearing us. Thank you. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation to Motion 2021 12 appointing Taylor Atkinson to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. We will expedite that and put it on consent so it will be before a full council this coming Tuesday.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement with Thomas B. Modica to serve as Acting City Manager.

LongBeachCC_09172019_19-0911

Actually. 18, 18, please. Communication from city attorney. Recommendation. Execute an agreement with Thomas B Modica to to serve as acting city manager. I can if I can get a motion in the second comment, please. I have Mr. Goodhew in control. Police confirmed for public comment. Nope. Okay, Mr. Goodyear? Yes, go ahead. I thoroughly support this. And again, though, I want to make sure we do not reconvene the Council of Trent. Let's get down to business. We know what you want. Just go ahead and pass it so we can move forward. We've got plenty of challenges. Will be getting a new mayor. And we'll get getting some new counsel people. Probably from hopefully from the second for the second district, we'll be able to stabilize this city in a way that it hasn't been stabilized for the past year in terms of getting solid, mentally stable council people and. An honest mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. Thank you. Pursuant to the government code, the the acting city manager salary shall be $276,815. And down to the 100th of a cent six, seven, six. On a 12 month period, at an hourly rate of $132.63 per hour. Thank you. He's casting votes. I'm a no. Oh, wait. I don't get to vote. Damn, damn. No vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Grand Investment Group, dba The Harbor Bar, at 130 Pine Avenue, for entertainment with dancing. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_07162019_19-0647

District five. District six. Yes. Seven by eight and nine motion carries. Moving on to hearing at number three, Madam Clerk. Report from financial management recommendations received supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of grant investment group DBA, the Harbor Bar at 130 Pine Avenue for entertainment with dancing dessert. Thank you, sir. A short staffed presentation. Yes, we are. We will have a staff presentation from Brett Jacks, our business services officer, and Emily Armstrong from the Business Licensing Division. There's also an oath required for this hearing. Yeah. So. Please 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. Sorry. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the City Council. Tonight you have before you an application for entertainment with dancing for Grand Investment Group doing business as the Harbor Bar located at 130 Pine Avenue, operating as a restaurant with alcohol in Council District to all of the necessary departments have reviewed the application and have provided their recommended conditions as contained in the hearing packet. I, as well as the police department, stand ready to answer any questions Council may have. And that concludes South Report. Thank you. Councilmember Pierce. Yes, I just want to thank staff. I've received no opposition to this, no emails, no calls against this. So happy to vote yes tonight and we'd love to have a second on it. Thank you. Okay. We can get a second on this is a public comment on this, seeing no public comment. I will take a roll call vote district to. District three District 456789 Cape motion carries. We are going to be doing, I think majority of people here are for the MacArthur Park vision plan.

Recommendation of the Economic Development and Finance Committee to consider changes to the Sales Tax Resolution, including consolidating the current ordinances into a single ordinance and clarifying the appropriate staff and officials who should have access to this information.

LongBeachCC_10212014_14-0880

Okay. Now we are going to item 33, which is the last item on the agenda. Item 33 is a communication from Councilwoman Stacey Mingo, chair of the Economic Development and Finance Committee, with a recommendation of the committee to consider changes to the city's sales tax resolution. So moved. Okay. Can I get a second? Second? Okay. There's been a motion and a second. It's important for council members to know that this does need to come back to the council a second time next week. So if you want to discuss now or then, those are both options. And I think this is the first step in a long pathway to revising first our 1976 ordinance, which I'm so thankful to our city attorneys who dug it out of the old files and a fax version that we were able to interpret. And I look forward to next steps being a revision to the 1992 economic development policy and a citywide plan where we can invite great business leaders to invest in Long Beach so that we can invest in ourselves. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell. You just want to be clear, is this the item that would allow sales tax receipt data to be reviewed by public officials? Is that is that the intent of this items were. So so they're the new verbiage of the way that we decided as a committee to present this to council is better in line with what is currently happening in our neighboring cities Los Angeles, Huntington Beach, Corcoran and several others. And this broadens the scope to include the Economic Development Department. It changes the purpose usage from strictly for revenue recovery to revenue recovery and economic development. As many other cities in the state of California have done. And then it gives the power of the city attorney to, when necessary, for police specific reasons, to open up certain data for those considerations. Currently, for us to review the data for the whom an agreement this evening we would have needed. Mr.. We would need a human to present the data to us of his own accord. This would allow us to, in closed chambers, review that information in a timely manner. Right now we trust the businesses, and while we would like to trust the businesses. We also trust and verify. And we would be able to do that with this new ordinance resolution. So so city staff couldn't look at the human data. Not for economic development purposes, unless otherwise provided by the business which was requesting the agreement. I think, you know, the the where I'm coming from, I don't I'm not comfortable with having councilmembers see data from specific businesses around the city. That to me gets a little scary. I think it's scary for the business community, too. Could be very anti business, could scare them out of Long Beach. So, I mean, maybe the city manager or the city attorney can address my concern that elected officials would then be reviewing certain businesses tax data. And that's reminiscent of a, you know, command economy, from my perspective. And it could be kind of anti-free market and could go to places where it could be used against certain businesses. Will this allow this or this? This is a new policy kind of take care of my concerns. Mayor members of the Council of Councilmember McDonald, the. O'DONNELL and I. MCDONALD Yes, sorry. The as proposed the revised resolution would authorize review of the data. For additional. Financial planning, economic development and business tax compliance. Misuse of the information is a misdemeanor pursuant to 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. So there is limited use in addition to the collection of sales tax information in which we verify that they're paying the appropriate tax for use of this data. The proposal would allow the city attorney to determine on a case by case basis when access to retail specific sales data is appropriate for elected officials for policy formation in compliance with either financial planning, economic development or business tax compliance. That's the proposed resolution with the business. To be notified when a specific elected official has reviewed their sales tax data. The specific business is not required to be notified, but the body is required to be notified. So we would our office would submit a letter notifying the board of Equalization that the designated official has been given the authority to look at the data. Listen, I'm comfortable with using this data on an economic development basis. I'm just concerned about the, you know, the SPI factor here and what ultimately could happen with this data. That's my concern. That's always been my concern. Are you relatively comfortable or more comfortable with this policy as it sits this evening? I think both ways are legal. So it's a policy decision for the Council to decide on. If you'd like to expand who has access to this data. And use this data, but we. Are comfortable that what is proposed as a draft resolution is a legal alternative for the Council to consider. Not so concerned about what? Well, I am concerned about what's legal, but are also concerned about what sound policy. So you're saying that the policy has as put forward tonight, as has a number of safeguards put in it? Yes, the safeguards that are put in it are notification to the individuals who are going to have access to this data. That misuse is is a misdemeanor. And then also the notification to the VOA. Obviously, there's always the chance that the data is misused or is released to those who aren't entitled to it. But we believe the resolution addresses those issues as as other cities have. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you. So if I go back to the initial discussion on this, I think some of the direction in the discussion was to see if there was a way to arrive at the outcome, the sought out outcome, without actually releasing that data to electeds. For example, if it were if we're discussing sales tax leakage, which was what I understood to be the purpose, could city staff craft a report based on the data to show where we need to place a specific area of focus? And I've seen that report and they did that. So the first question I have is, barring that that specific case where city staff can provide a report without actually exposing our city to that liability, what other circumstances would the city attorney need? And this is a question for you, Charlie. What circumstances would you anticipate the need to include that specific elected officials have that specific data that I. I don't have a specific example for you. I would anticipate that someone who is on or trained for economic development or business tax compliance may be asked to look at that data. But as a specific case, I don't have it. Okay. So then I'll ask the maker of the motion. I think we need to determine. I want to better understand. I don't think has been articulated clearly enough for me what the purpose of this is and the specific outcomes that we're seeking out by taking this path. Because, in my opinion, heading this pattern, heading down this path and exposing ourselves to potentially exposing ourselves to these this legal scrutiny needs to have a justified purpose and specific outcomes. And we need to evaluate other ways to get there before we take this. Like this is like the nuclear option, right? I think I would completely disagree. Councilmember Richardson. So help me understand a specific purpose and specific outcomes. Would our finance staff like to go through some of the details of our previous discussions which led us here? Or would you like me to take that? I'll turn it over to Leah ERICKSEN. To counsel women Mongo. There were just discussions trying to for the council women to understand better the picture. Of of sales tax and in terms of of. Trying to craft an. Economic development strategy. And she found that she couldn't couldn't ask. I couldn't give answers that provided some some. Of the specific data. So there were some scenarios. There where we could, using the current rules, tap dance around it. But this resolution provides. A little bit more broader access. The other thing other. Points were that the resolution. Doesn't clear right now. It does need to be changed because it doesn't clearly say economic. Development is allowed. So, you know, just to. Strengthen the resolution to allow economic development is is actually recommended by the administration, because that that was a of a concern of the older 1960 resolution, because it didn't quite specify that. I think times have changed over the years and how the data has been used as the chair of Economic Development Finance Committee. I could envision that the chair would have more more cause to be asking. But what would not. Happen with this data. Because of the controls that are put in this resolution, that we would not be turning over reports monthly? You know, with all the sales tax data, it would be on. A specific case by case basis related to council members official duties. And as the city attorney has mentioned, it would be disclosed publicly who has access? So what is this specific example of one of those questions that could not be answered? No, you can't do that. So specifically right now. I can't recall exactly the questions, but I've sat in rooms with John GROSS and Leah Erikson, and we've talked about potential revisions to the 1992 policy, which dictates the sales tax revenue agreements that we offer to organizations and businesses that can help grow our tax base. And there were several times during the conversation where he said we would be in an uncomfortable position answering that question at this time. So specifically, we lost Nordstrom Rack. What kind of financial economic impact does that have on the budget by quarter and annually? I can't answer that question. Why can't you answer that question? Because that would give too much information about a specific business. However, if you call a broker and most of the brokers and developers in the area will tell you a business of this type can bring in gross receipts of the state of the other. But our own city staff cannot tell us that information under the way the rule is currently written. However, what we're looking to do in this case is come forward with specific questions. Prepare them for John and the city attorney. The city attorney will review them and ensure that the questions are within the outlines of the updated resolution if we pass it here next week. Then we would take that information. He would be able to answer our questions and then we would be able to revise the policy. Currently, the policy to bring businesses here is very restrictive and we're in discussions with certain businesses that would like help but are would need a different and more diverse policy. And while we want to trust every business to bring forth information, it actually is quite a burden to them to gather and provide the data when it's easily available to our staff, and we're just not able to see it at this time. And so I'm also uncomfortable that in the past sales tax revenue agreements and the documentation were discussed with council. And from what I understand, we were kind of teetering on whether it was economic development or whether it was within the code of the 1976 resolution. So I think that this clears all of that up and puts us in a safer position. It allows the documentation of who's receiving what and when to be reviewed by the city attorney, which would be a public document which would be available to the public for public records requests. So I hope that that cleared that up. And I know that on your previous question, Councilmember Price, the maker of the motion, may have had something to add, and I know she's cued up next. So just to get clarity before I release the floor. The example, specific example you gave was a specific business leaving. How would that question inform a strategy to attract a similar business, to restore that sales tax that was lost? And secondly, I've been involved in conversations, numerous conversations with city management staff where I can ask a general question to bring a big box to the community. What is the general impact, sales tax impact that we will receive as a city? And they can give these numbers. They can say on average to bring you know, we would project to bring a best buy to the city of Long Beach. This is the impact to the general fund. This is this is what the benefit is. And so so I guess I would feel more comfortable just to bring this to where I would feel more comfortable if there was a larger discussion about specific purpose and goals of this policy before we start crafting out who gets what information, because that's a longer conversation and we're having an 11:00 at night and it's our second time attempting this while in general, I think I understand where you want to go, but this is the Constitution. The United States was put in place for certain protections. Right. And this bill, this law was put in place to protect the city. Right. And we can update it. We can certainly update it. But the reason has been in place since the 17th is to protect us from this liability. So it's warranted. The discussion is warranted. And I'll just end it there. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. Well, I appreciate all of your comments. Council Councilman Richardson and Councilman O'Donnell. I will say that staff put together a very comprehensive report here. It's it's dense. It takes a while to go through. But I think it's really educational in terms of what this resolution does. There is a lot of information that with this revised ordinance, staff will be able to provide for us by by virtue of the purpose of the data, which is economic development. It's all spelled out here under Section two. For the purposes of financial planning, economic development and business tax compliance, we will have access if you. Look at the page. 20 of 23 of the report that was prepared. I'm sorry. Page 22 of 23 of the report. It talks, for example, of economic activity reports. These are reports that staff will be able to provide for us without the city attorney having to make that determination on a case by case basis as to whether or not the electeds should have access to the information. So the circumstances wherein the electeds would make a request for access to information would be extremely rare, because if you look at the the data that would be provided by virtue of this ordinance, current sales tax performance and sales tax leakage by sector top 25 sales tax generators and top 25 fastest growing sales tax generators. If you go down to these number of business licenses issued, all of this data will be available to us as a council and on Economic Development Committee in terms of the economic activity reports. This data here doesn't require the city attorney to go in and do the case by case analysis to determine if the electeds would get access to certain information. So, like you, I wonder what would be the scenario where we as electeds would want to have specific data? I think that scenario would be very rare because what this information will allow us to do would be to draw some conclusions regarding trends and patterns and things in terms of leakage. I also note that the report is very inclusive in terms of talking about the amount of leakage. It's not as much as we talked about at the last time that we were here. They actually did a pretty thorough analysis of what the leakage really is and what specific industries we need to target as a city. So, you know, when. You look at what. The ordinance needs to be revised, I mean, it just does it's it's it's it's it's consolidating out of date language. And so it's consolidating and it's cleaning up. If you look under section two, the only part that impacts access to electeds is under subsection three, which says, furthermore, allow city attorney determine on a case by case basis when access to retail. Specific sales tax data is. Appropriate for elected officials for policy formation and decision making related to the above governmental functions and Grant said access so the city attorney would really have to determine is is a specific information about of one particular retailer something that cannot be provided under the access and public information type access that the city staff would have. Is it something that beyond goes above and beyond what we would get otherwise? And that would be his determination. And I think that puts into place a safeguard. So for me, I felt very comfortable with that particular language because I think it does take away what's a concern that many of us had, which is, you know, we don't want a specific elected to have access or to specific electeds to have access. That doesn't seem right. This would be all electeds would have access at the determination of the city attorney, which is a person that we entrust to make those calls. The other thing is that, you know, I think after reading this this memorandum, it really brought home to me that we actually, you know what, we actually pay our staff to have specialty in this area. And by revising the ordinance and requesting the regular economic reports, our staff is actually we're allowing them to do their job, which is something that that, frankly, we haven't really focused on in terms of this issue. So I think our staff is more than capable of doing the analysis here and directing us as a council on where we can improve our leakage issues. But I do want to say that, you know, if you look at it very broadly and take it out of context and think, oh, my gosh, electeds are going to have access to sales tax data, then it does sound a lot more concerning. But if you look at the actual language, I'm comfortable with it because of the city attorney safeguard. Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell. You know, I'm going to I'm going to pass on this again. My my main concern is not that we update an ordinance and not that we allow staff, especially the economic side, to have the information they need to do their job. That, to me is a no brainer. It has always been the specific allowance for elected officials to review specific tax data from specific businesses. That's always given me a scare. So with that, I think I've made my point, and I think the city attorney's drawn up some some some language to address some concerns. Thank you. Captain Ranga. And I'll make this very short. As a third wheel in the in the in the committee. I too, raised those questions when we were having a committee meeting, and I was very much impressed with the fact that this. Ordinance has, as it is currently proposed, it does cover those safeguards. It's more of a it protects. The elected officials. In regards to reviewing any kind of data and where and what they're going to do with. It. It's a it's a also a proactive way of allowing the city when we're looking at establishing an economic development and business development department. We need to have this in order to be able to go out and attract businesses to come into Long Beach knowing what the tax base is going to be. It's a predictor. And I think if we are able to know what we need to go after, for example, auto sales or retail sales. We can we can use. That data to to. Go after. A Nordstrom's again or maybe put them in a better location. We have that that information there that will only be accessible. At the at the. Recommendation of the city attorney, because we want to see that that and we want we want to approach these companies. So that that's. How it's helpful. And I think. Without this ordinance. Our economic development department, newly created, will be able to have the tools in order to do that. In terms of. Projections for what a company. That wants to come or relocate into line with can can do. So I support this this amendment. And finally, we have Councilman Richardson. So I just wanted to chime in and say I think that so I think it's number one is bold, very bold and courageous. And I think this is a very worthwhile discussion. So I want to just say thank you for driving this. And but I feel like it is my responsibility to bring up some of these questions and talk through it. I do understand committees go through some of this stuff and they do. And this is just a big issue. We're all passionate about it, all interested in it. I think I want to encourage you to keep pushing and keep driving. I think what ultimately is going to come through this process, what ultimately is going to come out is going to benefit every part of the city. So I do want to just jump out jump out and say I do acknowledge I do acknowledge and admire your effort on this. Councilmember Mundo. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Parker, in your final comment. Yes, Mayor, remember that just for point clarification. The motion, then, as I understand it, will direct the city attorney to prepare and bring back to the council a revised resolution. There's been discussion here of an ordinance. There is no actual ordinance that is related to this. It's a resolution. And so if this motion carries today, our office would bring it the next scheduled meeting, a resolution back to the council. Excellent. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? CNN members, please cast your vote. Motion carries nine votes. Yes. Okay. We're going to have a new business council in Boston.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to initiate a visioning effort for the Downtown Shoreline Planned Development (PD-6) zoning district as the framework for a Downtown Shoreline Specific Plan that updates current development regulations and facilitates repositioning of existing uses and resources in the Downtown Shoreline area; and Increase appropriation in the Tidelands Operations Fund Group in the Development Services Department by $250,000, offset funds available. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_10222019_19-1069

Some have folks are in the audience and I'm going to try to get to these at the start of the agenda as much as possible. We're going to go ahead and here, item 19, please be quick. Item 19 is a report from the Development Services recommendation to initiate a visioning effort for the downtown Shoreline Planet Development Zoning District, District two. Thank you, Mr. Modica. Can we get to just a short staff presentation? I think the. The staff reporters. Who have been taught staff report. By Linda Tatum and Christopher Coons. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the council. This is a presentation regarding a proposed visioning process for the downtown shoreline area. And. Excuse me. The downtown plan is the success of the downtown plan owes a lot of its success to the effort that the city took to actually conduct a visioning process before enacting the plan. So we'd like to do something similar with the downtown, with the PD six area. The PD six is that area one of the most scenic areas in the city on the waterfront? It is. Let's see. Thank you, Tom. There we go. Pediatrics area was last updated by the city back in the 1980s, and it is the area south of Ocean between the Los Angeles River and Alameda Street there. And it contains some of the most visited sites in the city. And since the city's announcement or the city's selection for the 2028 Olympics, there has been an intense level of interest in development activity in the PD six area. So the city is going to take advantage of that interest and conduct a visioning exercise for this. This property and that process will be very similar to what we did for the the downtown plant. It was a very community oriented, a lot of community engagement. So I'll walk you through very briefly what that process will look like. The objectives of this process is to establish a stakeholder, a very strong community outreach effort. We would identify stakeholders to essentially establish a consensus about the future development within the PD six area. The other objective is to strengthen the connections between this area and the downtown. Right now there is. We could do a much better job of getting those that visit the shoreline area to come into the downtown and vice versa. So that will be one of the objectives of the visioning exercise. Fundamentally, the other purpose of this process would be to establish a framework so that we can subsequently prepare a specific plan. And it is the specific plan that will be very similar to what we did in the downtown in terms of establish some key goals and developing consensus around how we can best enhance that area and enhance provide the kinds of activities and spur investment in that area. And that process would essentially be led by a consultant and driven by a consultant and staff guided process. The idea would we would have a series of committees or working groups that would represent various stakeholder groups in the community and develop consensus around some of the topics and some of the objectives of the plan or of the process. We would also conduct economic trends analysis with the idea being to identify the opportunities in the area as well as some of the strengths that we can build on in the shoreline area. In terms of a timeline. Very briefly, we envision this to be about an 18 month process and that would start up early 2020. And the very next steps in this process is staff will be working with the city manager's office and with the mayor's office in the next couple of months. And we will be bringing back to council in December a very detailed work program and a schedule for this effort. We would work to start selecting a consultant to to guide this process, working with staff sometime in early 2020 and then initiate the working groups in the second quarter of 2020. So that's essentially an overview of that process. We look forward to engaging the community, resident groups, business groups, property owners, waterfront interests to make sure that as we establish some kind of a consensus about how we can best invest in that area and capitalize and have a specific plan in place by the time 2028 rolls around. And we host the 2028 Olympics here in Long Beach. That concludes the staff presentation, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you very much. A great presentation. The only thing I will add is that obviously updating our are different plans across the city has been a priority. I really want to thank the staff for presenting this and bringing this forward. Anything councilmember pearce will agree, pd six is a critical piece of of our of our infrastructure and our economy and the area. And so I just want to thank you for the work, Councilman Pearce. I too, want to thank you guys for the work. I know that we've done visioning just at the Rainbow Lagoon area and understand the process before us. Just like in downtown, when we did the downtown plan, we saw that it invited so much new developments. We see that we had, I think, up to eight cranes in our downtown over the last several years. And so we welcome this process again with this area. I'd like to just highlight that one of the things that has been important to my district is the fact that a lot of it is shared with tourists and making sure that when we develop these areas that we're really inviting the rest of Long Beach to come to our waterfront. And we're saying that this is your waterfront and everything that we can do to try to make sure that transportation is accessible, that when we're updating our plans, we're looking at community benefit agreements and things like that , ways that we can ensure that the development will be inclusive and diverse. So really looking forward to the process. Thanks for everything that you guys have done so far. Appreciate it. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. I support the study. Thank you, Councilmember Gringo. I know you guys are ready to dot the I's and cross the t's. However, this is within the coastal zone. Is that correct? So we exist within our local coastal plan, the LCP. Yes. This would require an action and approval by the the Coastal Commission. I'm guessing that you're going to have a timeframe timeline to bring it to the Coastal Commission in the near future. Date in the future. Yes, we will include that in the the memo that comes the council that outlines the process in some detail. We will kind of outline the steps of the visioning process and the subsequent specific plan process, because it's the specific planning process that will be subject to the coastal action, not the visioning process itself. I just want to make sure that we are timely on this. Obviously the Coastal Commission has its own schedule and I want to make sure that we have the time to have an opportunity to where to count to the commission when we are here locally, whether Long Beach or somewhere in the in the southern region. Thank you. Councilmember. Mr.. Good to hear any public comment. No. Members, please cast your votes. Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman Mongo. Ocean cares.

Recommendation to receive and file a report on the City’s pension costs and trends impacted by changes implemented by the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) Board over the past several years. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09102019_19-0802

Ocean carries. Thank you. And now we will be doing item 20, please, which is a report. I know we pushed back a couple of weeks because of the time, but I'm going to have to turn it over to Mr. Modica to introduce and we'll hear this report. Thank you very much. This isn't a request that came from the Budget Oversight Committee as part of their diligence during the budget season. They really look at a number of different things, including our liabilities, and they ask that this get presented to the city council. So with that, I will turn it over to Grayson to go through the presentation. Great. Thank you, Tom. Good evening, Mayor and members of the city council. As Tom mentioned tonight, I will be providing a presentation on CalPERS. This was a presentation provided to the Budget Oversight Committee on July 23rd and was requested by the PSC to be presented to the full City Council. Over the past few years, CalPERS has implemented several changes to its investment strategy, an expected return designed to address the plan's unfunded liabilities and to ensure its long term fiscal sustainability. First, CalPERS adopted changes to its amortization and rate smoothing policy, which began to impact our FY 16 budget. The new rate smoothing approach is intended to eliminate the city's unfunded liability. Back then, it was in 30 years, but also exposes the city to a higher volatility in annual costs. Second, CalPERS also changed the demographic assumptions which began to impact the F.B.I. 17 budget assumptions such as mortality reflected a population that is living longer and thus collecting pension benefits over longer periods of time. Third, the board adopted a new risk mitigation strategy, which was originally slated to impact the FY18 budget. The board felt that their current investment strategy was too volatile with too much risk. So the risk mitigation strategy was implemented to slowly, over time, make the city's investment mix more conservative. Then in December 2016, CalPERS voted to lower the actuarial assumed investment rate, also known as the discount rate from the current 7.5% to 7% over three years. With the first year impacting our FY19 rates, this was done to reflect the expectation of the lower rate of returns over time. Predicted by CalPERS investment advisors for the calculation impacting our Fy20 budget. The discount rate assumption was lowered to 7.25%. The full impact of this change will be realized in Fy21 when the discount rate drops to 7%. At this time, the risk mitigation strategy was put on hold until the end of the three year period, lowering the discount rate and is slated to start back up for FY 21. Finally, most recently in 2018, CalPERS adopted changes to their amortization policy. Currently, investment gains or losses are amortized over 30 years, but this new change will shorten that period to 20 years and will start to impact our fy22 rates. The projections you see in this presentation and also included in the FY 20 adopted budget now factors in all of these changes. To address the challenge of rising pension costs. Several pension reform initiatives have been implemented both by the city and the state. Without these proactive initiatives, the city situation would have been much worse. In 2006, the city lowered the benefit formula for miscellaneous employees, also through negotiations and with the partnership of our bargaining units. By 514, all employees began paying their full employee contribution rate, which had previously been partly subsidized by the city. Then Peprah was passed by the state, which implemented new benefit formulas and new contribution requirements for employees hired on or after January 1st, 2013. Then in FY14, the city created and funded the CalPERS Stabilization Fund. This fund was an innovative approach to addressing some of the challenges we had with budget planning. This fund, however, has been discontinued as the most recent risk mitigation approach adopted by CalPERS PERS has made it unlikely that this fund will be replenished in the way that it was originally envisioned. And lastly, the city made a decision to make an early payment of the unfunded liability portion for FY 18. This was done again for the FY19 and FY 20 budgets. The FY 20 adopted budget now is estimated to save approximately 1.7 million to the general fund and 2.8 million all funds. All of these changes made by CalPERS put the city on a path to pay down its unfunded liability and strengthens the long term sustainability of the fund. However, this has also meant significant cost increases for the city over the past few years. Our pension cost increases in the general fund has been a significant cost driver. The good news is, while the costs are expected to continue to increase, the rate of growth is expected to slow and then peak in FY 31 and then start to actually decrease slowly thereafter. This table reflects the employer contribution rate as a percentage of payroll for safety and miscellaneous employees. As you can see, the rates are anticipated to grow until 531. Pension costs at these levels will be and has been a challenge to fund. But this is putting us on the right track towards paying down our unfunded liabilities and being in a better fiscal position to meet our obligations. And as mentioned before, after 531, our costs are projected to go down. Investment returns have an impact on the pension costs. So an important point to recognize is that even when investment returns are good, with all of the changes that CalPERS has made, our costs will still be expected to increase. Additionally, in the years beyond Fy21, because of the new risk mitigation methodology adopted by CalPERS, any significant gains the city experiences will partially be used to further lower the investment mix to be less risky by lowering the assumed rate of return rather than reflecting reduced costs for the city. Pension costs are not our only unfunded liability. There are three other major employer related unfunded liabilities, including retiree sick leave to pay retiree health insurance premiums, retiree health insurance subsidies and workers compensation. The city currently has 1.4 billion in these unfunded liabilities summarized in the table. Unfunded liabilities are cost for services already delivered but not paid for in full. The principal causes are generally lower than expected investment earnings on system assets, benefit enhancements that were made retroactive, and underfunding the amounts of the unfunded liabilities will vary from year to year based on these factors. For pension, the city will be again on track to pay off the unfunded pension liability. Now, in approximately 25 years for the miscellaneous plan, it is 76.4% funded and for the safety plan, it is 80.7% unfunded. The city with the support and leadership of the Mayor and City Council has worked hard over the past few years to implement strong financial policies and strategies to address these unfunded liabilities. We will continue to look for cost control strategies, explore ways to increase pension funding, and continue to adhere to strong financial policies that will keep us on track with recognizing and addressing our unfunded liabilities. And lastly, before I close, I wanted to address some common misperceptions regarding the city's pension plan that was requested by the BBC. One misperception is that pension benefit formulas continue to be very high to employees with no change or no reform that has been done. The reality is, with the state pension reform benefit, plans were also significantly reduced for new employees, and contributions that they are required to pay has increased. The miscellaneous formula is 2% at 62 for Pepper employees, and the safety formula is 2.7 at 57. As more employees become pepper, employees cost to the city will continue to decrease. Another misperception is that pension costs are increasing again, because benefits are increasing. And I just want to reiterate that pension benefits have not increased and rather decreased for new employees, and pension costs are increasing because we are working to pay down our unfunded liabilities and because of the various changes implemented by CalPERS as described in this presentation. Another misperception is that employees pay nothing towards their pension. The reality is employees pay a contribution rate required by CalPERS for classic employees safety, pay 9% of their principal wage, and miscellaneous employees pay 8% of the principal wage. And after the state reform that took effect in 2013, Peprah employees pay 50% of the normal cost rate for safety employees. That's currently 12% of their principal wage. And for miscellaneous, that's 6.5% of their principal wage. And lastly, another misperception is that the city will be paying these higher pension costs forever with no solution or end in sight. And while it is true that costs have been high, as noted in the presentation, we are on a path to pay down our unfunded liabilities. And also we're already seeing this, but the rate of increase is starting to slow down again. We are expected to peak around 531 and then it is anticipated that the cost will decrease after that. That concludes my presentation and I'm available for questions. Thank you, Miss Yoon. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. Oh, I want to thank our PSC chair, Stacy Mango for allowing us to have this presentation. Initially at BFC, we all felt it was very important to have this topic come to the full council. I think all three of us spoke at length and asked a lot of questions at the BFC meeting but were helpful that our colleagues who did not get that presentation at the time will have the opportunity to ask questions regarding this very substantial issue facing the city tonight. And that's why we felt it was important to bring it to your attention. As I said during the BFC meeting, and as I'll repeat again today, I believe that our pension liabilities are. Of huge concern. We're certainly not alone. There are many other municipalities that have to address the unfunded liabilities that are attributable to pensions in in the coming years. But as many of you will know, that these numbers continue to change for the city. And really, we have limited control in terms of what we are able to do in terms of managing the payback options and the impacts to the city. Every time CalPERS makes an adjustment, it impacts really what our projections look like and what the projections for our overall budget looks like for, in this case, decades to come. So we talked at the PSC meeting about the possibility of the city paying more into our unfunded liabilities so that we can get ourselves to a place where we're, we're. Looking more stable earlier than in the 2040 era, because it wasn't too long ago that we were looking at being more stable in the 2025 to 2030 era. So as a result of the changes that CalPERS has made, of course, now we're looking at liabilities that are really going to be taxing us as a city into the 2040 era. I think this our pension obligations should be at the forefront of every conversation we have regarding the budget. This is an absolute burden for the city as it is for many cities. We're certainly not alone and in fact, we've done more and more aggressively than many cities have. You know, we we we were the first to take pension reform to a different level, especially in the area of law enforcement and public safety. We were the first to really set some trends in regards to employee pick ups and the rates that we were looking at in terms of our pension obligation. Having said that, we find ourselves in a position now where our budget, our annual budget can be severely impacted as a result of CalPERS making modifications and changing their calculations. So I, I wanted all of I'm going to stop talking now because I talked at length about this at BMC, and I'm sure you can go back and watch it if you're interested in hearing what some of my questions were. But I wanted to make sure that my council colleagues had an opportunity to ask questions and understand really the reality of this issue. It's a significant issue. And I think if we don't have this on the forefront of our minds in our budgeting, the commitments that we have similar to the commitments that you would have in a family mortgage or other family expense, will overtake our ability to fund some of the necessities that we have in the city. So with that, I defer to my colleagues to engage Yoon in this presentation, and thank you, Ms.. Ewan, for bringing it back, and thank you for coming back on multiple Tuesdays, because I know this is such an important topic. I wanted us all to be awake and alert when we're hearing the presentation because I think like many other cities, it really is the topic of the decade. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I want to thank the city staff for this presentation. I think that page eight really sums it up. I think it's important important for us to know all of our unfunded liabilities, not just the pension liability, but the the complete package of what we are responsible for providing, whether this council or previous councils committed to it. The city had made a commitment. So I think it's important that we know and understand what those look like. I think it's a broader conversation about how we handle it. I've had discussions at length with our budget division and there are cities who have made investments of buying down that debt sooner, only to see a downturn in the economy. And then they're thought to have made a terrible mistake. Other cities who try to buy down that debt sooner and experience a boom in the economy and are thought to be brilliant. And really timing has more to do with the decision outcome than the actual decision of investing in itself. And so. I think that we need to be prudent. I think we need to recognize that we have a commitment with an organization where the decisions that they make are really influencing us. So we need to, as an elected body, focus on and pay attention to the economy, the returns we're getting as a system, and then the influencers of that system and the policy by which they make investments on behalf of our employees. It is of the utmost importance that their focus remain on investment returns because it is us at the city level that get the opportunity to focus on programs and policies that improve the entirety of our region. And yet. Those policies and end programs would potentially need to be cut because of investment strategies at a higher level that could could impact us. And so I think that we need to keep this in mind, perhaps as a part of our state legislation discussion or state legislation committee. Perhaps that's the appropriate place for us to follow that legislation as we move forward and also follow the PERS board, which is not technically a legislation but another state entity. So thank you for my colleagues on the Council for their continued efforts to know and understand what liabilities we have ahead of us and continue to work hand in hand with our labor partners to solve these important issues. Thank you. Controversy for now. Thank you. And thanks for the report, Ms.. Yoon. Great job. I want to follow up on what actually both my colleagues said. First, the point about the changing calculations are miscalculations. I think Senate bill is it too 66 just hit the news cycle yesterday. So I won't put you on the spot tonight for a comment. But moving forward, should that bill become law, it'd be nice to have a follow up either to from for Memo or maybe another study session on that in particular. Thank you. Thank you. There's no public comment on this, but I'm going to go ahead and just add that. Also want to think, I think we're finding Steph has done a really good job of, um, you know, keeping the back myself, keeping the counsel informed about what our entire liability picture looks like. I think it's something that obviously oftentimes the community may not have the complete picture in. And the way, you know, CalPERS impacts us depending on what happens year to year and depending on the markets. I will also say that the state has over the last few years certainly provided a pretty robust framework for for how we we pay back our payments and they've given us additional flexibility as the years move forward. And so I think we appreciate that. And I think that it's important for folks to know that we we make significant payments every year. And and and I think that's something that we will continue to do and we should do. And I think that counts on Mongo is right that a lot of of how our our liability looks is really dependent on on on risk taking and what happens year to year. But I want to just commend you for the plan we have. And the truth is, is that right now we are making these these investments in the future, because those that will see the benefit of us paying down these liabilities over the next ten or 20 years are really going to be the next generation of young people that are in our city that won't have this this level of liability in front of them. And so that those investments can be made directly back into programs in parks and then the things that we love in our city. And so it is the right thing to do and it's also the legally mandated thing to do. It's both those things. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. It took me a while to hit the button. I was breaking down some of these slides. So on slide nine. And first of all, thank you for this presentation. And it's a big issue. You know, I remember when we accomplished the first pension reform, you know, when Mayor Foster was here and and we learned a lot. But but I think this is a sort of a what you show on these slides. It really shows that the next, you know, 12 years, 11, 12 years are going to be the decisions we make are going to be incredibly important. So I see on the second bullet on page nine in terms of moving forward and says continue to explore ways to increase pension funding further, which reduces cost, how are we working on this strategy now and when can we get some feedback from staff on, you know, I know what our obligations are, but if the idea is we're going to sort of pay in advance, I think the sooner and the more regular regularly we hear about this, the better we can plan and prepare for it. So is there a schedule or cadence that you'll get back to us about some of these ideas that you're exploring? Certainly. So we do explore different options and work with our consultants and independent consultants on CalPERS as well as the contacts we have at CalPERS themselves. They do have become come out with offering more options that city cities have to potentially pay into a trust or pay down or pay earlier into their unfunded liabilities. There are some potentially unintended consequences with that or risks that the city may not want to take. So that is something we're continuing to explore at this time. That's not something we have recommended. But as we continue to work with our CalPERS partners, that's something we are going to look into and we can report back to city council if things change. And then the slide councilmember, if I may, talks about pension, but we have other unfunded liabilities as well. And so those strategies might also be a way that we address some of the health care liabilities that are on the books. Long Beach is very fortunate in that we have comparatively very small health care liabilities compared to some cities that offer, for example, lifetime medical. So are not is a lot smaller. But we do need to be thinking about some of those as well. Sure. Just, you know, when when I anticipate a big bill coming down, you know, there's always where do I get more money and where do I save costs? I see a lot about where do we save costs? But we got to also focus on how do we grow revenue and and intentionally say, hey, if we anticipate through economic development or whatever it is, one of the first things we pay on new revenue isn't the next great idea. It's the tuck away for unfunded liability. So whatever plan we come up with, I love to see an economic development strategy that says we're going to do our best to grow revenue that we can receive and set aside for this. So that's what I'd be looking for as we move forward. Thanks a lot. Thank you. And with that, we do have a motion in a second to receive and filed this report. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. With that, we are going to go. I don't see anyone. I don't have a sheet for the second public comment period. No one signed up for it. So with that, let me go to new business. Is there any new business concern we ringa.

AN ORDINANCE granting Swedish Health Services permission to continue operating and maintaining a pedestrian tunnel under and across Minor Avenue, between Columbia Street and Marion Street, for a ten-year term, renewable for two successive ten-year terms; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_02122018_CB 119189

Very good. Any further questions? All those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Please read the Sustainability and Transportation Committee report. The report at the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item six Accountable 119189 Granting Swedish Health Services permission to continue operating. Maintaining a pedestrian tunnel under an across Miner Avenue between Columbia Street and Marion Street for a ten year term renewal for two successive ten year terms specify the conditions under which the permit is granted, providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions and ratifying, confirming research and prior acts. Committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. This is. This legislation regards a pedestrian tunnel that connects two buildings up on the Swedish campus. This would replace a permit that had previously been granted but has expired. And as the title states, this would be for a ten year term permit, which could be renewed up to for up to two successive ten year permits . Have periods after that for a total of 30 years. Very good. Any comments? If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Sarah O'Brien. I want. Bakeshop Gonzales I Herbold High Johnson. I. Juarez High Harrell High nine in favor and unopposed. Bill passed show assignment please read a matter number seven.

Recommendation to adopt resolution declaring fiscal hardship for FY 20 and FY 21 under Measure B, authorizing the use of up to 50 percent of Measure B reserves. (A-15)

LongBeachCC_09082020_20-0874

Motion carries. Item number 15. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to adopt a resolution declaring fiscal hardship for fiscal year 20 and FY 21 under Measure B, authorizing the use of up to 50% of Measure B reserves. Exhibit 15. Yeah. There's a motion in section by offset in price. Roll call vote, please. District one i. District two. I. District three i. District for. My. District five i. District six. I. District seven i. District eight i. District nine. Right. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. We have two final budget votes, but for those budget votes to occur, the Budget Office needs to update the numbers and final motions that were created, obviously, by the council tonight as part of the final budget document. So what we will do now is just take a break from the budget hearing and go to the regular agenda of the council. And the budget team will make sure that the final documents are prepared, sent around so that we have the final votes and the updated contents. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and go to the council agenda and we'll go through the remainder of the items. Madam Clerk, are you ready to get through the rest of the council meeting? Yes. Okay. Then let's go to item 17.

Recommendation to cancel the December 1, 2020 City Council meeting, or to receive direction from the City Council to lay over certain items from the November 17 meeting to the December 1, 2020 meeting. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11172020_20-1143

I'm sorry. Can you repeat that number? Item 79. Report from City Manager, a recommendation to cancel the December 1st first 2020 city council meeting or layover certain items from November 17th meeting to the December 31st 2020 meeting citywide. And I'm going to change it. Of course, we've just got a few items we'll after we've actually done a really solid job of getting through the meeting we're going to and we're going to get through, it looks like, pretty quickly after that. So we'll go ahead and do the cancelation of motion in a second, please. In a motion in a second floor council on Wednesday. House and customary ringa with no public comment. Or is there any public comment on this? Yes, we have public comment for item 79. Tiffany Davey. Good evening to you. I just want to thank everyone for doing I mean, countless amount of hours that went into this meeting and the discussion on all the really, truly important matters. Just know that yesterday. We had a significant. Mark in our COVID response and we're putting the brakes on and. I want to thank everyone for moving item 77 from the committee on together. And I know that. We all look forward to the day. We were able to put this all behind us. But knowing that that day is not here. Yet and we need to listen to the new day, new administration possible. I mean, just the possibility of a national plan to combat the coronavirus that would ensure the safety of all Americans and make everyone's job easier in managing this crisis. My heart remains with the family and loved ones of the 246,232 Americans who lost their lives. To this violence killing. Thank you, everyone. Have a good evening. Stay safe and wear a mask. Your next speaker is Dave Shukla. Hello. I can't believe I made it this far. And today's meeting? I was expecting it to go so much later that efficiently. It is drawing to a close. And I suppose the mood, unless you actually want to have more than one meeting in a month. Um. There's a lot at. Decisions that frankly the public. You some. You know, maybe. You know. Contact and representation from their elected. Official forum. But, you know, I believe in the name. We all want it. Move on with whatever our plans are, right. It's disappointing that a lot of the major decisions in this city continually are made by, you know. Small facts in the minority rule, but whatever. I mean, your children are going to pay for it, right? Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. That concludes public comment. Before we go to Councilman Pearce. I guess we had spoken to staff earlier and I was under the assumption that we did have some items that were going for December the first. So I'd like to. Make sure that item number 59 because we told them not to present tonight to present on December one, that we move that to December eight. So I know that that's not this item, but it's. Yeah. Councilor, I was just going to announce that that's been withdrawn. All you have to do is just reschedule it for that day. Yeah. I don't love listening. More meetings, but. Okay. Get roll call. Vote, please. District one. I District two. I am district three i. District four, i. District five. By District 6i7. District eight. I mean. All right. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Just a couple more items. 58, please.

A RESOLUTION calling for review of current methods for collecting data on Native Communities, and potential strategies for improving such data collection, and exploration of the need for capacity-building for organizations seeking to assist Native Communities.

SeattleCityCouncil_02262018_Res 31801

Agenda Item two Resolution 31801. Calling for a review of current methods for collecting data on Native communities and potential strategies for improving such data collection and exploration of the need for capacity building for organizations seeking to assist. Native Communities Committee recommends that the resolution be adopted. Councilmember Wallis. Thank you, President Harrell. First off, I'd like to recognize that when we had our committee meeting hearing last Wednesday, it was a historic day and that we had elected tribal leadership at the table. But it was also historic because it was the first time that we've actually had Native American service providers who actually provide services in the city of Seattle for our Native American brothers and sisters at the table. Saladin Health Board. Mother Nation. Chief Seattle. I'm forgetting someone. United Indians. For the first time in municipal government, best of our knowledge has formalized a legislative voice for native leaders, native social service providers and the tribes. This resolution requests that all city departments begin collecting meaningful demographic data on our city's native populations. It came to my attention that many of our city departments do not have a practice of collecting demographic data of our people. Current practices do not accurately reflect the lived experience of native of the native population or allow service providers to satisfy all of our residents unmet needs. It's critical we have this information captured to best understand how our native communities are affected by homelessness and housing affordability, health care, access to justice and education. We also have the concurrence of my major I'm sorry, Mayor Durkan, on this resolution. For that, I ask and urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Thank you, Councilmember. Whereas any further questions on this resolution? I just want to say. COUNCILMEMBER whereas thank you for. But in the midst of this controversial issue we just passed really thinking through and sort of peeling the onion back a little more to seeing what we can do to support native native communities in terms of capacity building and the investments which I'm sure you will argue for during the budget. During budget, I am going to be all up in it. Okay. Thank you very much for that. Having said that, all those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions dropped in chair will sign it. Very good. Thank you. Um. So. I'm sorry. Adoption of other resolutions. I don't think we have any other resolutions. So other business. So we do have a matter for other business that would have to describe. So pursuant to our S.W. 41.5 6.160. And in order for the City of Seattle to achieve compliance with the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission's order Indecision 12809, the clerk will now read the following notice into the record, and I turn the mic over to the Madam Clerk. Notice to your employee stated What gives you the right to form joiner assistant employee organization bargain collectively with your employer through a union chosen by a majority of employees. Refrain from any and all of these activities except you may be required to make payments to a union or charity under a lawful union security provision. The Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission conducted a legal proceeding and ruled that the city of Seattle committed to unfair legal practice and ordered us to post this notice to employees. We unlawfully refused to bargain by establishing the wage rate for the PSM assigned crew coordinator position without providing the union with notice of an opportunity for bargaining . We unlawfully established the selection procedure to fill the permanent PSM assigned crew coordination position without providing the union notice and an opportunity to bargain to remedy our unfair labor practices. We will give notice and upon request, negotiate in good faith with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 77 over the effects of our decision to create the PSM assigned crew coordinator position. Thank you very much. A copy of the notice will be appended to the minutes of this meeting, as required by the agency's order. That concludes that matter. Is there any further business coming for the Council? If not we stand in your would have a great rest of the day.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Mercer Arena; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Center Department to execute a third amendment to the Mercer Arena Ground Lease between the City of Seattle and Seattle Opera; and lifting a budget proviso.

SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_CB 118726

Bill passed and the chair will sign it. Report the Park, Shell Center, Libraries and Waterfront Committee. The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee Agenda Item nine Council Bill 118726 relating to the Mercer Arena authorizing the director of the Seattle Center Department to execute a Third Amendment to the Mercer Arena, groundless between the City of Seattle and Seattle Opera. And lifting a budget proviso, the committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember Suarez. Thank you. I actually have three matters. Items nine, ten and 11. And let's just get this done. First of all, I want to thank Council President Harrell, my trustee, vice chair and Councilmember Bagshaw, and thank all the people that provided public comment for the last seven months to all three of these very important items that make our city, our waterfront and our parks so great. The first one approves a proviso limit of 200,000 that will advance a budget allocation of 4.8 million in the 2017 budget. For the development of the new project by the Seattle Opera on the Seattle Center campus, the sale opera will construct a new facility, a just adjacent to McCaw Hall . The new building will operate as a new home to the administration offices and their costume shop. The construction of the space will include development of additional open space for the public and community, space for education and community programs. The city will retain ownership of the new facility and the property underneath. This will add to the portfolio of Active Art Spaces and Seattle Center and open space for the public around Uptown and create more opportunities for involvement in the arts for the underrepresented for underrepresented communities. The committee report recommends that the full council pass council bill. This Council bill. Thank you. Councilman words. Are there any comments from any of my colleagues? I'd like to just commend the committee and council members and certainly the community and Robert Dellums for all of this work to sort of make this happen. We are looking at our investments very seriously, and we realize we do have a gem in both the opera and the Mercer Arena. So I think exciting things are on the horizon. So I'm excited about supporting this resolution. Actually this bill and the other comments. Please call a role on the passage of the bill. O'Brien. All right. Sergeant Burgess. I. Gonzales. I. Johnson. Whereas I. Herbold President Harrell. I paid in favor and then opposed. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Next matter place.

A resolution approving a proposed Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and CAGSPI 4650, LLC to meet the city’s warehousing and storage needs while preserving future development opportunities located at 4650 Steele Street. Approves a lease agreement with CAGSPI 4650, LLC for $7,854,353.98 and for 87 months with an option to purchase, to lease approximately 120,907 square feet to meet the city’s warehousing and storage needs while preserving future development opportunities of the site, located at 4650 Steele Street in Council District 9 (FINAN 201950262). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-26-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-23-19.

DenverCityCouncil_08122019_19-0698

Thank you, Councilwoman. And I apologize. And thank you, Councilwoman Black, for grabbing. I totally missed it. But Councilman Hines and Councilwoman Torres, did you buzz in on the last ones? So, Mr. Steinberg, if you might come back up. I'm sorry about that. Councilman Hines, you want to go ahead? Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a quick question. We do not have the funds today to purchase this property. Is that correct? Correct. And but that is something that we're that we have the option and we're considering to do at some point in the future. Yeah. The lease itself has options that commence at month 18 and continue every six months until month 54 for a fixed purchase price. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Royce. That was the same question I had. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Thank you. And apologies again for missing you on that one. All right. I believe that brings us to quick real quick. Real quick. Councilman CdeBaca. What is that purchase price at 18 months? At 18 months, the purchase price is $10 million. And then every six month period thereafter, it increases by two and a half percent.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 725 West 39th Avenue. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 725 West 39th Avenue from I-A, UO-2 and I-B, UO-2 (Industrial 3,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. zone lot; Use Overlay allowance for billboard) to C-MX-20 (Urban Center, Mixed Use, 20 stories) in Council District 9 IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-9-15.

DenverCityCouncil_03292016_15-0937

The public hearing for Councilor Bill 937, as amended, is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Tim Watkins, Community Planning Development Case Manager for rezoning case number 2050 934 Property located in North Denver Council District nine. In the southwest quadrant of the Globeville neighborhood and specifically within the 41st of Fox station area. In fact, very close to the platform, as you can see here in this vicinity graphic, you see the property outlined in red just adjacent south to the 41st and Fox Station Area Platform Park. And you see the pedestrian bridge connecting Globeville to Sunnyside and Highland neighborhoods where continued pedestrian access has been made possible with a pedestrian bridge that is shown at 38th and anchor, which connects pedestrians further south to the city of Cordova Car Park in the South Platte River. The Gold line of transit line will connect from Denver Union Station North with this being the first stop to the north sometime this year in 2016. And there's also RTD bus Route eight, which connects along Fox Street between downtown North Denver and into Adams County. Fox Street is also anticipated as a future study for future bike route. Here's another view of the station, park and ride and infrastructure platform and pet bridge that's under construction and soon to open. And here's the property. The request is for 1.44 acres to be zoned. Access would be at 40th Avenue from Fox Street to the property via 40th Avenue, and the owners requesting zoning that would allow for transit oriented development. The current zoning is I.B. or heavy industrial with the yellow two billboard use overlay and a or light industrial also with a billboard use overlay and the requested zone district is c mixed 20 or urban center mixed use with the 20 storey maximum. This is a zone district that encourages compact, walkable and diverse uses that can be supported by collector arterial streets and multimodal transit, and is intended with design standards to encourage street active uses and pedestrian scale at ground level uses that very much complement pedestrian activity along walkable streets in a transit oriented development environment and up to 20 storeys. Look at the existing land use context is predominantly industrial today. However, that is changing. And just as an example, the area north of the site is shown is industrial. Our current land use mapping, but that is converting to parking, transit or in development facility to support surrounding redevelopment and transitional use into mixed use development. There are also some vacant properties, parking areas and a little bit of scattering of commercial retail and even a few multi-family low rise. Users in the area. The site is shown here in the center in plan view. To the north you see the park and ride facility under construction and advanced stages of construction. To the east is light industrial parking and retail. To the west as industrial and the rail corridor. And to the south is industrial use. The applicant has reached out to the. Registered neighborhood organizations listed here. And that has resulted in a letter of support from United Community Action Network. Or you can and all of the written and posted notice requirements have been met. And this was a case that came before council with a request for. A modified request to modify the application, which Council approved on February 29th, and the hearing was rescheduled to this evening. Let's look at the review criteria beginning with consistency with adopted plans. Comp Plan 2000 encourages conserving land by promoting infill development and promote sustainable centers of live work activity through mixed use development, especially near transit station areas to provide for diverse housing needs and in correlation with public transportation. The concept land is a blueprint. Denver is transit oriented development, which is land use that correlates directly with mass transit, encourages a balance mix of uses ranging from compact mid to high densities. And this is in an area of change where there are public benefits can be achieved by channeling growth. To these areas, such as improved transit, access for jobs, housing and services, and fewer and shorter automobile trips. Blueprint Denver Street Classification for Foxx Street is mixed use Collector Street, north of 40th Avenue and then between I-25 and Fourth Avenue. It's actually a mixed use arterial. Collect your streets, support access between neighborhoods while arterials are focused, or support longer trips between regional destination or urban areas throughout Denver. Both street types are intended to support walking, biking and vehicle mobility with features such as tree lawn sidewalks on street parking in alleys. And 40th Avenue is a local and designated street. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan supports land uses and building heights that are recommended in the 41st and Fox station area plan and just reinforces what's already adopted in the 2940 and Fox Station Area Plan, which shows the concept land use as mixed use office residential, 3 to 20 storeys, and that is defined as land use, supporting employment services and residential uses within walking distance, in particular within walking distance of of nearby services in transit. Second Review criteria uniformity of district regulations cm x 20 would result in uniform application of district building, form, use and design regulations, and it would further public health, safety and welfare by implementing recommendations and the vision for urban center and transit oriented development at the 41st and Fox Stationery fourth review criteria as a change or changing circumstance of the change or changing condition of the property as a justifying circumstance. Specifically, the station platform, the PED Bridge in the Park and Ride facility are nearing completion and that service will soon be available along this important transit corridor. There are nearby properties that were recently resigned to see them x 20 cm x 12 and CMS eight. And there have been recent developments at 39th and FOX and 42nd and Delaware. This DMX or urban center is part of the urban center context encourages compact, walkable and diverse areas, and this meets the vision, not necessarily the land uses today or the context today of industrial, but meets the desired neighborhood vision or context of an urban center. A transit oriented development station area and CM 20 specifically encourages a street active and pedestrian skilled ground level uses to support walking, shopping, public gathering, near transit and up to 20 stories. So CPD is finding is that all review criteria have been met. We recommend approval and planning board also unanimously recommended approval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. All right. We have three speakers for this today. I call all three. You can make your way up to the front pew. That Texas. Amanda monroe I believe that white and then Whitney. I'm so sorry I got cut off. And then we have David Roy Bell. So, Mr. Texan, you can begin your remarks. Thank you. That is tax of 4535 Julian Street, Denver, Colorado Council Members. Instead of rezoning this pastoral parcel, you should purchase it as a site for a new homeless shelter and mental health treatment center. After all, apparently you have millions of dollars for a new performing arts complex for the rich. Once again, the wealthy come before the needy. Perhaps you could levy a 1% design and construction tax to first purchase the land. A construction tax on developers in the Arapahoe Square area, out of which you've just driven the homeless in order to facilitate profits for the 1% and 1% tax would seem only fair. But maybe you just don't understand the plight of the homeless. In this regard, it might be helpful if, given the walkability of this zoning site. If you took a walk along of South Platte near this zoning site where you've driven our least fortunate citizens through your camping ban. Thank you, Mr. Tech, sir. Ms.. Monroe Whitney Europe. Hi. Amanda monroe, Whitney. I am the granddaughter of the property owner of 75 West 39th. I live in Denver 45 if I sell to Yosemite. I believe that this amended zoning change that was done on February 29th was not commuted, communicated correctly to the Monroe Investment Company LLC, which is my family's who owns the property. I do believe that Tim Watkins did answer all the questions to the best of his knowledge and in his capacity. But I do also believe that the person that is supposed to be here tonight, which is he is not, has communicated the reasoning of zoning it half and half did not communicate it well whatsoever to my mother , who is the manager of the Monroe LLC. I'm completely against it. I would rather have it zoned all commercial residential that way. It also falls in line with the Fox Street trans oriented development that the city wants. And that is all I have to say. And I do have a question. We are able to change the zoning if this is finalized tonight, correct? We'll have we'll have councilmembers speak to that when it comes to comments. Okay. Thank you. Famous Monroe Whitney. Next, we have David Weigel. Hello. How are you doing? Members of council. I just want to address the offensive training of the Klan. I feel that the clans presence and history needs to be acknowledged by the government in schools. And on that, I just feel that the expansion of the city cares more about the people that are coming here than the people that built the legacy here. Where this redevelopment is happening right across in District one, they have a huge redevelopment from the skate park and none of that is going to be affordable and towards putting in a redevelopment area. I'm not in favor of it because I come from the Sun Valley neighborhood and at the time that little raven was being expanded as a $2 billion project that capitalized between Highlands and downtown. And that's another capitalization of the river area in my neighborhood. The Sun Valley is get ready to get hit next. And I'm not in support of this. Capitalizing and making a high, high income area nor affordable housing. And now the homeless that are down there that can't be at the homeless shelters, you know, where are they going to go now? And I'm just not not in favor of this. And, you know, a lot of the developers, when you live in a neighborhood, when your neighborhood's going to be redeveloped and these are redevelopment come, you know, it's pretty much the same stuff telling you plans and people are powerless, people are oppressed and you know and now Swansea A they've been going through this for so long they're burned out the Sun Valley, we've been going through this for all seven and you know, we don't, we don't want people that are going to come redevelop our neighborhood. We want people that are going to come be a part of the community. And that's the thing about it. Our communities, again, so broken by these new redevelopments because they come move in, they don't reach out to the original people there and the people that are there, they don't want to reach there. And it's just, you know, I just feel there's more community involvement in our city's changing so drastically. And I just hope that it could be a better, fairer Denver and make our city great, you know, for all of us. And, you know, I love Denver and I plan on staying here the rest of my life. Thank you. Members of council. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time questions from members of council. Council members? Yeah. Tim Watkins can. Tim. I had a had a bunch of other questions. Kind of philosophizing on all of this, this redevelopment and the some of the issues. But because of Miss Monroe, who came up and spoke, I mean, that kind of changed everything. Is is the person who who called for the rezoning here. The applicant representative is not here this evening, and I don't fully understand what scheduling conflict may have. Occurred. But they didn't send a representative or. I think the intention was to be here, but I think they could be on their way. Okay. And so when you put forward the recommendation that this be a split rezoning, the. You know, the property owner was not consulted in it. So we received a request to modify the application and put that forward to council. And I did speak with the property owner and had the understanding that the property owner was aware and supportive of this. Okay. As well as the representative. Okay, look. Mr. President, can I call it Miss Moral? Good. So obviously we're getting conflicting stories here. So I'm trying to understand your grandparents, I believe it. Was it was my grandfather and actually his dad that had bought the property in the fifties. And just to let the people know that we're here talking about development. I mean, we helped build Denver and Colorado Springs and everything. We're a rental construction company. Okay. And we closed our doors in 2014. We've been open since the early fifties, early, late 40. Sorry. Okay. And so are you aware that your Grimm father talked to Mr. Watkins? My grandfather. It was my mother. She is the manager of the Monroe LLC. The property is owned by three members of the family Roderick Monroe, Peggy Monroe and Vickie Monroe. Vickie Monroe is the manager. Okay. Are you aware that your mother talked to? I am. And and consented? I am. And I'm still going to disagree with it because I do not think that the person that is supposed to be representing us who's not here tonight gave her clear communication of the reasoning of zoning in half and half. Okay, well, you understand our conflict as well that I did. Okay. I just wanted to go on record and voice my opinion just because I'm highly invested in this, too. I've been the property manager there now for two years since my uncle passed away and close the doors. Okay. So this and I mean, I grew up there. Yeah. So and I don't believe that this forfeits your right on the other parcel to Rizzo. That's what I'm concerned about. This deal proposed. The deal doesn't go through. I'm hoping that we have the opportunity to to go back to our original. Rezoning application, which was the CRM max 24, the entire property. Okay. I'm pretty sure that it can't, but thank you. Thank you. Mr.. Mr.. Watkins, just real quick. You know, we've kind of talked about this before, and there's two, two different questions that I want you to kind of talk about, and maybe they'll be addressed in Blueprint. But then I imac's kind of zoning in flexibility within the IMX. There were some mention of it in in the Globeville plan, and I know you and I have had many conversations on the restrictions within IMX in the city, but just wondering, was that a part of the conversation at all with the with the applicant? The applicant has always requested the sea or urban center mixed use zoning and the 20 story in it. Really this is about phasing for the applicant and the desire to keep the southern portion of the property in productive industrial use and have flexibility to keep it productive and solvent in terms of lease ability while the phase one to the north is under construction. Did you have a question specific to the uses allowed under IMAX and whether that zone district was considered or. I know the uses and you could if r if we had flexibility in our IMX zoning and especially in identifying the IMAX, you could do an IMAX rezoning here, but we don't have that within our zone districts. Correct. Well, the IMAX goes up to eight storeys. That's right. Right. So there's not and so if if maybe they're interest in taller than eight storeys, push them to the CMCs. But I'm just wondering, Max, and wondering about the conversation and blueprint and in saying could there be more flexibility, Max, to go up to 20, the examples that we've seen from cities like Vancouver that have, you know, multiple housing units, have an ability to do light manufacturing, have retail on the bottom, all the things that we kind of, you know, want in our city, you know, this is a part of the city that we are rezoning from industrial into commercial a lot. And if there are not some opportunities for us to, you know, fit the mold and see if there's a go between a hybrid or, you know, we're going to be in trouble. So just was seeing if that was an opportunity. The last piece is this this zone district is recommended in the plan to 3 to 20 storeys. And we we've had a lot of conversations and I don't think that this has been mandated yet with the city. But minimums is minimum has minimums have been a part of the conversation. You know, you've raised two very interesting points that could be very interesting citywide conversations. And just harkening back to your how do we define Emacs and how is our understanding of IMX evolving and how could that be reflected in both the CMS districts as well as the Emacs districts? So that's I think a very. Exciting opportunity to explore that as well as. The point you just raised on the minimum heights. And in fact, I believe Councilman Espinosa brought that up on previous Fox area rezonings. And our response at that time was that there could be a conversation and might have implications citywide and beyond the specific rezoning and the specific station area. So two very interesting topics related to planning and zoning that council might wish to further explore. Yeah, I'll address it in my comments. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I honestly am confused. So I thought the property owner initiated this rezoning. And are you, Mr. Monroe, are you one of the property owners? I have a. Daughter, Ms.. One right where I need to. So I would just like some clarification as to. Okay, originally the property was bought by my grandfather and my great granddad back in the early fifties. Once my grandfather passed in 2006, the property was then put together in a monroe LLC which consisted of the children and his wife. If anything were to happen to the children at all, his wife and vice versa, we all know how that goes. So as of right now, the property is owned by Vickie Monroe, Peggy Monroe and Rod Monroe. And I am the daughter of Vicki Monroe and granddaughter of Peggy Monroe. And Pat Monroe, the original owner. And so. Though they were the owner there. The owners requested the rezoning. My mother did. She is the manager. But like I said, I have been explicit. And is that this rezoning of half and half? The person that is representing us is not here. And I do not think that he has communicated the reasoning behind doing half and half and still instead of the full singer Max 20 And no , we were never told about IMAX. At least I wasn't. And I've been in communication with our representative and my mother throughout this whole thing, except for the February 29th Amendment. So. Yes. So I spoke with Vickie Monroe about the purpose of the application modification request and felt that she had an understanding of it and that she. Was inclined to approve it. And I understand that there are some differences among some of the family members. And like I did say, Tim has answered all the questions to the best of his knowledge in his capacity. But like I said, the person that's representing us has not represented it correctly. And what is the mode of operation in doing this? This is why it's about tonight. And the applicant representative who submitted the request to modify the application. I communicated with him as well as Vickie Monroe at the same time, and I felt that there was collective understanding, but not necessarily agreement among family members. Okay. Thanks. Council. I want to tell you. Thank you, Mr. President. Unless you're somebody that deals with zoning and land use issues on a day in and day out basis, it's complex and not easy to thoroughly understand. So I could understand someone being told, This is what we want, this is what it does. Without going into a lot of detail and thinking, Oh, that sounds all right. But you know, the devil is always in the details. So I had a number of questions it's hard to be able to ask them without the applicant being here. So that's what makes this really kind of kind of a screwy process. I don't know how we justify moving something forward without the applicant even being here to address some of the questions that we have. So, I mean, Tim, I could ask you a few of the questions that I think might be helpful in just understanding what would be proposed for this particular zone category and at this location. So for example, is there open space requirement on this size lot? And if not, what would is the size threshold that requires open space to be incorporated? There is not an open space requirement for the CME zone districts and that's more associated with a general development plan. So the fact that there's no park in the neighborhood, the fact that we're putting so many residential units, at least when we did the Central Platte Valley, we made sure there were two very large parks that would not only serve the new development, but it would serve the entire Highlands neighborhood that was park deficient. So we're creating a community that has no place to go other than their own units. And so. If I could respond to that. The 41st and Fox stationary plan does envision parks, but it doesn't necessarily. Explicitly state which parcel should be purchased for park. So there's an understanding that there should be proposed parks and open space areas, but that those are. What if we're rezoning all of the land and we're not? Requiring any set aside of any of the development for open space, then chances are it could be all gone and we get no open space for the massive amount of density that we're allowing. There was a set aside at 4400 North Fox Street, part of that. The Denver Post say you. Think you just need 2570. But that's for that development. Right. But publicly accessible. Okay. Let me go on to my next question. What is the parking requirement for this Todd category per unit? It is 0.75 parking spaces per residential unit. Okay. And was there any talk at all about commitment to affordable housing in the city's discussion with the proposed the proposer of this application? The development concept is is not advanced enough to speak specifically to affordable housing opportunities. So there's not really the properties in a transaction mode and development would be intended after that transaction is finalized. So we have no idea. Exactly how many stories are being proposed. The zoning allows up to 20 stories, but we have no idea what is being proposed. That's a goofy part about this process, is not having any knowledge of exactly what we're being asked to approve other than, you know, within this grandiose framework, if you will. Let me move on to my next question. In your conversations with the applicant, what specifically did the city do to address public health, safety and welfare with? Consideration of the close proximity to the commuter rail line, which is just immediately the other side. The other side of the. I'm sorry. I meant cargo. It's immediately west of the RTD commuter rail line. Yes. My understanding is those conversations are still underway among city agencies and looking at health risks and how to address appropriately. So that's. So in the meantime. Encouragement, previous encouragement, those discussions are still underway. But there's nothing happening when an applicant comes through the city to ask them to consider looking at how they might be willing to address that. Not during the rezoning phase. There is not currently. Okay. That process is ongoing. We will have a some recommendations that come out of that by. July. But in the meantime, we have lots of applications coming forward along corridors that will be building high density housing right next to rail. We're not addressing any of the kind of details that ensure that we are in fact protecting human life and addressing public health, safety and welfare. So I'm just I will keep asking this question wherever we have commuter rail lines that run alongside cargo lines. And, you know, my hope is that we have people willing to do some things until we do have some clear recommendations in place. Um. I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. I'm going to jump in real quick. Tim, the applicant is the the the the Whitney family, correct? I would say who's the applicant? Because we said the applicant's not here. The applicant's representative is not here. That's correct. Because there was never intended for the applicant to actually be. Indeed the applicant property owners out of state. Okay. So so Miss Monroe in if I just want to ask you. So you you just disagree. So your grandmother is for the I might be using a wrong terminology, but she's the head of the estate, correct? She has the most units. Most units. Okay. So you just disagree with the direction. I just want to make sure and because you're your argument is not with what CPD has done, because you said that Tim has answered all the questions. That I do. I want to make that clear. Tim has answered all the questions to the best of his knowledge in his capacity. That's what's very important here. He is a staff member of yours. He doesn't know our personal business. He does not know. Absolutely. And so in his capacity, he has done an excellent job. And I love his pictures. I love how he's presented us. So, yeah, my grandmother is the majority owner of the property and both my mom and her brother Rod have 29.1. So if I may correct me at this wrong, you just disagree with the direction that they move that they're going forward with. Or do you feel your representative who's representing has not and has not represented your family, in your opinion, in the best interests? Absolutely. To the best for our best interests. The representative that is supposed to be here has not represented why we are doing this rezoning this way. But you feel that way. You know, you obviously cannot speak for your parents or your grandmother. That's just the way that you feel about it. That is how I feel. And my grandmother, I spoke to her about it. She does. She's like this. The uncle just sits on the west side. I've been involved with our property since I was born and I've been even more involved in it for the last two and a half years. I've done all the phases in at the environmental. I've done everything with it. So that's fair. Thank you for advice. What make you think? Well, we've got a lot of people in here. Councilman, new Europe. Has been as question in addition to your grandmother, the other two family members who have ownership, how how do they. Feel about this rezoning? My mom is in she she agrees with it, but I do not think that she was communicated properly. And why we are rezoning it this way. My mom has always wanted to do the zone full, commercial, residential, and then all of a sudden this half and half started coming about, which I didn't understand what was going on . And I do not think she does and I do not think that she is clear on it. Tim Watkins has told her, told her the benefits of it. He has told me we have had similar conversations. But the representative, like I said, who is not here this evening, has guided my mom in in in a in a in a way that is representing us to the to the best. What about the third family member of this ownership? I have asked him I have shown him all the documents and he says, just let me know when it's bad. Okay. Thank you. Mm hmm. Um, I think Tim also wanted to. Address your. Question. Do you want. To estimate to the podium? Tim. You like to. As something. Yes, if I could. So, Amanda, we met with the applicant representative, your mother, you and I, the four of us together. And we had a lengthy conversation about what it would mean to modify the application and reduce the area to be zoned to 20. And the pros and cons. And we explored what follow up steps to further research that would be required. And I did some follow up research, and I reported back to all of you. And I felt that that was a very open and transparent conversation between the applicant, representative, you, your mother and myself. And every attempt was made to continue that conversation. And then I did have a follow up conversation with you separately and your mother separately. And I felt that everyone had the same understanding, and it just came down to choices. Do we choose to rezone the property in its entirety or have half options? And so I felt that there was a slight mischaracterization of the. The applicant representative terms of not communicating the purpose and intent. To me are going to talk into. The area to be resolved. So that's. Think. Did you have any. Other questions, Councilman? No, thank. You. Councilman Cashman. Thank you. This is pretty simple for me. I don't see how to possibly resolve this without an applicant here. I mean. Tim is. Staff. Ms.. Munroe is not an applicant. So what. What are. And anybody who knows can answer this. What are our options for delaying this vote? It's funny you mention that. I was just having a conversation with David, so I won't speak for David if you want to chime in. David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney. One option you have available to you is to continue the public hearing and postpone the matter until a date certain to get the applicant here. This is we don't really have a precedent. I don't ever recall an applicant not being here informed, representing their application on any prior actions we've taken. I believe that there that options available to you in this city. CPD staffer Nate. Know some reason why that couldn't occur, but that's a procedural option available to you. Or else you can just go go ahead and proceed to a vote on the merits. So. Councilman, just looking at CPD, they said that is an option that we could do if that's what this body wants to do. Is there something we need to do to make that happen, sir? We need a plan. Yeah, we would. Yeah. David, I'm. I almost feel like we need a motion. Correct me if I'm wrong, David, to postpone until a date. Certain, but we need to have what we need to save the date certain now. Or would we? A postponement needs to be to a date certain. That's always a problem in terms of looking at your advanced calendar. But but also again, the point is we haven't gaveled closed the hearing. So if you want to hear from more people on behalf of the application, you need to keep the hearing open so we don't have to re post notice of the hearing itself. So it'd be a motion to postpone and continue the hearing until a date to pick a date. Well, we got people in the queue, so let's do this. Councilman Cashman, if there are any outstanding questions that councilmembers have now, let's get those out of the way so we don't have to ask the questions later on. And then we can if the sentiment is there, once the questions are done to postpone to a date certain, we could do that. Councilwoman Gilmore, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. Tim, I have a couple of questions for you, please. When you're communicating to property owners or the applicant, is that done via email so that there's a record of it or is it verbal communication or how is there a process in place to ensure that there isn't miscommunication from the interested parties? Well, that's a good question. And there has been a mix of in-person communication and phone conversations as well as emails. And I did strive to copy all parties and sometimes didn't have a correct email address, but attempted to forward afterwards. But when I'm the call is placed to me from the property owner, applicant, and then the property owner applicant's daughter, I take those calls and I have direct conversations, but I haven't. Summarize the conversation and emailed it to both parties after the phone call. Okay. And so there is no I mean, so then with with you saying that there there isn't necessarily an official sign off of the interested parties on a confirmation that they clearly understood what was conveyed to them necessarily. I mean, you're communicating with them over the telephone. There's not a process to create a summary and send it back out to them or verify that that they're understanding it explicitly. Well, I rely on the application which the property owner entity has listed and then the applicant representative is listed. And as a case manager, a primary obligation is to communicate directly with the applicant representative who then coordinates with property owners. But when property owners call and ask to have a conversation, very much pleased to to respond and. Sure. Yes. Okay. One additional question on the original, the packet of information for Monday night. There's a document in here that it's the rezoning guide and the rezoning application. So it's page three of three and it has listed I, I believe it's I think it says Vicki Monroe and that it's the property owner interests percentage of area of the zone. Lots to be re zoned and it indicates that she is 100% owner. Of that zone lot and. I guess it might be appropriate for for Miss Monroe, Whitney for or someone to clarify if it's actually three folks that are owners of the zone lot or if Ms.. Monroe is the 100% owner. No, that's not true. My mom is not a 100% owner of specific zone. Lots and specific places of of the property. The entire property. There's never been any any direct. Okay. Vicki owns this part. Right? Owns this part. My grandmother, Peggy owns this part. No, it's never been like that, ever. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa. And I guess this is for Mr. Monroe. Just sort of reading between the lines. It sounds to me like the developer interest development interest is seeking new zoning on their interest, but members of the extended family would like the entirety of the family's land to be resolved. Is that correct? Can I repeat your question? Your question was, is that that a developer wants. I'm trying to figure out and I'll ask Tim, because you said he explained this as the best way forward. I'm trying to figure out how we go from a giant L-shaped property that goes from 39th to north of 40th to something that is only the upper half of that when you're sitting here telling us is that you would rather see the entirety of that parcel. Is that what it was mentioned here in in passing was that this preserves some industrial use of the lower the southern half of the parcel while allowing developed redevelopment potential of the northern half. And so I can see where we would make that split if we didn't want to create a non-conforming situation on the Southern half. But I'm not because of the sort of tenor of what has been described here, etc.. It sort of sounds like it is been conveyed in different ways. And I'm trying to understand how it is that we got to just the northern half TMX 20 because I can see in my development experience because my understanding is historically there were two development interests, two development developers interested in this parcel. And so and I don't know if both the development interests are still interested in this parcel or we're now talking about one. Now we're just securing redevelopment potential for that portion of the land. So how did we get here? Because I do think that if there is no nonconforming if the if you if the building business is shuttered, like you said in 2014, then there is no non-conforming sort of situation. So it does make sense that if we're going to rezone, we'd just rezone the entire portion. Part of me wonders why we didn't just do this as a legislative reason for all of this area. But because this is like the eighth one of these things that I've seen in the last four, eight months. Yes. Yeah. I've done my I've done my research on even the property that is north of the light rail, the gold line. They've all been resolved and they still work at the capacity that they were working at originally. So their zoning was is grandfathered in. My, my and my mother's questions, big questions where is if we did change the zoning to complete SIMEX 20 that the AIA and the IP zoning be grandfathered in? We never really got a clear, concise answer to that. And then I give you a clear, concise. No, I use. Once that rezoning occurs. Now you can't you can't do certain uses there because you've it's not allowed and it's not permitted in that zone district. So you don't just get grandfathered in because the building looks a certain way or acted a certain way. Right. We have we've had renters on the property until the February 29th, and I'm trying to get renters in there. Now that were of the same. You didn't. That would create a problem that were renters. Yeah. That's why that's what. He did that if we don't see him next 20 that abuse would not be we would not be able to use that. Miss Whitney, I don't want to stop your conversation, but, councilman, I want to make sure that you have more so she can come converse with. You, because that that sort of explains to me because, like I said, I didn't it was either one of two situations. And I think it's very clear that that it's it's it's it's a functional issue on why you're ending up in this sort of redefining of the boundary. And it to me now makes more sense why we would do something like this. And it isn't. You're just so for your sake. Yeah. Yeah. Coming back and going through this process and the southern half is not is going to be fairly straightforward. I was here in the future. I've been to the meetings. Yeah. It's going to be fairly straightforward on the on the southern half in the future. What you like you'll never see CPD sort of willfully doing is creating non-conforming situations and that's what you're sort of asking for. But if you want to continue leasing it as a use by right the way it is, that use by right actually goes away when you change the zone district. Which is what we're talking about tonight. If I had if I said anything wrong, I stand corrected, but I think I got it right. So thank you. Thank you. No more questions. Councilwoman Sussman. Okay. I just like I have a couple of. Simple questions for Ms.. Monroe. You are not the owner of the property. You are not the applicant of the property. No, Keith, get out. I get close. Originally was the applicant. Okay. And so. You're. And we don't know. How the applicant or the owner feels about this. We just have your testimony that says they don't like it. Was there a reason. Why I disagree with it? But we don't know if the owner does or the applicant. But there's like I said, there's three owners. One is the manager and she is the one that made the decision. But you are not the owner and you are not the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We are round two of questions, Councilman Ortega. Thank you. I just wanted to ask him if he clearly communicated that if for any reason this rezoning, this zoning application goes down, that the property owner would have to wait a year before they could re file an application for this property. To the same zoned district. And is that all CMC's own districts or just CMC's toe? Just toe could not be applied for for one year. Okay. So if they applied for something different, they could they could apply on the site. So has that changed in 2010 when the citywide rezoning happened? That you could apply for a different zone category or some district, and it would still be okay to do it within the one year time frame. I'm sorry. I'm just receiving notice that the applicant representative is here so might be here. But see, amex toe could not be applied for for one year if you denied the rezoning request this evening, but other zone districts could be applied for within one year. So you're saying the applicant is here in the room. Here at the building? I suppose I'm just getting messages as I'm communicating. If the applicant is in the room where you please raise your hand. We're having this conversation in circles with this. Okay. So he's the representative? Not that. Yeah, he's. He's the applicant on behalf of the property owner. Right. Okay. Yeah. I was just trying to clarify and understand that if this went down, it sounds like we're probably more willing to move to postpone it if the applicant representative doesn't show up before we finish this discussion. If. They are able to change the zoning to a different category if it went down. The applicant is here. Who representative is here? Okay. Okay. Art Vasquez, 2943 Tampa Street. I am the applicant for the zone change and I apologize for not being here earlier. Oh, you missed out on all our questions. Oh, no, I saw I saw I had somebody watching and telling me all the questions. So. So is there a reason you weren't here when we started this? Yes, there is. I had a flat tire and couldn't get all state to show up, so I had to find somebody to give me a ride to get fix the flat, fill it in my tire and drive here and hope that maybe Tim might give me a ride home if my tires flat when I leave. Okay. Um, I don't know that we want to start this round all over again. It's your prerogative, Mr. President. Thank you. If. Well, actually, who's up next is Councilman Brooks. So, Councilman Brooks, you're next in the queue. Did you want to ask some question? Yeah. You know, I was prepared to postpone this just because I don't know if I've ever had a situation in five. Years and I've been on council where this has happened. Thank you for showing up. Thank you. Things happen. So let's just cut to the chase. We we have a member of the family who is objecting to the parcel. Kind of splitting the split parcel rezoning that we did February 29th, saying that you're not clear. You haven't been representing well. So, first of all, I want to give you the opportunity to talk about the person you are representing as the owner and their wishes to split this parcel as CPD did. Okay. Thank you. Let me start by saying that the owner of this property is the Monroe Investment LLC and the manager and decision maker of that is. Vickie Monroe, which is Amanda's mother. She has full authority to make decisions up to this point. These are the decisions she has made. Number one, she signed a listing agreement to sell the property. Number two, she's accepted an offer to sell the property. Number three, she's authorized me and hired me as her representative to change the zoning. At the time that we decided to change zoning, we wanted to change the zoning to CMCs 24, all of the property. We made an application to do so. We then later change that application to change the zoning for half of the property. The reason being is that each and every buyer that was interested in the property. Was only interested in the property if they could keep the industrial zoning on the half the land that had all of the improvements. The reason for that is because those improvements are not conducive. With the zoning, we'd want a change so they could actually rent that property out and subsidize while they develop the other half. And then they would later changes zoning on the second half so that they could further develop that. This is such a big parcel. There is no way there is any developer that's going to develop this property and develop 2.8 acres this close to downtown and spend $100 million to develop it. Plain and simple, the developers that are want to develop this property, want to develop it in stages. That is the reason why they want to do one half of the current zoning the way it is x 20 and leave the current half industrial. So to answer your question, I have full authorization to represent the family on the zone change. This was a decision made by the decision maker. It was an intelligent decision based on the facts and based on the fact that we have a buyer who's willing to buy the property and only wants to buy the property if only half the zoning has changed. Mr. BROOKS. Okay. You have a letter of support from you can, which is conglomeration of global response, the neighborhood leaders. Yes, we do. When you sat down with them, you talked about what you wanted to do. Did you talk about the future of the property? Did you talk about affordable housing? Did you talk about some of those? Absolutely, we did. As you know, the environment has changed. Because of the of the current legislation is not all that well makes it easy or easy for lawsuits to be filed for condominiums to be built. This is the reason why so many apartments are being built, and we have no condominiums being built. We have a high demand for housing right now. And the problem is that we have single family homes, that the newest single family home that you can buy the lowest price. And in Denver is 400,000. Do you hear what I'm saying? 400,000. The reason for that is because we cannot build condominiums. Now, I do understand that city councils change that for the city and county of Denver. But the banks still do not want to lend because the state law allows for two homeowners in an eight to sue. And no investor wants to take the risk. So what we decided to do is said, okay, if we're going to build apartments, let's build apartments. Here's the problem. The problem lies in the fact that we have almost a 20% vacancy rate because of the glut of apartments versus single family and condominiums that are being built in the city and county of Denver. It's a problem. Affordable housing is the probability here. We've had conversations about it right now with where the vacancy rate is and where rates are dropping for rent rental rates. It's not likely that we're going to build apartment buildings for the open market. It may not make sense right now. The current buyer that we have right now is wanting to close and take that risk. And they are talking about affordable housing. And we have met with the neighborhood groups and talked about affordable housing. Obviously, in a capitalist society, you're going to have an entrepreneur go with whatever the best route is to get a return on their investment at this current time. It looks like affordable housing may be that route. Now that I can't guarantee which route the investor is going to take. I can only tell you that in the open market. Apartments are not desirable at this current time. Mr. Brooks. Yeah. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, a month ago, we adopted this amended parcel, and it was for precisely the reason that you just outlined. I'm reading it right here. And Ms.. Monroe, it sounds like we amended it precisely to do what you say you wanted. So I'm very confused as to why you would be opposing this. And this is Vasquez. Yes. Right. Mr. Arthur Vasquez? Yes. Arthur Vasquez. The buyer is buying the entire parcel, correct? Correct. The Family LLC is not retaining any of it. Correct. Okay. And so what we heard Amanda say earlier was that that they wanted to that that she wanted to preserve the right to maintain the industrial activity on that southern portion, I believe. And she's she's nodding your head. Yes. No. She the the idea was that the industrial the south half has all of the improvements. Correct. Which are conducive to the current zoning in order for those improvements to meet the criteria for the open market for TMX 20, that it would require over $500,000 of improvements. Sure. Sure. Amanda. I'm sorry. And I. You're among. I forget your accent. Your last name is what? Can you come forward again? Yes. Monroe. Whitney. It's Monroe. Whitney. Whitney. Okay. Thank you. The where I'm now confused is that if we were to do all Cemex 20, that the industrial zoning would be grandfathered in. And so even if we were rezoning TMX 20, that I could still rent the property out to, say, a construction company that is had the same use as we have done there since the fifties. Okay. And you could not let me down. Okay. Okay, hold on. But the Family LLC is selling the whole parcel. You won't be leasing any of it. That's what I don't understand. That's what's under contract right now. It's under contract. That does not mean that it's been sold. Right. But if you sell the whole thing, you won't be leasing. You're the family won't be leasing any of it. You'll be out of it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. So the Bayesian explanation that was just provided by the applicant is consistent with what I was getting at in my previous comments questions, which is a viable approach to redevelopment of the site. The question I have for you, Mr. Monroe, is do you understand that where you can have a non-conforming situation in a zoned parcel is if that operator continues, it has continuous operations. So it's really the same person or business entity that is operating in that facility from the prior zoning into the new zoning. What happens when you re zone and you then get a new person to lease that space? That's when you lose that. That becomes decoupled and you have to get into it's a change of use and all these other things. So to preserve this development scheme, you have to do this sort of split right rezoning. I was under the impression that not only would we have the industrial and I'd be grandfathered in. And I was also told that if the property is vacant for one year, then the commercial residential scheme next, then it goes into effect immediately. And if I was to make any improvements on the property after the reason to CMCs, then those buildings or any improvements ought to be CMC's 20. Not industrial. Okay. Those are that is what I have been told this entire time. Okay. Mr. Espinosa may make a comment. Sure. Number one, the prior use has to be maintained as the exact same use. And if it isn't what, even if even if we changed, the only becomes a use which is a legal nonconforming use. If that use doesn't meet the criteria of being the same use, not just general industrial use, the same use, it is lost. So for instance, right now there is a it's power equipment that's being rented there. So if it now it's vacant. So if we don't get another power rental equipment, a renter and a taxicab driving company want to be there, it does not meet the requirement to fit within that zoning. And let me just say something to move this thing forward. I've worked with Amanda and she is part of the family. She has zero say in what happens with this property. She has zero authority. She is not on the LLC, nor is she any not even a member of the LLC. She is discontent and she is unhappy with the decision her mother's made. So her presence here is merely to disrupt what is going forward because of her personal opinion. She has zero and I am speaking on behalf of the family and I will swear under testimony that she has zero authority for the family. She is merely here to disrupt this hearing and to prevent this zoning from going forward. And she has no argument why it shouldn't happen and no authority. One related question the do you know if this site would meet the criteria for medical for a marijuana grow? Which you mean on the current zoning to the current industrial building. I'm not 100% sure. I'm not an expert on all of the uses for industrial, but I do believe that the current zoning of industrial now you got to remember, this is a unique property. So let me preface it by saying that we have two separate parcels. We have one parcel with two separate zone lots here. So we have a B zone lot, which is the lot we're looking to change. So it's I, b, so b I zoning. There were like 18 changes here, max 20 the zoning that we're not looking to change is an I a zoning. So I am not 100% sure whether or whether or not it is allowed for medical marijuana to grow. I would think that I a my understanding is that it may be something that would allow a possible grow at this facility. I will say this, that the there hasn't been any any ownership interest previous ownership interest in a grow. I can't speak for the future buyers. Okay. Thank you. We've been at this for an hour. Councilman Cashman, hopefully this is the last question so that we can move forward on this. Yeah, I agree. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I'm not an expert on public hearings, but my experience is that anyone is allowed to testify in a public hearing. And if it wasn't for Ms.. Monroe Whitney being here, we'd have long ago postponed this for for a week or two. So if I were you, I'd buy her a drink after the hearing. I'll buy her three drinks. That's very generous of you. My question is, you mentioned affordable housing. And when you say affordable, what level are you talking it? 80%, Amy. 6030. Where where where are we aiming? Well, here's the here's the deal, Mr. Cashman, one of the buyers, other than the buyer that had the acceptable offer, wanted to come and do a tax credit program. They that's what they specialize. And the current buyers are not experts in that. So they're going to seek outside counsel on how they can move forward. They are buying this property in the hopes that the market continues to move upward and onward. And as it looks now, when you look at the current rental rate for open market, you're requiring about $2.40 a square foot for the project to make sense. If you built a five story building minimum there. And those numbers aren't crunching right now. So when they buy this property, their next step is to go to other experts within the community and talk to them about the tax credit program. One of the persons that we've spoken to is a guy by the name of Andrew Romero that works for, I believe it's KeyBank, and he's an expert in these tax credit programs, and that's going to be the next step for the buyer. Again, I can't speak on completely on behalf of the buyer, but that's the information that I received from the buyer on their intention. Thank you. All right. See no other questions. Public hearing is now closed. And let's see for how long these comments go. Councilman Brooks, you're up. You know, I wish I could say, you know, in my 25 years of doing being on council, but in my five years, I've never witnessed anything like this. And I I'm glad that your tire or whatever it was got put together and you got here because. Well, I'm giving councilman you get you. I don't think you're. Yeah. You go into that breakdown with that. But, you know, there's several comments that I wanted to make on, you know, I it makes zoning, you know, minimal allowable uses and standards here in our zoning code but. You know, I'll just say that just because we've been at this an hour that I am, I'm thrilled that you met with the neighborhood association. I'm thrilled that Armando Payan, who is a huge advocate in this area, knows this area, lived in this area for 50 years, is supportive of this. And that that speaks volumes for me. Who is, you know, a person who's really concerned about this area. You know, obviously, our context is zoning. We try and encourage folks who are thinking about development to think about the values of the community. We can't force those values upon you. Open space design. Ground floor activation. Affordable housing. But those are our values. And I think you got some of that from Armando in the U.K. And so I appreciate that this reasoning lines up perfectly with our plans in the Globeville area plan. And the one thing that I wanted to say is the importance of small area plans in our city. And I know my colleagues to the left of me are excited to see some smaller plans in their neighborhood because this is the result of it is an environment where you have community support and and things begin to happen. So in the context of this public hearing and what we're supposed to be, you know, judging, does this meet the criteria of the planning, the plans that we have in front of us? In my mind, it does and it does perfectly. And we just passed our Globeville planning day. Was it a year ago now? Almost a year and a half ago. And so those are plans that are hot off the presses and excited. I'd love for CPD to start thinking about minimums, and one of the reasons is, is because when we start talking about different economic cycles, people are going to build to what the market is allowing them to do. And it has been a you know, it would be perverse if we had all this investment in rail and a three story would stick project was developed there. And so I really I really believe that we need to think about the investments that we're making public publicly and put it that way. And so I'm supportive of this. I know this was kind of a crazy hearing. I've never heard one like this, but I appreciate you being here. I think you got educated on, you know, kind of some of the stuff that we do here. And I hope that wish you all the best with your family. And thank you, sir, for being here representing the family. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say thank you for clarifying everything. I do understand it now. And Miss Monroe, I think the. This rezoning actually will achieve what you're looking for, that the property can still be used for industrial use. So I think it's a good outcome for everyone. So I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa. Not only because we've already talked this line that I'm going to articulate something that I mean, I said early on one of these rezonings and I've sat on my hands through most of them, and it has sort of nothing to do with this. But everything to do with this is there's a station area plan. There's a Globeville plan. There's no guidelines and standards. There's no minimum built tos that Alvis is talking about. There's no way to sort of ensure we're maximizing the TOD potential for this site. So once again, I'm going to support a rezoning and hoping for the best, but it's really up to the development community to come through in this situation because we don't have any. We have visions, we have plans, we have no obligatory requirements to meet them. And that's really unfortunate. But I do think that this is actually the best way to sort of achieve the balance of the use by right on the industrial with the redevelopment potential on the 20 storey parcel. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Just briefly for Councilman Brooks. This hearing will be second place in my memory to the day I believe it was the rezoning on the Diamond Cabaret back in the eighties when I witnessed from the press table councilman, former councilman, Irving, look, do a bump and grind during his testimony. So this is second place. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for that visual. All right, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to first state that, you know, since this is an area of change and it is a Todd location, this is also part of what was envisioned in the Globeville Station area plan. I will be supporting this tonight. One of the challenges with this area is that Fox Street is going to be very much like Brighton Boulevard, where the development is coming in. And then we're worried about how do we address so much traffic on this one road because we're putting in so much density and we haven't really adequately talked about or addressed how we're going to deal with that. And, you know, it's kind of a chicken and an egg. And I think it's important to ensure that CPD is having that conversation around exactly what is being done as each development is coming in to be part of those improvements so that we have the appropriate right of way to be able to move traffic and hopefully it's one of the corridors or we'll have some bike lanes as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I tell you. Any other comments? 937 as amended. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I. Gilmore, I. Cashman. I knew Ortega. Sussman All right. BLACK Hi. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please positively announce the results tonight. Tonight, 1937, as amended, has passed. All right. That's not the tempo for the next two. All right. Next, we have two bills, 69. Councilman Brooks, would you please put accountable 69 on the floor for final passage yet?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1901 7th Street in Auraria. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from CMP-ENT to D-CPV-R, D-CPV-C, located at 1901 7th Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-6-18.

DenverCityCouncil_12172018_18-1225

I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 1111 I is council bill 1407 as amended has passed our rate. With that, we're going to move on. Councilman Lopez, will you please put council vote one, 2 to 5 on the. Floor and get to that page? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill one 2 to 5 series of 2018 be placed upon final consideration to pass. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Council Bill 1 to 25 is now open. May we have the staff report? Thank you, Mr. President. Council members again, Christopher Johnson, senior city planner with community planning and development. So now that we are through the first half to establish the zone districts themselves and the affordable housing requirements that run with those, we will now address the first proposed rezoning to these new zoned districts for 1901 seventh Street, known as the River Mile. It is generally the area of the current U.S. Gardens amusement park. So this this particular property does fall entirely within Council District nine represented by Councilman Brooks. It falls also within the area, overall statistical neighborhood. Here you can see in red, it's generally the the property that is in between the consolidated mainline railroad and the South Platte River. The request for this map amendment is to rezone to two out of the three new zone districts that we just talked about, the DC, PVR and the DD CPC. So the river in the center districts. You can see on the screen there's a dividing line that essentially runs as an extension of the current Ilitch circle right of way that is right there, that runs sort of to the southwest and then makes a jog before connecting. A little bit further down towards the river. The existing zoning for this property is currently skimpy. E.A., which stands for Campus Entertainment, which is a very open ended and broad zone district that was created when the news the zoning code was adopted back in 2010. There's very, very little in terms of any kind of design standards and regulatory items. There is a height limit for this area that's currently 200 feet to the north is kind of a mixture of of open space that runs parallel to Cherry Creek. There's several PUD zone districts related to the Union Station area and also some downtown lower downtown zone districts and a small area of Sierra eight there to the east, the Pepsi Center side of the property. This is mostly old code zoning. It falls under CMU 30 with and there's a number of waivers that are attached to that. There's also some existing CMCs five and eight zone districts that are also on that eastern side of the consolidated main line. You can see as you get towards the area parkway, there's a number of existing, both residential and office properties there that fall within that zone. District to the south is primarily CSX five. That generally follows the I-25 corridor. And then on the west side is a is a mixture primarily at least directly adjacent to the property is is open space. The obviously the open space that is city owned that is adjacent to the South Platte River, Centennial Gardens, which is up at the far northern end, and then on the western side, Fishback and Crescent Parks. And then there's also a number of old code zoning, CMU ten zoning that's over on that side and a few C-Max five and 12 zone districts as well. The Old City Hall Mountain View plane that was raised earlier. As you can see here from this diagram, it does extend and cross over the southern portion of this property. As mentioned before, the height limits related to that view plane are in the 95 to 100 foot range in that in that area. So regardless of what the zone district might be, as long as that view plane is is in existence and in effect, it would limit height of buildings to that 95 to 100 feet. And as mentioned, the the the state capital view plane also extends over a small portion, but is essentially overruled by this particular view plane because it's more restrictive. The land use is, as you might imagine, it's entertainment and cultural uses here. On the property itself, there's also a lot of surface parking that is a very similar situation on the eastern side with the Pepsi Center and the surrounding parking lots related to that. On the northern side is is a mixed use and multi-unit residential the characteristic of course of of downtown and all the development that's happened around the Union Station area to the south is kind of a mixture of industrial and mixed use. And then to the west, as I mentioned, parks and open space and a number of other entertainment and cultural uses, including the Downtown Aquarium and the Children's Museum, is also there on the on the western side near Water Street. A few photographs to get a sense of kind of the built context of this area. The first photo that's on the right is from the opposite side of the river, looking back towards downtown, across the English Gardens amusement area, and then a few onsite photographs in the in the middle and the lower right, showing some of the existing parking lots and a few larger buildings and structures that surround the area at the far right. And that middle photograph is the confluence building, confluence residential tower, and then the Pepsi Center, of course, on the other side of the railroad tracks, as is feature there in that lower photograph. And then this is sort of Google Earth aerial photographs that is is able to provide a little bit more context of the overall area and some of the surrounding context related to some of the structures and its relationship as being part of downtown. So we've started talking about this a little bit already. But one of the most important things that runs with this proposed rezoning is that because of the scale and the complexity of this project, there is an associated development agreement. And so the development agreement is is a legal contract essentially entered into between the developer and the city. And we're using this development agreement and then a future infrastructure master plan that I that I referenced before, really as a substitute to the general development plan process or the GDP. And that's partly just because of the scale and the complexity and the longevity of this project. Things are going to evolve. And at this moment of of getting the rezoning, we don't have all the answers. And so part of what the general part of what the development agreement is requiring is for the developer to continue with a number of various studies to look more closely, particularly at some of the infrastructure requirements and some of the traffic needs. So in the development agreement, which is in the staff report, it includes a requirement for a process to complete this infrastructure master plan. So that's going to involve all of the major utility infrastructure, water service, sewer service, streets and roads, right of ways, the relationship and the character of what those roads look like, bike lanes, number of traffic lanes, parking, all that, all those kinds of things will get vetted and worked through a process that includes not only our department , but also our public works department and the Parks and Recreation Department and others within within our city agencies. So another aspect is for the the developer to develop a comprehensive transportation demand management program. So this is really over and above any parking maximum requirements that are already built into the zoning. This is a system of more programmatic elements that can be used to to limit the amount of of vehicular traffic and try to shift people towards other modes of transportation. Much further study on the vehicular and the pedestrian bicycle and transit connections here. As you're probably aware, this particular parcel is fairly isolated in terms of its connectivity to the greater street grid and and part of what would be required to allow the level of development that we're talking about here and that we've mentioned there's going to need to be a number of additional new connections, and those could be vehicular connections. They could be multi-modal transit connections, pedestrian bridges, other things like that. And so we don't know exactly how many or where those need to be. There's ideas and a vision for those things that are that are described in the plan amendment. But these future studies are going to help the developer and the city come to a more resolution about exactly what's required. There's a very specific requirement for the amount of open space within this project, a minimum of 12% of the net developable area. So after all, public right of way and other items are subtracted out of that overall 58 acres, then 12% of that must be identified and specifically set aside as a public park and open space. There's been a negotiation with our Parks Department as to the the size and the character and the amenities that are provided in each of those different parks. So that's all, again, included in the development agreement that a minimum number of specific park types and amenities would need to be provided and including a few other community benefits, including a corn shell, actually the developer paying to build the core corn shell, improvements for a recreation center and also a new Parks Rec maintenance facility that is desperately needed in that area. One of the most critical items that's going to be really first on the docket for the developer as they move forward is there are significant floodplain issues with the current property. And so the first thing is going to be how to address the floodplain and the river improvements that are associated with that. So that's really the first step towards actually in conjunction with the course development of an infrastructure master plan working through and determining what all of those mitigation needs are going to be and then actually executing those before moving forward with the project. Same thing with environmental remediation, as you're well aware of. The history of this site is very industrial, very linked to the to the rail history there. And so there's there's a significant amount of remediation to be addressed. And so the development agreement sets forward a requirement to enter into a process to determine how that's going to be dealt with. And then also in the development agreement and the reason why it's being presented to you tonight is that there is a vesting of certain zoning requirements, particularly including some of the height and the. They are allowances and standards that are in the zoning. So the piece that everybody wants to talk about that's also part of the development agreement is this affordable housing plan. So as as Abe has described, the amendment that was just made and and approved to the revised municipal code establishes this requirement for any buildings that are above five stories that that actually execute on that incentive height. One of the ways to address that and one of the ways to qualify for that incentive height for a large or phased project is to develop this affordable housing plan. So the the specific affordable housing plan that is that is tied to the river mill development and to this rezoning here tonight, as Melissa has mentioned, requires 15% of the overall number of housing units to be provided as affordable. There's minimum dedication of units as being affordable for the number of years. Minimum here is is 40 years. If there are any city subsidized, then that would trigger the six year duration that was just recently discussed and passed here by council. As Melissa also described, the requirements for a dedication of a number of those units or a certain percentage of those units to meet various levels of of ami portion of those units being affordable up to 100% if they are for sale minimum percentages to be a certain size so that we can encourage larger units, family, affordable units , minimum percentage for for sale, for rent differences. And also this includes a mechanism for nonresidential uses to also contribute to the affordable housing requirements. So the revised municipal code amendment that was just passed that has a requirement for both residential and nonresidential types of projects, both of them have to meet a certain increased affordable housing standard. This does the same thing. So any kind of commercial development or nonresidential development also has a requirement to contribute funding towards additional units or to community serving uses. And the last note here is that there are compliance milestones that are built into that affordable housing plan. So hopefully we can avoid the situation that happened at Stapleton, where a lot of that affordable housing was put off to the end. Here, there are compliance milestones that as the project is developed phase by phase, time by time, that there will be certain compliance requirements to be met as the project moves forward over a 20 to 25 year time frame. So the standard map amendment rezoning process has has carried forward. The property has been posted. Similarly, as as we did tonight, we went to a planning board with a combination text and map amendment and also this was recommended for approval by the planning board by the vote of 91, went to the land use Transportation Infrastructure Committee and then posted the property again for a city council hearing. And we are here this evening. And the the only public comment letter that we received specific to the rezoning was the same letter that was submitted by by Tim Bors related to both the text and the map amendment. And that was in support. So the review criteria for rezonings is very similar to what we just discussed for the text amendment. There's a few additional at the at the end that I'll refer to, but making sure that the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans and as we described, the text amendment itself has taken care of a lot of these things. And so it's it's very clear that now the rezoning or the request by the property owner to rezone to those districts will be similarly consistent with those adopted plans. I talked through the comp plan 2000 strategies and some of the vision statements that are in in that comp plan. It's summarized in your staff report. One of the other items that is noted here was a legacy strategy here to identify areas within the city where increased density and new uses are desirable and can be accommodated. Blueprint Denver 2002. Same thing here. It's in the downtown context. It's part of an area of change. All of this is consistent with the text amendment and the zone districts that were just adopted into rezone to this would would follow that pattern. Blueprint Denver also talks about future street classification. There's very little road infrastructure at all that's internal to the site. Speer Boulevard and Area Parkway, way down at the very southern end is adjacent to the property. Those are identified as mixed use arterials. And then the only other street is Ilitch Circle, which is identified in Blueprint as a non designated local. So again, the need for that infrastructure master plan as we move forward with this to define new streets and the street grid and the connectivity to the rest of the city is is going to be very important downtown area plan identified this this particular location is as an area for a future opportunities to densify and then same thing with the downtown area plan amendment which dove into again much more detail and spoke about how the regulatory tools could apply to to implement the plan objectives and move this forward. So those those were all speaking to the consistency with the adopted plans. The the rezoning would also result in uniformity of district regulations. And between both the DCP River and center districts, it would further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans and enabling this walkable urban neighborhood. And then the two additional items for rezonings. One of them is that there needs to be a justifying circumstance to help trigger and justify the change. And one of those justifying circumstances that would qualify is that the city has adopted plans and policies or changed the direction since 2010, which obviously this has happened. So this has been met through the adoption of that downtown area plan amendment earlier this year. And then also another justifying circumstances is the changed or changing conditions. And I think we're all very aware of how much significant development has really happened in this particular location adjacent in the Union Station areas, Riverfront Park in the Commons area and even up into the into the Lower Highlands neighborhood, and then finally making sure that the rezoning and the request is consistent with the context and the zone district's purpose and intent. So in the text amendment that was adopted, there is clear language about the intent of these zoned districts and where they should be applied. The downtown neighborhood context itself consists of a mix of multi-unit and residential, commercial office, institutional etc. uses in large buildings containing one or more uses. That's the description of the downtown context that's in the Denver zoning code. We're obviously consistent with that. And then the the river district as described in the new text amendment as appropriate, located within approximately one, two, one and a half blocks of the river and in the map. That is what's being proposed here. And then the Central District being located within approximately 2 to 3 blocks of those existing transit facilities, the consolidated, my main mainline and a few other specific locations in the overall CPV area district. So with that, CPD recommends that City Council approve the Map Amendment Application Number 2018 i00131 which before you is council bill 18 1225 and based on finding that all of these review criteria have been met and then we also recommend that City Council approve the related River Mile Development Agreement that's in front of you as a resolution 18 1287. Thank you. Thank you very much. We do have eight individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five up. I would ask you to come to this front bench if you're in the first five, because as I call your name, your time will start. So step right up to the podium and begin Doug in, Jeff Shoemaker, Mary Ann Thompson, Kim Colley and Jesse Parris will be our first five priests. The microphone is yours. Thank you all. My name is Reece Dugan. Three, three, two, four, two, one. Street in Denver. 3 minutes is not a lot of time to describe this project, but I think we've talked about it not only tonight at length, but also for the past two years. I really, really want to thank everyone who's been a part of this process for the past two years. A lot of people think that city is just happened by accident, but it takes a lot of work and this has been two years of work. So for those of you who keep coming out night after night, month after month, thank you all. Really quickly, I think we've hit the high points. I just want to run through some numbers. I'm going to give you the river mile by the numbers. You all have a book in front of you that talks about the project. But here's the high points. The numbers, 62 total acreage of the site, including the ME. I will cite contaminated downtown adjacent one mile of riverfront, historically, historically neglected disconnected from the city due to historical and current land uses 205 yes 205 meetings with the Public Neighbors Council and city staff resulted in a surprising and encouraging shared vision for this area of downtown. 15 as we've heard. Percent of residential units that will be affordable the most comprehensive, affordable housing plan undertaken in the city to date, another 15% of the site area that will be allocated to parks and open space, exceeding the 10% mandated by the city staff, said 12. Our site plan currently reflects a 15% $600 million of infrastructure spend $6.8 billion in total development costs at full buildout. 16,450 possible future residents across a wide socioeconomic spectrum. 25,730 possible future workers, many of whom will have an opportunity to live in the community where they work for 25 years . The estimated time frame for total buildout. We're planning for the future of Denver today. Zero. The amount of dollars being sought from the city developer funded. 2500 rainbow trout stock to date in this stretch of the river, proving the untapped potential of this stretch known as the river mouth. In closing, on behalf of my team, our partner, Mr. Cronk and his family, we're excited to be in front of you tonight to share our vision. We hope you share our excitement and that we can move a step closer together on this 25 year journey. We're available, as is our as are our architects and consultants to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Jeff Shoemaker. Good evening, members. It's great to be back. Jeff Shoemaker two, three, four, five, six. East Cornell of New Denver, 802 ten. It's an honor to stand before you. I'm honored to have Devin Buckles and Ryan Ades of my staff here throughout the journey this evening. I also want to take a moment to this body and thank you for your support of Measure to a back in July. I'm delighted that 61% of our voters agreed with your leadership and in particular, Mr. President and Councilwoman Black, I want to thank you for your particular leadership in seeing that movie, that motion go forward. It's at moments like this when as the 38 year director of the Greenway Foundation, I get to witness a true and full realization of the Greenway Foundation's 45 year goal to allow the South Platte River to one day become the best place to work, live and play in Denver. This was if there can be anything such as the worst of the worst of the worst of what this river and the adjoining area used to be. This is it. The best thing we've found in this area is coal tar, and it goes downhill from there. And look what this is going to become. Look what this is going to become. And it is an opportunity to maximize the very birthplace of Denver. I'll conclude with this. I have engaged with numerous land owners, numerous developers, numerous visionaries. And I have not come upon an organization or group of partners that has engaged to maximize this river any stronger than this group has. Two examples. They are exceeding the minimum amount significantly of affordable housing within their site and they are exceeding the required amount of park space, open space and river space. This does not happen. This does not happen every day. And it's an example of who they've been over the last two and a half years, and I'm confident who they will be moving forward for the next 25 years. I'll finish with I enthusiastically refuses to ask you to support this measure. This is one of very, very few moments where I'd like to be on your side of the aisle. Thank you all very, very much. Thank you. Next up, Mary Ann Thompson. Ladies and gentlemen, I guess I am the pink. Elephant in the room as an activist with the homeless, with Denver. Homeless out loud. I want to. Take the time right now. To. Say the. Word. Affordable is deceptive. Hmm. Affordable? To whom? Ladies and gentlemen, if I came from San Francisco like my daughter did, and I am now have I am now living the good life here, I am now able to travel the whole world. What about the Denver ites? What about the. Gentrification that happened. Up by points? People that got pushed out to Aurora OC? Right now, ladies and gentlemen, in this city tonight, there are at least 6000 homeless people of whom 23,000 are children in the Denver public schools. Homelessness is increasing yearly due to rental increases and many other systemic problems. Again, you are failing to build housing for the homeless. Denver Rights are being swept away out of our city and state because people who are being transported here are able to afford all this. I am not cutting down development. As a person from Arizona. I watched the same thing happen where I could never buy a house I could never afford and be able to afford all the stuff that's coming in. So, again. With all this. Are we are we being inclusive here? Do we again, I'm saying where is the Colorado coalition? I don't see I don't see any representatives here in this chamber. And this is about we the people. So I'm just closing and saying, no, I disagree with this. Thank you for your time. Could you please state your name for the record? Oh, I'm sorry. Mariana Thompson. Thank you very much. Next up, Kim Collie. Kim Collie. All right. Next up, Jesse Pearce. Jesse Paris Black Star. It's a moment for self-defense. Denver Homasi out loud and positive action commitment for change. And I'm also an at large candidate for 2019. Like was previously stated by Mariam. We are against this. This is not addressing the need at all. Yeah. You're planning for five, ten, 20 years from now. This city is already being frantically, rampantly gentrified, so it's no telling what it's going to look like in five, ten, 20 years. The bottom line is, if you don't have any money, you are not going to be able to live in Denver. Period. It's already are already currently seeing this already in these rebel mile districts and all these other zone districts is not going to solve that problem. Like was already stated, there is nobody here from the coalition. There is nobody here from DSA. There is no guarantee any of this is going to actually be affordable. What we really need to be talking about is attainable and accessible housing. Housing that actually starts at 0%, areal minimum income. They like to talk in codes, so I have to break it down to you. That's what the AMA is and that's where it needs to be starting if you really want to address the housing issues in the city. So yeah. Then we're almost out loud. Blessed are some movement parties have actually come in for changes against this. Like I said earlier, we need to sweep council into sweep the mayor like he's sweeping the homeless every night. Thank you. Thank you. I will call the last three people who have signed up to speak for this. If you could come to the front. Michael Duties Chairman, say Q and Ronnie Crawford. I'm sorry if I got that name right. It I'm not sure how it came through in the system. I apologize. Go ahead. The microphone is your. Good evening. I'm Michael Gates. Thank you, council members for. Allowing me to speak. I'm president of Jefferson Park United Neighbors whose. Boundaries are superior to 17th. And federal to Water Street, where the closest neighborhood to the west of the. These zoned districts. For over a year we've had a dialog with the city and developer. Of this area. Part of this dialog. Was about improving the connectivity for. Residents of Jefferson Park. Sloan's Lake was Colfax and West. Highlands to these new zone districts into downtown. Specifically all for a multi-modal transportation. Solution on 23rd Avenue. The 23rd Avenue Bridge and Water Street. This area has a host of transportation problems, ranging from the lack of sidewalks to speeding cars exiting the highway. It impacts not only residents, but those who attend nearby attractions such as Denver Aquarium, Children's Museum and Bronco football games. We'd like to thank Councilman Espinosa and. Community Planning and Development for listening to the concerns. Of residents and expanding the language. Related to the 23rd Avenue Bridge. From just two. Paragraphs in the initial draft to two pages in the final version of the downtown area planned amendment. We'd also like to thank. Reece. Dugan for being available to answer questions and. Collect feedback from residents. At several of our well-attended. Neighborhood meetings. There was concern about the ferocity of the development and how the city will work with CDOT. In regards to transportation projects around this area. Our RINO's asked the city to be. Cognizant of these issues as as we move forward in this. Lastly, I'd like to. State that our Land Use Committee and. General membership voted. Unanimously to support these new zone districts. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Germans say Ku Klux. Our movement next May come in December 2019. But first of all, I don't want folks who are watching this on television to misunderstand the process. President Clark was proper and admonished me from the chair so that this thing could take upon a certain context with understanding. There are children who are looking at this on TV and that's not a good thing to do. So. That's one, too. To get to the subject matter. I. Stand firm with the words in which I expressed, not necessarily in terms of exactly those particular words, but exactly those meanings. So I do not apologize for the meaning of what I said. I apologize for the manner in which I expressed that. This again required me to go to Google and look up some words that may be appropriate for kids looking. So here we go. This. Here is some more poo poo. La la. Legislation. And it's poo poo la la because it doesn't really get to the essence of what it really is. It's kind of like if you step on some poo poo lala, that's one thing. But if you bring it into the house, it's another thing. So here we go with this again, self-interest. Poo poo la la. All about me. Myself and I. All these years. Born and raised here. 67 years. Yes. You should clean it up because you did it. Take responsible what you did. I didn't do it. But people didn't do it. We didn't pollute it because we got in the water. Would it turn bad? Come on. You did it. So you clean it up. Yeah. You're supposed to. And after 1500 meetings in the last 15 years of coming down here, I have the moral authority to say it. And I'm here when you ain't here after you gone. Well, you had other dates, but it ain't about you. I'm here every day for the city, not just me. So I'm not that impressed. For real? You should be here every day. Because you benefit from it every day. So start showing up every day. Otherwise, this is more poo poo. La la. And you deserve nothing more than what you get. Thank you. Next up, Ronnie Crawford. Wow. Ronnie Crawford. Excuse me. Overland Park neighborhood. I'm here to talk about the river, not the construction or the height of the buildings or any of that. I am on the board of Denver Trout Unlimited, and I'm here to talk about the fish and things along the edges and below the waterline. Are we trout? Denver Trout in a little bit is glad to be at the table with you. Principles of this project would be giving input all the way along on how to make the river better, more effective, and a good place for all the creatures and the fish to live this point, I wish I had another 25 years to see how the heck all this is going to turn out. It'll be. It'll be interesting. Anyway, I represent Denver Trout Unlimited. I'm here to speak with for the fish stay. They are always the overlooked critters and the critters below the waterline because nobody thinks about them. And we'll be at the table to represent them. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council? Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Present your closest to the microphone. I just want to ask the question about discussions you've had with the city, about the interface with the adjacent railroad line. Yes. As I think you referenced, nothing we've talked about preliminarily at least about raising the grade about 20 feet along what we call the back of the site. But the site that borders the CML rail line where the meat of that is going to come in is through our E&P discussions with staff as we further refine and refine the engineering for the site. But that's our intention right now and I think it does a couple of things for us as it relates to the railroad. I think it gives us that extra 20 feet of separation and safety as we think about raising the grade and then thinking about another two or three or four layer layers of parking above that. And so you kind of get to 50, 60 feet of grade separation from the rail. We also have some horizontal separation on our site plan. We have a service line in the back that further sets the buildings back. So I feel like we're doing the best we can there. Thank you. I appreciate the attention to that as well. Thanks. Thanks. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. The one real trivial question, is it? Am I seeing this correctly? Is the fish logo play off of the map area? Previously someone did a drawing depicting the site as a whale. But we didn't. We didn't steal the urban trout from the site. Plan to close it. It's a whale. So I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but it was it was actually driving around this week in this the Jefferson Park neighborhood plan contemplates a view plane. Jefferson Park is is unique, sort of like Zuni Park in that it has at least seasonally it has some amazing views of downtown. And part of my history was sort of battling developers to sort of maintain little vignettes of our views from Jefferson Park to downtown. Do you guys has anyone in there? There are views that were preserved with development along that along Crescent Drive and River Drive. Have you guys contemplated those vignettes when you when you've laid these things out? Because there are there are some buildings that actually would would be framed. I mean, potential plot layouts that would be framed by those views. The short answer is we haven't gotten that granular on our site, plenty of the individual sites. It's interesting because when we started this process, I thought height and encroaching in to that neighborhood specifically might be an issue. And I don't want to put words in Michael Gates's mouth or Japan's mouth, but it really didn't come up in conversations. I think what the conversation was about was creating a new downtown view for Jefferson Park, one that might have some more interesting architecture attached to it. And I think going all the way back to the area plan amendment process, there was a really conscious conversation and and a decision about trading height for amenities. And I think the neighbors got that and it was a very conscious decision for them. Yeah. Yeah. Our biggest issue is, you know, we didn't in the area plan, we didn't incorporate parts of Jefferson Park in the boundary for even the ability to sort of consider this porosity. But I think it would actually be welcome. It's a welcome tool and at least we just codified it. So it's something we can now explore. So could you you know, if this zoning is if this map amendment goes through, could you at least, you know, maybe charge your design team to at least go back to through Jefferson Park, look at those vignettes, sort of one more sort of, you know, relationship to other parts of the city to consider. Sure. Sure. We're happy to do that. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Brooks. Yup. I'm going to call a breeze. But first, let me let me ask Abe a quick question. Or Chris, it doesn't matter. You guys are like brothers. Quick question, just on overview real quick. Planning board, do we have any anybody in our position. At Planning Board? I think Mr. Elliott also voted no on the map amendment just for consistency with the fact that he thought the zone district shouldn't exist in the first place. Okay. I was about to say make sense, but to him make sense. Good consistency. And then real quick, again, letters of support from community folks saying we didn't have any letters of opposition at all. Okay, great. And this question is for Reese. Reese, in the community, we had a lot of conversation on mobility issues. And one of the things that hasn't come out, but I know you have in the plan and I want you to talk about a little bit, is you have some autonomous opportunities. So can you kind of talk about that a little bit and maybe some implementation around that? Yeah, I think as a general comment, we're going to be back in front of you with our MP and there's going to be a lot of conversation around parking and single occupant vehicles and ways to get people out of their single occupant vehicles. And hopefully we'll have a bunch of good ideas for that. But specifically to your question, yeah, that's been my. As we look 25 years down the road, it's hard to plan a new downtown neighborhood, of course. But one of the things that I love the idea of as autonomous technology starts to get credible and starts to get real, how do we implement that here as a way to solve that first mile, last mile connection between this site, for example, and Mile High Stadium and Union Station on the other side? You know, can we can we put together a system of autonomous shuttles that connect us all as a more expedient way to solve that first mile? Last mile, but lots more lots more ideas where that came from, I hope. Okay, great. So is it is it more aspirational or as. I'm sure most of if you've been out to Panasonic, out in Panasonic is the head office of a company called E-Z Mile, which is a European company who decided to bring their own North American headquarters to Denver, Colorado, which is great. And that's what they're developing. If you go out there, you can take a ride on one. For those of you who haven't been on it, it's it's real. It's happening. And I think one of the things that we have to wrestle with in this building, in the building across the street, is how do we have how do we have the regulatory environment? Keep up with that because it's coming and we need some changes to accommodate it. But then the last question, you know, typically maybe 15 years ago, we built cities and we didn't really think about families. Right? We thought about young professionals. It's the Richard Florida model rise of the creative class. Let's get all the creatives now. We're in a downtown. We're talking about there's there's no schools. There's no, you know, child care. There's no things like that. Have you contemplated that in this kind of development? Yeah. Those of you have heard me talk about this project. You've probably heard me talk about what a great place Denver, Colorado is for a certain demographic that we built it for. I moved here 20 years ago when I was 30 years old, and it was a great time to be a 30 year old in Denver, Colorado . I think it's a great time right now to be a 30 year old in Denver, Colorado. I think what we haven't focused enough on is exactly your point is how do we start to accommodate families downtown? I grew up and watched Vancouver grow up as a city, and one thing I really noticed is that the downtown didn't start to thrive until I would wake up downtown and I'd see families pushing a stroller downtown on a Saturday or Sunday morning. So how do we do that? Families aren't going to come downtown and live in a studio apartment. They're just not. So our plan is to build a diversity of housing product that can accommodate families that's at a market rate. And also, as we heard earlier tonight, on an affordable level as well with larger unit sizes. But I think as importantly is the infrastructure that you need to build a school. And we've been in conversations with DPS. I'd like to do a a grade school in this area, which they say will be required. They say we're good on a high school with north and West servicing this site, but a grade school for sure . We have committed to build a community center, a rec center for the citizens of the city and exploring opportunities for daycare and the like, amenities that families really need. Thanks. Appreciate it. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilman New Reese. Thanks again for all you're doing. There's going to be a credible project for downtown and you're bringing the river to downtown. It's just going to be wonderful. I can't think more highly of what you're what you're doing with the project, especially innovative ideas. You have a transportation and it's very impressive. One real quick question I note after this, we're going to be improving the development agreement and just that's all been finalized and agreed by all parties, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yes, it has. I know there was a lot of conversation about Section 27 that I think was the last related issue. But yeah, it was it was definitely a hard negotiation with the city, but I think we got to a good place in the end. Great. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Lopez. Yeah, thank you. Some we've had this conversation before and you know, to understand the future use and the need that's out there is definitely there. I hear a lot. From folks in the community that are. Villages will have to move again or. Is this the end? So my question is, what is the future plan for the current use? And I want to preface that by saying, as we grow and as we expand as a city and as it's great for 30 year olds, we need to make sure that it's also great for our young people who need a safe place and affordable place for them and their families to be able to enjoy this city. What happens to the current use? What happens to those cards? Thanks for reminding me. I can't give a presentation without reassuring people that dealerships is not closing anytime soon. So come to the park. Come to the park. We have a phased plan for development that sees the park stay in place and we make better use of the 17 acres of surface parking that we have. And we do that by building a centralized parking garage on a portion of that 17 acres for the Ilitch patrons. And that allows the park to operate as we build out phase one. So the carefully chosen phrase that I use is the park will be there for the foreseeable future. So if you're not, it's going to be there for a long time to come. Your comment about giving kids a place to go. I understand that. And, you know, changes change is hard for people right to let go of something and they let go of villages once already at 38th and Tennyson. So I'm not sure if that makes it easier or harder to let go of this. But I can tell you two things. The ownership group is committed and actively looking at feasibility on a relocation, as we've talked about in the past. They won't be for years to come, but it's definitely in the forefront of our minds. And number two, I hope we can replace the glitches when that time does come with this 15% parks and open space that we have planned along the river. And that takes a bunch of different forms. That's passive space walking that separated bike and pedestrian paths. That's active sport court type uses and then a lot of active river use as we've talked a lot about fishing. We haven't talked a lot about the river work that needs to go on on the floodplain. But what that can result in is a bunch of recreational opportunities in the river, aside from fishing, such as stand up paddle board and perhaps a standing surf wave, things like that. So trying to be inclusive and also by bringing what I call the new model of entertainment for young people, Meow Wolf to the site. Which is in what council district began. And the a really good one. Then the third council district. Mr. President, I'm if I may continue, I'm flirting with with commentary here, but I just wanted to ask that question because I want it to be on record and I want it to be clear. I think it's it's what we're doing in creating the open space and providing this opportunity and maximizing what could be on this site is a good thing. My concern is that we make sure that it's still available for folks that don't have to pay too much. And I'm not talking about freebies and free tickets and handouts. Working people can pay. However, it's some of those amenities that make Denver what it is. And I keep thinking, Mr. President, of the Ferris wheel and saying not to see this is not. To see Denver. And it just keeps ringing in my head. Any uses for the old carousel or the Ferris wheel, perhaps? You may have a book in front of you that may have a rendering in it of our central square. One idea that we've toyed around with that is depicted in the rendering of relocating our carousel into the central square that may have, may or may not have been a direct result of one certain councilman's suggestion. Okay. Thank you very much for that answer. Are you all done with your leading questions, Councilman? I rest my case. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing four counts. Bill 1 to 25 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Espinosa and then Councilman Brooks again this time around. Or we know this is unfortunately all in the side of my district. Councilman Brooks. Yeah, just off. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be supporting this rezoning enthusiastically for a number of reasons. But, you know, I believe this is consistent with all adopted plans. It's uniformity of district regulations. It furthers the public health and safety and welfare, and it meets all the justified circumstances listed below. And it also is. Consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district and purpose and intent. And for the major reason, reason is I've been a part of the entire process from the beginning and there, you know, in a time when Denver is going through the most growth and there's so many questions about that growth and there's so much perception and you heard it tonight, we come up with this plan. Reese comes to us with his partner, with this plan to blow it out of the water, to say that there's going to be no zoning requirements and we're actually going to go further into this urbanist ideology. And the neighbors in District one, you know, put District one on the spot here who probably came in a little tidbit and I was a little timid, actually fell in love with the project and because the process was right. And so I'm so excited about this and it was not easy. I think both the city I think the council folks that were at the table, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Quinn, each Reece's team, there were some long meetings that we had. But we're here. And this is how you build a city. It's it's it's being inclusive of all ideas. It's it's, you know, really embracing multiple values. And that's what inclusivity is all about. And I really believe that we got to that place here. We embraced everything and we fought a little bit and we came out with a beautiful project and so much props goes out to Reese for staying in the foxhole. Much love to to Abe and Chris, who were also in the foxhole as well. All the OED staff, Melissa and Laura was working really hard on this as well. And I'm really excited to see what we become. And I think this just goes out to, you know, people talk about developments and I think this is really smart, thoughtful, considerate development. So I hope that we have more of this in the city and county of Denver. And I think this is this is more putting a stake in the ground of saying this is what we want to be about. We want to be about environmental responsibility. We want to be about inclusivity and affordability of all income ranges. We want to be about mobility options that single occupancy vehicles in a downtown neighborhood is not the right idea. We've got to have multiple options and that's not a bad thing and shouldn't be. I shouldn't be feel bad for saying that. Right. And matter of fact, we're going to do it boldly. And so in the the last thing families you are welcome in downtown Denver. We want you downtown because it's going to make us an incredible city and a sustainable city. So with that, Mr. President, I'll be supporting this. And I just want to thank everyone who put in all your hard work to make this a reality. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilman Espinosa. Thank you. Council said council president. I thank you for every council present. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, because in your comments, you sort of put me back into a place that was so long. One of the weird things, if you want to if you want to see four years of your life go by an instant, get elected to District one and I'm sure District nine sort of the same way. I can't. But it puts me back to when we first got here. And I remember I remember when I when you sort of introduced me to to the property, to Reese and how timid and reluctant you were to even have me engage with developers that you're familiar with. And I, I wasn't, you know, because I yeah, it's a lot of fear. That was what kind of what kind of ideas that I was generating at that time. And, and. And what came from that discussion is it turns out Reece is a constituent of mine. Right. And he's it's it's it's it's there's there's been relationships that have sort of flourished. I mean, not not relationships among us, necessarily, but things that are precursors to what has now occurred here. Great partnerships in the community, putting people together, putting ourselves together. So thank you for you didn't have to include me in the Central Valley rezoning. I mean, master plan update. But you you committed to it and you made it happen. And that was a forum where, again, that was largely your constituents sort of interjecting with my ideas and things like that. And and what what came of that. You know, we talked about previously and it was really a great thing when we had Central Park there and you made that happen. So thank you for for for sort of including me in this whole process because back to my previous comments, I do think this city benefited from that collaboration . And I in a sort of goes back to day one, that is I think you were reticent that I was willing to go there, but I always was, still am and look forward to doing that continuously in the future. This is what implementation looks like when the text amendment hits the ground. So we talked about that sort of before this rezoning seeks and commits to the regulatory tools. Long wanted to be I wanted to use I don't mean I can't write tools long wanted not just to generate revenue but to create vital, inclusive and sustainable city focused on the well-being of our citizens. What is being considered is adoption of the biggest. Ask this we as a city have made on our in our based zoning code. Thank you, Reese, for your willingness to both engage with us and to compromise to do what was right for all of us together. You and the city have managed to incorporate so much of what the citizens were asking for and affordable to citizens and affordable housing champions we're asking for. I won't rehash everything you just said in response to Councilman Lopez, but it's all there on tape, in the recording and in the attachments that we have online. How sort of far reaching everything is the tools that we created, the agreements and and the adoption of this rezoning. Thank you again for your commitment to introduce housing for all income levels in Denver living together. There is data about co-location of different income levels and the creation of truly vital, thriving communities. There are social benefits for all. Mixed income development has long been seen as an important tactic to strengthen neighborhoods. At the same time, it improves prospects for low income families. Mixed income facilities often soften the negative perceptions of concentrated, subsidized housing by removing obvious geographic and visual indicators of class. This is what we this is the way we want and need the city to be heading. So thank you. It's it's it's a great for to a mind to be able to to to what Jeff Shoemaker just said, to be on this side of the dais and to be able to vote. We'll work on getting this done and to vote for it being adopted. Thank you. With that, I'll be voting in favor. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, folks, for for working on this and keeping us abreast of what's what's going on. Council District three borders the southwest corner of this site and Mile High Stadium, and that property just to the west, the other side of the river. I hope and I have a lot of faith, but I hope that the future council and future councils make sure that this doesn't just happen in a vacuum, that it's more than just design. But and and it's more than the commitment to affordable housing here. There is such a thing as a community benefits agreement on the vertical development and on future development agreements. And I think it's it's important and it's critical that we continue to keep our eyes on the ball to make sure that that diversity is not just reflected here spiritually, but economically. If you want diversity in neighborhoods, there has to be economic opportunities. You want diversity in the city. There has to be economic opportunities for that to take place. This is one of those engines that's I mean, it's one of those economic engines. It's a very powerful one. And this idea of overdevelopment or gentrification and in this case, you're basically pushing out parking lots. You want to you want to utilize those kind of tools. It's a process that can be interrupted and it's a process that can be diverted. And I think it's something that we as a city have to be mindful of and intent for when we implement the recommendations of this plan, when this council continues to do that years in advance. Having said that, I think it's you know, I meant what I said, but some of the leading questions. I think it's important that we think of Denver in terms of an opportunity for all and making sure that we still have those places that are affordable. You ask our young people now without having to be charged an arm and a leg, there's really nothing for them for folks to do. We have one skate park in the whole city. Not much space. Anywhere you go where there's public space available, it's like skateboarding is a crime. It's illegal, you know, you really can't do it. And on some of these structures and it's not you. I'm not just speaking up for the skaters, but I'm speaking up for our young people and making sure that they have those opportunities. There's also work opportunities as well to those are also jobs and it's some people's first job and it's some adults only jobs or secondary jobs. And I think it's important as well as we do what we think, we think in those terms. Just to the West, this council will see and consider a plan a masterplan for Mile High Stadium and the future development of Mile High Stadium and the properties that surround it on the Metropolitan Football Stadium, Stadium, Football District. I think it's something that we are in negotiation with and talking to. We have folks in Sun Valley on across the West Side that are looking at this and taking some cues and filling in gaps. It's not necessarily. An ideology, but it is a necessity in a city, and I think it's a necessity for folks to be at the table and continue to be able to call the city home and not have to break the bank to do it. So I look forward to seeing this pass. I'm not a neighbor that's far away to this side. There's a lot of history associated with these with these neighborhoods. And I hope that's reflected as it moves forward in future votes of this council to be able to consider those kind of opportunities, those kind of benefits for the community . So with that, I definitely will support this moving forward. So thank you and thank you for your hard work. And if I may add one more plug. Yes, to the carousel. Keep that Ferris wheel there. It's the skyline. It's the skyline. It's those things that make Denver recognizable. All right. Keep it. There. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, everyone, for being here so late. We appreciate your passion for Denver and your willingness to sit in those hard pews bleachers. I don't know what they're called in 60 seconds or less. I'm going to tell you two personal stories and tell you why I'm voting for this. My dad, along with Joe Shoemaker, was very much involved in the great Wayne Foundation 40 years ago. I was at the dedication of the first park there when I was a little kid. I have a painting of it in my office. And wouldn't my dad and old Joe Shoemaker have their minds blown by this? This is amazing to imagine that we're going to have a mile long park on the river where there are trout swimming instead of it being a dump. I just think it's incredible. The other thing I have to share about Ilitch is when I was seven years old that the old elegies, I knocked out my front tooth on the Wildcat. Today I have, like I called it, $1 million tooth. I've had so much done to preserve it. I will be supporting this. It meets the criteria, but it's also an incredible opportunity for our city to have a master planned urban center, to incorporate all those things that we like about great cities, and to think about it ahead of time and make sure we have all of those things. There is no gentrification there. There's nobody living there. There's a bunch of parking lots. We're creating housing. We're creating affordable housing, one that we do affordable housing with a partnership instead of using a stick. I appreciate that you're putting green space there. We very much need more green space in Denver. Thank you for that. I already mentioned the mile long river. Over by the mile long park by the river. You're putting in the infrastructure that we need. This is density where density should be. And you're providing all those connections. So when there people are living there, they can get out and not have to be in a car. I also really appreciate the architectural standards. There is so much ugly new architecture in Denver. The whole Denver process that was one of the big themes that came out of there is yuck, ugly. These are not going to be ugly. And the fact that it's all planned out, we also have a lot of mishmash in our city. Some of it is in my district. I know a lot of it is in Councilman Espinosa's district. So really happy that you guys are doing that. And thank you. I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I can remember when the Downtown Denver Partnership took a trip to Vancouver and everybody came back really excited talking about density in the city of Denver. This goes back, I don't remember like maybe 20, 25 years. And that became part of the discussion of looking at building out the core of our city with higher density, attracting more people to our downtown, making sure that we had a thriving downtown. And fast forward to today, we have a Vancouver former resident assisting us in looking at how we continue to build in our city. And I want to personally thank Reese for coming and meeting with me in my office on several occasions, but really more so for the work that you've done with the adjacent communities. I used to represent Jefferson Park Highlands, lower downtown, Central Platte Valley, and these are active communities. And if there was concern, the opposition would fill this room and the fact that. There were no letters of opposition. The fact that you had two folks from Jefferson Park and Highland speaking in support of the project really is a testament to the work that you've done and your entire team of people that worked with you, including our city team, to bring forward something that exceeds city goals both on housing and open space. And not not only is looking to address parking maximums, but also has a commitment to a team. The 44 neighborhood meetings, not including all the ones with city and the rest of us, really. I mean, just highlight your commitment to want to do this right and to do it in a way that not only you would be proud, but I think the rest of the Denver community would be proud. Denver doesn't have an ocean, but we will have riverfront property that will serve the entire community. It won't just be for the residents that will live within this development, but it will serve adjacent neighborhoods and beyond. And that's exciting just to know the kind of improvements that will happen on the river, taking that area out of the floodplain as well. The infrastructure masterplan for this site is critical and it's important for it to work. I would really like to see our city get to a place where we're connecting your project to Mile-High Stadiums, project to Sun Valley and to all the others along this river corridor, because I think it's something that we have to collectively do to make sure that we're doing it right for our entire city. So with that, I will be supporting this tonight. And I want to thank my colleagues. Councilman Burks, Councilman Espinosa, who were very engaged in this process, and Councilwoman Kenney to plugged into the affordable housing part of this as well. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. As Denver continues with the mantra of density, density, density, I can't think of a more appropriate place anywhere in the city than to drop this density with to add a couple of light rail stations on the property, a couple of more in spitting distance. So that's extremely extreme. Is it wrong to use that word, Councilman? I didn't mean to offend you. I didn't say bags. I don't. Feel easily entertained. By that. I also like the the CPV districts that were pros approved before that seemed to promise the ability to build this density without overwhelming the skyline. I like the river work. I mean the possibility of what's being talked about. I love the fact, Mr. Dugan, that you're talking about 15% open space rather than the 12 the city is talking about. I don't know that 15% is enough considering where the city is now. But I appreciate that the 1200 units, if that's what it turns out to be of affordable housing, is somewhat heartening. I just wonder if we have our numbers right on what we need to be building. I think the under 60% might be a little bit light for that much acreage. I don't know how we get our under 30 taking care of at 120 units on that bigger property. It's going to be interesting to see what actually gets built there. As Councilwoman Kennedy alluded earlier, what's being planned to be built now on the Gates site is fairly dramatically different than what was planned for that site ten years ago. So we'll see where the economy goes and how Denver fares and how your plans actually are manifest. I the one thing I hate about this is I hate to hear about 20 to 25 years. I would love those 8000 units tomorrow. It would take an enormous amount of pressure off the rest of the city because I do see some density in other parts of the city that I think is inappropriate. And so I'd love to see the Central Platte Valley buildout more quickly, but as I said, we'll see how fast this actually actually happens. And the other thing I didn't mention. I very much like as far as the affordable component, that there are benchmarks, that it doesn't wait till the end of the project is if I understand that as this evolves, the elements of affordable will come along with it. So I wish you the best and I wish all of us the best. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Neal, because. I look forward to voting for this. And thank you again, Reese and the cranky family for making this major investment. Our cities is incredible. What you're going to be doing and and especially the dedication and I can remember the early discussions about this, about affordable housing and how you were dedicated then as well as you are as much as you are now. So thank you. Thank you for that. Really appreciate that, Councilman. Espinosa and Brooks really led the effort with you. And I'm proud that it came out to be a such an agreeable proposition and development for you. I'd also like to thank you. Probably all the council people would like to thank you for addressing the Council Councilwoman Ortega's railroad issue. We really appreciate that. So the the buffer, this makes us really pleased, especially for her. So thank you again and look forward to a great project. Thank you. Thank you, Kels. Menu. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. I want to definitely think Councilman Brooks and Councilman Espinosa for working together on this. And, Reese, your entire team, I mean, you guys worked really hard on this. And, you know, I know folks will miss Elegies someday, but before we had Elegies, we had nature in the outdoors. And so that one mile of river that you're going to reactivate and create a wonderful riparian habitat is so important because that connects young people and their families to actual careers. There's careers in science, technology, engineering, art, math. And so all of those steam components are so important. And on top of it, we've got the affordable housing, we've got additional park space. And this project I can really see as a model project and when you talk about adding density, but then also adding nature and greenspace to it, that's the way that we've got to go . And so I share my desire that that Councilman Cashman has I hate to have to wait too long to get something like this because it's going to be so important and transformational to the families and residents who are going to live in this area. And so I'm happy to support this. I see that it meets all of the review criteria and great job and look forward to see what comes next. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Seeing no other comments, I just want to thank everyone for coming tonight, for sticking so late in those chairs for all of your engagement in this. And, you know, I will echo a lot of what everyone else said without saying it. I just I'll just add that I think the first time you and I met, I said, you've got the best piece of riverfront real estate in the city. And it has been really cool to watch that process of the vision emerge for that. And, you know, to, to, to have the history that we have with our. River. And to see and hear tonight, I wrote down that the river is a main street. We are literally treating the river as a main street, the river as our front door. And that is not the history that the city has with that river. And really, this project is, you know, that that we're really living that vision up to to as far. So I'm excited to support this tonight. And with that, Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Hi, Cashman. Hi, Mitch Lopez. All right. New Ortega. Hi, Sussman. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting in those results. 12 hours. 12 hours counts, Bill one, 2 to 5 has passed. Councilman Lopez will put council resolution 1287 on the floor.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Operating Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority; and Introduction of Ordinance Approving a License and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 66-Year License with the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority for Use of Real Property and Submerged Land at Alameda Point. [Requires Four Affirmative Votes] (Community Development 858)

AlamedaCC_12172019_2019-7528

Recommendation to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Operating Agreement between the city of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority and introduction of ordinance approving a license and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a 66 year license with the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority for the use of real property and submerged land at Alameda Point, this item requires four affirmative votes. Good evening, Ashcroft. Can I just wait until we have everyone's attention? Okay. Are we ready? All right, please. Good evening, city council members. I'm Michelle Giles, the base for you manager. And I'm here to present a report recommending that the city council authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Operating Agreement. And the water emergency with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority or WETA, and introducing an ordinance approving a license and authorizing the city managers to negotiate and execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a 66 year old 66 year license with the LIDAR for the use of real property and submerged lands at Alamy. A point I want to give you just a little bit of background, a little bit of context for how long we've been working on this. In 2005 15, the council approved the DDA with the with AP for the site, a project which required AP to construct the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal and contribute $10 million towards the project as part of the site infrastructure. In 2016, city and the city and we approved a ferry terminal plan and an IMO you with veto to provide a framework for funding and operations of the sea plane terminal. At the time the IMO was approved, funds for operation to launch the service were not sufficient. The parties agreed in the IMO to collaborate and seeking other funding sources to fund an operating subsidy. In 2017, Alameda County Transportation Commission awarded the Ferry Terminal Project at $8.2 million grant and county Measure B funds, bringing the total funds to 18.2 million. In September 2018, the city approved an updated ferry terminal plan with updated costs of 22 point million, which was a $4 million increase from the previous budget. And but to close the construction gap the city appropriated just last year. Last fiscal year, $2 million towards the project. And the Wheat Board approved a $2 million contribution to have a fully funded project. On July 19th of this year, the city entered into a funding, construction and dedication agreement with AP to address the expenditures of funds for all the ferry terminal costs for the completion of the design permitting and construction of the ferry terminal project and the dedication of the ferry terminals, landside and waterside improvements, landside improvements to the city and waterside improvements to wider following construction of the terminal. So construction began this year in July and anticipated completion is in spring 2020. Just last month, the city the Wheat Board approved initial service for a seaplane lagoon starting in August 2020 with a six trip commute service created by restructuring the Alameda Oakland Service to shift the peak period. Alameda Trips to Seaplane Lagoon. The midday and evening services at Main Street will continue. The service was initially developed for implementation with the new ALM three funds, which we just talked about with Representative Quanta, which are, as we know, currently unavailable due to the ongoing legal challenges. But we do have the board agreed to use other funds to operate the service over a three year planning period in the meantime. Just last week we had a board approved the operating agreement and license at their December 12th meeting and we are here today to bring forward that operating requirement. The purpose of the operating agreement is to define the rights and responsibilities of of WETA and the city in connection with the operation of the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal. Just a brief summary of some of those rights and responsibilities. The city's rights is to continue to own the landside area and the waterside area, which is the seaplane lagoon, to maintain and to maintain the landside area. The city will execute a 66 year license to enter and to enter on and access city's submerged real property for a license fee of a dollar per year and will cause AP to execute a bill of sale to transfer the ownership of the waterside assets from AP to Wheeler. We just rights and responsibilities are to own and maintain and repair and replace all the waterside improvements, including the float, the gangway and the. I'm missing something. But all of the waterside components of the of the ferry terminal pay for an additional water, any additional waterside equipment, including any dredging it should it be become necessary and maintain and repair the submerged real property of the sea plain lagoon that it will be going over. And they also pay all long term capital costs associated with associated with the ferry terminal operations and traveling over the marshlands. Also, what we're asking for your approval tonight is a license agreement. The license agreement is needed by we to to access the submerged lands because the waterside improvements owned by Rita, the float, the gangway and other waterside improvements are located in the seaplane lagoon. And vessels must transverse over the sea floor to access the terminal, therefore needing a license to do that. And as I said before, the staff is imposing that a license of 66 years with an annual fee of $1 be effective once the ferry commences service. So tonight, staff is recommending that the city council authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Operating Agreement with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority. And to introduce the license, I'd like to acknowledge board member Jeff Obono here tonight, who was instrumental in working with Rita to get this project in the water, the operation agreement passed by the Wheeler Board, and also Kevin Connolly, the planning and development manager who is here tonight. And I just want to express our profound appreciation for their work over these last five years and hope that we can keep moving forward with this project. Thank you and. Thank you very much. Do we have any clarifying questions? Do we have public speakers on this items? Do we have we have agenda? We have the clarifying questions. Councilmember Odie, just one. You may have said this, but so it was approved last week. Right? Okay. Thank you. I have a couple questions on the operating agreement. I think it is, yeah. Exhibit one, the operating agreement. My apologies. Usually I get my questions to staff ahead of time. I'm not not on top of things apparently today, but excuse me, um, so on the, on the operating agreement, this is page two. Sorry. Um, page two, paragraph two, B to it says this has to do with the landside assets. So parking facilities and this is at Seaplane Lagoon Terminal parking facilities for approximately 400 vehicles, vehicles with the city making reasonable efforts to ensure priority for ferry riders during ferry operation hours. And my question is, how do we do that? Good question. They both smell. It was a good question. Yeah, good question. And I think it's a good answer. You'll have to figure out how to do that. So I'm this Maxwell. You can speak to the microphone. Please think of city council. Lisa maxwell, assistant city attorney. Got to get a taller microphone. Let's put that to wear. Now, that provision was certainly important one to Aida and we discussed it a great deal. And I know that parking is of great concern to them. So we didn't really have an opportunity to flesh that out fully. So we sort of agreed to continue to work on that matter and matter that the city would do its best. And. To to more. Fully. Mr. President. We are currently working on parking management, which the Council's fully aware of. This is one of the priority areas that we are working on in connection with that. And if you go on Main Street, you obviously see parking management's a very important thing with the ferries and we're trying to aim to have probably not paid parking there by the time we get to August, which we're hoping the end of August, early September is where I'll go take off, but we'll have the parking available there. That that's our aim. Okay. And I do realize that these things take time, but we've also heard AC Transit say over and over again that they the reason we can't get AC Transit Service to the Main Street Ferry terminal is among other things, because we provide all this free parking. And so at some point we've got to bite the bullet and charge for parking. So just and I think I would have some other councilmembers who would agree with me on that. I also wanted to and again, I apologize for not getting these questions to you ahead of time because I don't like to surprise people. But here, let. Me lob this softball at here. So this is page five of the operating agreement. And it has to do with this reader's rights and responsibilities. And specifically, this is this is paragraph 60 on page five says that we to sole pay for any watershed equipment, blah, blah, blah. And all dredging activity within the water side area again. And as to the extent determined necessary by weight of her seaplane lagoon ferry terminal operations. My question on the dredging is will we to also be responsible for hauling away and disposing of dredging materials? That would be part and parcel of the dredging and they don't currently think they need to dredge because it is deep. But we all hope for the best but plan for the worst. Right? So okay, so when that's part of the responsibility for dredging. Okay, that's good to know. And then the second part was paragraph six E that says we shall maintain and repair any submerged real property within the waterside area only to the extent it is damaged or contaminated by Wheater and or Wieters operation of the Seaplane Terminal Ferry Service. And to the extent such repairs are necessary to provide the seaplane terminal ferry service. And my question on that one is what happens when the submerged real property, say, a pier outlives its useful life and must be replaced? Does that responsibility for replacement become the city's responsibility because it wasn't the result of damage or contamination by Rita? Well, are we talking about the waterside assets then related to the ferry terminal service? This is the specific paragraph, Max. All is maintained in repairing these submerged rail properties. So aren't Piers submerged Piers? No. That's not. No, no. Well, I'm a little confused of the question. I apologize. Okay. It's probably in my ass. He never again visits you. Well, okay. Just because in other areas of the city we've had, Piers, or at least the posts that hold them up. The piers are part of the waterside asset, though, so they would be what is responsibility them. Correct. They will own them and they'll take them on the water. The the distinction of the submerged land is that we still own it. The city will still own it. Okay. But I wanted to make sure to capture that anything caused as a result of the activity by Rita would be their responsibility. Okay. So. So we still own the assets. So then the city is responsible for when that pier. No, it is that city's the city owns the submerged real estate, but we don't own the actual land. Okay, okay. It's on the water site and the city owns the landside assets improvements. Okay. Okay, clear enough. All right. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions or did I muddy the waters? Bad pun. Okay, let's end. Did you say we have public TV? No public speakers. Okay. Council decision discussion motion. Where to begin? I'm of approval. We can discuss after if we. Have a second. Okay. We have a motion. And again, this is for. Is there any reason we need to break this out? Because we have to do that. This is both authorizing an operating agreement and also introduction of an ordinance approving a license to. We need to break this out for a vote or once. Okay, so we have a device be removed and Councilor Odie seconded. Okay, discussion vote all in favor. Oh, wait. That's okay. You know, you threw your arm out or something. I just want you. City Manager. Yeah, I just want to thank your member, Doug Bono and all the staff leader. Absolutely. You don't realize how much negotiation and how much this partnership means to the city of Alameda. And I think it's a very valuable relationship. And I just want to thank them for everything they've done in making this even a better relationship with the third term. Thank you. I am actually I was remiss in not acknowledging that it I'm I've been to a couple of the we had board meetings to speak in Alameda. We are so fortunate to have the backing of the majority, if not the full Ouija board. But we have a very strong representative in Mr. Barrio. And by the way, but Mr. Roboto and Mr. Connelly are Alameda residents. But we I mean, we're an island and we do water transit extremely well. It's very important to our residents, and we're thrilled to have our third ferry terminal being built as we speak. And so, yeah, we can't thank you enough for the the support and we're going to make really good use of these new ferries in this new service. So thank you for that reminder. You know, somebody. I'll just be real quick and add on to what everyone else has said, a deal of appreciation. We all I think the mayor, the vice mayor, myself, city manager, Miss Potter, I think there were many other elements that came to them last week at a meeting. That. We packed a meeting and they were. Gracious enough to let all of us speak early because some people had to go. So I want to give a shout out of thanks for that. Okay. With that, all in favor. Hi. Hi. Okay. I didn't hear any. I heard also that the motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Okay, we're moving on. Item six B. Recommendation to consider adoption of a City Council Code of Conduct in Councilmember Handbook and Code of Conduct providing guidelines for Council members to follow and conducting city business and fulfilling their responsibilities as city elected officials. Oh, you know, the vice mayor just mentioned that we have a number of public speakers in the audience. Could or do we know, madam? Are they all for item six? Okay. So Council, do you suppose that since we have public speakers for six C would be we could swap the order of B and C. And make that motion. Second. Okay. I have a motion to take item six ahead of six p and it's been seconded. All in favor. Hi, Mr. De. You went away? Yeah, sure. Yeah. Okay, let's make that unanimous. Okay. So with that, we will take item six, the.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute contracts with various One-Stop Career Center Service Providers, in support of strategies that provide training and employment services to residents, for a total amount not to exceed $2,533,850; and to execute any needed subsequent amendments. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11102015_15-1150

Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Yes. Motion carries. Yeah. Adam 11. Report from Economic and property development. Recommendation to execute contracts with various One-Stop Career Center service providers for a total amount not to exceed 2.5 million citywide. Councilmember Richardson or Councilmember your younger. No, thank you. SUNY staff report on this item. Excuse me, we can have a quick report from the executive director, Nick Schulz. And it's important to note that the three items are going through tonight, through Nick and his. Team's work is realizing $7 million to the city. So, Madam Vice Mayor, Mayors, the city council. Very quickly, as opposed to the previous item, this item is actually a discretionary award through H1-B money to the Pacific Gateway Workforce Investment Network from the Department of Labor. This is money directly for training to eligible individuals for open positions. Based on my forecast in the health care sector, you will see in the training institutions on on page two, who will be the actual providers for those residents to assist in those training and the primary areas of instructions or occupations that the folks will be able to fill. Those have all been determined to be in demand in the local labor market area. Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Councilwoman Mongeau. I just wanted to comment on how remarkable a job you've done on this. I think that it's. A new day in Long Beach for Rio. And I'm really thankful that you're at the helm. So thank you for the work you've done. This money means a lot to the community in terms of what good it can do. And so I know there's even more on the horizon, and I look forward to the things ahead. So thank you. It's. It's. This money is life changing money for many people who don't have work right now. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on item 11? None. Members cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 12 Report from Economic and Property Development. Recommendation to execute documents with the State of California to accept Workforce Investment Act funds to operate the Long Beach Youth Demonstration Project and execute a contract with leadership Long Beach in the amount of $220,000 to provide leadership development citywide.

A bill for an ordinance amending Division 11, Article VIII of Chapter 2 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver to update procedures and transfer governance of the Crime Prevention and Control Commission from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Public Health and Environment. Amends Article VIII, Chapter 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to update procedures and transfer governance of the Crime Prevention and Control Commission from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Public Health and Environment. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-28-18.

DenverCityCouncil_12102018_18-1267

Thank you, Mr. President. Bill 1267 is a moving of the Crime Prevention and Control Commission from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Public Health and Environment. And it also makes a few other changes. And I just felt it was important to call this bill out for a comment because there is some risk involved in the changes we're making. It's it's maybe worth doing, but I think it's important for us to all hold ourselves accountable. So the bill was, you know, the Crime Prevention and Control Commission was started when the jail was being proposed. And some of the council members in community that were concerned that if you just built a bigger jail, we'd just fill it with more people and really wanted to keep the pressure on the city to do diversion and to keep people out of jail and have alternatives. And so the the commission in this ordinance had somewhat of an autopilot of funding, which was up to three and a half million dollars to be able to fund programs like mental health court, to keep people out of jail or to fund other types of diversion programs. And a lot of the programs that the commission had had started have been very successful. They help keep people who don't need to be in jail in their communities, maybe with their families and their kids, maybe at their jobs, and helping to prevent people from, you know, reoccurring by maybe helping them get the substance abuse treatment or other treatment that might be connected to their criminal activity. And so it's been effective. I understand and I agree that there's a point at which when you put something on autopilot, you might not be as thoughtful as you could be about what funding is needed and how to do diversion. So this bill is is going to take away the automatic funding and create a more traditional budget process where you talk about what you need and you debate it and you propose it to the mayor and it goes through the budget process. And and I think that that, you know, hopefully will create a similar amount of funding for, you know, equally effective programs in the future. But I do think that a committee I think on Wednesday, we're going to have the jail present about what our population looks like. And we still have, I think, a very high jail population. It's it's leveled at times, but it's generally, over the past few years, exceeded the expectations of where the jail capacity would be. And so I do just want to say that, you know, I appreciate the department worked really hard to make some adjustments to the language to make sure that the commission still has a role in making recommendations, even where they're perhaps not going to fund a diversion program or a program that keeps people out of jail, that they're making recommendations to the Department of Safety or to the sheriff's department. But I want to just it for our community, because I think that it is really critical that we continue to try to keep incarceration down in our community. Families, you know, are torn apart. And and you have a situation where people can't work and you end up with cycles that are difficult to break. So we have to keep a focus on this commission. Several of our colleagues serve on it. I want to thank those of you that do serve on it, but I just ask us collectively, I guess, to watch this closely over the next few budget cycles and make sure that this commission is still moving the ball forward even with these changes. So I'm supporting it tonight, but I'm asking us all to just be vigilant. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to say I don't disagree with most of the comments made by Councilwoman Kimmich. And as you indicated, there are three of us that serve on this body. We will be having a retreat right after the first of the year to really kind of hone in on the work plan moving forward and to look at how successful we have been with the programs that have been funded and to evaluate whether, you know, those are all the right things that we should be spending all of that money on. So I think the the commission is going to play a very big and important role. And the fact that the Office of Behavioral Health, the Crime Prevention and Control Commission are all together at Environmental Health that looks at things from a health disparity. Health equity lens is also equally important because we have many of our neighborhoods. If you look at the maps that we've looked at around marijuana, around the. Data that we did on the the jobs priorities. They're all the same neighborhoods. And so just knowing all of that as we move into this process, I think is going to be very important. And I will be voting for this tonight, too. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. That concludes the items to be called out. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published, and we're now ready for the block vote on proclamations, resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Councilman Ortega, will you please put resolutions for adoption and bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Happy to do so. I move that the following bills following resolutions and bills on final be moved forward in a block for adoption. Resolution number 1354 1384. Make sure I'm not calling out the ones we've already done. Could you also add in proclamations and catch 14? So. Yes, I'm sorry. Thank you. Okay. So Proclamation 1475, Resolutions 1354, 1384, 1392, 13, 93, 13, 94, 13, 95, 13, 96, 13, 97, 1398. 1399 1402. 1411 1415 1359 1371, 1372, 1375, 1379, 1382, 1385, 1386, 1388, 1389 1403 1414 1287 1404. For a witness. I don't see 1287 on here, but. It's at the bottom of page ten. Sunderland use. I'm going off the one that our secretary has on the computer. So why don't you continue on? We'll just check on. That's what we mailed out to the public and it's what was given to us. So. 1287 is the river mild? That was the reason. If you look on the screen, that wasn't was the one that council Sussman postponed. So that one is not in our block vote. Okay. So not too. Visible that removed. 1287 So go on to 1404 1226 1340. 1351 1357 1377 and 1378 now. And those are all for adoption. So we're now going to bills for final 1360 214, 2013, oh eight, 1324 and I believe it is all of them. All right. Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. All right, Brooks. Hi. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Hi, Herndon. I Cashman can reach Lopez. All right. New Ortega, I Sussman. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting and notes. Results 13 nice 13 Eyes. The proclamations and resolutions have been adopted. The bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight, council was scheduled to hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1013, changing the zoning classification of 2929 West 10th Avenue in Sun Valley. However, there is a proposal to postpone final consideration of comes Bill 1013 with its public hearing to Monday, January 14th, 2009. So since we may be postponing tonight's only public hearing and if there are no objections from Council, we will not take a recess. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1013 on the floor? Yes, I move that council bill 1013 be placed on final consideration. Do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Lopez, your motion to postpone. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18 dash 1013 be placed upon final consideration in past. Years is the motion to postpone. It's on the floor. Oh rats. I just thought I get for a reading off of the script on your script. Sorry to postpone. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 1013 series of 2018 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, January 14th, 2019. Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded comments from members of Council Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. This postponement is at the request of the mediator and parties of interest to the rezoning. Requesting of the postponement does not indicate any decision on the rezoning. And that was 1934, correct? 2019? Yeah. January 14th. 2019. 2019. Did I say 2018? All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez and I should have clarified between comments or questions. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a question. I guess, from someone in the administration about this. This is the. Second time we're. Postponing this. And I'm just wondering if it's impacting the contract we have with the mental health center of Denver. In any way these delays, are they jeopardized. Jeopardizing that? Sure. Sky Stewart mayor's office. Thanks for the question. While I think it would have been our preference to move forward tonight, we are okay with the second postponement, but we are anxious to move forward. The rezoning would facilitate the solution center, which we've been talking about for a number of years as a crisis stabilization center for people experiencing homelessness or in danger of homelessness. And it's a it's a missing gap that we need to fill and we are anxious to move forward. Council will consider a contract with MH KD as the provider, so there are additional actions coming the council. We've made tremendous progress with the neighborhood. I think we're very close and I'm fine with the postponement tonight, but anxious to move forward in January. We really are looking forward to getting this facility up and running since it is a gap we've been missing. Thank you. And I think we're all happy that. You're all. Working with the neighbors. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa. As want to thank the administration for being okay with the postponement, because I believe that we're waiting as if as I was briefed by the applicant the that we are waiting because for community comment final community comment. And I think it's absolutely crucial that we actually do get these good neighbor agreements executed before we have, you know , before we consider these things. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez, you back up. Um. Shouldn't be. Okay. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement. Oh, wait. Councilman Brooks, you got in there? Yeah. Councilman Lopez, quick question. Is there a dispute between the neighbors and the actual applicant? Thank you, Councilman. No, it's just a matter of due process and making sure that we ensure the due process and of the rezoning, the rezoning requirements. So there's no dust. There's no issues. Well, there's issues, but I'm not I mean, as a as a person who's going to be as a councilor, who's going to be quasi judicial on the rezoning, you can. Still talk about if there's issues and you want. I'm just I just want to be clear. I mean. Let me finish why we're postponing. Let me finish. I think it's important that we capture that due process and folks who are at the table just at the request of the mediator and some of the interested parties, or Steve Charbonneau, who's doing the mediation and has been doing this for quite a while for the city council and for the city. And, you know, I think it's important that we give folks that time. There has been a lot of time since this has been proposed from day one. There has been plenty of time to work out and iron out a lot of issues. And so I think it's important that we ensure due process for all the parties who are in affected or a party to the rezoning that includes community. Any other questions, Councilman Brooks? No questions. Thank you. All right. See no other questions or comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement. Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa. I. Flynn. I. Gillmor, I. Herndon, Art. Cashman. All right. Kenny Lopez. I knew. Ortega. I. Susman. I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 1313 ies Final Consideration of Council Bill 1013 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, January 14th. On Monday, January 7th, 2019, Council will hold a required public hearing on Constable 1346, changing the zoning classification for 219 to 20 1 to 20 3 to 20 5 to 20 7 to 30 5 to 45. South Holly Street and Hilltop and a required public hearing on Council Bill 1387. Changing the Zoning Classification for 4675, 4685 North Fillmore Street 4401 North Milwaukee Street in Elyria. Swansea. Any protest against Council Bill 1346 or 1387 must be filed with Council officers no later than noon on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2019. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract Amendment with Ray’s Electric for the Park Street Corridor Safety and Operations Improvement Project, No. P.W. 03-15-03, in an Amount Not to Exceed $99,750, Including Contingency, for a Total Expenditure Under the Agreement, of $429,830. (Public Works 91170)

AlamedaCC_05072019_2019-6794

Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with res electric for the Park Street Quarter Safety and Operations Improvement Project and an amount not to exceed 99,750. And who pulled h. We have a speaker and. Okay. Oh, okay. Oh, so we have a speaker. Hello? So you're probably wondering why I'm up here speaking out on a public works electrical contract? Because it's actually because the devil is in the details. You might remember I spoke at the last council meeting about the need to implement complete street designs. If we're going to make any headway in both reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, which 40% of which come from personal transportation. And if we're going to make any headway in building safer, slower streets, streets where parents can feel safe walking in a crosswalk with small children without having to literally push them out of the way out of the crosswalk to avoid traffic violence, as happened very recently here in Alameda. I want to thank Vice Mayor John Knox White for drafting his call to action this weekend. I hope all of you have had a chance to see it, so I won't waste any more of my time listing his recommendations. I just I want to urge you to do all those things, do all of them with the same urgency that you would give an emergency that you said that we're in. I appreciate that. As a council, you really don't have a lot of opportunity to affect change as much as you'd like or really as much as we would like. But there are things that you can do. You can do the things that the vice mayor recommended. So please do those things. His first recommendation was that we do no more repaving without complete street design and increased safety for people crossing the street. I'm here because I respectfully suggest that we actually expand that recommendation to include all projects, too, that define how we prioritize pedestrians relative to cars. And a big button project is a great example of that. I asked that these contracts and that the final work product are evaluated relative to your mandate that we prioritize people movement over car movement. I what I don't want to see is us ending up with the same type of back button configuration and signal phases that was pretty recently implemented at one of Vista and Sherman. That's a that's a real mess for pedestrian and it clearly prioritizes drivers over over people walking. So if we don't review projects, including the two paving projects that are also on the agenda tonight, from a complete streets perspective, we'll end up with more projects like what Caltrans just did on the other side of the Park Street Bridge. The Park Street Bridge is the first safe estuary crossing for the west half of Alameda. For people who are walking or biking and it was just made exponentially more dangerous because no one did a design review from a Complete Streets perspective. The best way to ensure that all of these projects are reviewed through a complete street lens is to act on the vice mayor's third recommendation, which is to hire a new traffic engineer who gets safe, who gets street safety in cities. Please do this with the urgency of the emergency that you declared. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Pena. And do you have any other speakers on this item? But I saw the city engineer. Mr. Wickstrom, did you want to come up and say a few words about this item? Why it might be too strong a verb. I tend to. And it's certainly. Good evening. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. The item that has been pulled is item five H. It's for the Park Street Traffic Safety Improvements. This project is, I'll say, a bit of a legacy project. It dates back to 2011 based on the CP number. The transportation engineer who was previously working on it is no longer with the city. I'm here to kind of bring this forward to see what we can do to push this, I'll say, across the finish line and satisfy all the original grant requirements. I understand there are some considerations about how this signal operations are will be brought into affect once the project is complete. I personally as not being a traffic engineer, I'm not qualified directly to speak on that and would suggest that that's not an appropriate topic for tonight. However, if that would be the direction of the council, there's something we could bring back to to the to this body at a future date prior to. I think those are improvements going operational. Thank you. Any questions on the staff report or any questions for Mr. Wickstrom? And go first. Comment. A comment would work. Vice Mayor So I just thank you for that explanation and thank you to the Speaker. I had a chance to speak with public works staff before we are in one of these difficult places where the the entire staff that worked on this project and brought it to the Council for original approval is no longer here. But I do want to reflect that before that project was approved, the issues that Mr. Pena raised related to the pedestrian pushbuttons were agreed to not go into effect, whereby we will not have lights where auto triggering happens and pedestrian triggering doesn't. And so we have that in writing that was promised by by the both the city engineer and the public works director before it was brought to council as a part of the support that bike walk Alameda did for this project originally. So happy to bring it back to council for further discussion on that. But I just wanted to make sure that we pegged that for the public speaker that those issues were addressed before this project moved forward. And my expectation is when it goes in operations, it will go in as as agreed to. So could that be translated into direction to staff to make sure that that. Yeah, I don't I mean, I don't think it needs to come personally. I would suggest it doesn't need to come back as long as the, as long as the agreement that was made. And I'm happy to send the emails that show what was agreed to basically that all modes are given equity when the light is triggered, whether it's triggered by signal or by signal, car actuator or pedestrian button. Okay. Well, and perhaps just to report back to the council when that takes place would be good. Okay. And Councilmember Odie. I had a question on one quick comment. So the speaker kind of triggered something. Is it? I believe it's possible, because I think it's happened to me in San Francisco. Is it possible that you could time crosswalk signals so a pedestrian could just, like walk nonstop over a long period of time? So instead of timing it for autos, you could time it for pedestrians. Right. It's just coincidental that in theory. Yes, in theory, yes, that is possible. The difficulty is that the distance between intersections is so great and the walking speed is so variable between one person and the next. It's really tough to say whether it's going to be 45 seconds or 52 seconds between someone who would get between intersection. So while in theory, yes, you could in practicality, you really can't do that. Okay, maybe I just walk average. And then the other thing, I think the issue on the Park Street, if memory serves me correct, I think that was a city of Oakland design, not a Caltrans issue. So if you want to direct your your anger at anyone, it belongs at the city of Oakland, not at Caltrans.

Recommendation to request the Commission on Youth and Children review the current after school programs offered throughout the City of Long Beach and make recommendations to the City Council on how after school programs can be improved and/or expanded in the City in order to better serve our youth; Request the Commission on Youth and Children include in their analysis the following elements and report back to the City Council: • The number of youth we have in the City of Long Beach; • The benefits of after school programming for our youth; • The number of working families where both parents work outside of the home; • The need for children to have a safe place to go after school where they are presented with learning and/or play opportunities; • After school programs in highly dense neighborhoods with historically high crime rates; • Proximity from the school site to the after school program site; and Request the recommendations made by the Commission include non-fiscal options such as changing program hours or offering d

LongBeachCC_05122015_15-0443

Item number 19. Communication from Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request the City. Request the Commission on Youth and Children to review the current afterschool programs offered throughout the City of Long Beach and make recommendations on how afterschool programs can be improved and or expanded in order to better serve our youth . Okay. Thank you. There has been a motion in a second by Councilmember Austin and seconded by Councilwoman Mongo. Councilmember Austin. And I'd like to defer to Councilmember Price on this. Councilwoman Price, Thank you. I want to thank my colleagues for signing on to this item. I believe that our city commissions, some of them are a bit underutilized. And this one in particular, I think, could definitely assist us in exploring what afterschool and youth programing we have in the city where there are areas of deficiency and what we might be able to do to improve those areas. I want to thank our mayor for all the work that he's done to improve our city commission since taking office and providing them with appropriate tools to be able to participate in the governance that we do. I think that we've come a long way in regards to making our commissions relevant in the regards to this particular commission. This particular commission is designed to advise the Mayor and City Council on issues relating to the city's provision of services to youth and children. They were derm. They have been dormant for a while and I look forward to giving them this task. I'm a firm believer in letting our youth have a meaningful voice when it comes to city government. Currently, my office has partnered under the leadership of Councilman Richardson, who led the way with participatory budgeting. But we are working with the participatory budgeting staff, and we've undertaken the second youth led participatory project in the country. We've set aside $75,000 of our one time funds to allow our youth to decide how to spend those funds in order to improve a park project within our district. As a working mom, I also understand the importance of providing quality afterschool programing and opportunities for our kids to learn leadership skills and to be meaningful members of the environment where they will hopefully be future leaders. So I hope that my council colleagues will support me in this and send forward to our Commission on Youth and Children . This item for them to explore, study and provide recommendations for our consideration. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Monga was a second year of that motion. Okay. Okay, great. So now I'm going to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you. Just simply to thank Councilmember Price for raising the issue. And I do realize it's been dormant for quite some time. So I look forward to hearing the commission's feedback and really working on this very important extension of the school day for many students and working families. So, Councilwoman, thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Yeah. I'm glad. I think Councilwoman Pryce as well for bringing this forward. As a mother, myself, of three boys, I think it's very important that children have a place to go after school. And especially, you know, in communities like the first district that I often see where Park Park places are very, you know, sparse. And it's very over populated, it's dense. There isn't much many places to go. And so I think it's important that we look into this a little bit deeply as far as, as we mentioned here, neighborhoods with potentially historic high crime rates, proximity from schools to sites or school sites to the afterschool programs, sites and so on. And so I think, Councilman Price, again, for bringing this forward, this is much needed. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Having already been involved with some of the principals in our district related to child care, I hope that we will work to include our school board members from all of each unified school district. As someone who's worked in child care for many years, I find it important to know the options available to each of our schools and on campus. Programs are really a huge component of that. And so I hope we'll work collaboratively, collaboratively with our school board members and our local principals to make sure that this is a very partnership, a big partnership between organizations. Councilman Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I think this is a good item in terms of giving our commission something relevant to work on over the course of the summer. I want to just encourage city staff and the city council to not keep not take our eye off the ball in terms of the summer as our Game of Thrones friends, my might might know Summer is coming. And for a lot of our communities that means a lot of kids out of school, and that means that we need to make sure that we do have a comprehensive plan inclusive of our parks, libraries and public safety to ensure that, you know, as Councilmember Andrews would say, a tiger kid is a good kid. So so I want to make sure that we that we have that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I think that was an O'Donnell quote. Quote, by the way. Yeah. You got the creative in that. Watch out for those dragons in the summer. I'd like to also just echo the comments and express my enthusiastic support for this item. Thank you for bringing it forward. Bringing it forward. Councilmember Price. We potentially have two new parks that could be developed in the eighth District, which will add great greenspace and recreational opportunities for our youth . I've developed a youth advisory council for the eighth District. I know they're going to be engaged in that process, and we can call that participatory budgeting as well, because there'll be significant resources put into that part, those parks. But that said, you have my full support on this item. Thank you. And I also want to thank Councilwoman Price. She had mentioned this to me before, and I very thankful. I think any time the council brings things forward for the commission to look at, I think it's great. I also added that the the Commission on senior issues as well is looking for some additional work. And so if anyone has suggestions for them, I. I met with a bunch of them this last weekend, a great group of people. And if the council wants to bring something forward and not on that end, that would be really, really helpful as well. Any public comment on this item? Okay. Please cast your votes. Motion carries nine zero. Thank you. Item number ten.

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

SeattleCityCouncil_04172017_CB 118943

We lost our fans on that, but that's okay. Please read the Human Services in Public Health Committee Agenda item into the record, please. The report of the Human. Services and Public Health Committee and Item three Council 118 943 relating to preparations for the Human Services Department and many Ordinance 125207, which adopt the 2017 budget lifting provides and verifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. That's very big. Show. Thank you very much. And after what we've just gone through, one say thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilmember Burgess, for this. So this one's going to be quick. Last November, during our fall budget, we placed a proviso holding 475 $5,000 in finance general so that our Human Services Department could design what we called the Community Connector program that would be co-located with food banks in Seattle. They came back to us in my Human Services Committee last week, provided the outline on how they want to proceed. The cost will be less than originally thought. $355,000. We're going to have the pilot gathering the necessary data so we can know how many people are positively helped, what kinds of help do they get? How did they actually get the service there on the spot as contrasted to be handed, another phone number or another contact? I'm very interested in seeing what we can do to get the utility discount program or capacities and other things available for people when they show up. So with that, we're recommending that the proviso be lifted and the committee recommended unanimously that we do so and vote on it in this committee today. Thank you very much, Councilmember. Actually, any further comments? If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Suarez O'Brian. High Swan. Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. Herbold High Johnson. President Harrell. All nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passed and share with Senate. Please read agenda item number four.

Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing an annual special tax of $0.15 per square-foot for Community Facilities District No. 2007-2 for commercial properties in Belmont Shore for Fiscal Year 2019 and authorizing the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller to be included on the 2018-19 Secured Tax Roll. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_07242018_18-0612

Next item is the one that you're announcing. Next item 19. Item 19 is a report from Economic Development and Financial Management. Recommendation to adopt a resolution establishing an annual special tax for Community Facility. District Number 2007-24 commercial properties in Belmont Shore for fiscal year 2019 and authorizing the L.A. County Auditor Comptroller to be included on the 2018 19 Secure Tax Rule District three. Here we have a motion on a second. Any public comment? CNN Councilwoman Pryce. I. First item I know there was this issue was brought to the parking commission and there was some concern. So could you maybe talk through why this increase is being proposed? Councilmember Price Yes, good evening. And I'm going to ask Eric Romero, our business development. Coordinator who works with the Parking Commission, to talk a little bit about the need for this. Assessment. And we. Also have our treasurer, David Nakamoto, who's here with us tonight as well with regard to the establishment and administration. At the CFTC. Good evening, Mayor, and. Members of the city council. My name is Eric Romero. And so, yes, we've the rate for the CFD has been set at about $0.12 per commercial square. Foot since. 2006. And. Mainly due to the increase of the the cost. Associated with. Administrating the different payments associated with paying down the bond and also the increase in the debt. Annual payments. We're recommending an increase to that to the rate, which is the. First increase in. About 12 years. And if there's anything else that you would. Like to add, Treasurer. That. Okay. Are there any have there been any concerns on your end in terms of people not paying? And is this is this what we've referred to as the salaries? Yes, it is. So are there some concerns with people not paying the lowest tax? So we. Pose that question to the consultant that we work with to pay down the. Debt service. And as of. Today, there are only delinquent installments related to the 20 1718 billing and. Only represent about 8.63%. Of the 20 1718 billing. So there are no delinquencies for any prior fiscal year. Delinquencies in this district are considered to be low historically, and they generally do not last longer than one year. Okay. How are we going to ensure moving forward that we're capturing all the payments and that the the property owners who are paying their assessments in a timely fashion are not shouldering the burden of those who aren't fulfilling their own self-assessment obligations. The county treasurer and tax collector. Sent out delinquency notices just before the end of the fiscal year to notify the delinquent property owners that their delinquencies will become. Defaulted on July one. The CFT 27 does to the Miller, who does have a foreclosure covenant that. Calls for the city to take action against delinquent parcels if an individual parcel is delinquent for. 20 $500 or more, or if overall. Delinquency percentage. Exceeds 5%, the city can take action prior to these conditions being met. The typical procedure for dealing with delinquencies includes sending a reminder letter, then a demand letter, then removing installments from the textual then or foreclosure letter, then turning over delinquencies to a foreclosure attorney. We typically wait for delinquencies to be substantial before moving towards foreclosure, and that. Process. Involves fees for our consultant. Members. The county and a foreclosure attorney. Have we done any sort of analysis of the standard property size on these assessments to determine what the monetary impact of. A The increase would be the .03 cents. Do we know how much more it would be to a standard property there? Their annual assessment. The range may be. Councilmember Price I'd like to field that question. When the community facilities district was formed. It was by the vote of the property owners. And at that time, they they voted to self-assess themselves. An engineering report was prepared at that time that allowed for a maximum of $0.66 per square foot. We are far from that level at this point. Okay, great. Thank you. I appreciate that. It was my goal to get you to talk at a council meeting. So there we go. Congratulations. It only took four years. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. And man, Eric is you're like the new like CFD, like master. That was some good, like, information there. So. Did you ever think you'd be an expert on CFD? Just a few years ago before he joined us? I did not, but I'm very excited to learn. I never thought you'd be either. So awesome and. Well, no, we just met another capacity's vice. It's Mayor Andres. Capacity. No. Okay. That was very thorough. So no public comment, cause we did it already. So please cast your votes. Motion carries.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and any necessary documents including any subsequent amendments, with the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), to receive and expend grant funding in the amount of $3,235,203, to support the Long Beach Cannabis Social Equity Program, from May 14, 2022 through May 13, 2023; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund Group in the City Manager’s Department by $3,235,203, offset by grant revenue from GO-Biz. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03082022_22-0253

Right. So the next item is item number 18. Could report from city manager recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing city manager to execute an agreement with the California Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development to receive grant funding in the amount of $3,235,203 to support the Long Beach Cannabis Social Equity Program citywide. Hey, I have a motion from a council member Sorrel seconded by a council member Urunga. Is there a staff report on this? Emily Armstrong can provide a quick staff report. Can we see her on the zoom call? Anyway, if you could unmute. Can you hear me? Yes. Now we can hear you. Thank you. Okay. Sorry about that. Um, yes. So tonight you have before you a. Grant agreement with Go Business is our third. Round of funding with the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development for our Cannabis Equity Program. This will give us $3.2 million, of which 80% will go towards direct grants to equity applicants, and the other 20% will go towards administration and direct technical assistance. Thank you for that staff report. Is there any public comment on the site? If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or dial star name. Tonight can be. Your time begins now. Hello. My name is Sam. I am very successful resident. I'm curious if staff could display to the public as well as the council, the amount of African-American graduates of the equity program who graduate through the program and became a dispensary owners or any retail space. I'm curious because tangibility wise, I don't understand what this funding does with respect to creating that business infrastructure towards the community most represented by the war on Drugs. This weekend I'm engaging with the Office of the City prosecutor on an expungement program to help with these old drug convictions that are no longer applicable to the modern era . And it's still fascinating to me that we have this social equity program, and we've still yet to see any black graduates have any actual dispensaries in the city of Long Beach. City of L.A. seems to be doing better than us. So if that I can maybe speak towards that, where exactly that 80% of the money goes into creating new business opportunities in the city of Long Beach that, you know, can help pay for some of these things in the future. Because on the outside, in percentage wise, I don't understand where the money where it's actually going. Thank you. That concludes the public comment. Thank you. I will continue with your sorrow that you have come in. And I just appreciate the work that staff has been doing to get us to the point where we were able to receive the grant and looking forward in ways that we can make sure we move this program toward. I see. Mayor has rejoined us. What had been on this island. So. Sure. Now I think. Is there any. Thank you, councilman, for doing the meeting. Also, just want to just want to go ahead. Any of the council members have any comments on this item? Good news. Great. Any public comment, madam? Sorry. We had no further comment from the public. Okay, let's go ahead and do a walk over, please. District one. I district to. My. District three, my district four. I. District five. I. District six. I'm. District seven. I'm district eight. I motion is carried eight zero. Great. Thank you. And I'm not sure if we had I'm assuming Councilman Austin mentioned that we're going to do the budget hearing at the end of the meeting. So we still have a few more meetings, a few more items before that item so that we move that to the end of the meeting. So let's continue on the item. Let's do item with the next few items should be fairly quick. Item number 19, please bring it in motion in a second. I also in order to queue up, if you want to motion in a second, just go ahead and verbalize the motion.

Consider Directing Staff to Review and Update Alameda’s 2008 Local Action Plan for Climate Protection. (Councilmember Matarrese) [Not heard on April 4 or 18, 2017]

AlamedaCC_05022017_2017-4078

All right. So now we get to number nine counsel referrals. Nine A is the first referral. Instead of directing staff to give you an update, Almeida's 28 Local Action Plan for Climate Protection. This item was posted as Councilmember Smith. Number matter. S.E., thank you. And I just want to put a fine point on that. The referral was to a request to direct the city manager. And City manager direct staff. So I got that right in there. In 2008, the city of Alameda approved the local action plan for climate protection, and there was requirements in that plan to periodically review it. So this is a referral, but it's more of a reminder because it's even if the referral doesn't pass, the policy document says we're supposed to be reviewing and updating it. And it's been a while. A lot has happened in within that while we're also on our own. And we're lucky we have CASA and now a umbrella group to fill the role that the original group of individuals I see they're stuck. There was one of the people who brought this to the council back in 2007, I think it was, and launched the effort. I think it's absolutely important nexus for the ordinances that we're talking about for animal tree light pollution. Those ordinances are tied into something like this. We have AMP initiatives with. How to handle solar power and net meter. Net metering in the future is tied into this. There are a number of issues that are coming to a head, so the time is now. So I'm asking my colleagues to consider the direction. And we have quite a few public speakers. Oh, so anyone has any questions before I call the speakers? Now after the speakers, I just want to let the council know that I've invited, even though this is a very community driven process, we also want to provide staff direction on what this could look like working with the community. And so Liam Garland is here, acting public works director to also answer any questions from the council. All right. Thank you. I want to go ahead and call the public speakers, Sylvia Gibson, Jeff Gould, and then. Or. You're stuck there. Stuck. Thank you. I'm Sylvia Gibson and I'm here representing CASA with Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. And thank you, Councilmember Matariki for bringing this to the Council. This referral to review and update the local climate action plan that was written in 2008 and it spans until 2020 its goals so part of this referral. Well, it's just the beginning of a process that will take some years to complete as we look to review and updated probably in 2020 to have an update ready. And in the meantime, to look at goals that we've met and celebrate those and look at goals that have not yet met and create a kind of a game plan for meeting those goals that are part of the current climate action plan. So the process will need dedicated involvement from every city department. So it's not like something we can just throw to one department and say, you do this because sustainability is is everywhere. And in addition, involvement of community stakeholders, individuals, groups, nonprofits, business partners, the utilities, the schools, the students, etc. and course is prepared to help coordinate the community involvement that's needed for this update. And we ask the city for leadership in the form of a few dedicated individuals or a green team to to facilitate, update and and our continued efforts to make Alameda the most sustainable city in the Bay Area. So thanks. Thank you. Mr. Gould. Jeff. I. I like to thank council member Mary for bringing us up and. With respect to CASA, I have to say that I don't believe Alan Bean is all that green anymore. I've watched our content mix go from 84%. About four years ago to approximately 14% green. Right now, that was due to the sale of our seas and our geothermal part of our bio mass energy of we've been producing to Shell Oil Company. Other words are green power went to the highest bidder. Now. Alameda did a great job prior to that being green today. Like I say, we're not. Now all the proceeds from the sales of the dresses and all of our green power for the past four years. And now into the future, another two years. But the new contract they just signed. Will produce, you know, maybe $20 million. That money needs to be a part of this update and review. That money has to be allocated in a way that makes sense and this review slash. Update is part of that process. And I believe. Simply. Directing staff to handle this. Is only part of a plan. I believe that several members of the community. Need to be part of a committee that creates this update and this. A future plan. Thank you. I support. Thank you, Mr. Baer stock and then Richard Baker and then Alan Pryor. Well, thank you very much, Madame Mayor, and council members. I also want to commend Frank Maher for bringing this up again. He was at the beginning of this process ten, 11 years ago. And to renew it before the whole council and our city is a truly a remarkable step. I think you can hear from the celebrations that we heard from already and the intention from your council member and also the seriousness of the challenge that we still face, that we need a robust, vigilant review. Clearly, Alameda started and has been and I agree that we've been a model city in the whole barrier in many respects in the country. The selling off of our clean energy was a complicated decision, but it has been a ten year period. The city only had about 5% of emissions and that came from the government and that was reduced. The ferry was a big problem ten years ago. We have a ferry boat system that is now clean. AMP has taken some steps, but we need another addition to that. There's been a tremendous work on recycling school gardens and of course the consideration of putting solar into our schools, which I strongly support and hope the financing of that can work out and that similar things could be done for the hospital. But we need to accept the challenge. You need to accept the challenge. And as has been alluded to already, citizen participation actually initiated this 11 years ago. It was fully embraced by the council and all the other by business and civic groups, the schools and others. We need that same kind of spirit that goes into the next steps. So I would like to urge that we look at transportation, at the codes for new buildings. There's a big surge in buildings. The Planning Commission has dealt with these in past years. We need to be very strong in that as the updated plan comes into effect to take the successes we've had and bring them further. The fact that there is going to be a kind of a celebration soon is a great step. It was anticipated in the plan that the council adopted ten years ago to have in a regular review, a public review, not just in C2, in a council where there are a few people here. And that had taken place a couple of times with the participation, I believe, of the majority of the council members and the mayor. But we need to do that if we're going to truly achieve success with the whole public involved and to take it the next step. It involves public transportation, biking, not just one day to school, but biking. Lots of people in this town, a lot of steps that we can do with public participation. I'm also the president of the United Nations Association in the East Bay and then in Northern California. And I would like to suggest that when the review takes place and I will finish with this point, that there should be some consideration that Alameda will not only work with the governor and the state and the county, but that Alameda will adopt the principle that in in the context of the global accords that were adopted by every country in the world in Paris last year, 193 countries, it was up to voluntary action of businesses and countries and cities, and that Alameda should aspire to and hopefully will have a recommendation and an adoption that we will conform to the goals of that global climate accord. Otherwise, we're going to be facing sea level rise here and public health problems and a shortage of the things that make Alameda a great city. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Bangar. Mr. Prior. And then it's Abby, and then she's our final speaker. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council and city staff. I'd like to preface my remarks by pointing out that even though this plan has the tag word of climate in it. Even if all of the. Ice sheets in the world were status quo and there was no melting and no increase in temperature. All of the issues raised in that plan would still warrant attention by a conservation minded public and its public agencies. I'd just like to point that out. They're all good. They're all good. Areas that we should focus on as stewards of the earth. The the area that I would like to highlight or bring to your attention that I think meet that needs needs some more focus in this this new update is a look at the policy and decision making processes that Alameda municipal power users and the Public Utilities Board which essentially follows the lead of Alameda Municipal Power in making various decisions. I think I think the. A working group or however you want to phrase it that that that updates this plan needs to take a hard look at those policies and how decisions are made. I'll point out a few in the brief amount of time I have. One is the recent change in the rates for rooftop solar. Now much is or is made about. It's our own public utility. Well, at that meeting, there was something like 25 speakers that spoke against changing it. No one spoke in favor of changing it. Yet it was changed. And that put Alameda Municipal Power right in line with the state of Nevada, which adopted a similar change in their metering program for solar. And it led to hundreds of layoffs in the rooftop solar installation business and in Nevada. Another area that. I can't seem to get any traction on is doing a simple feasibility study on whether it would make sense to put a solar farm on Mount Trash, more city owned property that has no no other use in sight. And get a study just to see if that's feasible. But yet there was there was a feasibility study done as to whether we could establish a microgrid at site. Well, it turns out that it's not feasible. Part of the reason cited was there won't be any solar there, even though all of the new buildings will be solar ready. Thank you. Thank you. Alan Prior and then Ruth. Abby. If you want to speak on the asylum, please submit your slip. I'm Alan Pryor and I'm speaking for Gabby Dolphin. She couldn't make it tonight. And she writes, thank you. Council member matters for your referral. To update the city's Climate Action Plan over Earth Day weekend, I gathered 100 signatures in the space of 3 hours asking for AMP to let Alameda do more solar and a Change.org petition has gathered 197 signatures asking to have the same as we move forward. I encourage collaboration among council members, public utility board members and members and the citizens of Alameda to chart a bold new course for Alameda in mitigating climate change. Thank you. Thank you, Ruth. Abby. And then she's our last speaker. I'm really happy with the Community Action for Sustainable Alameda and I wanted to rise in support of the council referral. I think that we have a really big opportunity here in Alameda not only to update our greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, but also to set a course for sustainability, which includes a lot more than just greenhouse gas emissions reduction. But it includes revenues, jobs, industry, things that we want here that can be a win win. And there's no conflict between jobs and the environment in our and this new energy world. And we're really looking forward to the collaboration with the council, with the staff, with the community to chart our course for the next 20 , 50 years and will really recommend council move forward to ask staff to initiate a process. We're ready to support in any way we can, and I very much appreciate all your leadership on these issues over the years. Thank you. And Brody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I also want to commend my colleague for bringing this to our attention. I could sit here and talk about it for 10 minutes, but I'm going to I just agree with everything he said when he made his original presentation. And I appreciate all the speakers who also provide a comment. So please don't confuse my brevity with the lack of compassion for this issue. But I am going to ask, though, make a motion that we move this item, maybe tweak it just a little bit to make sure that the comments that were made by the speakers are incorporated into whatever plan of action staff comes up with to implement this vice mayor. I want a second with a friendly amendment. I think we're really strapped in terms of staffing. And I while I appreciate Liam working on this and working with the various groups. One thing that I would like to have looked into is whether or not we could have a consultant come in to work on this, since we haven't done an update for for some time. Or if there is funding out there for for those sorts of consultants, the San Francisco Foundation had been offering funding previously. So if we could get an outside consultant to help kind of coordinate either a public workshop or hearing on this and working with the different groups, I think that that could be very helpful in terms of facilitating this and seeing this to fruition in a timely fashion and also looking into if we could work with. We have a number of different MPP and graduate schools in the area, a number of whom have folks who have a background in environmental issues, who are looking for theses projects to work on. And that could be something where we partner with one of these local schools to see if they have a student who has that background, who's interested in working with a consultant to actually put together a feasible report that the council could then look at sometime in the next year. So those are friendly amendments. I'll defer to the writer on the referral if that's acceptable. I don't care how it's done. This is this is this is one of those things. It should be. All right, staff up, because this is, as I mentioned before, is this is a document that mandates that staff does something. So the referral is a reminder. It's not I mean, whether it's voted on or not, staff still has to do it. No, I. So whatever by any means necessary, it's the city manager has to figure that out. Right. And we can look into that. And if we do an RFP or a contract or it will likely come back to council. But. Liam. And Liam has already like. Looked at a path forward. It is about a two year process to make sure that we first meet with all the stakeholders and all the different departments and do the analysis and the inventory track where how we buy data, how well we are meeting our old plan and then taking it, as many of the speakers said, a level or two higher and then figuring out what that greenhouse gas emission improvement will be over time. So. We will start on it. If it sounds like the council is headed in that direction and it will be a very expensive process and I think it's a good idea to look at both students and working with the community and hiring a consultant. And the other thing is, I think we should have some sort of you're saying it's a two year but potentially a two year process? I think a timeline setting out specific goals and dates would be helpful more than, you know, more than just the first time it will come back to council. But I think giving different milestones throughout that process to just make sure that we're keeping on task and on target. And we do have that draft already. And it would if it would start in May and the final adoption is planned, I think, for June 2019 or. And we're Ashcroft. Thank you, Mayor. So I my question was just and I adopt everything everyone else said, this is very important and we need to do it. So just looking at this city council referral tracker, is it fair to say that this would be quality of life slash environment category? Yes. And so with this, I mean, this seems pretty pressing. So could it come ahead of. Some of the others are wrapped in with it or you need to get more information and get back to us. City Manager Um. I think a lot of it is concurrent. I would, I would like to move. Keep moving forward on the night sky and dark sky and the heritage trees, which are scheduled for October and November. This would start before then, but. I think we have to work on them concurrently. I don't want to slow down some of the other things if. Unless the council wants to finish one before the other. But I think we can do it concurrently. And it's two different departments. And so from that perspective, they can work together and not and share sort of the workload. Okay. Well, I look forward to the next steps then. Okay. But yes, I'm fully supportive. So. So is this a medium or a high priority? I'd like to speak. Thank you. I have some concerns about the point that this supposedly the plan itself has a target date of 2020. So I'd like to know what staff has done today on making sure we're ready to meet the. Because I'm sure this process is not dependent upon a referral. This is something Steph's aware of. So I'd actually like to know because the way I would look at that should be what should be happening is that assume staff has been working on this and has a plan, and I'd like to hear that. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I'm Liam Garland with Public Works. Yes, staff has been, along with the community, moving forward a lot of initiatives consistent with the original Climate Action Plan. There was an update to council in 2013 which shared that there had been reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of about 8% below the 25 baseline and the 2020 goal is 25%. So. And let me clarify, this was a 2013 update to the City Council on the 2010 results. It's essentially looking at the emissions in 2010, doing the calculations and the modeling to come up with about that 8% reduction. The target for 2020 is a 25% reduction. So in one sense, you look at that 8% reduction, you say, oh, well, the plan was passed or adopted in 2008. You've already got about 8% reduction a couple of years later. That means you're trending in the right direction. On the other hand, that was in the midst of the Great Recession, where a lot of this is driven by transportation and you had vehicle miles traveled going down. So in that sense, the wind was at the city's back in terms of reducing those emissions. It's very likely that when we go through the process of trying to update those emissions, that are going to be much more difficult conversation about where to target resources, how, what actions to prioritize. And that's something that not just a conversation here, but is with community members who had just spoken. Does that make any sense? So that was 2013. Yes. So what's your next? What is your next step? What's going to happen? Well, what I'd propose is that we've got the the event in May is that that is a springboard for the community. CASA Public Works, Alameda Municipal Power, other city departments to reengage on what's been accomplished through the Climate Action Plan, what remains to be accomplished or what needs to be focused on next? There are some big questions potentially in that examination of was that original goal the right one? Other cities have looked at that and said, let's set a new and different goal. There might be other areas for activities that weren't even conceived of back in 2008, but might be areas we we invest in more heavily now. Okay. But so what is stuff? Suppose that stuff's planned. So that to me, this shouldn't require a referral. And I'm trying to figure out, did it require a referral? Has staff been working on this? Do the staff already have a plan? You can't apparently came to council in 2013. I wasn't on council then, so I don't know if back in 2013 then there was direction to come back in 2017 or what. But is was already the plan. What staff would propose. And this is after reaching out to base for use in transportation Alameda municipal power and obviously having an internal discussion and public works is that that we come back by this December so the end of the calendar year with essentially laying out a proposed scope for the update. And again, that's not that's not going to be an easy question if everything is on target. And, okay, that's an easy discussion, but that's not likely to be the discussion we're having in December. It's likely to be. Where do you want it's likely us seeking approval from the city council about what new policy initiatives you want, us working with Costa and the community to get more public input to then bring back to the council at a later date. They said the current plan by staff is. Doing something in May with those groups and then an update to council in December. Yes. All right. Council has everyone on board for that. And then in the meantime, if you can follow up with vice mayor suggestions, if you think that would be helpful to try to get a consultant, if we can get funding, things like that. And staff may already be working on that. Groups may already be working on that. I'm not sure. And then so and I just and I don't know if there's other policies that council that the city has that have things when you're supposed to be circling back. But I assume that staff keeps a timeline and handles that stuff. I do. I do want to note something which is in the next city council meeting, there's a referral on the straws on request ordinance. Yes. So that is an issue that might get folded into the Climate Action Plan update. So that that is where we might we might be moving forward on a couple items all within the same update. Okay. But I'm hoping that doesn't take two years. That's my referral. And there were people from the audience that suggested that. But I'm hoping that doesn't take two years to implement. So I appreciate that. All right. So I think you've been given feedback. Is everyone good on that? All right. Thank you very much. And we're going to. Are we going to vote. For the second? We need to love the motion. So. Okay. Yeah. Well, actually, I want to clarify because the was feedback from Leigh that may not actually be what your motion is, but do you want to repeat your motion? Was just move the staff to move the referral with consideration of the input from the community during the public comment. And then there was an addendum and then the controller met her. She said, I don't care how it gets done, I just want to get it done right. Okay. So I'd like clarification because staff gave us more information of planning to attend a workshop, start work with our partners, community partners in May, and then come back to council in December with an update. So I'd like to make the incorporate that information in the motion if possible. It was part of my part of my friendly amendment was to make sure that we have a timeline with dates laid out for each of the next steps. So I hope that that would be included. Liam's comment would be included in that December. We stick with that date of having feedback in December of 2017. And I was fine with the comments on the timing, too. I mean, the party has to be high because the ice is not going to stop melting. But, you know, we know it's a two year project, so the sooner we get started. So it may start before some of these, but it will most likely end after some of those. So. 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.

Recommendation to Receive the Information Technology Strategic Plan (ITSP). (Information Technology 2611) [Not heard on November 7, 2017]

AlamedaCC_12052017_2017-4721

As we look at the planning side of this, it's important to look at all components at the very bottom level, how you manage your technology, the infrastructure, which is all the network, the desktop, everything that delivers that technology you have to look at as well as you have enterprise applications that are really strategic because those are applications that everybody, all the departments should be able to leverage. And then you have, of course, a bunch of department applications. So as we went through this process, we kind of looked for weaknesses throughout this because a weakness in any one component of that can dramatically affect all users. So it was important to have that kind of holistic view when we did the planning exercise. I think it's important to note that the complexity that you have here at the city is pretty consistent. We've we've now done 75 California cities, many of them of similar sized years. You're not unique in that way. In fact, as you advance with more technology, the complexity is likely to even get a little a little more intense. So I think at this point, I think your your environment is pretty consistent. Perfect. One of the keys to doing it, strategic plan is really getting alignment because at any point in time, trying to keep up with technology is very, very difficult. It's expensive. And so what we want to do with the strategic plan is understand where you're at today, have a realistic and objective understanding of that. We also want to understand what the demands are. What do the departments need in order to improve service, streamline their business processes? And then what we want to do is try to figure out the alignment of that. The idea that you'd have the budget and technology resources to achieve perfect alignment over the planning period is probably a little unrealistic, but you have to kind of go through that process to understand what that gap is, and that's what this slide really goes to. The other really important part about this slide is the strategic plan is more than just about hardware and software. It's about people and it's about processes. Sometimes you have technology that's just underutilized. That's not leverage. We wanted to factor that into the plan so you don't just start throwing out technology when it's more of a process. People issue and maybe training and other other strategies might employ that technology more effectively for you. So again, we kind of looked at all those components. Technology guy can't figure out how to work the remote. Look at that. This next slide, we kind of refer to this as our Spider Graham and Carolyn. Talk about this. There's a lot of work that went behind how we plotted. What you see here is the six dimensions that we looked at which really aligned two best practices for I.T. management and service delivery, specifically oriented towards public agencies. We went through all of those dimensions, and then what we did is went through a series of analysis. And then we came to what we thought was kind of an appropriate rating for that. What you see on this diagram is if you're on the outside of this, you're largely a reactive organization. What that means is you're you know, you're pretty much taken issues, fixing issues, taking issues, fixing issues. You probably aren't doing enough planning. You're probably not thinking enough about, you know, disaster recovery, business continuity, because you don't have time to do that. You're just trying to keep the wheels on the car, so to speak. The orange is the proactive. What that means is that you've got some best practices in place. You are starting to plan, you're starting to manage that delivery or you're managing your service levels with the departments. And then what we've got is, as you move in towards the center, is the really high value. What's important about this chart is not all public agencies necessarily want to drive to that green because there's a cost to doing that as you implement technology and the practices around it can get very expensive. So what was important is kind of figuring out where is the right place for the city of Alameda? Where does the value and benefit really make sense? As you can see from this chart, the cities largely kind of in a reactive, proactive, and there's already been some steps to take care of that. There's some governance activities to help with the alignment in the service delivery. You're already taking steps on your helpdesk, so you're already starting to implement some of that. One of the items up on the infrastructure side, which is one of the dimensions that we really heard a lot about and it's mentioned in our plan and we have a lot of discussion about was the fact that you really run all of the city on a single network. You've got an electric utility. The security requirements around the electric utility is significantly more than what a typical admin network would be. And so what happens is that that impacts your your city, the rest of the city department users, because they have a higher security standard than what their peers might at another city. So we've made some recommendations for try to alleviate some of those pain points and improve the ability for staff to be able to access the network remotely wireless. And those type of initiatives that under a single network running all of your utilities is problematic. I won't go through all the SWOT analysis here. A couple of highlights I want to talk about. One is the staff is really committed to figuring out how to use technology. And, you know, that's that's not a given. Everywhere we go, sometimes people are kind of against technology and like the way the old way things are done. We didn't hear that people are really excited about trying to figure out how to leverage technology. It generates a lot of opportunities that we identified in this from a weakness, a standpoint is, you know, you've got an I.T. organization that's really kind of trying to turn and reinvent itself to start following best practice and get the tools in place, get the technology in place that they can actually meet the service requirements that the departments are asking for out of them. And then also on the on the threat side is really one of the things. There's two things we look at. One is just the physical security, and that's something that we've made some recommendations on. The other is security in general. You know, you don't have to pick up a paper or turn on the news to understand the the threat of hackers and vulnerabilities that you have with your network and your network security. It's something you just have to continually evolve on. And so while I think you're in a pretty good security position today, you can't really lie down on that. You've got to keep keep actually being very vigilant about that and continue to evolve your processes to keep up with the threats that are going to come to the city from outside. Quick question, Amber Ashcroft possibilities and threats in the lower quadrant there. What is TCO. O total cost to operate, which is the total cost to run that technology. Thanks. So this next slide, that is a visual of the meeting, the city wide meeting that we had where all city departments participated. It's color coded. So you can see the responsible department there. It's kind of hard to see. So the next slides actually are readable. So the city got together and we really talk about, okay, where do we want to be as a city we're in, as an organization, and what are our options? So the first columns are actually all the in-process projects that are underway right now, and then the rest of it is our 3 to 5 year roadmap. And many of the projects that are up there are multiyear projects. So for instance, the H.R. Payroll financial system replacement is a two to 2 to 3 year implementation timeframe. So I'm not going to go through all of the in-process projects right now. But as you know, fire has implemented voce, which is our EOC system that once we activate the EOC, this is a system that will be using and they continue to tweak it. We've have the city website vendor has been chosen and a new city website is planned on being in production either spring or some summer of 2018 . And this will help the public actually get, you know, better information. And it also let the city push information in more timely. Some of the other in process, Terry, mentioned Wi-Fi and VPN access. That is in process right now. Right now, the only city building that has a Wi-Fi option for public and a secured option for employees is here at City City Hall. So we're planning on implementing Wi-Fi throughout city buildings. And then Rick and Park. I wanted to note that they actually went live this Monday with their new system active net, and that helps them with their, you know, program registrations and everything. So that was a good implementation recently. So as I mentioned on that exercise, where all the city departments got together, we we realized that the biggest benefit that most city departments will realize is replacing the h.r. Payroll financial system. So in 2018, $200,000 has been allocated to actually hire a consultant and we consulted with next level to do an H.R. finance needs assessment and meet with all the city departments and see what we want in an ERP system. And that work is being taken on right now, and they're actually going to help us draft our RFP and do vendor negotiations in 2018. We requested 1.5 million to be allocated to the actual replacement of the H.R. financial system. And that was actually a unanimous vote from all city departments. That was the voice of the user that that was the biggest benefit that we all felt would be realized by the city is replacing that system. And then another 1.5 million has been allocated in 2018 and 2019 for these different projects. In order to be able to create an administrative network. We need to do a fiber infrastructure review and see where the conduit is throughout the city that we might be able to pull new fiber to create that administrative network, which will then allow us to go into a smart city initiatives and possibly offer public Wi-Fi traffic management , those types of smart city initiatives, the electronic content management solution. As I mentioned, each department approached technology independently. So we have multiple implementations of laser fish, which is our document management system, but they were all implemented in different ways. And so that the funding is going to go into a like a comprehensive document imaging type solution. And then out of the citywide department meetings, there were three projects that are they don't have any funding allocated to it yet. And one is establishing the administrative network. Once we have the fiber infrastructure review, will be able determine the cost for that. And then the centralized address repository came up. Right now we have multiple address repositories. The cost to that is either, you know, from nothing to 25,000, so that we can consolidate all the different addresses that we work with throughout the city right now. And then Fire is requesting to replace the records management system because it's not meeting their needs, and that's estimated at 25 to 30000. As Terry mentioned, this is a visual of it specific operational projects that my department is going to be performing over the next 3 to 5 years. And as Terry mentioned, we've already started. We're establishing a service management system. So basically a helpdesk tracking management so we can track trouble calls and do some trending and be more proactive and better serve our customers. And then also on there, along with some other valuable operational type changes, is we're really focusing on our, you know, developing business continuity and disaster recovery of critical systems, identifying what those critical systems are to a city, which ones can never be down. And if they do go down when our, you know, recovery time should be so and that's all internal to it. So as you can see, we have a lot of good opportunities ahead and a lot of good work and that we're looking forward to. And we appreciate your interest in the technology strategic plan. So if you have. Questions on the questions of council members, could you reiterate or explain the public wi fi and then also the 911? But that really means okay. Is I did bring a referral supporting public wi fi wasn't here to actually vote on it's my understanding that council did support it. So maybe you could expand how. But but part of the process it will be. So in order to provide public free public Wi-Fi, it has to run on something. And so that's what we're looking at. You know, what are our options? Can we run it on the city's fiber network? If we establish it, we could, you know, target even key areas like down Clark Street and Webster Street. First, we need to make sure that we have the proper fiber there, that we can offer free public Wi-Fi in those zones that you want to create. The staff will be looking at it to set this next year. What is your timetable? Yeah, well, that's in the wild 2018 19. Okay. I think it's at 70. And then let me just find my notes on. So e911 that's upgrading our existing software and using state of California funds. So that includes enhancing horizon prefix. So no. That I'll have to check with with police. I don't really have any more information on it. 911. Anyone here in the room that has information on E! 911? I happen to see our police chief back there. He might be able to help us out. Thank you, Chief, for Larry. Eric Council members. Paul Larry Chief of Police. So the E911 system essentially is something that allows us to determine the location of a91 caller using their cell phone. That's basically it. Before E911 one, if you called 911 from a landline, which is still the case today, then your address and the name of the person who subscribes to that landline show up on screen so that if you're disconnected and the dispatcher still knows where to send the patrol officer, the 49.1, if you call it from a cell phone, the CHP answered that somewhere in their dispatch center up in Vallejo, and then they would have to determine where you were, what city you were in, and then call that agency, keep you on the line. So there was a very circuitous route for that caller to get through to the agency that she needed, where he needed to talk to that is taken away with the E911 one system. It's not perfect, but it's way better than what we had prior to it. And do we have that currently or we do okay. Because it was listed as an initiative like we would be getting it. Yeah. We certainly do have that. Enhancing the existing 911, but we already have it and have had it for years. Wonderful. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. So I think that completes that item. Thank you very much. The next item was five. I emotion to receive on all moves that we receive. And that was partly because that was an excellent report. I'm sorry we kept you up there on crutches for so long, but thank you so much. So I will move that council. I received the Information Technology Strategic Plan. Second, I was in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. And then five I had pulled and we do have some speakers on it, but I had pulled it because I had reviewed with we had quite a few emails received from the public on this.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and CoreCivic, Inc. for provides halfway house, residential and non-residential, community corrections services. Approves a contract with Corecivic for $5,000,000 and through 6-30-23 for residential and non-residential community corrections services (SAFTY-202158407). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-24-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-28-21.

DenverCityCouncil_05102021_21-0465

Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. This is the core civic. Contract that we voted down a couple of years ago, and then it came back to us in a different form and we voted for it, expecting that there would be a complete. Phase out of this company in our city. For all of the reasons mentioned in public comment. And in our test, in our own commentary during the contracts. We are here in 2021 and have. Had ample time to completely divest and no other moment in history would have afforded us a better time to divest, considering the state wide attempts to. Depopulate prisons and. Jails with COVID. And so if we couldn't do it in this moment in time, I'm really concerned about what will happen after this. I also think that a two year extension. Is not something we afford other providers. And we should, if we're going to authorize them to continue operating in our city in this capacity, I think it should stick to the one year contract form that they would that they would be basically adhering to if we had allowed them to be in the city. So I'm definitely a no on this, and I hope my colleagues also vote no. What I asked for early on was that this come back as a one year contract. With the baked in, ratchet down plan that we can understand so that we don't expect this to come in front of us again. So please vote no on this contract. Thank you. Council members say to Barker. Next up, we have council member Hines. Thank you, council president. I kind of talked about this in committee already, so I won't belabor too much of it. I would say there were some reasonable concerns about, say, for example, sex offenders, how who will manage that population. And the only willing manager is is a private for profit company. I did it just as as we mentioned the previous conversation, I did explicitly ask for a one year contract because I want I want our public safety folks to feel the pressure to to ratchet down. And we didn't get that either. So I'll be. No, thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. When the deal and course of the contracts came through the first time, we had a lot of conversation around what might happen and how long it would take to shut these programs down. We knew that it would be a few years and that was the for the pandemic hit. So I'm not at all surprised that this is delayed. I'm comfortable extending the contract for another two years with the caveat that if it's possible to end our relationship before that time and the Safety Department knows the council's feelings on getting it done as soon as possible, that should be done. However, the end of that time, I think it's my expectation and I know it was set in committee that it's the expectation of the council that at that point the relationship be severed. So, I mean, yes, tonight. But I think that this is probably the last time. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, Councilmember Pro Tem Torrance. I was just going to say the same thing that Councilman Sawyer said. I'm very much in alignment with what was just stated. So thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Pro-Tem. And not seen in the other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CDEBACA No. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hinds. CASHMAN right. Can each I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I saw as I. Black I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. Two days. Ten Eyes. 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?

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all necessary documents to receive and expend proceeds from the U.S. Small Business Administration in the amount of $50,000, for the express purpose of participation in the Start-Up in a Day Prize Competition, of which Long Beach is an award winner; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the City Manager Department (CM) by $50,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10062015_15-0997

We'd like Mr. John Keisler to make those comments for us. The innovation team leader. Mayor and members of the city council. Thanks so much. The Innovation Week is actually 20 days of activities. It goes from October the second through the 22nd. And this is a partnership with the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, L.A., EDC, the first innovation. Hold on 1/2. I think that's a different item. I said I have number ten, which was the US small business start up problem. My apologies. I'm looking at the wrong notes. My apologies. Startup in a day. I'm going back to the content item. It's very. Fast. My apologies. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council hit the reset button. Started the U.S. Small Business Administration issued a competition nationally to to come up with a tool to help small businesses start up in a day. And there were there are 26 cities selected nationwide to receive prizes of $50,000 and one prize, which was received by the city of Los Angeles in the amount of $250,000 to develop a online business tool. And essentially the purpose of this is to make the application process for small businesses easier and to to bring city process online so that people may access it any time of the day. And so we we submitted and won an award, and we are now asking for the city council to to accept the award so that we can proceed with the project. I'm happy to answer any questions. And thank you so much for for allowing me to speak on this. I apologize for the confusion. No worries. I think there was a there's a confusion about consent as well. So any public comment on the item? See nonmembers. Please, Gordon, cast your vote there. Maybe they've already. Oh, that's right. We were going to pull it, and I thought I had gotten told, and it clearly did not. So. Yeah. So it's been voted on already. So, John, great job with that report. Great. Moving on to item number 22. 22. Okay. Thank you. Let's let's just let's do item 21 since John has already started.

A RESOLUTION affirming the City of Seattle’s support of Planned Parenthood and recognizing its vital role in providing health care.

SeattleCityCouncil_10192015_Res 31624

Agenda item three. Resolution 31624. Affirming the City of Seattle, support of Planned Parenthood and recognizing its vital role in providing health care. Introduced October 19th, 2015. I move to adopt Council Resolution 31624 over the last excuse me, over the last several months, we've seen a lot of national news coverage and some here locally about Planned Parenthood. And this resolution with the mayor concurring expresses our gratitude and affirms the quality medical services that Planned Parenthood provides in the city of Seattle and throughout the state of Washington. Planned Parenthood offers cancer screenings, birth control for men and women in emergency contraception and everything else in between. They serve an average of 100,000 women and men in the state of Washington each year in providing medical services. Planned Parenthood is a trusted health care provider for one in five women in Seattle and across the United States. They provide crucial health care services to our citizens and residents. The city of Seattle, through this resolution, expresses its gratitude to Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands, which is our local affiliate for the health care that they provide to millions of people annually, including teenagers, people with limited incomes and other vulnerable populations. The city of Seattle, through this resolution, affirms its support for Planned Parenthood health centers in Seattle and elsewhere in carrying out their mission to safeguard and provide access to a fundamental human right. Basic medical care. Are there any other questions or comments. Down that way? Councilmember God. Well, I'm so very, very pleased. To see this resolution coming before us today. It's just really beyond reprehensible that the congressional. Republicans would use Planned Parenthood in Citizens Hill as if it were a mere. Bargaining chip. I must tell you that I go back quite a ways. I can remember the bad old days. I once accompanied a friend undergoing an abortion during the days when there were no safe legal options. We cannot go back. I will support women and families and stand with parents. Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood for voting. For this resolution today. Planned Parenthood is a vital, accessible medical. Care provider. For communities in Seattle. And throughout Puget Sound. And I am so grateful to be able to vote on this. Thank you, Councilmember. So on. Thank you, President Burgess. I concur with your comments. And I have to say, as a woman and as an elected official, I'm just absolutely fed up of the attack after attack on women's reproductive rights and women's health care with lies, violence and intimidation, the right wing is attempting to roll back the rights the women's movement have won in the 1970s. And these attacks have been going on for decades. But they have intensified and accelerated in the recent years. And everyone remembers just last month there was arson at the Planned Parenthood Health Care Center in Pullman. Large sections of the country have no abortion access at all. Women from Alaska come to Seattle because this is the closest place they can get their health care needs met. And how many women would be able to afford to fly to Seattle from Alaska to visit the doctor? We have to rebuild the women's movement, like the movement that won the abortion rights in the first place. We have to commend the courageous stand of the hashtag Shout Your Abortion Movement, which is reminiscent of the stand taken by women in the seventies who came out of the closet about their abortion rights. Special kudos to activists like Lindy West, who have been outspoken in their opposition to the attacks on women's rights. But we have to do more than just defend our existing rights. We, women and men and people of all genders have to build a movement for true single payer universal healthcare to guarantee all the health care needs of women and the trans community. We need to be able to fight for 12 weeks paid parental leave for all workers and ending the gender pay gap once and for all. Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien. I just want to add what a critical piece of our community Planned Parenthood is. They provide amazing resources and our society would be much worse off without them. It's appalling to see the attacks on them. And I appreciate folks bringing this resolution forward. I'll support it. Thank you. All in favor of adopting Resolution 31624 vote. I opposed vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will sign it. Member Larkana. Yes. I am circulating a letter that will be addressed to the Universal Protection Service. The this is the organization that recently updated the contract for providing security for the City Hall. The employees whom many of us know and enjoy their services and we consider them our friends. They are currently represented by SEIU Local Union six, and this letter simply expresses our support for these workers and encouraged the new owner to maintain their representation. Thank you. So we'll circulate that letter on the dais and to our security partners. Thank you. You do an excellent job, very professional, and we do consider you as our friends. Thank you. Any other business to come before the council? Councilmember O'Brien. I asked to be excused next Monday, October 26th. Second. It's moved in. Second, and the Councilmember O'Brien be excused next Monday. Any questions or comments? All in favor. Vote. I oppose. Vote no. You're excused. Councilmember Alarcon. Yes, I would also like to be excused. October 26. Sara, second. Second. Councilmember Licata wants to be excused also. We're dwindling quickly here. All in favor. Vote. I oppose. Vote no. You are excused. Anyone else? Thank you. That's the end of our meeting. So we'll.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and adopt a Resolution certifying Environmental Impact Report (EIR 01-17) making findings of fact; adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Alamitos Avenue Complete Streets Improvement Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2017011072); and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to adopt Final Plans and Specifications for the Alamitos Avenue Complete Streets Improvement Project. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_11072017_17-0983

Okay. Thank you. As our regular agenda goes, we take the hearing first. So we will take hearing out of number 1/1 and then we'll go right into concern, public comment and the regular agenda. So we have one hearing for tonight. Let's hear the first hearing. Report from Public Works recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution certifying IIR 01-17 Making Findings of fact adopt a statement of overriding considerations for the Alamitos Avenue Complete Streets Improvement Project and authorize the City Manager to adopt final plans and specifications for the Alamitos Avenue Complete Streets Improvement Project District two. Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The staff report will be given by Eric Wood Strahan, our traffic engineer. Good evening, Mayor, vice mayor and council members. I'm here requesting that you adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report and adopt a statement of overriding consideration for the Alamitos Avenue Complete Streets Improvement Project. This project will reduce the cross section of Alamitos from two lanes each direction to one, traveling in each direction with a two way left turn lane and protected bike lanes from Ocean Boulevard to Seventh Street. It will continue the Rhode Island saw last year from Seventh Street to Pacific Coast Highway. This proposed cross section will improve safety for all users in the corridor. The no recross section will calm auto traffic, reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians crossing Alamitos Avenue, and provide a safer bicycle facility for bicyclists traveling along Alamitos Avenue from 2012 through 2016, there are 29 collisions involving people on bicycles and people walking on this segment of Alamitos. There are also a total of 205 collisions. During that same time period, the project will add 23 parking stalls during the peak hours by removing the existing peak hour parking restrictions at a time of day when residents have a high demand for on street parking and will remove five all day parking stalls. The road died on Alamitos Avenue from seventh Street. North Pacific Coast Highway has worked well from a traffic safety and operations perspective and has resulted in fewer traffic collisions, with the collision rate dropping nearly 50% since its implementation, bicycle ridership has also increased after the roadway was installed. This project is consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan update unanimously approved by council in February as the Orange Artesia Corridor is a key North-South connector connecting Central and North Long Beach communities to downtown. And the beach is also consistent with the Vision Zero principles unanimously adopted by Council in May 2016 by improving multi-modal safety. This concludes my report, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Kate Thank you. And we, as per the hearing, we open up for public comment on the hearing. KFC. No public comment. Council member, please. Hello. My name is Raymond San Miguel. I reside on Ocean Boulevard. I haven't been involved in a lot of this city council and street alterations, but I did grow up here, went to Naples Elementary, Rogers Middle School, graduated from Wilson, went to Cal State, Long Beach. But it seems that we're we're just creating so much congestion with all of these bicycle lanes. I understand that we're trying to make it safe for bicyclists. But what we did on Vista with all these the bicycle boulevard and the turn about, you know, I have a friend that lives there and we worked on his yard for 8 hours and I didn't see one person ride a bike down that street. And now we set up, what, over $4 million on Sixth Street has a bike boulevard. We have streets that need repair. We have gutters and sidewalks and and roadways that need repair. And we're I just feel we're just throwing away money on these. I know we want to be a bike friendly city, but it just doesn't make sense. The congestion the traffic congestion that we're creating is just out of control. We took away two lanes from Temple to Alamitos and made this huge median, but didn't take into account that if we would have taken two feet from each side of that median and gave the cars that parked on that street a little buffer to open up their door and not get hit by passing cars. I don't understand why we have that. And then reading in this thing that I saw last night, we're going to continue that from Alamitos down Broadway, from Alameda down to Temple. I mean, we if we're going to do that, I understand that we need to move traffic. We have to synchronize the lights. So traffic continues to move. While I was younger back in the seventies and eighties and nineties, if you caught a green light from cherry going towards the 710 Freeway and you stay between 25 and 30 miles an hour, you got a green light all the way to the freeway. You don't have that on these streets anymore, you know, and we have the technology to synchronize these lights. So traffic moves through. You've added all these signaling lights on Ocean Boulevard right there at Bluff Park, where I live. And and there's so much congestion or in the rush hours that synchronize the lights. So we move traffic along and don't create all this congestion. Those are my thoughts on this. I think we should, you know, take a pause, consider this and really make it safe and move traffic along and and ease up on the congestion that we're just creating around the city. Thank you very much. See no other public comment on the hearing. I will turn this back. I will close the hearing by turning it over to the council and Councilmember Pearce. Great. Thank you so much. I really want to applaud staff for finishing this project. I know that this is something that we've talked about in the bike mobility plan. We've been doing this works for, let's say, October 2013. We talked about the mobility element and the general plan. And looking at this corridor and being able to say one is that we have traffic incidents and I believe the number was 67 serious injuries that require some type of medical attention just in between seventh and ocean, just in that small area and that we need to be able to do something to address and getting to Vision Zero. And so I applaud you for being able to think creatively about this stretch of street and being able to do bikes and also add 23 parking spaces, which is not easy to just make up parking spaces out of thin air. And so I know that there's been some concerns around traffic flow. And I took Alamitos yesterday from PCH all the way down and the lights were synchronized. I drove a steady 30 miles an hour and everything was smooth. So I am excited about this. I believe that when we look at the the transition between downtown and our neighborhoods, we need to be able to have a safe space where people feel like, if I live in Alamitos Beach, I can walk to downtown, I can take my bike to downtown, and that there is a vision for that. I think doing this is going to get a lot more people out of their cars as well and hopefully getting to places like Mola, which I appreciate you guys for being here tonight. And so to address any of those concerns, I think that you guys have done a fantastic job. And I also want to applaud you for working with the new developments that are coming online to find creative ways to fund not only the plan that's in front of us, but new traffic signals, street lights and things that we'll talk about down the road. So I'm just thankful for continuing this project down past seventh. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. Thank you as well, Eric, for your hard work and public works. I know that change in this respect is never very easy and easy to think about, but I know this is all in good a good vision for the next few years. And in addition to what Councilmember Pearce said, I know gun buyer park, that area was a horrible area, worst traffic situation in the city and that really lessen the issues, as you've mentioned, as well as this beautiful intersection that is in between two amazing museums, both more LA and Pacific Island Ethnic Art Museum. I think there is room for bikes to travel through there that could, you know, flow easily with with cars. But I do have a few questions. I know it has been in the report. It mentioned AMPM peak hours. What do we do? We see any major significant change in those peak hours. With this plan. We will see increase. Thank you for that question, Councilmember. You will see increased travel times of up to 77 seconds in the AM peak hour and up to 70 seconds in the peak hour. So that's common when you convert a road to a road that narrow the streets. But we do feel that we will be able to mitigate some of that increased travel time by retiring the traffic signals. When a study of this nature is done. Traffic engineers are generally pretty conservative. If we look at, you know, try and take into account every conceivable development that's coming. Look at potential growth in traffic. And then also look at how the intersections are working together. But as we put this type of plan into operation, we would look at taking a fine grained look at how those traffic signals are operating adjacent to each other and retain the corridors. We have the opportunity as pedestrians are making, have a shorter distance across. Now we would take signal time, take time away from that that crossing and put more of that time into green time on the corridor. Okay, great. And then I know in that area, I know Councilmember Pearce and I as well are also talking in and length about, you know, new development coming to the area and a lot of new changes happening. Parking is golden everywhere. But, you know, in that area, we hear it quite a bit. And so I know that there's going to be a overall decrease of five spaces, but an overall increase of 23 spaces. Is that. Correct? That's correct. It's a5a loss of five spaces over the entire day, but an increase of 23 during the AM peak hours. Okay, perfect. That is great. 23 spaces. Wonderful. And then last question. I know it was addressed semi addressed in the in the memo one which unified school district. I know a lot of the parents addressed concerns with pick up drop off traffic congestion. And I don't know that we necessarily can do anything about that in general. But, you know, there's that discussion. So do you have an answer to that or how can we I don't know if this helps that in any way. I think I just say that, you know, all of our schools experience congestion around, pick up, drop off time. And I think the more we can encourage parents to, the more we can provide safe facilities for kids to get to school by some other means than being driven. I think that's a better improvement. And I think that improving of providing a calmer corridor for parents and other motorists to travel on will be a benefit to to kids walking to and from school and for parents driving to and from school. Okay, great. And we will have signage and all of the appropriate. Okay, wonderful. Absolutely. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. I yes, just on the question around Franklin, I know that we are making some changes to some crosswalks around the area as well. So I just want to clarify that we are doing some of that work. I don't know if you can report on that. Not specifically on Franklin, but as we will be making improvements. Yes. Great. Thank you. That's what I'm gonna go. To Taylor on to Councilwoman Gonzales this point. A lot of the schools have better pick up and drop off than others. And I feel that a lot of the parent groups have really stepped up. I know that the principals rotate often, but the parents are there for the long term. They've done some drop off programs where the dads and certain sons open all the doors for everyone in the morning. They pull in cars in a more quick way. The schools in my district that have those have been significantly better. I appreciate that we want people to bike. I just don't know that we're at a place where biking is actually a commutable option. And so in my experience and what I've discussed with my residents, we are not in favor of removing a lane, but we are in favor of getting to a safer community. And so there have to be ways that we can do that without removing lanes. I recognize you've done an extensive amount of work on this, but I'm going to just make sure to stick with my community on this. Thank you. Okay. Please cast your vote to members. Motion carries. Kate Moss. In case with that, we move on to the hearing is over and we're moving on to the consent. Minus item number 12, please. Can I get a motion in a second? I'm going to motion in a second and all minus item 12.

A proclamation celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s visit to Denver’s Park Hill Neighborhood. A proclamation reflecting on the January 1964 visit of Martin Luther King, Jr. to Denver's Park Hill neighborhood.

DenverCityCouncil_01132014_14-0007

It was great to hear all the good news. I wish that all of 2014 will have such exciting and wonderful news as the council members have given us today. Okay, let's go on. Let's go to presentations. Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations? And then Madam President, communications man. President We do have one proclamation this evening, and I will ask Councilman Herndon to please read it. Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation 2014 0007 Celebrating the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr visit to Denver's Park Hill neighborhood. Whereas, as a nation, we celebrate the American federal holiday marking the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr, which is observed on the third Monday of January each year. It is a day to reflect on one person, one person's pivotal role in leading nonviolent activism for the civil rights movement beginning in the mid 1950s until his death on April 4th, 1968. And. WHEREAS, Martin Luther King Jr continues to be remembered for his work in ending the segregation of African American citizens in the South and the nation, as well as crafting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and also receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 in Oslo, Norway. And. Whereas, Denver's Park Hill neighborhood also fondly remembers that 50 years ago this month, Martin Luther King Jr spent a historic three days visiting with various leaders in Denver and the metro area and delivering a powerful message of delivering powerful messages at two churches in Denver, Macedonia's Baptist Church, in my view, Boulevard Presbyterian Church, where more than 3000 people came to hear him talk of change and the future and its founding to all within its reach, that the problem of racial injustice is a national problem and not a sectional one. And we're. RATH Part of the impetus of Dr. King's visit to Park Hill was the neighborhood's position at the forefront of the national movement to integrate communities from housing to public schools. And. WHEREAS, Park Hill resident Dick Young, the 1964 chairman of the Denver Commission on Human Relations and sponsor of Dr. King's visit and his wife, Laurie, hosted Dr. King and shared his commitment to breaking down racial barriers in our great city and across the nation. And. Whereas, Denver churches and organizations are planning various events to mark the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr. Three day visit to Denver now therefore be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver. Section one that the Denver City Council joins Park Hill residents as they celebrate this moment of history in Denver and to remember the work of Martin Luther King Jr that created change for all people. Section two that the Denver City Council encourages residents of the city and county of Denver to remember the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr and the words he spoke to spur collaboration among all people stating that the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall testing affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to Dick and Laura Young, Rever Victor Lamont Lane, Macedonian Baptist Church and Reverend and Gregory Cummins, Mont View Boulevard Presbyterian Church. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Your motion to adopt. I move the proclamation 0007 2014 be adopted. It's been moved and multiple seconded comments from council. I'll call on Councilman Herndon first. Thank you, Madam President. Several things I want to put out. First, I want to give a thank you to care to get in the greater park Hill News. I was reading their their January issue when I learned about this video 50 years ago, which spurred the idea of having this proclamation so sincere thanks to them, as well as my other Park Hill Council members that I represent Park Hill as well, Councilmember Sussman and Brooke, we the three of us, sponsored this together, as well as other council members for supporting this. It's rare that you see a proclamation receive so much sponsorship from other council members. So I sincerely thank them for that. And there's really I can't think of a more fitting way as we start to honor the life and legacy of Dr. King, who was taken from us way too soon at the age of 39 with this proclamation. And I just think about the life and legacy that he left. And because he was taken from us, he didn't have the opportunity to travel to as many communities and make the impact that he could have had. But Denver was one of them and Park Hill was one of them. And that is remarkable. And one of the reasons Park Hill was a was a location for him, because during that time, Park Hill was the only neighborhood in Denver, as the article talked about in one of the premieres In The Nation, to allow integration between minorities and whites because other communities white flight was happening as minorities were moving in and whites were leaving. And Park Hill was a neighborhood that fought against that to work integration together. And I think that is something that is remarkable and a testament to the great city and the great community that we have here in Denver. And so I'm honored to represent that. And I also think to when you meet people and you have dialogs, people sometimes ask the question, if there's ever a celebrity alive or dead that you could meet, who would that be? And a lot of times, Dr. King, is that answer. Well, for Dick and Laura Young, they don't have to say that because they had the honor of hosting them in their house. And I think that that is that is remarkable. I'm just in thinking about that. And that is living history. And so to you both, I say thank you for that as remarkable. And I just will I will stop there so that other colleagues can give their comments. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon, Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Kathryn Hart. Herndon, for for ma'am. Bringing this to our attention, this is incredible. And now I know why District Gate is so great is because Martin Luther King came through and hung out with some of our constituents. You know, I'll just say this time of year is for me is always a special time when I get a chance to read through Dr. King's Testament of Hope, which is a collection of all of his his essays and all of his speeches. And it's just an incredible opportunity for all of us to begin to consider the challenges. What are the societal challenges that we face, face today? And look look deep inside of ourselves, inside of this nation and in our country and in our city, and how we can be doing things better. And so, you know, I hope we all pause this month and really challenge each of ourselves and us as a body and as a community to say what is the things that we can begin to grow in and we can begin to take risks on. And so, you know, I think about Dr. King, I'm 34. And when he came on the scene, he was about 34, 35. And at that age he raised the social consciousness of the world really did. And so got a lot of work to do. Okay, we got to get. Got to get busy. Yeah. So thank you, Councilman Herndon. And I hope everybody will approve this. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Madam President. My husband and I moved to Denver in 1974, so maybe ten years after this. And one of the first places where we sat community was Mount View Boulevard Presbyterian Church, which has been a very important institution in the life in my life, in the life of my family . But, you know, sometimes you just get lucky. It was amazing to stumble into a church that was at the forefront as Parkhill was. There was a whole coalition of churches that led this in Park Hill, and I am so proud, even though I've never lived in Park Hill, but to feel like I'm part of it through this institution and I'm so proud because it was an important part to Denver's future, I think. So while my colleagues certainly none of us will ever forget Martin Luther King, but I. I really wanted to give kudos to Park Hill, the leadership there at the time, and our city, for picking up on that leadership. So, Councilman Herndon, thank you very much for reminding us of our history. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to thank Councilman Herndon and Councilman Brooks and Councilman Susman for your sponsorship sponsorship, bringing this proclamation forward. You know, I, I, too, as a 36 year, I wish there were some people I could have seen in person. I wish there were some speeches. I wish that I could have been at and I wish I was around in the sixties and seventies to be part of that part of those moments. But we shouldn't talk about Dr. King and other people like him who were revolutionaries, who were the real deal, who fought against serious social injustice , and despite being threatened, despite paying the ultimate price, despite losing their jobs, despite being thrown in jail, as Dr. King in one of his speeches that said some of the things that we are going to be up against. It's not civil rights and social justice isn't a thing of the past. This is today. And they fought not just for racial equality, but they fought for economic equality. They fought and they took to the streets. And they were faced with with fire hoses and dogs and and cruelty from a police baton and cruelty from the public because of those revolutionary ideas of equality. And I want to make sure that when we remember people like Dr. King, when we celebrate neighborhoods and people like that, or the allies that made these things possible and filled those marches with shoes and boots on the ground. Right. That we embody that spirit every single day in whatever we do, whether you're a janitor, whether you're somebody that works for Parks and Rec or whether you're a council person or whether you're someone sitting in this very room, you know, supporting a cause that you believe in. We do not talk about this as something of the past. It's a wall alive today. There are a lot of struggles that we're fighting today, and it's that spirit that we have to carry forward. And that's how we honor people like Dr. King and people like folks that, you know, we sang in our own chambers today. And even down downstairs when when our manager of safety was being sworn in, there were so many people in that room. And as people in this room, I know that have struggled for the same cause. So thank you, Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Thank you. Council on Assessment for bringing this proclamation forward. I'm glad to support this. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I was alive during the sixties and seventies, sixties and seventies of the 1900s, not the 1800s. And I have to admit that I am very surprised that he was only 39 years old because he was, of course, an old soul. And his impact was so great that we all would have been sure that he must have been with us much longer. And I am honored to be able to do this proclamation day. I thank Councilman Herndon for bringing it to us and thank Park Hill and the folks that we'll hear from soon for being there with him . And thank Martin Luther King for what he did for our country. Madam Secretary, roll call herndon, i. I lost my place. You can eat. I Liman. Hi. Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi. Rob Shepherd. Brooks. High Ground. Hi, Fats. I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results. 3913 eyes. The proclamation is adopted. Councilman Herndon, who would you like to call up to the podium? Thank you, Madam President. I would like to call up Dick and Laura Young to the podium to accept this proclamation. Madam President, my name's Dick Young, and in 1953, I've been appointed the chairman of the Denver Commission on Community Relations, and it was that organization that brought Martin Luther King for that weekend. Obviously, it was the most memorable weekend that our family ever had and ever will have. I was fortunate that I was able to accompany him on most of the schedule. We had arranged it and it turned out extremely well. But I need to know others have expressed growing a lot of details as to what impact he had on the United States and on the world. And they're all true. But I want to spend just a minute thanking some people who are not here, but who had a major role. One is Helen Peterson. She was our executive director of the commission. And. Just did an outstanding job. And if all our public servants would be half as good as she was, would be so good. She was just so excellent. Manya Suey. Was. On our commission. He served as my vice chairman and later he became a director of the commission. And I think there's a building named after him. He did tremendous work here. Bill Roberts, who was a member of the city council for many years and played a major role. Roger Cisneros, who was very active and very much involved. Jim Reynolds, who ended up with the state heading the State Commission on Human Rights. Fred Thomas, another one, a park named after Fred. So really, we're here speaking, I think, on behalf of an awful lot of people who played major roles in making Park Hill and Denver what it is today. Well, the reception, of course, was one of the highlights of our life to have him in our home to sign the Time magazine of where he was Man of the Year. And all I did, I think, was clean the house and make sure our four children did not stumble into him. They all claim they sat on his lap, and I'm not sure that's true, but he did inspire us to go on even as Dick was working in fair housing. As you'll remember, the integration of our Denver public schools came later, and I had the opportunity to serve on the on the Community Education. Council, which was appointed appointed by the court. And all of our children have gotten a wonderful education in our beautiful area of Park Hill. So I thank you, Councilman. For for doing this for us. We appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thank you. It was lovely. Madam Secretary, I think it is time for us to read the resolutions from business, workforce and Sustainability 991 Resolution in the Mayor's Appointment of the Colfax Business Improvement District Board of Directors 994 a resolution approving the Mayor's reappointment, the Denver Convention Center Hotel Authority from Health

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; granting conditional approval of the University of Washington 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan; and amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) at pages 61, 62, 63, 77, 78, 79, 80, and 81 of the Official Land Use Map.

SeattleCityCouncil_12102018_CB 119426

Agenda item two Council Bill 119426 An ordinance relating to land use and zoning granting conditional approval of the University of Washington 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan and amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at Pages 61, 62, 63, 77, 77, 80, 80 and 81 of the official land use map. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended. That's from Johnson. Okay. So this council bill in the next court file following it are related to the two and a half year major institution master plan process that the University of Washington Seattle campus has been undergoing with us. We as a council have a and the city have a particular agreement with the University of Washington. And we've been doing this dance on that agreement to today. And today is the final set of actions that are necessary in order to get our version of this council bill across the finish line. So I want to start by just talking about what is in here and what it will do, and then ask people if they have any questions or thoughts and then will conclude from there. So in response to the rapid growth of the city, the University of Washington submitted to this council a draft master plan and following input a final master plan which then went to the city's hearings. Examiner and the City University Community Advisory Committee. All those bodies of individuals, including the Department of Construction and inspections, weighed in on the proposal and the hearings. Examiner held a hearing with all the parties of record, which included several folks from the community. The hearings examiner then recommended adoption of the major institution master plan to the council with some conditions, and then the Council added some important conditions. One of those was requiring the University of Washington to provide 300 units of affordable housing at 80% ami on top of 150 units that the hearings examiner had conditioned to reduce the drive alone rate to the University of Washington from 15% to 12%, with some interim goals tied to the opening of light rail stations to include parking associated with residence halls and caps on parking spaces, and to lower that parking cap to require showers, bike parking and trail widening and pedestrian separation on the human trail to work on exempting child care space from gross floor area cap some individual zoning of some individual parcels that are close to the light rail stations, the support of using priority hire and contracting, exempting small businesses from floor area caps and encouraging the diversity of retail ownership on campus as well as best practices for reducing stormwater runoff. That was in our resolution that we adopted in September. That resolution then allows for a sort of back and forth between all the parties of record. And then a bunch of additional comments came to us in December for consideration and a committee last week. The Committee of the Planning Leaders and Zoning Committee recognized that the University of Washington is planning to provide those 450 units of affordable housing. Nearby Transit asked that the University of Washington build affordable housing and included a range of unit types and commit to a long term affordability within those units of affordable housing. Request the child care be incorporated into those units. Request that the bicycle parking and childcare voucher programs be analyzed by the University of Washington and request an annual report on topics of interest to the Council and other stakeholders. We also had some additional discussion and debate on some heights of buildings, again by the light rail station. With all those changes made. The committee voted unanimously to approve the master plan process. And following that approval, the this then goes to the University of Washington Board of Regents for their approval should they approve. We are done. So do not approved. No one has any idea what happens next. But let's return from our council. Central staff has ably navigated us through this quasi judicial matter for the last two and a half years. And as a. Read literally thousands and thousands of pages of documents. And to him, we are eternally grateful because quasi judicial processes don't allow for us to have any negotiation with any parties of record, including the University of Washington or any of the appellants, which mean that we have to have all of our conversations out here in the public audience, which requires a lot of time and energy on this part to make sure that we are doing all of that appropriately and also really understanding all the issues that are on and off the record. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that folks may have opening up for other comments that people might want to make, and then happy to add a few final closing remarks. Thank you, Katherine Johnson. Any comments or questions from any of our colleagues on the council? Okay. Customers want. Thank you, President Harrell. I will be voting in favor of this ordinance because I do not oppose the expansion of UW and there are some smaller benefits for the public built into the plan as the University of Washington negotiated this expansion. However, what has been most noticeable is the total disinterest on the part of the YouTube administration and the state politicians that they report to to invest in the needs of the workers in the community that make YouTube run. When our movement one of $15 an hour minimum wage four years ago, the YouTube administration first tried to say that it did not apply to them until students and workers of YouTube build a movement to force them to back down, which they succeeded in. Now the YouTube administration is attempting to privatize the hospital laundry, eliminating over 100 good unionized jobs. And we have to note that most of those jobs are being held right now by immigrant people, many of them women of color. I attended an electrifying rally of hundreds of workers at YouTube last Thursday where workers told you the president un-American to say in no uncertain terms that they will no longer tolerate her near million dollar salary while she guts their jobs and continues to hold their pay hostage in such a way that many of them have had stagnating living standards. The administration forces the workers to go on strike, as they said very clearly at that rally, to get a decent living. Then I will be standing with them. And it was also important that UAW Local 4121, the Union campus union that represents the graduate students, were also there in solidarity with the Rosie unions and said that if the U.S. unions went on strike, they would honor the picket line. The Europe administration has also totally disregarded the need for affordable housing for students and workers. This legislation authorizes YouTube's next phase of growth over the next ten years. It authorizes 6 million square footage of development with an additional 35,000 students, 1900 staff and 840 faculty. So you would think they intend to build tens of thousands of units of affordable housing to accommodate that growth. And you would think the city of Seattle would demand something on the scale of thousands. However, the university is even resisting developing 450 new units of affordable housing, which is really a paltry number when you consider the actual need. The university currently employs close to 29,000 workers and has more than 43,000 students. When the UAW surveyed academic student employees last fall, they found that fully 82% of them were rent burdened, and on average they were spending 44% of their income on housing. We know that other workers, like the thousands of youth, laundry workers, food service workers, office staff, gardening staff are adjunct and part time faculty custodians and many other workers are in similarly perilous economic straits, even though this is a supposedly world class university with, you know, really fabulous salaries to the executives at the top. The university is failing its students and all its tens of thousands of staff, and even more so, it is failing to meet its social obligations to the entire Seattle community. Many youth workers and students are forced to make choices between rent, food, medicine and other necessities. The growth and expansion of this public university is very good. Our society needs a greater commitment to education and human knowledge. However, if it is not accompanied by a massive commitment to affordable housing, that education will not be available for all. An institution like U Dub with a budget of 8 billion per year with 400 executives, can build more than 450 units of affordable housing over ten years. I should also mention that the behavior of the UTEP administration is actually no different than the majority of the city council and the mayor of the city who have failed to address the problem of affordable housing. And in this preceding budget, the majority of this Council voted against 11 separate amendments for affordable housing that were brought forward from my office and the people's budget movement. I will be voting yes on this UTEP expansion because the expansion of public education is a good thing. But I also urge workers at UW and ordinary people in Seattle who want to have an affordable city and an affordable campus community to continue building, building a movement to demand affordable housing for all, to save the youth laundry workers jobs, to fight for a decent contract for all the unions at your dub, and to stand in solidarity with the unions if they decide to go on strike. Thank you, Councilman, for those words. Any other comments from any of my colleagues, Councilman Johnson, you want to. So some closing words. Just briefly, all I wanted to remind my colleagues of a couple of things that we've done leading up to today. A couple of years ago, we adopted the mandatory housing affordability rezoning in the University District, which is both resulting in new market redevelopment that is desperately needed in the neighborhood, as well as new funding for affordable housing . The $13 million that the city is planning to distribute through our notice of funding availability that has resulted from a major at least 4 million of that has come from projects in the University District. More of those projects will come online, which will mean more units and more funding for affordable housing. We've got a one light rail station open in the neighborhood now. We've got one set to open in the next couple of years, and we've got a university that stands out as not just a state's flagship university and as an educational driver, but an economic driver here, too. I believe this master plan lays out a bold vision for how we can continue to expand economic opportunity for folks at all income levels and recognizes the impact that the university has on its neighbors and asks them to be equitable in sharing those responsibilities about things like affordable housing, infrastructure, investments like the protected bike lanes, and reducing its single occupancy vehicle rates from something far below what it is today. You know, for me, I am really proud to have spent so much time and energy working on this, but it's a team effort. We already highlighted the work of Woodson, but I think I should also mention Spencer Williams and his successor Noah on for helping us to shepherd this issue across the finish line. This continues to be a quasi judicial matter. So even after the council votes on this today, we are required to continue to maintain a quasi judicial ex-parte communications until all of the potential avenues for appeal are concluded. So we may have many folks in the audience celebrating action today. We are prohibited from celebrating along with them until all the avenues are closed. And I know that nobody other than a very small Venn diagram overlap here of folks that care about land use and care about football would say this or maybe would care, but hopefully this passage today is a good omen for things to come when the Rose Bowl happens in just a couple of weeks. So with that, I'm happy to ask for my council colleagues to support Council Bill 119426. Very good. No further comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Macheda O'Brien Swan I. Bagshaw High Johnson President Harrow High six in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the clerk file into the record. Agenda item three Clerk File 314346. Application of the University of Washington to prepare a new major institution master plan for the University of Washington Seattle campus at 4015 Avenue. Northeast Project Number 3023261 Type four. The committee recommends the application be granted as conditioned.

Recommendation to declare ordinance conferring upon and delegating to the Board of Harbor Commissioners certain additional powers and duties relating to the sale of property at Broadway and Golden Avenue, adjacent to the World Trade Center, read and adopted as read.

LongBeachCC_10042016_16-0916

Motion carries. Next item. Communication from city attorney recommendation to declare ordinance, conferring upon, upon and delegating to the Board of Harbor Commissioners certain additional powers and duties relating to the sale of property at Broadway and Golden Avenue, adjacent to the World Trade Center for the first time, and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Rini . Thank you. Motion in a second. There's a motion and a second. Any public comment saying non Councilwoman Pierce. I just wanted to be clear that this is just about selling it, but it's not about who they're selling it to. It's just giving them the. Rights to sell. That's correct. That's correct. When they the harbor department purchased this property, I think back in 2000 and possibly one, and then with Tidelands Money and in in when any of our departments purchased property taken in the name of the city, and they need the permission from the city council to sell, sell the parcels. So this is authorizing the Harbor Commission to negotiate and to sell the parking area that they purchased. It doesn't identify who they're selling it to. It's just giving them the right to sell it. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Was that no public comment? So please cast your votes. Motion carries 23.

Councilor Flynn for Councilor Mejia offered the following: Order for the appointment of temporary employee Jacob deBlecourt in City Council effective February 5, 2022.

BostonCC_02022022_2022-0249

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. We're going on, too. We're going on to personnel orders. Mr. Clarke, please read docket 0249, please. Duncan number 0249 Council of Slam for council. Let me hear. The Chiefs seek suspension of the rules and passage of docket 0249. Mr. Clarke, can you call the roll? Docking number 0249 console the royal. Yes. Councilor Roy? Yes. Councilor Baker. Council of Bug. Yes. Councilor Borges. Councilor Brain. Yes. Councilor Breen. Yes. Councilor Edwards. Yes. Councilor Edwards. Yes. Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Yes. Counsel Fernandez says. And yes. Counsel Clarity. Yes. Counsel. Clarity. As counsel of Flynn. Yes. Not so thin. Yes. Cancellara. Yes. Clara. Yes, counselor. Who is in? Yes. Council decision? Yes. Councilor, me here? Yes. Councilor, me here? Yes. Councilor Murphy. Yes. Councilor Murphy. Yes. Councilor. Overall. Yes. That's a little. Early. Yes. Councilor Baker. Yes. Sorry about that. No problem, Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Councilor. 0249 has received a unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke, please read the docket. 02500250. Counsel of Plain Folk Counsel. Let me here the chair.