Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 6

AN ORDINANCE relating to appropriations for the Executive Department; amending Ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 Budget; changing appropriations and creating new positions in the Office of Housing; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120318

Agenda Item seven Council Bill 120318. An ordinance relating to appropriations for the Executive Department amending ordinance 126490, which adopted the 2022 budget. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you. I'm going to find the number here. I move for Council Bill 120318 0 seconds seconds. Thank you. There's been. It's been moved and seconded. And customs data. This is yours. And so you were recognized. Thank you very much, Madam President. And thanks again to the members of the Finance and Housing Committee. Again, this is a piece of legislation in front of us that unanimously passed out of the Finance and housing committee meeting. Just very briefly, as folks may remember, our codified spend plan for Jumpstart progressive revenue authorized up to 5% for admin, 5% of the fees that are being recouped to be used for administration to make sure that the intended use is well-staffed and that the dollars, resources and programs are getting out the door within this piece of legislation in front of us. This is the authorizing legislation for the Office of Housing to use a portion of that administrative amount to create the staffing needed for what is the largest portion of jumpstart spending. And that is making sure that we're building affordable housing, both rental units and new home owner first time homeowner options. So in this piece of legislation, we are proposing to draw 2.3% of the administrative funds, not the full 5%. The remaining amounts would go to the rental and homeownership programs within the Office of Housing. And I'm really excited about this piece of legislation because it does create a needed staff capacity to help to deploy the affordable housing dollars as we continue to work to scale up our investments in creating affordable housing, supporting existing homeowners, and creating new first time home owners. Thanks very much to the folks at the Office of Housing, the new interim director, Michael Winkler Chinn, and her incredible staff for the work that they've been able to do thus far and the work that they are committed to doing with this funding. They will be adding staff to perform a range of services and activities that go into investing and promoting the development and acquisition of affordable housing. This is all specified in the detailed spend plan that again we codified into statute, but this makes sure that we're building affordable housing and acquiring multifamily structures that may be on this market to pull those off of the private market and quickly turn those into affordable housing options that will benefit to the health of our community population and the health of our local economy. Just by way of reminder, the Jumpstart payroll tax added $97 million for affordable housing and 2022. This doubled the amount of housing, the amount of funding that was going into housing in last year's budget compared to previous budgets. And as a reminder, 62% of all of the funding that comes in from Jumpstart does go to affordable housing. Within that 62%, the vast majority, 82% of it goes to rental housing, to rental housing services, or making sure that we're housing folks below 30% of the area. Median income and permanent supportive housing and affordable housing. 13% goes to community focused acquisition, development and capacity building, and 5% is being prioritized for increased investment into home ownership. This legislation authorizes new position authority at the Office of Housing and to make sure that the codified spend plan is our duty to everything we can to bring the Seattle to Council Member. Okay, thank you so much. And let's see that. That said, I think that summarizes what we always talk about in committee and the good work that's gone in to stewarding these dollars towards more investments in affordable housing. Again, more than half of what was actually authorized for staffing and administration, more than half of that amount is going right back into building affordable housing units. So really thanks to the Office of Housing for their great stewardship of these funds. Thank you, Council President. If you come from Washington. Are there any comments for council member or questions for customer mosquito? I would be remiss, Madam President, if I didn't think Erin house for her work with address on central stuff as well to go over the initial proposal and work with office housing to really fine tune it. So thanks so much to Aaron and to Tracy. Yeah, Aaron and Tracy work really hard, so thank you for recognizing them. I don't think the public realizes how hard central staff works to get all the stuff done and get it done right. So thank you for recognizing them. Okay. So not seeing any more comments or questions for the vote. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Members Strouse. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mustapha. Hi. Councilmember Nelson II Councilmember Peterson Hi. Councilmember Salant Yes. Council President or is I nine in favor and unopposed? Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And Madam Chloe, police affix my signature. The legislation will be known on the agenda to public safety and human services. There are two items on there and it's Council Member Herbert's legislation or resolution. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get that confused. A man clearly please read. I forgot. We're doing 9/1. Okay, let me back up here. Item number nine, we are doing first. And Madam Clerk, will you please read item number nine into the record.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to amend the Polystyrene Food Packaging ordinance in the Long Beach Municipal Code (Chapter 8.63) to remove the exemption for #6 plastic lids to encourage a transition to recyclable alternatives; include language that all straws be made available only upon request in any food establishment and that those straws must not be plastic or bio-plastic; and Request City Manager to work with Public Works Environmental Services Bureau and other appropriate departments to align implementation of these amendments with Phase 3 of the Expanded Polystyrene Ordinance, on December 3, 2019.

LongBeachCC_10152019_19-1033

Thank you. And with that members, Mr. Gordon, cast your votes. Ocean carries 13, please. Communication from Councilmember Urunga Council member Pearce, Councilwoman Price. Councilman Mungo Recommendation to request city attorney to amend the Polystyrene Food Packaging Ordinance to remove the exemption for number six plastic lids by city manager to work with Public Works Environmental Services Bureau to align implementation of these amendments with Phase three of the expanded polystyrene ordinance. Thank you, Councilman Ringa. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank my colleagues to join me on this item, Councilmember Pearce, Price and Mongo. It's very important for us to continue the efforts that we started with the number 12 item quality. Before I begin, I want to make just a quick quote that I always use when we have items like this come forward and that is change is inevitable. And in a progressive society, change is constant. And that's why one of my favorite philosophers, Benjamin Disraeli. And that's what we are doing here. We're looking at including straws and other smaller, smaller polystyrene products. It becomes very important for us to make a commitment to improve our our surroundings, protect our and protect our environment. As a member of the City Council and as a member of the Coastal Commission. It's important for me to keep in mind that we want to keep our environment clean and we want to keep that access to our beaches as well as we can. So before I begin with a with a report from from staff, I'd like to show a little brief video we can to that up, please. Well, that was. I've been working. In the same way. Missing now the cracks in the. And in my own store, in my free. Who call. No, thank you. Please, my. Anglo is just wondering. From my. Home town. We? I like it. In the city when the air is so. Everybody. Shops and shops. He ran to. King defense I. Shows The way ain't gonna stand shit show the way I united shows the we ain't gonna take. Shows the way ain't gonna stand shit show Louis United. Thank you for that. I don't mean to limit it on a bummer, but, you know, it's very real with what's happening in this world in terms of what I would plastics. So I'm not going to go a lot into it. I think we already seen the video. It's pretty compelling in terms of the message that it says. So with that, I want to basically just give two options here that we want that I would like to have included in the food packaging ordinance. Never be for one to remove the exemption for number six plastic lids to encourage a transition to recyclable alternatives and to include language that all straws be made available only upon request in any food establishment. And that those straws must be plastic, must be not be plastic or bioplastic. The first proposal, basically, is to eliminate the use of plastic covers and use alternatives, and the second is to make straws available only upon request. You know, I went to my local convenience store and I bought a package here of 25 straws for $2. So they're very affordable. They're they're paper. And I know that people have an issue with paper. There's also issues with people with disabilities who have to absolutely have straws that are more easily usable and don't biodegrade as quickly as maybe a paper straw. But there are other alternatives, and I would love to have that when the report comes back that we could get some artful options included in there that people can use as far as alternatives to straws made out of maybe not only paper, but there's options like pasta. And I heard one today from from acting the acting secretary of the Apple Apple Straws, which was amazing to me. So there are some alternatives out there. And if people really have a need for a straw, you could buy some of these metal straws that fold easily into your pocket. I think I gave each one of you one here. But basically what it is, is it's a straw in a little container. It holds up very easily. Well, if I can get my out here just to demonstrate what's taking place. That's real good, right? I mean, you know, you're trying to show something. You can get it out. There you go. So it folds and it goes into this little container that you have. And then when you stretch it out, there's a strong you can pull it back and put it in. It also comes with the little brush where you can so that you can clean it inside. So if if a person really needs to have a struggle with him on a constant basis all the time, you could get get one of these also, you can buy one of these in your convenience store as well as to make that available for you. So with that, I want to wish that they could get the support of my colleagues to support this these amendments to the the food the food packaging audience so that we can make straws less polluting and protect our oceans. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you, Councilmember, for bringing this item forward. I support it. I really like that video. Thank you for sharing that with us. And as a Coastal Commissioner, I'm sure you hear lots and lots of really unfortunate stories about how pollution impacts habitats and the oceans. So thank you for sharing that experience with us on the Council. I do have a question. I do. I like the option of allowing straws upon request, but can we have some sort of a phase out option that allows them to phase out their plastic straws if they already have them? So like it would still be option a straw upon request, but they could finish out the plastic straws that they have. So give them like, I don't know, six months to comply or something. It would be. I would be open to that. Yes. Thank you. And if I could just add kind of a timing component to this discussion, we would need to come back with an ordinance in conference with the city attorney that would need two readings. So it would be a real challenge for us to do that before December 3rd. So maybe what council is discussing this evening, if it were to be passed, this could become, say, a phase four. And we pick a time frame that would whether that's January or something along those lines, that we would implement this kind of phase four element. That would be a suggestion to this council. Well, since I agree with Councilman Price's recommendation about phasing, and I think that would be an appropriate approach to this this issue. Yeah. Thank you, Vice Mayor Andrews. Yes, thank you. And I want to thank my colleague and council. We rang up to bring this item forward because I think a lot of people look at items such as these and wonder why we adopted them because were not really nitpicking. And I believe everyone it was called to be a good steward of their environment. And more importantly, we have been elected to be a steward of our city. You know, straws can be seen as a small matter, but it litters our beaches and streets. Today, the Wrigley cleanup team points out stars are one of the major items that they collect when they clean around the neighborhood. So we can adopt some alternative we should, and in doing so, will make our city much cleaner. Thank you very much, Mr. Urunga, for bringing this. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. I just wanted to comment. Recently traveled to Oakland and in meeting with our former airport director who happened to be at the Oakland airport, we talked about what type of stores they had there and they were made out of apples. The county of Los Angeles had cups and lids made out of corn. They don't taste like corn. They don't taste like apples. They taste like any other straw. And they're far superior to the paper straws. And so I don't know what research we can do, but he said that after mass purchasing for the entire airport, they were able to bring those costs down considerably. I'm a person who drinks nearly everything out of a straw. Many, many years ago, I have tooth sensitivity. I know other people drink out of straws to keep their teeth white because they drink coffee out of straws. I don't. But there are lots of reasons why straws are very useful. And so I'd love for us to be very pragmatic about the options and hopefully create another product people want to buy that's environmentally friendly. So thank you for this councilmember. I think the timing on this is great this time. I think more cities and regions have really adopted environmentally friendly options, and so I think this will get us there. Thank you. Customer Supernova. Thank you. I just wanted clarification on on the proposed ordinance. So we're looking to stop the, let's say, restaurants from having the products in stock. But the behavior is not regulated here, that someone can bring a plastic straw into a restaurant and use it. Is that correct? And so the issue of people with disabilities. I would just like to maybe explore that if I don't understand the difference. If someone on demand wanted a plastic straw, but due to a disability, would that be feasible or would this ban just outlaw the restaurant from from having those products in stock? That's what I'm from what I'm hearing. I think the goal would be is that we would work with the restaurants to have alternative options. And so, for example, if there was a member of our community with a disability and wanted a straw, I mean, similar to the example that we shared this evening, there are alternatives to plastic that can still serve the same purpose. Okay, I guess that would be the better goal. But if I wasn't seeing a difference between someone carrying one in from a store and this does not regulate retail sales once again. So the the juice boxes with the little straw glued on the side will still be in existence, unfortunately. And the other thing for Manager Makoni and I think we have a dual purpose goal here and that is number one, to remove it from the litter and also you'd prefer remove from your waste stream or what you have to deal with when you pick up. Recycle bins or trash bins? Absolutely. As you may be aware, the recycling markets, the commodity, passive commodities do not have any value anymore. And in fact, over the years, whereas contract cities would that would get revenue from their service providers over the years for their commodities, things have turned upside down and cities are now paying to get rid of what used to be a recyclable commodity. So we are actually investigating changes in our own curbside programs to address that issue. Okay. And then one last issue. I think I saw either a Facebook posting or Twitter that you're recommending reusable. Trick or treat bags. Did I read that? Okay. You're nodding yes. Okay. Great minds think alike. Here's a go forth trick or treat bag. So call our office if you'd like. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I heard about that bag actually, today at lunch, I was at a fire meeting up in the region, and I heard about your bags. Since we are on the polystyrene agenda item. Would it be possible to get in a two from four back what the outreach might look like on this? And then also folding in getting rid of the plastic food containers, retail sales. And Styrofoam. So Councilmember staff is working on a24 from memo that kind of encapsulate everything that we talked about this evening and provide a little bit more details into our. Outreach strategies in the successes. That we've had thus far. So that should be coming to the council here shortly. I think it would be more appropriate and this would be a suggestion that when we come back with the amended language in the ordinance, that at that time we would share in some kind of report style as we present that ordinance with different options and different recommendations. And to me, when the council adopted that ordinance, they would expand. If you wanted to include retail limitations at that time, or if you're going to instruct us tonight to put that in, I think we would need to get that direction. I'm comfortable with adding that direction tonight that we'd want to go that direction. Councilmember Ortega. That a. Friendly. And the. Yeah. Yeah. That's. Except wonderful. Thank. It's all to finish up. You're talking about maybe another phased in approach to this ordinance as we as you move forward. Earth Day is April 22nd, 2020, that six months. We could do it by Earth Day. It's a request to see if we can do it. We'll certainly do our best. I certainly hope you will. Thank you. Mr. City. Attorney. Yeah, Mayor. If I could get some clarification on the friendly that was just made. I'm not sure. Will that be part of phase four? Yes. And what will it. What are we asking to in at that time to include in the. Retail sales of Styrofoam food containers? Cups, bowls. Utensils all stir. All Styrofoam. We're going to take the suggestion of public works when they bring back that. But we're looking to head that direction. And hopefully the two from four will include language that we could adopt that night. When we have public works that come up with that timeline and how we do it. Okay. So it's just I think. Yes, to clarify, we're hearing that we're going to move forward with the ordinance this evening, the amendment to the ordinance that we would come back with a timeline for implementation sometime in January. Right. And at that time, when we bring back the ordinance, we would also make a recommendation for an additional phase that would expand into retail sales for this council to consider. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. City Attorney. Anything else? Just just. The one caveat when they come back with that recommendation, if you can either. Adopt the ordinance as written or instruct us to add that it'd have to come back for a first reading, or we could do another. Amendment. And that's not a problem either way. Thank you. There's no public comment. Okay. I said thank you for both of these earlier. But what you brought up those little juicy boxes. I'm going to tell you that I've been in the park clean ups and those are a nightmare. I mean, there are 9000 little tiny pieces. And because they're so tiny, everyone throws them on the ground. So I don't know if there's anything you can do about juicy boxes, but if you can try. Thank you. I want to make some closing comments. One is I completely commend the city council and the city staff for working on this issue and the council members that have continuously brought this issue up. Some of us were here when a minority of us were trying to get plastic bags banned and we were the worst people ever and anti-business. And we're going to run Long Beach into the ground and to see the city and the way it's moved so quickly from plastic bag bags to to plastics and to straws and to all the other work around polystyrene is really impressive. I wanted to thank now State Senator Lena Gonzalez, who brought forward the initial ban on polystyrene. And I also wanted to thank the person that I think started this conversation. At least she she led it when I was here. And that was then Councilwoman Susan Lowenthal, who was the original introducer of all these things that everyone didn't like initially. And I wanted to say that what's interesting about this item and I want to think, Councilman, your Ranga and Councilman Price, Councilwoman Mongeau and Councilmember Pearce at all signed on to this is these actions have consequences statewide . And when we passed when we passed our plastic bag ban it affected the state's then decision on on plastic bags are polystyrene work has affected the way the state deals with public steering and what we're doing with straws will affect further laws. Statewide, Long Beach has always led on these issues and I'm really proud that this council continues to do that. And so it's very exciting items and really, really most importantly, love the work of our city staff on this. You guys have been so great in going out to the neighborhoods. I've visited some of the businesses with all of you. I've talked to the business owners and I have loved seeing some of my favorite restaurants that used to use polystyrene and having seen them now convert to other products, paper and other products has been really great to see. So thank you very much. Members, please cast your votes.

A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Agaiotupu Viena, to the King County gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force, representing the United Territories of Pacific Islanders Alliance (U.T.O.P.I.A.).

KingCountyCC_07202022_2022-0214

Thank you very much, Kay. With that, our Kirk will please call the roll. Thank you. Chair calls Councilmember. Excuse me. Councilmember Balducci. And. Councilmember Dombrowski. Hi. Councilmember Dunn. I. Councilmember McDermott. Oh, hi. Councilmember Perry. I councilmember up the grove. Councilmember up the growth. Council member Von Reich Bauer. Hi. Councilman Barzagli. Hi. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Council member of the group. Council members. Charlie. I. Councilman or charcoal wells. Circle wells. The vote is nine eyes, zero nose key. With our vote, we've approved, I believe, proposed motions. 2020 2021002130214. And what is the fourth 100211? The numbers weren't quite right on our script here. And we will send these motions with the do pass recommendation for the consent agenda to the August 16th Council meeting. And for those of you who are listening in and those two candidates who are here, there is no reason for you to appear at that council meeting on August 16th. You will be notified, of course, if you would like to be with us here in the chamber or on Zoom. That, of course, is just fine. Okay. Our next item on our agenda is the motion sponsored by Councilmember Sali Reck, requesting that the executive develop an operational plan for sheltering the most vulnerable King County residents in the event of extreme cold heat or wildlife smoke, which is going on right now in central Washington.

AN ORDINANCE relating to tenant protections; amending Ordinance 383, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.60.050, adding a new chapter to K.C.C. Title 12 and repealing Ordinance 16223, Section 3, and K.C.C. 12.47.010, Ordinance 16223, Section 4, and K.C.C. 12.47.020, Ordinance 16223, Section 5, and K.C.C. 12.47.030 and Ordinance 16223, Section 6, and K.C.C. 12.47.040.

KingCountyCC_06232021_2021-0131

Item five on today's agenda is Ordinance 2021, 131 that would provide additional tenant protections for renters in unincorporated King County. After being introduced in March 16th and marked on June 9th, 2021, the Community Health and Housing Services Committee voted to forward the legislation to the full council without recommendation on June 15th. The full council was briefed on the legislation and striking Amendment One. Though it is striking the amendment at the time and the Council chose to refer the legislation to the committee of the whole for discussion and work. That action is what we are taking up today. And with that, I will turn to our central staffer, April Sanders, who is staffing this legislation in it from our central policy staff to provide a briefing on the underlying legislation as introduced. And I've asked it to then also proceed into briefing the current striking amendment as to the sponsors. Councilmembers Caldwell's and Xilai have brought to this meeting today. With that, Ms.. Sanders, I invite you to brief on the underlying ordinance, in fact, an amendment as to. April, are you present? April, your sound's not coming through. I see you, but I don't hear you, April. I'll give you a good shout out when I can hear you. I suspect she who has exited and is rejoining. To restart audio. Not prepared for me to have to do her speaking at some point in. Welcome back to the Sanders. You, you're still muted. Okay. You can hear me now. We can. Perfect. All right. It's bound to happen every once in a while. All right. Good afternoon. For the record. April Sanders council policy staff must warn as 2020 10131 would establish just cause provisions and additional protections for residential tenants in unincorporated King County. The materials for this item begin on page six of your packet, and an additional materials packet was distributed by Marca this morning. Councilmembers requested a crosswalk between the proposed ordinance striking amendment to state law and other jurisdictions. This crosswalk can be found on page 34 of your packet. This council is or this item was last presented to full council last Tuesday. The ordinance would establish just causes that a landlord must satisfy in order to terminate a month to month tenancy failed to renew a fixed term lease or begin eviction proceedings. The just causes are listed on page nine and ten of the packet, but include causes like a landlord wanting to occupy or sell the unit, a tenant failing to comply with the pay rent or vacant notice, and a tenant or their guest engaging in criminal activity on the premises. In addition to Jessica's policies, legislation would establish additional tenant protections. First, it would cap movement fees and security deposits at one month's rent, with the option to pay movement fees and security deposits incrementally. It would also cap late fees or costs that can be charged to a tenant due to nonpayment of rent at 1% of the monthly rent. The legislation would also amend King County Code Chapter 2.60. That section of code deals with the duties and scope of the Department of Public Defense and would be amended to allow the department to represent tenants whose leases have been terminated or are subject to unlawful detainer actions in violation of any King County ordinance when funds are available. Currently, there is not funding in the biennial budget dedicated to funding public defense access for tenants. Legislation would also repeal King County Code 1247, which currently requires landlords to prevent criminal activity and evict based on criminal violations of the tenant or tenants guests. 447 also requires landlords to report suspicion of criminal activity to the King County Sheriff's Office. If a landlord does not report suspicion of criminal conduct or prevent criminal conduct. They can be charged with civil infractions. With the repeal of 1247, a landlord would no longer be required to report or prevent criminal activity, but would still be able to evict a tenant under the just cause dealing with criminal activity. In addition to the provisions I have already listed, the legislation includes several additional protections and I'll go through a bit more quickly. It would require a landlord to give between 120 and 180 days notice for rent increases greater than 3%. It would prohibit landlords from engaging in unfair or abusive practices and deceptive acts of practices. It would state that acceptance of rent by landlord waives any right to declare forfeiture or seek eviction solely for any prior breaches of the rental agreement. It would prohibit a landlord from increasing the rent if the dwelling unit has defective conditions, making the unit unlivable or unlivable. It would require rental agreements to include a provision allowing tenants to adjust the due date of rent payments. If the tenant has a fixed income source that is incongruent, a fixed income source that the tenant receives on the date of the month incongruent with paying rent on the date otherwise specified in the rental agreement. An example of this is if an individual receives Social Security on the second of the month, they may elect to pay rent on the third, but also prohibit a landlord from refusing to enter into a rental agreement with a prospective tenant who will request such accommodations. It would require landlords to include language on a payment or vacate. Notice that the landlord may allow you to pay rent after the 14 days in lieu of initiating eviction proceedings. And lastly, it would prohibit landlords from requesting a Social Security number for the purposes of screening a prospective tenant. That brings me to the end of the protection, so I'll move on to damages. A landlord found in violation of any of the provisions in the proposed ordinance would be liable to a tenant in a private right of action or double damages, or four and a half times the monthly rent, whichever is greater in court costs and attorney's fees. The exception is the use of a tenant Social Security number for tenant screening. If a landlord is found in violation of this provision, they will be held liable up to double damages or one month's rent, whichever is greater in court costs. Attorney's fees. The Superior Court would act as the enforcement mechanism for the provisions included in the legislation. If a tenant believes a landlord has wrongfully initiated eviction proceedings or wrongfully refuses to renew a fixed term lease, the tenant may bring the landlord in court. Lastly, the legislation includes a series of directives to the executive. The executive would be required to develop the central phone number within DC address for tenants who believe their tenancy was terminated or their fixed term lease was not renewed. Wrongfully, the executive would be required to transmit a Tenant Protections Access plan with accompanying legislation to codify recommendations in the Landlord Outreach Plan by August 2021. The Tenant Protection's Access Plan would include recommendations on providing information about tenant protections in King County and access to those protections to residents with limited English proficiency recommendations on providing tenant protections to undocumented residents who may have a fear of accessing the court system and know your Rights Campaign with the objective of spreading awareness of the new provisions in the ordinance. Utilizing partnerships with community organizations and the King County Immigrant Refugee Commission, and recommendations on ways to provide free legal representation, advice, and other legal assistance to tenants facing eviction, harassment, disrepair, and other housing related issues, including an analysis of the right to counsel law through the New York City's Legal Representation program. The landlord outreach plan would have the goal of expanding knowledge of tenant protections in a King County code to landlords. The legislation, if adopted, would take effect 90 days after the effective date of the ordinance. And now that brings me to the end of the underlying ordinance. I'll move on to study amendment as to. In your digital materials packet, you'll find an amendment matrix. Striking Amendment S-2 begins immediately thereafter on page four of the packet. It would require landlords to provide at least 30 days written notice to a tenant when evicting, terminating, refusing to or using to renew a tendency for a just cause unless a longer notice period is required by state law. It would add a just cause for tenants who knowingly allow a vicious animal, as declared by the director of the Regional Animal Services Section without written consent from the landlord, or if an animal is declared vicious during the terms of the rental agreement. It would exempt subsidized tenancies from the one month cap on security deposits and move in fees. It would amend the cap on the fees from 1% to 1.5% of the monthly rent. It would require at least 120 days notice for rent increases over 3% instead of between 120 and 180 days and would amend notice requirements for subsidized tenancies to 30 days notice. It would amend damages to three times monthly rent or double damages plus cost of attorney's fees instead of double damages and or four and a half times the monthly rent. It would clarify that the provision regarding acceptance of rent does not waive a landlord's remedy for nonpayment of rent if additional rent is outstanding. It would amend language that a landlord may request, but now require a Social Security number from a prospective tenant. It also adds that a landlord shall not refuse to enter into a rental agreement with a prospective tenant because the prospective tenant does not agree to provide a Social Security number. It would amend the requirement for the executive to develop a central phone number within the DHS and instead make it an item the executive to report on the Tenant Protections Access Plan and require the executive to develop a standard notice in ten languages for landlords utilizing a just cause, an eviction information, tenancy or failure to renew a fixed term lease. It would clarify that if the executive is already conducting the work required in the access plan, the Executive should shall describe the work being done in the funding mechanism to accomplish the work, and how it addresses the goals of the plan would amend the due dates for both the Tenant Protection's Access Plan and the Landlord Outreach Plan to June 30th of 2022. Instead of August of this year. It would eliminate the effective date provision making the legislation effective in the normal course. It would add a severability clause. And lastly, it makes technical corrections to correct terminology, customizer edits, fixed class references and align language and provisions more closely with state law. There are additional line amendments I'd be happy to brief, unless there are any questions on the underlying or the striking amendment. I do suggest we pause here to take questions on the underlying ordinance and strike amendment that Ms.. Sanders has briefed. Assuming they are some. Councilmember Belushi. I asked out one more time because I think you said this, but it it all went by very, very quickly. And there's plenty. Of time. For context. Some of us were not on the committee that this legislation was sitting in. And this, for us at least, is the very first time we're ever going through the substance of what this ordinance contains. So it went by super fast. My top goal for myself with this meeting was to really educate myself about what's in the ordinance. And I can't say that I've achieved that yet because it was just too quick. But so could you once again state the key components of this ordinance? If you like it, it creates a just cause requirement. What constitutes just cause? It puts it just. Is there a short list somewhere? I'm trying to look through the chart. The chart is very long. It's just. Can you help me take it all on board somehow in a simple, enumerated way? Yeah, absolutely. So on page 11 of the packet, I will pull it up now as well. It is enumerated in a slightly easier manner and for the just cause provisions. But let's hold for just a minute, make sure that we're all people who are looking forward to finding the right page 11, because there's the regular packet and then there's the supplemental packet. Yes. And this is page 11 of the regular packet. Thank. I'm there. Okay, perfect. So everybody everybody else who wanted wants to catch up there. Yes. Okay. Games proceed. So all of the Jessica's provisions are listed between pages 11 and 12. And these are you know, I gave a few examples, but they include a tenant failing to comply with a parent or vacate notice, an owner electing to sell an owner seeking to do substantial rehabilitation in the building. So if any of these just causes or satisfied, a landlord will be able to either evict terminated tenancy or failed to renew a fixed term term lease. So any question specifically on just cause provisions that I can clarify? Come in follow up, Mr. Chair. One of the things that we heard in public comment was if an owner of a building is renting it out in anticipation that they will at some point rented to an adult child or to an a senior relative would. I would now like to rank this to my family member. B Just cause. Yes, being able to rent to a family member is, is just cause. I think that would be that would create the ability for the landlord to fail during the tendency to terminate and C to rent to that individual. Thank you so much. All right. And moving on to additional. Restrictions. Chair. S member, Dan Belsky. Thank you. I would like to also respectfully request that April, if at all possible, for just a slow learner like me, slow down just a little bit. It's very complicated. And I've been trained in real estate and practice real estate law, and I really work and understand it, particularly with the new state provisions. I have two questions. One, a specific one that heard from a constituent under the just cause provisions here, where we basically, as the government would say, when you would have to renew or wouldn't have to renew a lease. So I'd just about evictions. Understand it. Could somebody who owned the place next door to an aging parent and wanted to have a caregiver at move in residence? Would that be allowed either under this proposal or the state law? I'm so sorry. Sorry. Let me interrupt. I'm not aware of that being a just cause, other than if it were if that aging parents lived on the property. So if it were that individual's personal property, then then a landlord could utilize the just cause and remove the previous tenant to allow for a caregiver to live on their property if it was their primary residence. But not an adjacent residence. If it were a different parcel. No. No, just clauses in our proposed ordinance for that. I see. And then the other question is, it looks to me that many of these proposed just clauses mirrored the new state legislation that was adopted. That applies in some but not all cases, but not all tenancies. And I'd like to understand what kind of get going this would be and whether there is a difference in the enumerated just causes with the state legislation. And I suppose if we know the Seattle legislation, one thing that I am interested in, I want to share this with colleagues because I served on the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force co-chaired by Councilmember about Dutchie and Mayor Baker of Kenmore. If you if you look at our recommendations, we did suggest that there was a need for tenant protection legislation. And this is on page 27 of the 60 page report. I'm not sure which number it is, but it's one of the things we wanted to do was have some consistency and we started at the state and then had, you know, regional stuff. And I want to share a concern. I'm not saying that there's no room for for regulating in this space, but we have 39 cities in King County and unincorporated would make a 40th jurisdiction with police power. And I am applying a bit of a lens here to make sure that the regulation that we would be adopting really brings value such that when compared to the risk of and I do think it's a risk of providing dozens and dozens of different sets of rules around the county that folks have to figure out. And the reason that's a concern to me is because I do believe a regulatory structure like that does increase costs because you've got to figure out how to comply and increase costs. And providing housing is a problem. Right. That leads to higher rent. So I'm sorry I have drifted there and a little bit of thinking out loud, but I want to share that. That is a lens of looking at. So if you can help me understand a broader are just this proposed legislation just cause enumerated items versus the new state law and maybe Seattle? Sure. Absolutely. So not to make you jump around in your packet, but on page 34 of your packet, there is a crosswalk between the underlying ordinance, the striking amendment and the state law. With the House Bill 1236 Incorporated and Federal Way in Seattle are included as well as a comparison. So in the proposed ordinance just causes seven, eight and ten C are those that are not specified in state law. No, the exact verbiage varies because we draft legislation where we are drafting techniques are slightly different than the state, but the remaining just clauses in our ordinance model those out of the state law as far as applicability for the just causes. In the ordinance. The proposed ordinance would apply to months of maintenance tenancies, fixed term lease lease renewals and evictions. In the Washington Residential Landlord Tenant Act is a little bit more complex, so I'll go through the three scenarios. The first are fixed term leases that include a clause converting the lease to a month to month at the end of the initial lease term. If that clause is included in the fixed term lease, no cause is needed at the state level for a landlord to enter the tenancy at the end of the lease term. If there is a fixed term lease without that clause, converting it to a month month initiated the end of the initial lease term. The landlord may terminate without cause, but only if the lease term is for 12 months or more and the parties have entered into a successive rental agreement of six months or more after that initial lease term. And the tenancy has never been a month to month basis since inception of the tenancy. In that case, no cause would be needed. All other tenancies at a state level, including month on month, you may not terminate tenancy without one of those enumerated just clauses. So everything else would be would require. That just follows. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Lambert, do you mind if I just follow up there? Yeah. And then I'm sorry Joe asked me to chair as opposed to go ahead. And run right here on the right track. I did not understand what she just said, so that's why I interrupted. Okay. No, no. No problem. I've read a dozen times and I think I'm starting to get there. But April, maybe could you help us understand if we know the policy basis behind the state choosing the different kinds of tenancies in which they would apply that just cause I understand, I think this legislation would get fill, if you will, to cover kind of all tendencies. Correct. I don't know the policy intent behind why those fixed term term leases were exempted from requiring cause. And it was done fairly late in the session. And I, I didn't review those those meetings. To. Sort of get a gauge for the conversation. And instead, if my explanation of the state law was unclear, I'm happy to review again. You know, I. Think it was clear it's just complicated. And if you couldn't, then I'll stop on this line of questioning. You indicated that this proposed either in the striking amendment or the underlying legislation would add additional cause, just causes seven, eight and ten. See, and I didn't see those in the crosswalk, but maybe I. Could you tell us what those are? Yes. Let me go back to. I'm scrolling through an amendment packet here. Okay. And then the additional one would be the vicious animal, just cause that is in that a striking amendment. So in eight. So there's the discontinuation or discontinued use of a dwelling unit after receipt of a notice and order from the Department of Local Services . That is is not in state law. There is. Oh, it looks like I was. Oh, I was looking at the underlying ordinance. The numbers have changed, of course. Just a second. Okay. Reducing the number of occupants to fit with King County Code is also not one that is in in the state law. So reducing occupants do not exceed the legal limit. And then the last ten see the owner seeks to evict a tenant if they're in a single family dwelling unit and the owner resides in an accessory dwelling unit on the same lot. So I guess the primary residence concern that I spoke about previously. Okay. Thank you for that orientation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I do have some familiarity with this ordinance, but it was me. The. 12 months. I get that a fixed amount and then you must. Do a one month to month lease. But you can't break the one month lease unless you do a six month lease, which then has to be followed. By a one month lease. Why? Could you explain. That to me a little bit more how that works? Sure. So we're talking now about the state law and the applicability of the just cause provisions on a state level. So the first is a fixed term lease that includes a clause where it automatically goes to a month, a month pendency at the end of the initial lease term. So make sure you got that. So you have a year. And then you can go to a month. The month after that it was written in the contract originally. So if you then had it and you said, okay, well I only want you in this unit for another two months, so. We're going to have two events. And then at the end of the second month, you know, you're done. Right. And a landlord could hypothetically, at a state level, evict or terminate tenancy after that after that second month. For any reason. No reason for no cause. Okay. Okay. So go ahead. And I got that. So then what happens? And it doesn't have to be. You mentioned 12 month lease is just state's fixed term lease. So do not would not have to be that full year, but it would have to have that that provision that creates a month to month after the second is a fixed term lease without that clause. So the clause that would convert it to a month, a month at the end of the initial lease term and the landlord could terminate without cause if the initial lease term is for more than. 12 months and. 12 months or more, rather, and the parties have entered into a successive rental agreement of six months or more. So at minimum 18 months of lease. So that first 12 months lease or more and then six months or more of a lease renewal. And if that is the case and there's never been a month to month tenancy, then they would be able the landlord could terminate for no cause. Let me make sure I understand what you just said. So if you have a fixed place and maybe it was even two years, at the end of two years, you say, okay, now we have to go to a month to month. So you go to a month a month. If it was more than six months. Then you could just say no cause it was less than six months because. So we're not talking month to month tenancies in this provision. It is a fixed term lease that is 12 months or more, and they enter into a successive agreement for six months or more after that. So it wouldn't be a month, a month for six months, it would be a six month extension or more. And if a landlord wanted to terminate tenancy after that point, under the state law, they could without. Cause. Mr. Chair, may I ask a clarifying question? Council Member Cole Wells Thank you. And I'm sorry to interrupt that, April, and I'm getting confused now with the explanation that you just two council member Lambert applies to state law or the striking. Amendment before it is state law. So this does not apply. You are striking amend or the striking amendment. Thank you. I thought that was the case, but I wasn't sure everybody understood that. That's a good distinction, councilmember Caldwell's. The conversation was about state law and not the ordinance before us this afternoon. But so how does that play with our state, with our county governments? How did they do. In the proposed ordinance? It would not have that distinction between types of fixed term leases. It would apply equally to all and month to month tenancies. Fixed term lease renewals and evictions. Thank you. Okay. Do I have any more questions on just cause specifically? So. Hello, council members. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much, April, for helping us navigate through this complex legislation. Really appreciate you. I'm just taking notes of concerns from colleagues just so I can work through them as one of the prime sponsors. One of the things I heard from Councilmember Dombroski is the issue of jurisdictional differences and having dozens of different rules everywhere. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, may you just elaborate a little bit about that? I'm actually just taking notes. Yeah. Yeah, sure. Thank you. Comes from Rizal in our original affordable housing task force. One of our strategies was to, quote, preserve access to affordable homes for renters by supporting tenant protections, which is what this is about to increase housing stability and reduce the risk of homelessness. Strategy A says propose and support legislation and statewide policies related to tenant protection to ease implementation and provide consistency for landlords and then, you know, enumerate them. So what we were doing there as the Affordable Housing Taskforce was saying that frankly the state of our tenant protection laws under the Residential Landlord Tenant Act was pretty weak and we didn't have a just cause statute statewide, unlike the city of Seattle did. And we were also acknowledging, though, that there is this concern about a whole bunch of different rules and regulations that could be adopted. Jurisdiction by jurisdiction. I thought, you know, my sense was and we're trying to balance those to strengthen or have consistency so they can be implemented relatively easily. And so that's kind of my interest here. At least one of the lenses in which I'm looking at this. I really think the state did make great strides in this last legislative session by adding this protection. And I want to make sure that this proposal, to the extent it goes beyond that or as is, is different in some of those same areas, really is going to deliver. Needed and necessary protections such that if it ran, if we ran its course, when we start to have a variety of these around the county, you could have 40 different versions that that, you know, that gets pretty cumbersome to comply with. And for practitioners in the space to understand, on both sides representing tenants, representing landlords, you know what rules apply developing the forms. Right. That that are used oftentimes. So that's my interest there. We did a lot of work, a lot of great work in the region, affordable housing task force. I really believe we're possible we should when we set those plans, try and be consistent with them because we convene folks from across the spectrum there and brought folks to the table and worked for many months to come up with that. And that is one of the recommendations. So it's not necessarily binding. There's some wiggle room in there, but I'm trying to look back at what we did and and honor it. Thank you. Yeah, I was looking for clarification on the point about if it ran its course and there were 40 different rules. I just want to make sure everybody listening in the audience knows this only applies to unincorporated Kane County, so it would not affect the 39 other cities. There would not be, based on this ordinance, 39 rules. This only applies to unemployed. Now, whether or not other municipalities are also creating their own just cause ordinances, that, of course, can end up having many different rules for people to apply in their jurisdiction. But this ordinance would not be the cause of multiple different rules outside of this one additional impact in unincorporated Kane County. I just want to make sure that all the valid things you said don't. End up with confusion and audience members thinking that we're proliferating many different rules here. No, no. In fact, of our structure of government, we're different. We can have that consistency. We can have it can be, you know, uniformly King County. Right. Thank you for that clarification comes from Brazil. I appreciate the opportunity to dialog that. Mr. Chair. Council Member Caldwell's Thank. You, Mr. Chair. The question of the floor. I just to make sure and correct. It's been mentioned by several opponents or those who have concerns about the legislation that for landlords that they if they say a one year lease or month to month tenancy, then there's one year. Is that, for example, that they would have no right to terminate? They would have to go along with the continuation or renewal of the lease. My understanding is that the owner can or a landlord can provide a new rental agreement or lease with different terms, different length of the term and different amount of rent. Is that correct? Yeah. There's nothing in the legislation that would preclude a landlord from amending or providing a different lease when that fixed term lease renewal option option comes up. And for the raise or the rent increase, it would have to be more than 120 days notice for that rent increase and for the legislation. But there's no obligation for any landlord to continue with the same one year lease as had been the case. No. Thank you. Just to remind everybody where we are in our conversation, Mr. Sanders is walking through a briefing us on the ordinance and striking amendment that is before us and has just highlighted the just caused eviction provisions within it and would anticipate moving on to other parts of the ordinance as well. Are there any more questions about just cause in particular? I'd invite you to proceed misandry. Great. So I'm going back to the committee packets, not the additional materials, but the committee packet to get back to your concern about this question about what else is in the ordinance other than just cause since I frequently went through, you know, about 20 things that are included in the ordinance. I think the easiest way to go through the the additional items is in that matrix that compares the striking amendment and the underlying with the residential landlord tenant act because that goes to sort of a summary version of a lot of these items. So this is on page 34 that this begins and we already spoke about just cause and the applicability. And enforcement, of course, is the court system. I mentioned that. So I'll go to fees for moving peace and security deposits. They'd be capped at one month's rent and a tent may elect a pay move in fees and security deposits incrementally. And in the striking amendment, it would exempt subsidized housing units where rent is based on income from that one month cap. For late fees. It would cap late fees at 1% monthly rent in the underlying ordinance. And then you get to the striking amendment where that is capped at 1.5% monthly rent. A notice of rent increase. So in the underlying ordinance, it would require a landlord to give between 120 and 180 days notice for rent increases, a present and then a striking amendment. It would require landlords to give at least 120 days notice for rent increases above 3%, and it would require landlords of subsidized tenancies to give 30 days notice of rent increases greater than 3%. So it changes that that requirement for subsidized tenancies specifically. And this is moving on to page 35. QUESTION Mr. Chair. Councilmember Balducci, thank you. The range is is my question. So if you are required to give 120. To 180. Days notice, you're basically required to give 120 days notice unless there's some. What does that mean? A range doesn't make sense to me. If there's a minimum number, then that's the that's the minimum. Sure. And you'll notice in the striking amendment that's changed to at least 120 days, there's not that range. They can cause some problem. And that makes sense. Thank you. Ms.. Sanders, if I can ask if. Would there be anything to preclude an immediate rent increase of, say, 3%, which doesn't require 120 days or more notice and and been implemented at the same time as a subsequent notice for an additional 1% rent increase? No, nothing would preclude that. We didn't hear it today. But in other testimony, we heard about the if if costs had gone up, landlords wouldn't be able to catch up. It'd be delayed by over 120 days on make change in expenses. And in this in my point is that they could implement the 3% immediately and an additional say 1% or an additional amount in excess of 3% later. Sure. And just to phrase it differently, so I know that I understand your question. Let's say your landlord chooses to increase and increase rent 2% immediately and then give notice of that in 120 days, the rent will increase by 4% or 5%. They could hypothetically impose that rent increase and provide the notice. Nothing in the ordinance would preclude that. Thank you. All right, Mr. Chair. Dombroski dombroski on the run increases. I guess that prior discussion, I assume that all would be on a month to month tenancy because in a lease. Typically the rent is set for the term. Yeah. So but if the if you if the landlord was planning on renewing that lease end of the lease term, they would also be required to provide that notice. Okay. But this notion of costs went up. So I'm going to next month raise give you another 1%, which follows a three. I don't under a longer term fixed term lease. I don't know that that is possible unless the terms of the lease which I think would be unusual, provide for mid. Lease rental adjustments. Yeah. Councilmember Chair McDermott's example does pair best with month to month tenancies, but if a lease term, if you a landlord gave 120 days notice that there is going to be a 5% rent increase once the lease was renewed at the end of the lease hold, the lease could hypothetically state that, you know, three months later it would go up 1% or whatever the lease specified. I see. I guess while we're on the topic of rent increases, is is there anything in this legislation that would prevent upon renewal the setting by the landlord of any sum of rent? So you're at 1500 a month comes up for renewal. You don't have a just cause eviction right or termination of their right to renew their landlord jump at $2,500. And if it were going above 3% of that increase, it would have to have that 120 days notice. Give the notice that raise the rent. Correct. So raising the rent would if it were above 3%, the landlord have to provide that notice. And in 20 days or more in advance. Oh, okay. Thank you. All right. So moving on in that matrix to acceptance of rent. And so the underlying ordinance states that acceptance of rent waives any right to declare forfeiture of or seek eviction solely for any prior breaches of the rental agreement. And the striking amendment clarifies that the provision does not waive a landlords remedy for nonpayment of rent if additional rent is outstanding. Okay. Moving on. I got to talk. To your uncle second. What bank accounts for about the gymnast thing? In my view of default, usually you've got monetary defaults and non-monetary defaults. And if I read the underlying call, it s one, the base proposal and concerns from from some from my own property. They said, well, if you accept rent, there's a reading that all defaults are defaults are waived. I'm not sure if this changes that it doesn't look like it. But could you help me understand this? The answer to this question under either the any version that's before us here S1 as or the base if I'm if there are non-monetary defaults safety issues the you know whatever it might be go to maintain consistent with the release if they accept rent after issuing a notice of default is the lent are those defaults deemed cured or waived and non actionable? I'm correct. Non-monetary would also be included in this provision. Non-monetary items are breaches, and if a landlord accepted rent, they they cannot go back in and utilize those prior breaches for eviction. Or I'll just express my concern with that. And some of the lends here I have, as you know, as some of you call them, home mom and pop landlords, but someone who's got a house with a mortgage on it. And if you've got a series of non-monetary defaults where the tenant may not be complying, if you are if you accept rent and those are gone, that really can be problematic. And there's you've put the person in a bit of a jam if they've got a mortgage payment to make or they're paying our tax bill which, which we want paid on time. And if you can't, if that's waived upon accepting the rent, you lose your right to get a cure there. That's to me, I'm just going to be blunt non workable I don't believe. I think the common law is appropriate when you accept rent that should waive and I'm happy to support legislation that codifies that. If you accept rent, you should not be able to allege that you've got an ongoing default there, that that should be deemed cured and not actionable. But the mixing of accepting rent and waiving non-monetary defaults, I think is a real challenge with this proposal. Okay. So moving on, if there are no other questions on acceptance of rent. I saw some unmute, so I'll give it just a second. Okay. So it comes from members all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we have heard of concerns about this one as well. I just want to give some of the policy intent behind it and also that sharing once I once I share that some of the policy and to the fact that there are some there is some movement to create changes to this one. So the policy intent behind it is the idea that a landlord should not be able to continue accepting rent. And then one day say, hey, one year ago you violated this thing. You know, you brought a vicious dog to the house one year ago. I didn't say anything. I kept collecting rent. But now I'm going to use that as an excuse to evict you. That's a huge problem. That's a huge problem and something that does happen. So but the concern you're bringing up, Councilmember Danowski, is very valid because we also don't want to create a situation where we put landlords in a bind, where they have to choose between, you know, do I not get rent to pay my mortgage or do I continue living with this bad situation that, you know, these violations that are issues for? We don't want to put people in a bind for that. So I do think there are workarounds where we can address both scenarios. And I look forward to working with with with each of you on that. If I might, Mr. Chair, customers all I. That's super helpful. I definitely would be supportive of efforts to get rid of gotcha defaults unnoticed gotcha defaults that you know we're pulling these things out and using them to get at the tenant. And maybe it should be if there's been, you know, a notice of default given and secure ride demand secure that there's a way but I. That's helpful to hear the goal that you're trying to achieve there and I concur with your your objective. In a notice is something that we've discussed. And there was some issue with state law possibly supplanting that so or preempting that. But correct me if I'm wrong, April, but we're currently discussing that. Is that right? Right. We're we're going back to the POW and discussing options with them that we can bring back to you. Thank you so much. Please proceed. So moving on, this is still on page 35 of the packet and two defective conditions and the underlying ordinance and the striking amendment makes no changes to this would prohibit a landlord from increasing the rent if the dwelling unit has defective conditions making the unit unlivable. The only change is in sight. Word choice to uninhabitable in the in the striking amendment to track more closely with with our are the language that we have in the Department of Permitting or before many division. Payment due dates. The underlying ordinance required rental agreements to include a provision allow. I'm sorry, I question and notice the Seattle ordinance on that defective conditions has an office, presumably the office of Housing that is tasked with probably their inspection program, which we don't which we don't have either the office or the inspection program. And so whether the unit is uninhabitable is determined by by that office, under that program, presumably in Seattle, I don't know as much about it, but how would it be determined whether the unit was uninhabitable under our ordinance? Is that just something to be litigated? If somebody attempts and it attempts to collect, render tax intervention and then there would be litigation that would ensue? Correct. It would have to be litigated since there's no comparable enforcement mechanism like the city of Seattle. All right. Thank you, Beck. That's member Lambert. Thank you. Could you explain on that? So the. State law. Requires that you. Keep the premises fit. For human habitation. So. If that's a requirement. I'm sure there must be something in law that does not allow you to raise rent if you weren't even able to have it. Not a human habitation. So how did those two coincide? Sure. So the state law specifically prohibits or requires, rather, the landlord to keep the premises fit for human habitation. But it does not directly state, to my knowledge, that you would not be able to increase rent. And then of the proposed ordinance 0131 would prohibit that rent increase if the dwelling unit has defective conditions. So there's sort of two sides to the the defective conditions. Thank you. All right. So payment due dates. If there are no more questions on the effect of conditions, the underlying ordinance requires rental agreements to include a provision allowing tenants to adjust the due date of rent. If the tenant has a fixed income source. Incongruent with with that duty. And there is a state law that was passed that has a similar provision. So the language was amended to just. Add to. Reflect the provision in state law that allows the tenant to request a new due date and a landlord has to comply if certain certain circumstances are met. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to keep asking. House member Belden. See. Now. My understanding of the intent behind this provision in state law and in this proposal is that like suppose I'm somebody on a fixed income or even somebody with a job and I and I get I get my pay and I live and I live on two months. I'm paying. And the paycheck to paycheck or benefit checks a benefit check and I get my checks on the 15th, but the rent is due on the first. This would allow to move the payment for rent to be do concurrent, you know, so to the 16th or whatever so that I have the money in hand. Does it allow a continual changing of dates or is it meant to be that consistent? Because I know that the state law has got some things in it that talks about regularity, but ours doesn't seem to. Sure. So in the state law, the tenant may propose the date, but it has to be within five days of the original due date. And the landlord is required to agree to a proposal if it is submitted in writing, and the tenant can demonstrate that his or her primary income is a source of governmental assistance that is not received until after that due date. And again, it has to be within five days. So the the proposed ordinance in the striking or the striking amendment specifically is meant to basically affirm that that state law. So this provision under the striker would be exactly the same as the current state law. Word for word. It is not identical just from a drafting perspective, but the the intent should be is meant to be aligned. I can get an exact side by side between the two of that's helpful and likewise later. Yeah I would love to follow up on that prior to final passage. There's just something it's I think they beat it into you in law school. There's something about having something that's just got a slightly different language that just it kind of makes my brain hurt and makes me worry about whether there's unintentional meaning changes there. Thank you. Yeah. Well, try that. Brain hurt is one of the plethora of reasons why Council member Lambert and I did not go to law school. Like an ice pick right here. I mean. SANDERS Or maybe I'm asking one of the proponents of of the legislation, is there a reason why we would articulate what the payment due date flexibility if you received a fixed payment rather than just rely on state law, that I presume would cover the tenancies already. I will prejudice sponsors on that one. The sentences this hour. Our hours apply to more tenancies than the state law. I know it would be okay. I would like, but we do draft legislation differently. So there are some word choice changes that I will send out to the council. Thank you. I'll look out for that. Those word choice differences, April, and go from there. Thank you. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. To the extent state law covers this, I think consistency would be good to just, you know, let that control. On the substance, I'm supportive of it. Big, big companies, they've got cash flow flexibility. And I think most small landlords that have a mortgage now, even the mortgage companies say, when is it good for you to pay on a monthly basis? So I think there's flexibility and this makes a lot of sense to setting up a pattern, whether it works for folks on timing when they can based and reduces the risk of them getting behind by just a few days because the cycle is off. So I really appreciate this proposal on and I'm supportive of it. Ms. SANDERS So moving on to page 36 and continuing in that that crosswalk. Pay rent or vacate notices. So the underlying ordinance and this is not changing the striking amendment would require landlords to include language, unhappy rent or vacant notice to include that the landlord may allow you to pay rent after the 14 days in lieu of initiating eviction proceedings. And then we get to Social Security numbers in the underlying ordinance. It would prohibit landlords from requesting a Social Security number for the purpose of screening a prospective tenant and striking amendment as to it would allow a landlord to request but not require a Social Security number from a perspective, tenant and landlord would not be able to refuse a tenancy if the tenant does not provide a social security number or prospective tenant would not provide that social. All right. Going on stage. There. I got to go. Sorry to jump out. I got a comment on this. Just in the spirit of working, like feel like we have a little bit of a working session here. I had some concerns about this, but I think what the goal here is from a perspective, landlords perspective, is they want to be able to do sometimes two things one, a credit check and two, a background check, which I think has become more common than maybe it used to be. Sometimes those terms are being used interchangeably, but there can be two reports. My goal would be to make sure that the that receiving those reports is obtainable. And I understood while at the same time protecting those that don't have a Social Security number in term in terms of getting access to housing. So this language is getting closer, maybe even does it. I think a landlord should be able to ask for a Social Security number, but they should not be able to exclude anybody from qualifying for tenancy just because they don't have it. I think the test should be whether or not they can obtain the required credit check and or background report. I've done some of my own personal research on this. Well, it's not as easy to do it. I believe that that it can be done with other identifying information. And so I hope that we can get the language to the point where the landlord should be able to get the information they need. And not discriminate against anybody who may not have a Social Security number. That's kind of where I am on that. And I think that's maybe where this is headed. But I want to share that with the sponsors. Thank you, Councilmember Dombrowski. And you're right, we're having sort of a work session as we go through this at the same time as Chair. Let me interject that it is 326 and we have a number of us have another meeting that begins at four. So we have a hard stop. That said, as an individual member of this committee, let me also comment that I have concerns about this section for the very reasons you are articulating that I want a prospective landlord to be able to do a thorough check, including background and credit. But I do not want to set up a system wherein people who do not have a Social Security number cannot secure housing, or at least the wrong intended tendency of housing. And my concern in the language, even in this, too, is that a landlord is able to ask for it. A tenant can decline. A landlord can then not decline to rent to that tenant because they did not provide a Social Security number. And it comes with no assertion that they do not have one, just they chose not to provide it. You raise a good point. Also, that clarity about what kind of reports can be obtained without a Social Security number is fundamental to the questions we're asking right now. Is a Social Security number required for the reports? I don't have I don't have definitive answers on that either. But that's I want to lay out my thinking as well. ZARRELLA Councilman Brazil, hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to point out that undocumented immigrants, for many reasons, don't. Often don't want to be revealed as undocumented immigrants. So requiring people to say that they don't have a Social Security number could be dangerous for them. And so just saying that it's not required, but you can ask is a workaround for that. And I will also add that, as I understand, a lot of people don't want that. We've heard from many landlords and landlord associations about this Social Security number issue, and people are saying many different things about what you can and cannot do in terms of credit report. I invite anybody on this call to just do any level of Google searching to find out what the answer is here. Experian itself one of the largest credit and credit agencies. They have entire blogs about how it is possible to get a credit report without a Social Security number. I call. The second is like the second search return customers. Of friends union myself. I got the same answer. I called Equifax. I got the same answer. And one of the reasons is that the federal government, through the IRS, recognized that if certain people don't have Social Security numbers, they won't be they won't pay their taxes and they won't do plenty of things that are required. As for somebody who lives in the U.S., so they have something called an ITIN individual taxpayer identification number that's used by foreign nationals as well as undocumented immigrants who don't have a Social Security number. And if you send in that number, that itin in writing to any of these big three credit agencies and many others, you can get a credit report. And so the misinformation that's been going around saying that this ordinance, quote unquote, seeks to ban the use of credit credit screenings is wrong. It's it's wrong, technically speaking. But it's also wrong because when you say we're seeking to ban credit histories, it sounds like it's saying that our intent is to ban credit screenings. Our intent is not to ban credit screenings. Neither is the reality that we're banning credit screenings. Our intent is to protect undocumented people who are at high risk of homelessness. And so hopefully we can pass this legislation and protect this vulnerable group of people. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you. I did one as well, but I know that our staff are non partizan staff. April Sanders also said that she had looked online and found some. Is that correct? Correct. I found similar data to Councilmember Zala in the Barsky indicated. Thank you. All right. If there are no more questions on that one, I can go to Access to representation, which is continuing on page 36. Towards the bottom, the legislation. And this does not get changed in the striking amendment as to allow for the Department of Public Defense to represent tenants when funds are available. Moving on to repeal of King County Code 1247. So King County Code 1247 would currently requires landlords to prevent criminal activity and evict based on criminal violations of the tenants or tenants. Guest Property seven also requires landlords to risk or report suspicion of criminal activity to the sheriff's office. Currently, the landlord does not report suspicion of criminal conduct or prevent criminal conduct. They can be charged with civil infractions. The legislation would repeal 1247. So a landlord would no longer be required to report or prevent criminal activity, but would still be able to evict a tenant under the just cause. Dealing with criminal activity. That is the last item on page 36. Moving onto page 37 damages. And in the underlying legislation, the damages are a double. Damages are four and a half times the monthly rent, whichever is greater court costs and attorney's fees. The exception is that use of a Social Security number and in the striking amendment as to it would be double damages or three times monthly rent, whichever is greater, plus court costs and attorney's fees. And with that lower number four for the Social Security number. Noticing in the striking amendment, it would require landlords to provide at least 30 days notice to a tenant when terminating a tenancy or refusing to renew and a tenancy for just cause to 30 days unless a notice is a longer notice as required by state law. And the last provision on this matrix are executive reports, which you'll notice in the crosswalk obviously does not have a comparable in state law. It would require a tenant protection access plan. With the accompanying legislation and the landlord outreach plan, it is amended in the striking amendment and amend the requirement for the executive to develop a central phone number as instead of being a requirement, it would be an item for further study within the Tenant Protections Access Plan and it would amend to require the executive to develop standard notices for landlords evicting, terminating tenancy or failing to renew a fixed term lease or just cause. It also amends the due dates until June 30th of next year. And that brings me to the end of that matrix. Any further, any questions available regarding the underlying ordinance and striking amendment as to come from a ruling number? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Three quick ones. Earlier on, you talked about the number of people that could be in a unit that was over the limit. So could you go over there real quickly one more time? Sure. So there is a just cause dealing with occupancy limits in code. So if a if in the current ordinance, if a tenant had more individuals on their premises than is allowed in code and a notice of notice and order from permitting is received notifying that they are in excess of the legal limit, then the landlord could utilize that as a just cause for treatment, terminating tenancy or failing to renew a fixed term lease. Okay. And then also the second question is. Suppose you're a landlord. And you have 100 units. Conceivably you could have people saying, I want to pay 30 different dates. Of the month. So, you know, having been a bookkeeper at one point in my life. Having everything at the same. Time is an economy of scale. So we said that. That only applies to. Us like under five units. Is there any limit on that? Because that seems like that could be a nightmare. Or bookkeeping costs. For a corporation. State law sets that the new due date has to be within five days of the original due date in the rental agreement. No, there is no threshold in state law for the number of units that a landlord possesses. So the one that is being proposed is to still comply with within that five days? Correct. Okay. The my last question. And it was brought up today that. About. 10% of landlords. And despite several times today. About 10%. Of the landlords also have needs to. Potentially get help with an attorney. So is there some way that in this code we cannot be. Discriminating against those 10%. And make sure that they, too, can apply for. Any. Legal help that they need if they set a certain threshold. Because some landlords. Are just making. It by retirement. So is there a threshold for that 10%? Are we just going to leave them out? And there is nothing in the legislation that speaks specifically to that 10% you're referencing. Okay. I think that's important. I think everybody should be treated fairly. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. Council member follows. It. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The question of April regarding late fees and the due dates and capped fees and so forth, and I have actually an amendment I've been working on that that is not on our list. That would be to have a gradual phasing in of higher late fees percentages. Depending. On when the rent would be paid. But I understand that there is a state law that essentially landlords cannot charge late fees until after five days. Correct. Okay. Explain that, please. Sure. Under state law, late fees cannot be assessed until five days after the due date in the rental agreement. So any imposition of fees them cap or not cap, would not begin until the sixth day. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. We have gone we have gone through the ordinance as introduced and striking amendment S-2 and briefed carefully and had some conversation and dialog about concerns and attempts as we did that. We also have a matrix of a relatively small number of amendments that might be proposed. Would it be the body's desire to. Have the legislation put before us and brief amendments as they might be presented or to go through all of the amendments now. Mr. Scheer. Council member Belushi. Is speaking as the person who gets to run the special council meeting next week on this. I think it would make sense that we make sure to vote the legislation out of committee without recommendation if necessary, just to keep us on track. And since that special meeting has really this is the only substantive item, there might be a consent item or two that sneaks in. But we can certainly spend the time in that meeting to do amendments there if we need to. Of course, with the forbearance of the public, because we're not going to call a hard start. We can't at a full council call a hard stop to public comments. So we. Will hear everybody. Until we're done. And then from that point on, we have the full meeting to work on whatever amendments are available and hopefully get to a final vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is my it would be my intent if the committee willing to move the legislation out with or without recommendation today, I would entertain a motion now and debate amendments as time allows before we move, before we would take a vote on the legislation. I'm in committee today, so I would entertain a motion. By Mr. Chair on a procedural question first. Please. I understood and I had some questions of a legal nature that there might be an executive session for us to consult with counsel. And I wondered. If that is best occur to occur here or at full, full council. I'm Councilmember Dombrowski. How do you know if Legal Council has the answers to your inquiries or would it be presenting the questions? I think they have some of the inquiries. I don't know if they've had time to. Compare responses. I know they've done, I believe. I don't know. I said they've done some work previously, which I haven't been briefed on. Okay, then let's step into executive session so that we can at least make sure questions are surfaced for legal review and do that thoroughly before a council. Next week we will be in executive session for 10 minutes and the grounds for executive session under are CW 4231 ten. We discussed with legal counsel the legal risks of a proposed action when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal and natural consequence to the county committee. The whole will be in executive session for approximately 10 minutes until about 350. The committee will be off Zoom after the Zoom call for the executive session, together with only those county employees directly necessary for this discussion. With that we are members will leave to join the executive session link. We have separate. Thank you. We are back now from executive session and council member Col Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move proposed ordinance 2020 10131 and I'm not certain if we see a striking amendment now or just that without recommendation. Council member Caldwell's has moved he has moved to rescind ordinance 2021 131 two for council without recommendation and that is the underlying ordinance. Council member calls, if you'd like, if you wish to offer a striking amendment as to today, I would entertain that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, striking amendment to. Ask to is before us on. Discussion on as to. There are line amendments. If we're going to take it up, I think we need to allow the sponsors to give their own amendments. I. I have light. I have a line of them in the green folder. I'm I will choose not to offer in discussed my linemen amendment today given time but know that the issue is is one that would bring to full council next week. I don't know if other members feel the same. From Damascus. Mr. Chair, from my perspective, I'd be prepared to vote yes to advance it to the best underlying ordinance to full council without recommendation. But it seems like there's a fair bit of work to do, and I'm not sure the value of advancing the striking amendment at this time. I think it's got some work to be done on it. So that's up to Councilmember Caldwell's, I suppose. But it seems like we can advance the legislation and work it up next week at council. I it doesn't matter to me. I would just like to get this taken care of before many of our members have to leave in 4 minutes. So perhaps council can advise us after April, but I think we should get this recommendation or whatever form is going to be workable. MAZARS And I will just remind the sponsors of the striker that it is too late to change it through your own amendment. DEADLINE So if you don't vote, striker it me as it is the other way. You clarify what you just said? There is no opportunity under the rules for the amendment deadlines to offer a different striker. Before council it will have to be the same exact sticker. Councilmember Caldwell's I would like to go ahead and move my strike in amendment number two with that recommendation. So at least we have it before it. Gets to us before us. Councilmember Caldwell's. I. I would like to take the vote. I'm not sure what you're asking, but I would like to take up the vote on striking them until it is before us, and then we can take it up in our special council meeting next week and have amendments at that time. Thank you, Councilmember Bellucci. I would just I would I would be willing to vote in favor of the striking amendment on the theory that even though I might not agree with everything it says and it might not be there, this is almost like the sponsors are just shaping up what it is they want to present for us to then amend and vote at the next meeting, and in that spirit to move things along. I would vote yes on the striking amendment so that we have the full intent of the sponsors in front of us for next Tuesday. Further discussion on as to. It was, I'm going to be a no on it just because I've got some concerns about its content. And I know we're we're stuck in a procedural versus substantive issue here, but hopefully we can get the legislation worked up through our process into something that works for a majority. Mr. Chairman. I understand, Councilmember Dombrowski, and like I said, I have concerns as well, but believe that has to is a further step in addressing at least some of those concerns, though not fully. Student Council member Col Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I understand this, we would. Be moving out without. Recommendations, so I'm not sure what a no vote would indicate in such a motion. Would that mean that we want to hold Councilor Hrabowski by to hold it in the committee? No. Madam Chair. Mr. Chair. Councilmember. Cause I'm just by a no vote, signifying concerns with the striking amendment, I will be voting yes on the underlying ordinance as amended, assuming that striking amendments to carry and it goes forward with them, you know, without recommendation. We have struck an amendment as to before us on a underlying motion without recommendation, all those in favor of adopting striking amendment as to please signify by saying I. Am. Opposed. Nay, nay, a name. The ayes have it. And as to is adopted, we have ordinance 2021, 131 as amended before us without recommendation to go to full council at a special meeting scheduled for this coming Tuesday. I see no further discussion. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I call the roll, if I could ask for clarification on the. Striking amendment vote. I have council members Dombrowski and Dunn voting no on the. Same as anybody. Else. It's been voted no. But now, Mr. Steadman, it's my understanding that we took an oral vote and division was not requested. Division? Division has been requested. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll on Striking Amendment S2? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Banducci, I. Councilmember Dombrowski. No. Councilmember Dunn. No. Councilmember Coel's I. Councilmember Lambert. No. Councilmember of the. Grove. Councilmember Bond right there. Nay. Council members online. I. Mr. Chair. All right. Mr. Chair, the vote is 6 hours for council members. Dombroski Irishman Wales ask done land in one write for. Five literature for. Duly noted. The vote is 5 to 4 in favor of Amendment two. We now have Ordinance 2021, 131 as amended before us. Same. No further discussion. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bellucci. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Councilmember Dunn? No. Councilmember Coles. I can't remember a number. No. Council member, the I. Councilmember Bone right there? No. Council members on line item. Mr. Chair. All right. Mr. Chair, the bow to six eyes, three nose council members. Dan Lambert and one rank bar. Thank you. By your vote. We have advanced ordinance 2021 131 to full council without recommendation. It will be expedited and appear on the council the special council meetings agenda for this coming Tuesday. I want to thank everyone for participating. Having no other business in this special meeting. We are adjourned.

On the message and order, referred on September 29 , 2021 Docket #1013, authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00) in the form of a Land Water Conservation Fund grant awarded by the National Park Service, passed through the Massachusetts Division of Conservation Services, to be administered by the Boston Parks and Recreation Department. The grant will be used for improvements at Malcolm X Park that will make paths, entrances, and play areas compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass. The report was accepted; the order was passed.

BostonCC_10202021_2021-1013

Docket 1013 message, an order authorizing the city of Boston to accept an amount of $750,000 in the form of the Land Water Conservation Fund. Grant awarded by the National Park Service, passed to the Massachusetts Division of Conservation Services to be administered by the Boston Parks and Recreation Department. The grant will be used for improvements at Malcolm X Park. It will make parks, entrances and play areas compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Chair recognizes President Pro Tempore and Chair of the Committee on Environment and Parks. And you, Madam Chair, resiliency advocates. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I've been around long enough to have seen a number of these park renovations and rehabilitations come to fruition. And it's one of the most exciting things to see. And this one is particularly exciting. Malcolm X Park in the heart of District seven, it's across from the Higginson Louis School, which is a very special bus public school. It's where my mother and my late sister taught for a number of years. And kids love this park. It's a huge park. And it's a park that has not seen a lot of love and TLC through the years until now. This is the there's been a total of, I want to say, a 6.6, $5 million in terms of what's been invested in this park for a full renovation. And this is one of the final large grants, three quarters of $1,000,000, which is going to make it ADA compliant. I think that's particularly important, particularly with the school next door, that does have a number of students who do utilize use wheelchairs. So to allow them to be able to take advantage of this great park and open space is going to be phenomenal. There are some really gorgeous stone walls there, the old fashioned, which are being preserved. This is something this is a park that the Olmstead brothers had designed. And they are keeping very much in the spirit of the Olmstead ian design. There may be some changes, but that's the tradeoff to make it more accessible and is someone who who counts himself a historian. It is more important to have accessibility than historical accuracy. But nevertheless, much of it will be in the vein of the Olmsted brothers, and it's going to have water features, it's going to have the permeated playground surfaces, which which is easier in case a kid falls down now, which is something I'm becoming more familiar with, the frequency that that occurs. And it's just a really great project. So thanks, of course, to Councilor Ed Flynn. First one at the hearing has some really great questions. Not his district, but he knows how important this is for everyone in Boston. So thank you, Councilor Flynn, for your great support on this. Let's vote on this. Let's get this done. The ribbon cutting will be a year from this upcoming summer. So about a year and a half or nearly two years from now, it's going to be a great celebration and I can't wait to attend. So I'm happy to take any additional comments. But I'm asking for passage of this docket. It's going to be absolutely transformative for a really important park in our city. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. President. Would any other councilors like to speak on. Number 1013. Seeing none. The chair moves for adoption of the committee report and passage of Docket 1013. All those in favor say any posting? No, the ayes have it. Docket 1013 has been passed. Thank you, Councilor Woo! Moving right along to docket zero 8 to 5, I believe. Correct.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Table 31-1 in Chapter 21.31, Table 32-1 in Chapter 21.32, Table 32-1A in Chapter 21.32, Table 33-2 in Chapter 21.33, and Section 21.52,260; and by adding Chapter 8.77, and Section 21.15.3155, all related to implementing the City of Long Beach urban agriculture incentive zone program to promote urban agriculture in exchange for reduced property tax assessments in accordance with California Government Code Sections 51040 et seq., and County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code Sections 22.52.3400 et seq., commonly known as the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone (UAIZ) act, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10032017_17-0872

Very sweet. Yeah, he needs a home, so it's good to get him a home. Thank you so much. Okay. We're going to go on to our agenda. We have hearings today. So where I get to, of course, like we normally do, go to all of our hearings first. So, Madam Clerk, we're the first hearing, please. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to receive supporting documentation under the record. Conclude the public hearing and declare ordinance. Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code to establish the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone Program. Read for the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. Adopt a resolution approving the form of the. UHC. Contract and authorize the City Manager or director of Development Services to execute such contracts and adopt a resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit a request to the California Coastal Commission to certify an amendment to the Certified Local Coastal Program Citywide. Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. We have. A short presentation by Oscar Orsi, our deputy director of development services, and Larry Rich, our sustainability. Coordinator. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Mayor. Members of council, Mr. Larry Rich, our sustainability coordinator, is here to give you a brief presentation on this matter. Thank you, Mr. Orsi. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the City Council. The item here before you tonight is the Long Beach Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. We have an ordinance that will implement this. So first, some quick background. Urban ag incentive zones were created by the city of California in 2014. In 2016, the County of Los Angeles adopted an ordinance that would enable incorporated cities to establish their own local programs. In May 2016, the City Council requested that staff explore the feasibility of implementing the UAS program in Long Beach. And then just a couple of months ago in June, city council requested the city attorney draft an ordinance to establish the Urban AG Incentive Zone Program and to define land use zones eligible to participate in the UHC program . So what is UAC? What it means basically is that eligible owners of vacant lots can enter into a contract with the city to use their land for agricultural purposes for a period of five years at a minimum. If they do this, the owner's property taxes would be reduced based on an assessment of the property value as agricultural land. And once that happens, we would like to see that vacant lots are cultivated, which would reduce blight and increase access to locally grown organic produce. The nature of the zoning component of the ordinance that you're considering tonight would be to adopt the state definition of urban agriculture with additional language clarifying that this does not include cultivation of marijuana. It would additional changes to zoning would allow urban agriculture as a matter of right within multifamily, commercial and industrial zones. And it would require an administrative use permit within single family to family and heavy industrial zones. The other part of the ordinance would establish a Long Beach UHC program, including the approval of a form UAE, the contract that property owners would enter into with the city of Long Beach. It would authorize the city manager or his designee or the director of development services to execute UAE contracts with eligible vacant lot owners. And then the basic process that this goes through involves the County of Los Angeles to see it all the way through. But first part of the process, the owners would apply to the program through development services. Applications would be reviewed and then referred to the County Assessor's office and the Treasurer tax collector. Approved contracts would be recorded with the L.A. County Registrar recorder and then recorded contracts would be filed back with the city of Long Beach and the assessor's office and property owners would be able to realize their tax benefit. So why are we doing this? Benefits of the program. We would help build more robust local food systems and access to locally grown produce. These would potentially create gathering places for community and opportunities for gardening education. We want to reduce blight and create opportunity for neighborhood scale, economic development and green jobs. There are co-benefits and means of compliance with the proposed vacant lot registry, which you'll also be hearing in the next hearing. And then finally, the access to incentives through the county of Los Angeles, meaning the county of Los Angeles set aside funding that would offset the property tax. So none of that property tax benefit would hit the city of Long Beach. And the city can implement this and access that those incentives at a minimal administrative cost to the city. So that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We're going to go in. Is there any public comment on this? I know we've discussed this issue before. Please come forward. Okay. Is there anybody else? Okay, I'll just be these two speakers. That's all close speakers. Let's go ahead. Okay. Hi. My name is Charles Moore, and I'm the founder of Long Beach Organic. And Larry's history went back a couple of years, but the actual vacant lot task force organized by Councilman Ray Bensky and Councilman Alan Lowenthal was active around 1993, and there were a number of problems with vacant lots at that time due to the closure of the automobile sales along Long Beach Boulevard. And there have been quite a few vacant lots left there and there was other areas and other problems with vacant lots and a lot of ideas were put forward as to what to do with them. But the only one that really came to fruition was creating urban organic gardens, and that's when I founded Long Beach Organic in 1994. Our first one was on First and Elm downtown. We then got what we called that first, the Wild Oats Garden when they came to town along the Pacific Electric, right of way between Loma and Grand, that was. And a donation from Wild Oats to Long Beach Organic to establish that garden, which is still active and thriving. And I just want to come forward and support the concept of creating organic urban agriculture, especially important to a city that is next to the ocean. One of the jobs that we did after the riots at Long Beach Organic, when along Atlantic Avenue, several businesses burnt down, was to instead of spraying herbicides to keep the weeds down on these vacant lots, we got local gardeners and tree trimmers to bring their mulch and we hired local folks to spread the mulch and keep the weeds down that way. And then they became urban organic gardens. And actually one of the gardens then was turned into a house for humanity there on Hill and Atlantic. So it creates what we call softening of the urban hardscape when you do these organic gardens, allows rainwater to percolate, allows bioremediation of toxics before they enter the marine environment. So I sort of felt there was this land and sea connection. I started the Marine Research Foundation to emphasize the importance. They were both founded on December of 1994, and it was to emphasize that the ocean land connection and to bring that concept of softening the urban hardscape. And that's what this will do. It will soften the urban hardscape. So I encourage you to vote in favor of this proposal. Thank you. Next Speaker And actually, I had I had close the speaker's list. Ms.. Oh, I'm going to let you speak. But just, you know, once I call the coastal speakers list and no one else is in line, we need to close it. So I'm going to say you're the last speaker. Okay. Go ahead. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor and members of council Tony D'Amico here with Long Beach Fresh, co-director of Local Food Policy Council. Make it really brief, because I know we've talked about this initiative a lot. I just want to take the opportunity to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for his leadership on this and also definitely to thank city Staff. Larry and his staff and development services for their amazing work. And really pulling this together, you it's been a long process, but we're very excited to help with implementing this program. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. And thank you for giving me the word. My name is Daniel Kovach. I'm a resident of First District and a member of the Long Beach Alliance for Food and Fitness of Star Central Long Beach. And I also volunteer for the Head Start program of Long Beach Unified School District is one of the policy concepts and plus volunteer in the classrooms so important. And I live in a multifamily residential area as many of the Long Beach residents do. And I'm here today to ask you to approve the adoption of the Urban Agriculture Scheme program. And so the. We can increase the land access for the production of housing, look locally grown fruit on rock and lots. Many of my neighbors and restaurants would be happy to able to grow those natural foods themselves, and many of them would be happy to be able to buy locally grown and affordable produce. And also, this is an amazing learning opportunity which their children would be able to have during their field trips and quality family time. Being able to use this vacant lot for such a great cause and not only will make our city community health better, not only for the sustainability of our city, but it will also reduce the high deserts which are created by this work. And lots of they are full of trash and broken furniture and simply dangerous places, an eyesore. So I want to ask you again to stop the ordinance and empower all your city residents to take control over their health. And thank you. Thank you. I have close public comment. We're going to go and go back to the city council, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to just say a few things, so I want to acknowledge, Larry, the development service team, Allison, Amy, Oscar, everyone who's played a part in this. We started the conversation over well over a year ago about how this put this ordinance and a vacant lot registry could work together as a sort of carrot and stick. We know we have vacant lots and of remain vacant for 20 or some some eight years. They're a strain on our code enforcement, a blight on our corridors, our neighborhoods. And we also know, on the other hand, urban, that urban agriculture, it's exciting. It brings people together, it makes them volunteer, and it gives them some real it really inspires people to really get involved in their neighborhoods. And we've seen it from the library garden at the Michelle Obama library, the Victory Garden in North Long Beach. A lot of the community gardens, we see what happens when we bring gardening. So what happens when you take sort of penalties on vacant lots in place that partner that with opportunities and incentives and and we hope that we will become the first city in L.A. County to actually implement it in and have someone take advantage of these incentives. And so, so good work to all of you. Larry, just have one question. So what should this this ordinance and the next item both pass this hearing in the next hearing? What's implementation look like next year? Before the Urban League incentive zone. It should go into effect in mid-November after the second hearing and 31 days passed. However, there is a deadline of the end of the calendar year to get new requests in to make it into the tax year next year. So it's it's. Possible, but not likely that we will get takers that we can get through the county process by the end of December. So basically what it means is we have all of next year to sign up property owners to get their benefits secured for 2019. And then the good news is the governor signed a bill just recently that extends this program for another ten years. So once once we're looking for properties next year, we'll have ten years to sign people up. So thank you. So consider the call to action once this goes into effect in November. Let's try it. Let's you know, let's once it goes into effect after the next reading, let's see if we can get a property to take advantage of the first round so we can have an example to point to as we go through and do outreach next year. Thank you for your time and obviously as my support and I encourage city council support you. Thank you. Got some repairs. Great. Thank you. And Larry and the whole team. Thank you guys for all the work that you guys did and think you vice mayor, for your leadership on this. I think this is a fantastic step in the right direction. So, Larry, I also had a clarifying question. It seemed like a big process for folks to go through. We think they can get through that process in two months. Is that correct? Well through a whole year. You mentioned that you wanted to have people through the county process by December, is that correct? Right. It's conceivable that if we had and we're willing to work with someone prior to the ordinance officially being implemented to get those discussions going. What we don't know is how long it will take to get through the county's process. So you saw there is three different county agencies we need to check in with. So we're it's worth a shot, but people will have to come and talk to us right away. Great. Okay. Thank you so much. And again, congratulations, everybody. And thanks for the community for working hard on this item as well, too. Thanks. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. Motion carries.

Recommendation to request City Manager to create a $5 million Restaurant, Brewery & Bar Resiliency Fund from the next federal COVID-19 stimulus fund package. This fund could be increased depending on demand and final federal stimulus bill.

LongBeachCC_12082020_20-1179

Mayor, did you want to go to item 32 as the next item? Item item 30, we'll do item 3248. I think it's 65 and 68 or all equipment related. And hopefully we can try to get through these. And we had a lot of comment. I'll try to get to these pretty quick. Let's start with item 32. Communication from Mayor Garcia, Councilman Price, Councilman Super or not. Councilman Mongo Recommendation to request city manager to create a 5 million restaurant brewery and Bar Resiliency Fund from the next federal COVID 19 stimulus fund package. Great. I'm going to be just just very brief. I think obviously our restaurants, bars and the industry are in great need of additional financial support and obviously not just in Long Beach, but statewide. So there is a big movement in trying to get that support in place. I think especially in this moment where you've seen that big county take action. Here we are. I'm very confident in the conversations I'm having with the Biden administration that there is going to be a strong relief package on its way. There may even be an interim package here in the next couple of weeks, but there will be a significant package come January. And so we're really focused on on that. Looking forward to partnering with our restaurants, have been talking to the Restaurant Association and others, and we will try to get as big of a package put together as possible. And if we're able to do more than 5 million, that would be great as well. So we're going to work hard as best we can. With that, I will pass it on to Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'm happy to sign on in support of this this item. As chair of the Federal Lands Committee, you have my and the council in the city has my full support. The committee will certainly make this a part of our agenda and work to provide as much of economic support for all of those industries, including restaurants, breweries , bars, bars. The employees have been impacted by these unfortunate. Pandemic. So as my full support, I encourage the City Council to support unanimously. Thank you, Councilman. Councilmember Mongo. And they're countering often with that emotion also. Can we get a okay. And a second, councilman. Second? Yep. Thank you. I'm really glad that we did this. I know that when Mayor and I discussed this item, I also brought up the item that he's already put forward for next week. So if you only read this to restaurants, it's just one piece of a big puzzle. There's lots of industries that need help, and we will work tirelessly to make sure that we are in a better position when the next CARES Act funding or whatever it will be named at that time. The next relief package comes forward that we really know and understand the needs of each industry. I recognize that this will not be a quick turnaround. We are really talking about strategies that are going to take 36, 48 or even 60 months to really implement and make sure that we get people back to where they were. So, I mean, the reality is we'll never be exactly where we were, but we want to put people back on their feet and and restore where we are, prosperity as a city. And this will get us there because we are built on small businesses and the workers that work for them. So thank you. Thank you. Customer your income. I'd like them to take an emotion, but I'm fully supportive thinking. Few Council members in Dallas. Councilmembers in the House. Thank you, Mayor. I was talking on mute. Thank you very much, Mayor Burslem. Very happy to have been signed on to this item. I, I really am excited to see this coming forward from. From you, Mayor. I think that this is very, very much needed right about now. So I am I just wanted to say thank you. Let me. Just once again. Yes. So I just want to say thank you again, Mayor, for this item. I think that it's very important that we be very clear in the situation. Long Beach residents and businesses are needlessly suffering due to COVID and without the action of our federal government. We as a city only have so much ability to provide assistance as we try to prevent the spread from this deadly virus. I'm I'm hopeful that the Senate will take immediate action to provide this relief before the end of the year, or else that the incoming administration will act swiftly to allocate these funds to the cities across the country, because we are in dire, dire need of them at the moment. So it gives me hope to hear that maybe there might be something in between now and then to come as a relief aid for our businesses here in Long Beach. So again, thank you, Maria, for leading this effort. And I'm so glad for the work that is being done and for the relationships that you have fostered to ensure that Long Beach has a voice in the state and in the federal and settled leadership. So thank you again for advocating for us and for our businesses here in Long Beach. The good councilwoman, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just just quickly, obviously, I support this, and we are certainly looking forward to whatever relief is is coming down. And we've had good conversation about that. I want to I want to make sure that. You know, like we said earlier, we should be intentional about, you know, our plans and how we measure expectations connected with strategy. And so the Economic Development Committee has been working on and so has staff has been working on some strategies around around restaurant retention. We're hear about that a little bit later, and we're really proud of the progress that we've already done. But I think it's important that whatever resources come down, whether it's 5 million, whether it's 2 million, whether it's $20 million that we we spend it in a way with the greatest impact based on strategy and key performance indicators and data. And staff is already putting together strategy for that. So I want to make sure that that is the best prioritized and connected. So, you know, to Mr. Mayor, you know, as you wrap up, maybe you can speak to that or or maybe even Mr. Modica. You know, I would want to hear what your plan would be. Should, you know, as well as he used to say, manna come from far from heaven. Should man come down, you know, are we going to connect it to the strategies that we're putting in place? And so I think that is the question. Thank you. Thank you. All in all, I'm happy to answer to that, Councilman. Just I think that's right. I think there's there's a restaurant retention plan. I know that the current plans put forward also and we've been discussing and we'll be comfortable will be coming up. And so this is just a tool for on the funding side that absolutely look forward to the council wrapping together as part of a larger, larger strategy. Councilwoman Price. Mr. Mayor, I want to thank you, too, for this item and for allowing me to sign on to this item. And I really do hope that our federal government, under the new administration and I'm very hopeful that they'll be able to come up with a bipartisan plan. And I'm I'm really hoping that to the extent that our federal legislative committee advocacy team can focus on on this is that sometimes these grant dollars come with significant restrictions. And it's very difficult to understand as a business owner how they can be spent and what the limitations are. I really am concerned about the workers, many of whom are out of jobs and no longer receiving unemployment at a level that can sustain the current expenses that they have. So I'm really hoping that there could be really special attention paid when the relief package is is crafted to allow business owners to have clarity on how those those dollars can be spent and what portion of those should be going directly to employees. So thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and I look forward to the item, and I thank you for bringing it. Thank you. You can go to public comment, please, Madam Quirk, if there is any. Our first speakers, Alex sharing. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the city council, obviously on behalf of the Long Beach Restaurant Association, were supportive of the item. We want to work with city staff and others to make sure that we've got the infrastructure in place ahead of time. As was alluded to, I think, in Councilwoman Price's comments, so that when the tranche of funding is received, hopefully in the second wave of the CARES Act money that we're prepared to deploy, and then we've got those criteria set up so that we can expedite getting that money to the people that it's intended to go to. So very much supportive and appreciate this. I want to thank on behalf of the area in particular Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Mongo and Councilmember Supernormal for engaging early with the group. I know that we've done a lot of outreach in the last couple of weeks and it's been fluid and I want to thank them in particular. I also want to thank the other city council members who either have been to one of our events or will be upcoming, including Councilman Richardson. I also want to thank City Staff Tom Modica for making himself available last week for an engaged dialog with the Elvira and the board members. And again, look forward to serving as a resource to help set up the criteria for this funding when it comes. So thank you. We're supportive of the item also because I was not able to speak under general public comment. Just want to indulge me for 2 seconds. I want to thank Councilman Andrews for his service and working with him. I think your next speaker is Christine Barth. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Christine Bos and I serve as the government affairs manager for the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I'm speaking today on behalf of our 678 members, representative and representatives and community stakeholders. The funding package is vital to our restaurants and bars, and we appreciate that the fund has been brought forward to council. However, despite our support for this fund, we ask that you please consider consider additional options to help our most vulnerable industries now. Immediate action is needed to save our restaurants and protect the. Financial well-being of our workers. We ask that you also consider financial assistance for personal care services who have been shut down for the. Duration of the regional stay at home order. Like restaurants and bars. The personal care service industry has made significant investments to adapt to the state, county and local health orders despite decreased earnings and limited staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Our next speaker is Dave Shukla. Dave Chappelle on file. Two quick things. One of the largest recipients of SBA loans to date have had very little to do with keeping the local economy afloat. Workers employed. More people at home. Second troublingly at the federal level. There is a concerted push to put. Liability waivers. Immunity. Pretend we didn't keep spreading the virus when we knew otherwise. And we're making up for it. Whatever the language is, the idea that the people who are responsible for a set of completely failed public policies for over six months now want to skirt responsibility for those actions when they claim to be working in the service of the people of this country who are dying at a rate of, you know, thousands of people a day. That is a bit concerning. And hopefully that can be addressed through the federal legislative committee, not to include any kind of immunity for employers that willingly to start over by EPA regulations, for instance, on COVID. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. And I'll just close by saying to the one speaker we had. Yes, personal care services is coming next week is another front for that. And as well as we know, there's a lot of work ahead of us for recovery. And so thank you to everyone that was involved. I was going to take a roll call vote. District one. At District two and District three. I. District four. I. District five i. District six. District seven. District eight. District nine. High motion carries. Thank you. Item number 48, please. Communication from Council on Mongo Council. Let's do 68 since it's restaurant related and then we'll go back to the dashboard and the health order issue and COVID. So the 68. Then, then 48 and 65.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; creating a restricted cash account for depositing donations and gifts; authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to accept donations and gifts into the account for the purpose of providing financial assistance to its low-income customers.

SeattleCityCouncil_09082020_CB 119866

Agenda Item 23 Council Bill 119866 An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities creating a restricted cash account for depositing donations and gifts authorizing the general manager, CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to accept donations and gifts into the account for the purpose of providing financial assistance to its low income customers. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Peterson, as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you. Council President. So I'm pleased to present and support this bill from Seattle Public Utilities to set up a donation account. This is similar to the one that Seattle satellite has so they can accept donations to help their low income customers pay their bills. And this is Council Bill 119866, which was approved by a committee. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any comments on the bill? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill for both? Yes. Whereas. I. Lewis. Yes. Morales s. ROSQUETA Yes. Petersen Yes. On, yes. Strauss Yes. Council President Gonzalez. High. Nine in favor and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Items 24 through 26 will please read items 24 through 26 into the record.

Recommendation to request Sustainable City Commission to prepare a report and recommendations on the current status, and opportunities for expansion, of the Electric Vehicle infrastructure in the City of Long Beach, and report back to Council within 120 days.

LongBeachCC_11032015_15-1127

Communication for Mayor Garcia recommendation to request the Sustainable Sustainable City Commission to prepare a report on the current status and opportunities for expansion of the electric vehicle infrastructure. Thank you. What we're basically asking for today is. I'd like to request that the cities the Cities Sustainability Commission, look at our electric vehicle infrastructure policy, as well as provide recommendations in the next few months on how we strengthen that. Right now, the city over the last few years has actually done some work on every policy. There are about 50 between 50 and 55, actually public electric vehicle stations throughout the city. And the city currently follows a state mandate as far as what our EV policy is. And there's been a couple of us, including, I think Vice Mayor Lowenthal, myself and a few others who have been involved in doing this work over the last few years. However, in talking to our development services plan planning staff, there are a lot of opportunities still where the city can strengthen our current electric vehicle policy. I mean, that ranges from strengthening our policy when it comes to private commercial, lots looking at retail, lots that are being developed, the new buildings, we can exceed the state, the state mandate. We also have a lot of work to do when it comes to our beach, lots and lots at our at our parks. And also looking at looking at ways that we can actually look at our current building code and increase the current three, the current 3% percentage. There's been a lot of also question about the fees. I hope the commission can also look at that and what we're actually both charging and being charged by our partners. And so this is just really an opportunity for the commission to come back to us and to strengthen our current policy as it's laid out. And I think it's time considering that our our actual vehicle drivers are growing. In fact, there are a few on this council. The infrastructure needs to be, quite frankly, dramatically improved across the city and across the county. And it's time for us to take take the lead on that. And so if I can have your your support and we'll hear some great, I think, recommendations over the course of the next few months. With that, there's a motion by Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilmember Austin. I'm gonna turn this over to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to just thank you for bringing this item forward and believe that it's something that the Sustainability Commission has considered before, and I think they'll be very excited to take this on. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. I support and encourage our colleagues to do the same. Councilmember Supernova. I was a charter member of the Sustainable City Commission and served two separate terms as chair. So I was asked the question about the procedure of this item. And so I would like to ask the city attorney because I think I know how it goes, but I'll let him give the full story. This is an idea that is starting with council and it is going to the Sustainable City Commission to be vetted and then come back to council. And is that as simple as it is? Mr. Green. That's correct. I think it comes from a supernova. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I want to thank you, Mr. Mayor, for bringing this forward. I do drive an electric vehicle, and I think there's definitely some opportunity for growth in this area for a city of our size. So thank you for bringing this forward. And I look forward to seeing the data when it's returned to us. Thank you. Thank you. And Councilman Andrew. Thank you, Mayor. I think it's an excellent, you know, a forward thinking for my mayor. And I also support our aviation. And I would like to learn, you know, how this can bring an additional revenue to the city of Long Beach. And, you know, can we make sure that this is in the report as well? Absolutely. Thank you very much. Any public comment on the item, please? Good evening, Mayor Garcia, Vice. Mayor Lowenthal and council member my name is Nicholas Zarate. I live in the second district and I'm I'm a. TV journalist, basically. So sort of here to report. The industry is really booming right now. There are lots of people I'm talking to. They would love to come in here and do all sorts of things. Lou, you're right. We have about four times as much as charges as we had a few years ago. We need a heck of a lot more, but we also need electric car sharing programs and bicycle programs and everything. I'm in talks with a lot of people and a lot of companies want to come out and try it out. So far I've seen them going other in other cities and I would love to see them over here a little bit more. Plus. I'd love to be able to cover stories. Right here instead of having to fly traffic from L.A. and Orange County. So I really hope it goes forward. And also, I'd like to. Share all of my resources, my help, if that helps, because I really believe in it. So hopefully that's good enough. Thank you. Thank you. And I would encourage you to when the commission starts actually hearing the issue, I would encourage you to attend their meetings and to give your input. That would be very helpful to them actually. Any other public comment on the item? Casey nine members, please. Gordon, cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Next item, please.

A bill for an ordinance creating and establishing the Denver Tourism Improvement District, appointing the initial members of the Board of Directors of the District, and approving the Initial Plan and preliminary 2018 budget therefore. Creates and establishes the citywide Denver Tourism Improvement District (TID), appoints the initial members of the board of directors, and approves the initial operating plan and preliminary budget. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-9-17.

DenverCityCouncil_08282017_17-0883

Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill eight three on the floor? Thank you. Mr. President, I move that council bill eight three be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. Can I get a second? Thank you has been moved and seconded the public hearing for council bill 883 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. I'm Brad Dodson with. The Department of Finance. Council Bill 883 is for an ordinance to approve the creation. Of the Denver. Tourism Improvement District upon receipt of a petition signed by approximately 50% of the lodging businesses who will ultimately be in the district. The petition complies with the requirements of a Tourism Improvement District Enabling Ordinance and has been signed by more than 30% of lodging businesses as required. The boundaries of the district. Will. Be coterminous with the boundaries of the city and county of Denver and include any lodging business that offers 50 or more rooms at that location. The Denver Tide's primary focus will be to foster economic development by providing enhanced tourism related facilities and services, and the support will include marketing and promotional services designed to attract more tourists, visitors , conventions and other meetings to the city, as well as an annual contribution of funds for the expansion of the Colorado Convention Center and ongoing capital improvements. The Tide's initial annual budget for programs and services is estimated to be $8.7 million, and the district's revenue will be raised by adding a 1% tourism improvement tax to the guest portfolio of district hotels. The initial board of directors shall consist of seven members appointed by the mayor and confirmed by City Council through the Creation Ordinance presented. Proposed board members are in attendance tonight as our Richard Schaaf and Amy Mayhew, who are representing the petitioners as part of the organization process. The petitioners provided information on the proposed district by engaging hoteliers through in-person meetings and written correspondence and several news articles on the TID. Organizing efforts have been published by local media over the past few months. The operating plan for the Denver TID meets the requirements of Chapter 20, Article 13 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. It is further submitted that the types of services and improvements to be provided by the proposed district are those services and improvements which best satisfy the purposes outlined in the code. City Council approval of the tides creation will permit the district to hold an election on the proposed 1% tax, and proponents of the district are planning to hold this required election this November. Based on the information presented, the Department of Finance recommends approval of the creation of the Denver Tourism Improvement District, its initial operating plan and budget, and the initial members of the Board of directors. And with that, Richard, Amy, myself are available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'll call all three. Looks like maybe, Brad, if you could leave a little bit of room right there, we could have one at the microphone and two on the on the seat with you there so that we can get through everybody. So our three speakers are Alan Patty, Chairman, say COO and Tony Dunn. And Allen. Paddy Allen. You're you're up first. Thank you. Good evening, President Clark and members of the city council. I am Alan Petty, general manager of two Doubletree Hotel Properties located in Stapleton. I'm here tonight on behalf of Visit Denver's Board of Directors to urge your final approval for the creation of the Denver Tourism Improvement District. Visit Denver along with the Metro Denver Lodging Council and the city and County of Denver have collaborated to develop an innovative funding opportunity that will benefit the city, the community and our partners. The TID will raise the remaining funds necessary to achieve the full vision for the expansion of the Colorado Convention Center and Fund Future Center improvements. In addition, the TIDE will support marketing efforts for convention and leisure visitors to ensure Denver's tourism industry remains strong and vibrant. This marketing fund will be overseen by a tidy governing board, of which I am proud to be a member. I'm joined here tonight by fellow TID Board members NAV and Demand and Building and Evergy as a demonstration of our citywide hotel industry support for this initiative. Visit Denver greatly appreciates the city's ongoing commitment to the tourism industry and recognition of the importance of the Colorado Convention Center to our local economy. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Group. Excuse me. Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou and. I am the organizing founder for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. We stand in support of this bill. Primarily for the interests of poor working, poor, homeless and senior citizens, that it provides an opportunity for us to participate in a thriving and vibrant economy, which means jobs for the poor. Which means economic opportunities for the poor so that they're not poor no more, and that they receive equitable treatment in the hiring practices of the city. Tourism is one of the elements of economic development for any city that seeks to rise above the throes of poverty and allows poor people an opportunity to get in at the bottom floor so that one day we can honestly see that not only are we participating in jobs, but we also become owners of hotels and receive some of the economic benefits that can be distributed among our people. And so without further ado, I yield my time so that we can get on with really why we here. Thank you. Thank you. Last up, we have Tony. Tony. Getting President. Clark. Members of council. I'm Tony Dunne, general manager sheraton downtown Denver. Also chairman of the. Metro Denver Lodging Council. I'm here today on behalf of the MDL See Board of Directors to thank you for your leadership on this issue and ask you for your support in creating the Tourism Improvement District that's before you this evening. Over the past three years, AMDOCS Board of Directors has explored a variety of ways to bring additional marketing dollars to the city. We're pleased that those efforts have resulted in a district that has over 50% of electors have already signed on to. In addition to the marketing dollars, we are committed to the Colorado Convention Centers long term success and are pleased that dollars from this fund will ensure the competitiveness from years to come. Again, we thank you for your support of this tourism improvement district and your efforts to help make Denver a world class destination for tourism. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have at this time. Thank you very much. All right, that concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 883 has closed comments from members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to speak in support of this moving forward. I think this is an appropriate way to fund the improvements of the convention center by adding the additional dollars to the hotels that are 50 rooms and above as a way to, you know, kind of have everybody play play in that plays in that arena, too, to be part of that solution. So I appreciate the fact that all of the hotels that are 50 and above that have signed on to this are willing to to do that, to make those improvements happen. Because when we fill our convention center, it fills hotel rooms and it benefits everybody in in the Denver hotel area, whether they're downtown or out at Stapleton or out at the tech center. When we have big conventions, all of our hotel rooms are filled. The other thing I think is important to mention is that for the kinds of jobs that are in the hotels, a lot of them are service industry jobs. But it's the one industry where you can start at the bottom and move your way up because they really support promoting from within. And it is one place where you can start as a janitor or you can start as somebody that's cleaning a room. You can start in a restaurant in any of our hotels, and years later, you can be the manager of that hotel. And so I think this this what this really is, you know, one of those jobs that that has some. Career path to it that. You know, creates that opportunity for people in our community who are looking for the ability to earn their income and to change their their living status. So I just want to encourage my colleagues to support this moving forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman New will visit the creative center. Obviously a real economic engine for our whole downtown. And we're so lucky to have Richard Sheriff and his whole team leading the development of the the new convention center expansion. That's going to bring so much in terms of what my colleagues are saying in jobs, but also it's just going to be a great enhancement to visitors who come to Denver and enjoy our city and be able to to have a more attractive convention center, an expanded center for four larger shows, and just a real asset to our city. So I just really look forward to supporting this. And Echo, my councilwoman were taking a few comments about supporting this movement. My colleagues, thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman. Do any other comments? I'll just add that I'm excited to support this tonight. I want to thank everybody who put the effort into creating our first ever ID in the city. I'm excited to see this go to the ballot and also just want to in addition to what my colleagues have said, Echo, it wasn't mentioned here tonight, but we talked about it in committee and visit. Denver has said it before, but that tourism drives down taxes for Denver residents, for Denver citizens, to the tune of about four $500 a year less that Denver residents have to pay in taxes to have the city services that we have. And so initiatives like this are continuing to build on our tourism industry and support not just our visitor community, but every citizen across Denver. And so with that, I'll be happy to support tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black I. Espinosa. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Mr. President. All right. Secretary, please close voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight's counsel Bill 883 has passed. Congratulations. And now. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 755 on the floor?

Recommendation to adopt resolution declaring a shelter crisis; suspending applicable provisions of local law, including those contained in the City's zoning ordinances and regulations; and authorizing the operation of a winter shelter between the dates of November 2, 2015 and March 15, 2016, inclusive; Authorize City Manager to execute any and all documents necessary for a Lease between Eddie N. John #1, a limited liability company (Lessor), and the City (Lessee), and a Sublease between the City (Sublessor) and the Long Beach Rescue Mission (Sublessee) and/or affiliated entities, and any necessary amendments at the discretion of the City Manager for approximately 12,000 rentable square feet of industrial space at 6845 Atlantic Avenue at the monthly base rent of $6,500 for use as a winter shelter; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GP) in the Health and Human Services Department (HE) by $29,250. (District 9)

LongBeachCC_10202015_15-1083

Item 20 Report from Health and Human Services, Economic and Property Development Recommendation to adopt resolution declaring a shelter crisis for the operation of a Winter Shelter from November 2nd, 2015 and March 15, 2016. Inclusive and authorize the city manager to execute a lease and subleases for 12,000 rentable square feet of industrial space at 6845 Atlantic Avenue District nine Staff Report. This is the annual contract for a winter shelter. This is actually great news that it's going to be actually opening a month earlier. And if there's additional detail required, Kelly Collopy is is here to give a staff report if needed. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson, would you like to address the motion? Thank you. Vice Mayor I'm glad to make this I'm glad to make this motion. Our health department and our Long Beach Rescue mission attended our neighborhood association meeting, took questions from residents. I think they might do one follow up meeting with a different neighborhood. But this is, I believe is this the third or fourth year that this has been in this location? It was. It's been in there longer. One year was in a different location, but it's been there, I think five, five years. I think it's I think it was for yeah. It was for five years. Okay. This location now is four years in this location because it moved one year to over in the first district. And then it came back. It was four years. Well, look, I know these things are controversial a lot of times, but we've had a great experience with these guys. They've been responsive to every question that we have. And I just look forward to just having a long, larger conversation about where the permanent location will be so that we can just have some understanding every year and where we can expect our winter shelter. I'm glad to see that this isn't an emergency. I don't see the word emergency listed. The last three years we've had this listed as an emergency action, so I'm glad that we're actually doing this earlier. So congratulations to our health department on their leadership. And welcome back to our Long Beach Rescue mission. Councilman Gonzales. Yes. I just wanted to also say this is a great thing that is happening. It is great that will be pushing it up a bit. And Kelli, the health department, you all have done such a great job. I know we did have it in the first district for a moment. And at first the residents were a little apprehensive. But then after seeing how well-run it what real well-run it was and how organized it was for the community, it actually brought more safety and security in the neighborhood. So I want to thank you for your work in that. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any public comment on the item? Please come forward. And I just want to announce that you're a commissioner. You didn't stand earlier. Downhill facilities manager. For the Long Beach Rescue Mission and co director for the Winter. Shelter. Vice Mayor Council. Thank you for your kind words. And we work every year to. Make it better and be good members. Of the community in what we do. So we just wanted to say thank you for your support. In making this happen. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Members cast your vote. Councilman Andrews. Yeah. Yes. Motion carries. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I am 21.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Broad Street; transferring jurisdiction over the portion of Broad Street between Thomas Street and Taylor Avenue North from the Seattle Department of Transportation to the Seattle Center Department for purposes of constructing, operating, and maintaining a public skate plaza.

SeattleCityCouncil_07222019_CB 119566

Bill Pass and chair of Senate. Please read the part of the Select Committee on Civic Arena's. The report of the Select Committee on Civic Arena's Agenda and for Accountable 119566 relating to Broad Street transfer jurisdiction over the portion of Broad Street between Thomas Street and Taylor Avenue North for the sale of primary transportation to the Seattle Center Department for purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining a public skate plaza. That can we recommend Civil Pass. Thank you very much. So I'm going to channel in co-chair of the Select Committee on Civic Arenas Deborah Suarez with me as I present this because it was a select committee, I think all of you are familiar with what we're trying to do in these three pieces of legislation. The first one is fairly straightforward. We're just transferring the jurisdiction for a portion of the Broad Street portion of Broad Street between Taylor Avenue North and Thomas Street without charge from start to the Seattle center. And that's simply for the constructing and operating and maintaining a public skate plaza. And, of course, this was caused by the work we're doing over at Key Arena and on the Seattle Center campus. And so that's basically what this does. And I look forward to your support. Any questions or comments? But please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Macheda I. O'BRIEN Hi. Pacheco. All right. So thanks. John Gonzalez Herbold President Harrell I eight in favor and unopposed. Bill Pass ensures chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda in the short short time to.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of agreements between The City of Seattle and certain City unions; authorizing compensation for certain City employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_10112021_CB 120186

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the piece affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item one into the record? Agenda Item one Constable 120 186 Plaintiff Study Employment authorizing the execution of agreements between the City of Seattle and certain city unions. Authorizing compensation for certain city employees not covered by collective bargaining agreements and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. Thank you so much. I move to pass Council Bill 120186. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. I am the sponsor of this bill, so I'll address it first and then open the floor to comments. But before we actually debate the underlying bill, I did want to move the adoption of the amendment. I did have an opportunity to speak about the amendment this morning and it was published on the agenda. It is Amendment eight pardon. So I'm gonna go ahead and do that first so we can have a conversation of a potentially amended bill before us. So I moved to amend Council Bill 1 to 0 186 as presented with Amendment A on the agenda. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you. It's been we've been seconded to amend the bill is presented on Amendment A. Again, colleagues, as I describe during this morning's council briefing, this legislation would authorize additional pay for frontline city employees to acknowledge hardships, offset additional costs, and retain frontline city employees to continue to deliver in-person essential city services during the COVID 19 Public Health Emergency. As it relates to the items addressed in this legislation, the city last week reached a new tentative agreement with Protect 17, representing the central staff analyst bargaining unit. Amendment eight, which is currently before us, would attach this new tentative agreement to the Council bill so that it would be ratified, along with the other agreements already included in the legislation that was transmitted to us by the executive branch. This tentative agreement includes the same terms and benefits as the other agreements that were attached to this bill as it was transmitted. And the late edition of this agreement is simply the results of sequencing, since the executive led negotiators and city unions did not initially include the central staff analyst bargaining unit. This agreement is ready now to be attached to this legislation now that those negotiations have occurred and have been completed. So I'm happy to answer any questions about Amendment A, but of course, I do recommend that my colleagues support the adoption of A. Any questions? Or comments on Amendment eight seen none will accept. Please call the role on the adoption of Amendment eight. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes, i. Peterson I. Sawai Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. President Gonzalez I. Nine in favor. Nine opposed. The motion carries in and Amendment eight is adopted. And I'm going to go ahead and make comments on the amended bill before opening up to any further debate. Again, Council Bill 120186, as amended, includes terms for frontline worker pay that are authorized by this Council bill that would be authorized by this Council bill if approved. So the terms in this bill, excuse me, were negotiated with various unions representing city employees, and the benefits provided therein will apply to both represented and non represented frontline workers employed by all three branches of city government, including the legislative branch. Following the adoption of Amendment eight, which we just did, this legislation would ratify four tentative agreements with all the bargaining units who have agreed to these terms. This frontline worker pay will go to eligible employees in the form of a lump sum payment of up to a maximum of $1,750. This is comparable to the total value of the telework stipends that have been paid to city employees who have been working virtually throughout the pandemic. So generally speaking, city workers are eligible for either the telework stipend or the frontline worker pay and cannot earn both benefits. The estimated cost for additional paid to, represented and not represented frontline workers is approximately $6.5 million, and there are sufficient reserves in the general fund needed to support this this additional expense. I do want to make sure that members of the viewing public and colleagues know that future legislation will have to come before the Council later this year or early next year to make appropriations to various city departments in order for them to execute the lump sum payments to eligible employees. Once we have a better sense of the full universe of those who will claim it. Finally, as I noted during this morning's council briefing, the city has now reached tentative agreements regarding frontline worker pay, with all unions representing city employees. With the exception of the Seattle Police Officers Guild and Police Officers Guild was offered the same terms and benefits agreed to by all other unions, but has so far rejected the city's proposed terms. Of course, we're disappointed in in that rejection, but that will continue to move through our processes here to make sure that the frontline workers who are complying with vaccine requirements and who are also and agree frontline workers in agreeing to accept these terms are compensated accordingly. Okay, folks, I don't have anything else to say on this particular issue, so I'm going to go ahead and wrap up my comments and open up the floor to any additional comments on Council Bill 120186. Any additional comments or questions? Cast member me, please. I just want to make one additional point. Thank no president with us for covering this so thoroughly. One additional point I would like to just add is my understanding as it relates to the position that Spock has taken, that the city. Did not. Tie offers on acknowledgment, appreciation, pay, two offers on vaccine mandates. So I just think that's. An important clarification for folks who are. Following along on. Both of these related issues. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions on council? The 120186 as amended herein, none. Will the court please call the rule on the passage of the amended bill. Suarez II. Lewis. I. Morales Yes. Macheda i. Peterson I so want yes. Strauss Yes. Verbal yes. President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor. Nine opposed the motion carries the bill passes as amended, and the chair will sign it. Will the Court please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Is there any further business to come before the Council? Not seen any hands raised. So, colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on a is on October 18, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon returns. Thanks, everyone.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Mineshaft, Inc., dba Mineshaft, 1720 East Broadway, for Entertainment With Dancing by Patrons. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_10062015_15-0990

Okay, great. That was easy. Thank you, John. Good to see you guys. Moving on to back to the agenda here. So we have are we going to continue back on the hearing? So we have hearing item number two. Hearing two requires an oath. Anyone that's going to participate, please stand. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Thank you very much. With that, I'm turning this over to staff. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The staff report will be handled by Jason McDonald, purchasing and business services manager. Thank you, Mayor. Council Members. Jason McDonald for financial management. Tonight you have in front of you the application for entertainment with Dancing for Mineshaft, doing business as Mineshaft at 1720 Broadway in District two, all of the necessary departments have reviewed the application. The application and proposed conditions are contained in the packet that was provided. We are prepared to address any questions or concerns along with the police department regarding the application of those conditions. That concludes our report or available for questions. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I have a motion and as I'm sure that's over to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to just clarify a couple of things with our city staff. And vice mayor. Also, just because there was a hearing, we're also able to hear public comment before you make the motion, if you'd like. Oh, yes, can we do that? Okay. So if anyone wants to comment on the hearing, now would be a good time. Please come down. Hi. My name is Tom Herzog, 1725 Second Street on the property owner that goes through next door to the mine shaft at 1724 East Broadway. My partner and I have lived in the home for 20 years. The wall of the mine shaft is actually the property line with my property and knowing their mine shaft is there when I moved in. So we knew that we've raised our two sons, adopted sons, and we've actually been able to do it. Last time I was here was for the same issue noise, public disturbance, smoking affecting the neighborhood, trying to figure out the balance between the commercial and the residents. So I've talked to Brock. He does a great job of responding to the planning inquiry. You know, that didn't really do too much and brought me to this point. He said that this is a normal evolution of a business, but our school board sued the city for the normal evolution of a business, which was the Long Beach Airport expansion. That very noise complaint destructing a neighborhood and going against the general plan, which is to create a healthier, quieter environment. Have you seen the onerous and lengthy noise complaint? It takes weeks and months to actually do a noise complaint, and that's what you are putting on the city residents. People are paying a tax dollars. People expecting you to do your jobs. I've called a number of the officers I've talked to Brock and to his office. Does a great job. I understand. I understand the bars there, but I have defecation, urination, drugs, sex in my parking lot. We have people picking up, people yelling and screaming. The cigaret butts out on the sidewalk, the pollution, just the trash in general. Something has to be done. I don't think extending a dancing permit, extending the louder pay system for an older building to a company where those people don't even live in Long Beach. You're up in Redding, California. I'm really not invested. Number of neighbors. Number of people trying to make community. But yes, it is an apartment. It is transient. It is not a normal residence. We don't have the support that someplace against like talk of circuits where you get a whole bunch of residents coming in and actually lobbying and actually getting results. So we're left to make complaints. File complaints with the Long Beach City police take their time to complain to noise. And if we don't log each call and the city police department last time didn't have any record no record for any complaints of the year. Just that didn't happen. So we're left to look like, oh, I'm a liar. But no, I know we what my noise or I'm not trying to be a gadfly, not trying to sit there and call time. But when I was in my front room, living room of a 100 year old house, it just turned this year trying to improve my neighborhood, spend my money in my hometown, that small town charm. But yet, all here's boom, boom, boom. Or people screaming or having to go out and talk to my my neighbor, who's actually has a little using a place and had to clean off defecation from the parking lot or, you know, vomit. That's ridiculous. Something has to change. And really love Long Beach, but it makes me feel like moving. I don't feel that small town charm right now. So I hope you vote against this. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Gerry Cochrane. I'm the owner of an apartment building that runs 1732 through 1738 East Broadway. My building is right between the Brit. And the mine shaft. Earlier this year, we acquiesced to allow the Brit to. Have entertainment in their open patio with limited time. What you're looking to do right now is to get all of these people to go to bars for the same thing all night long. As my previous person mentioned. We have to clean up the bomb. We have to clean up the cigaret butts. We have to clean up the defecation every day. So let's keep in mind that this is also a residential area, as well as a major thoroughfare to the inside of the city. So. Adding entertainment. To the mineshaft. He's just going to get the people to move back and forth between the two bars constantly. So that the neighbors, the people who live in that building are going to have to deal with all the noise and all the trash and all the cigaret butts. That is constant. I might add that recently over the last 30 days, I know after this permit was focused that all of a sudden the place was getting a little bit cleaner. Things were looking a little bit better. Let me tell you, if you go back 30 days and I'll be more than happy to take pictures for you and provide to the city council how many hundreds of cigaret butts and defecation and gum and things that I had to clean up in front of my building every single day to try and keep tenants in the building. The owners of the of the permit, we agreed to allow them to to have music there. They said they were going to try and cover the open patio to contain the noise. They didn't do anything. So I know they posted somebody out front to try and keep the traffic or keep the noise down. But, um, my tenants every particularly Saturday and Sunday, particularly as we've had extreme weather recently, had to close their windows in the afternoon. So that they can just hear themselves or enjoy their own peace and quiet. So I just ask this council to consider this is not just a commercial area. This is also a residential area. I'm trying to keep tenants in my building. I'm spending an average of 15 to $20000 per unit trying to get tenants or stay. But it's very difficult based on the noise. And if you offer them to move with music and noise, that'll expand between two units. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Time's up. And then we have our last speaker, please. Thank you for hearing me. I'm Jeff, darling. I am representing the owners of the mineshaft. We also owned the Brett Bar. This is a family owned business. Our uncle started these bars 32 years ago and has owned them continuously. When he passed away in 2003, it became part of our family bar. We do live in Redding, California. This year I've spent three months of my time down in Long Beach living here. We have an apartment downtown. We own a condo in a historic building. I feel like we're very much part of the community. Some of our employees have worked for the bar for over 25 to 30 years. So we have a long standing history here. The things that we're asking to do in this permit are specifically to have a deejay and entertainment dancers, something that's happened continuously for the history of the whole bar. So we're not really asking for something that's uniquely different, like the Brit bar that has a large patio and does have more noise issues. We made some concessions and we settled it peacefully here in this council meeting to close the patio at 10:00. And it has greatly affected our business. But I'm not going to be bitter. I'm going to move on. We have to do business and take care of our employees. Our employees are part of our family also. They work here. They live here. We've made several attempts to alleviate some of the concerns that was recommended by the city. We had the police department come out. It's really difficult to speak to some of the specific things that they talk about, like defecation. Cigaret Butts is an urban area. It's very close to Bixby Park. We do have it's a thoroughfare there on East Broadway. Some of the people there spoke tonight. They have homeless people sleep in their doorways. They leave trash. It's very difficult for a bar that polices and does custodial every single day in their property and takes care of their particular space, too. To worry about the whole urban environment and some of the things that we've done this year. We made a new solid back door for noise to keep the noise at a minimum. We had a uniformed security guard that pulls patrols the street between both bars to keep the patrons quiet during the evening hours. We've installed security cameras to monitor the front entrance with the ability for the police department to have its own username and log in so they can monitor that at expense to us. All bartenders have taken leads, training as asked, so they are more aware of not serving intoxicated people. Um. All of our security wear clearly identified staff shirts. We've updated all the building to the current ADA requirements. As for that building, we just have gone to several measures. We contribute $71,000 in taxes. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Goodhew. It's very good. You click as the address. It's listening to this. Here's how I see this. You've already got a problem. A way to partially address this is for any person who votes to approve this. Would agree to this. Number one, you will provide your 24 hour seven cell phone number. Two of the two gentlemen that spoke opposing this that are neighbors. Allowing them to call you at whatever hour. The noise. Wakes them up or disturbs the neighborhood. Number two. You will underwrite the cost of having. Someone first thing in the morning. Check the sidewalks, sweep up any feces, cigaret, butts or whatever junk is there. And transport that to your council office. The first thing the next day. And after a year. Or after six months, bring this back. Based upon the number of your feelings, based upon the number of calls that you will gladly take at two or 3:00 in the morning. And the amount of feces. The amount of cigaret butts and other litter that the people had to go out and clean up because their custodians had done. Thank you. Thank you. Back to the hearing, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank our speakers and follow up with staff on some of the questions that I had. Okay. I think I see stuff there. If you could clarify for us, this was mentioned by one of the speakers, actually, I think the owner's representative, that the dancing component of the permit is for performers and not for the patrons. Is that correct? Vice Mayor That's correct. The council letter is that it seems to have indicated patrons it was intended to say performers as per their application. Okay. So it is performers and not patrons. I appreciate that. And that the entertainment is only for Friday and Saturday until 1 a.m. and Sunday between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.. Correct. That is their application and as recommended by the police department. Okay. And then there is discussion about the breezeway and Mr. Herzog brought that up, I believe, if we could know, are the patrons using the breezeway behind the establishment as a makeshift patio or smoking area? Are you aware of that? Our office is not aware. I think we've had concerns from residents that that, in fact, is taking place. It's a physical space that's available. So I'd like to alert you to that and make sure that that's part of any monitoring or compliance that we're looking for. Because if that is happening, we have to ensure that the conditions that arise in the condition that it be closed attend. And so that's my concern. It might not be a physical space that we recognize because we're not aware of it, but it is a space that people are using. And so we have to include that as part of the 10 p.m. cutoff. For noise and other things in the smoking and all of that that sort of permeates beyond the property. And I appreciate the gentleman that came to speak on behalf of the family property. I'm not sure where he went that you are. I'm sorry. And. You're right. It is an urban environment and. You know, not a secret. I'm an urban planner, but nowhere in my experience do we accept that defecation and everything else is part of the urban experience. It's. It's a consequence of. Poor behavior. Poor management throughout. It's a combination. It's not just the business owners responsibility or the city's responsibility. It is what happens. And when we have establishments that that bring in a lot of customers, which thankfully you have a successful business. You do. And and we're thankful for the balance that we try to strike on Broadway. Broadway was purposely many, many years ago zoned in this multiple zoning type effort with residential and commercial and business. And and whether that's good or bad, you know, you'll have to ask the residents and the businesses. It is a tough balance to strike. But just as we do with our homes, we clean up the area out in front of our homes. It does little to say that it's not our patrons or it's not something. It's in front of your home, so we have to clean it up. And so I thank you for doing that, but I want to ask staff I have seen in permits where that is actually conditioned, where, you know, the property owner is required to maintain cleanliness outside. And that's something that I would like to be sure is I know they do it voluntarily, but I do think that that has to be a part of our monitoring effort. And whether it's code that gets involved, any part of Broadway is not a part that we can risk having mean not maintained to a livable standard, a sustainable standard and a standard where patrons do want to keep coming back. We have daytime patrons that should want to find it appealing to walk on Broadway. And we're making many efforts to make adjustments, some infrastructure adjustments to the street, to the public right of way so that it can be more appealing. And it's not a thoroughfare. And you're right, it kind of is a thoroughfare. And we are you know, through our planning efforts, we are trying to slow that down. And so but that has to be matched with what we ensure the business owners and patrons do. And if I could also ask staff. Actually, if I can have a response to. The part about the cleanliness. I know we're both talking to you and but you're good at this. I think the discussion was, is where is the appropriate enforcement activity coming from? And I think that's a determination we'd have to make in cooperation with the police department and code enforcement as well as in the ABC conditions. Okay. I don't know that the area being discussed is specifically under the control for the purposes of the entertainment permit, but it could be added as a condition potentially. And we'll review that with the attorney's office as well. Okay. And I would appreciate that and ask that we do that well. And certainly with the loitering and cigaret butts yelling and loud noises late at night, these are the types of activities that I know your security team is probably aware of and very conscious of keeping an eye on. But we have to not just be aware of it and sort of the observant of it. We have to have that controlled as part of your conditions and more importantly, just just being a good neighbor. I know you can't control human behavior, but if they are patrons, we do expect that. We expect that kind of management. We expect that kind of crowd management and behavior management. Whether it's for the neighbors that live right next door or really other patrons are trying to enjoy themselves on the street as well. So those are the requirements that I am asking you to ensure is worked into the conditions and and follow up in enforcement. I don't want to leave our community represented by the few people that have come here, but they do represent that entire community. I know this. I don't want to leave them with this expectation that these are the things that will change unless we can actually follow up and enforce them. So if there's any changes to that, I'd like to know directly through my office. But for now that is my request and my belief that we will move forward with that. With that, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make the motion to conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions for the mineshaft, including closure of the patio or the makeshift patio that could potentially be the breezeway by 10 p.m.. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. We've done public comment. Members, please cast your votes on the motion. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Moving on to the next hearing, please. The next hearing is, I believe, hearing three.

Recommendation to approve the renaming of South Street Parkway, "The Pressburg Parkway" in recognition of the contributions of Uptown community leader Dan Pressburg.

LongBeachCC_06012021_21-0490

Thank you. Next up is item 14, please. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, Council member Urunga. Recommendation to approve the renaming of South Street Parkway to the Pressburger Parkway. Thank you. Councilmember. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Today, I'm proud to bring this recommendation forward. We started this process a few months ago with a unanimous vote of the city council to begin this process. And I'm grateful to see the vote of support from the Parks and Rec Commission. It did not make it out of the they didn't receive a vote in the government oversight committee. I thought with with chair, supernormal and staff about the appropriate process. The appropriate process to then bring the recommendation from Parks and Rec Committee to the City Council, which is what I'm doing today, so that we can make a decision to move forward with this. This request a little bit about this request for Dan Price. Berg is North Long Beach leader and he's been involved. And anybody who knows Dan and his family, they're committed and they love the North Long Beach community for more than 35 years. Dan's been incredibly involved in our community, particularly around projects like the One Day Christmas Store, an event that provides gifts for people in Long Beach who otherwise wouldn't be able to provide Christmas at all. And that's gone in 2007 to 2015. I've helped out with this program's an incredible program in its nine year run. The store service, 30,000 people from our community right here in Long Beach and a number of other projects at the Long Beach Veterans Day Parade since day one. Dan is family will open up their house to just a great family. And we're a tight knit community in that district. In fact, we have a culture of neighborhood associations. Dan is a part of that, that group of all of our neighborhood associations. And we've taken great pride in transforming places that weren't necessarily places of pride. Vacant lots. Walls that have integrity, graffiti and transforming them into places. And the way we do that a lot of times is by beautifying an area or adding a mural or naming a location that most some folks may not have thought of naming. There's a little piece of history right on South Street by the city's first park pocket park established in North Long Beach in the 1990s. And it's about a third of an acre. It's a small lot that used to be dumped, items in trash and, you know, other things you wouldn't want next to your home. Dan And a lot of the residents of the Forest Park started cleaning up this little this little patch of dirt. Ultimately, it turned into a nice green parkway, and it's turned transformed into a place. In that place has been host to weddings. It's been a host most recently to a memorial for Long Beach resident candidate Candice Yokoyama. And it's really been what we epitomize as sort of placemaking, transforming a space into a place. And so one of the request of the committee was to go out and receive more public input. And we've received a letter from each of some seven of the ninth District Neighborhood Association presidents of the grant or name Neighborhood Association, the Collins Neighborhood Association, the St Francis Place Neighborhood Association. The College Square Neighborhood Association. Starting Neighborhood Association. Hamilton Neighborhood Association. Longwood Neighborhood Association. These are all ninth District neighborhood groups that work really closely together. We also received a letter of support from the Forest Park Neighborhood Association. This park, this pocket park is within the boundaries of the Forest Park. And that's important to note. And finally, on this portion of North Lawn, which is represented by Assemblyman Mike Gibson, I want to thank Assemblyman Gibson for his letter of support today. And so, as the council member of the night, I'm proud to carry this motion. I think it's appropriate. I think it responds to the needs of our king, the request of our community, to make sure that we're naming many of our local places after, you know, local people with a local story. And in this, you know, in the press, Berg's family has been really committed to the uptown community. And I think this is appropriate fitting naming of this pocket park in my district. So I'm happy to make the motion today. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilman Ringa has the second. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank Councilmember Reyes, very rich itself, for bringing this forward. I've known Dan for about over 30 years and I've been to his house. He has a lot of celebrations. And you're right, he's got a great family, great heritage. He's one of those. And as I mentioned earlier, with with the vice mayor, one the doors, he's iconic. The city that is iconic to the ninth District. And this is a very appropriate and fitting tribute to him and his family for all the work that they've done. He's been a hard worker tonight district. He worked in the office when Councilmember Merrill Lynch was was in office. So there's anybody who knows the district is down prescot. And I'm very happy to be part of this historic event for him and for his family. So thank you to my marriage, to her, including me in this. Thank you, Councilman Ciro. Thank you, Mayor, and thanks to vice mayor. Richardson for bringing this item forward. You know, I think it's really important that we honor the the wishes of our residents, particularly the neighborhood leaders that have really advocated and supported dad in this naming of this park. And for that, I think that it's important to support that item because it's being asked by our neighborhood leaders. So with that, I support. For that reason, I support this item. Councilwoman, is your public comment, please, on the item? Yes, Mayor. Darlene Broom, please begin. Darlene Broom, please press star six to begin. Holly Pressburger. Please begin. And I'm. Hi, this is Darlene, and thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. I'm speaking in support of Ben. Preferred to rename the South Street Park. We park after him. The first person that I met some 30 years ago. Well, not 30 to 20 years ago, when my husband and I first moved to the Forest Park was a band CRISPR and he has been. An active. Figure for that whole time the. History that he brings and the help that he has put forth in this community is. It's not something that you can just pick up every day. This man has been here since when they built the the Forest Park Nature Trail, which is now the Forest Park wetlands. He is there for everything. He opens his doors to whoever needs help. You keep abreast of any and everything that's going on within the city. I can't think of anyone more deserving at this time to have. Something named. In their honor for all of the work that they've put. Out. And thank you again for allowing me to speak. Thank you, Holly. Press berg. Please begin. Hello. I would like to share a letter that my son, our son has written, and his name is Aaron, but he wasn't able to get on this call. I'm going to start with my father is Dan Pressburger. I know there is an issue of support of renaming the South Street Parkway in his honor, and there really shouldn't be. The Parkway has been tended to cared for by my father before the first seed was ever planted. My father lives, breathes, bleeds, North Lawn, which he has fought for Uptown community, that he has raised his children and grandchildren, and he has sacrificed his time and often his livelihood to create legacy not only for my sister and myself, but for our children. I remember being a kid growing up in a bar next to a poorly paved alleyway and a dirt lot with no fence. I remember being seven years old and making that line into a dirt track to ride bikes and drive RC cars and do cool tricks. But suddenly it was too full of trash to play. And that's not the case today. Over 30 plus years, my father has bagged that garbage, fought to get fencing, helped plant trees, flowers. And I'm pretty sure he's mowed the grass once or twice in that parkway. It's been instrumental in getting the city to create the grassy area and putting up fences, creating clean, relaxing area. It was a gorgeous contrast to the filth and dirt and danger that filled the place before. The most important thing about the Parkway is that he never asked for recognition for it. He never he never said this is mine. Even though he took pride looking out of his windows and seeing something he helped create. He never said someone should pay me because the parkway is its own reward. A swath of beauty near a historic landmark. My dad never wanted to own that area, but cared for it as though he did. And whether or not you put his name on that sign, he has left and continues to leave the indelible mark of the north side of Long Beach. His legacy continues through the committees and programs he has founded and shared over the years through the annual Veteran's Parade, the annual Christmas party that he has hosted, nearly everyone from average citizen to city council to state legislator. And his legacy is clearly every single time he a car drives by north by the Long Beach dairy and criminally slows down to get a really good look at that big house plucked out of time and the shaded grassy area next to it. They say, man, that's a really cool place. So no matter what the name is on that sign, it will always be spread. Parkway to the community he is cultivated to the neighborhood and to the folks lucky enough to call Dan Pressburger part of their family. Thank you. Thank you. Sharon Segal, please begin. Shereen, if your phone is muted, please unmute your phone to begin. Sharon, please begin. Skye. Donato, please begin. Skye Donato, please press star six to begin. City Council and Mayor Garcia. My name is Skye DiNardo, and although I have only known dance for a few years, I consider him a great friend and he is what I would refer to as a community healer. With all that is done for Long Beach and no family especially, I cannot think of one reason why any person would object to the park next to his home being named in his. Honor like originally proposed. I find it sad and tell you that it has come up for topics. Please consider that it be named after him because it certainly should be. He deserves it 100%. Not at all. Thank you. That concludes public comment. Thank you. We will go back. This also concludes Council comments. I will do a roll call vote, please. District one. I District two. I. District three. I. District for. High. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. I. Motion carries. Thank you. Now moving on to item 15, please. Communication from Councilman Super not a recommendation to increase appropriations in the city manager department by $500 to provide a donation to Tinker Clinic for Children for the sixth annual Carnival and Resource Fair.

Recommendation to request City Manager to direct the Department of Development Services to review existing planning and zoning law and to provide recommendations for, by ordinance, the creation and/or allowance of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones.

LongBeachCC_02212017_17-0134

Thank you. Okay. We're moving on to the agenda. We have a hearing on the agenda. I'm going to go in here. Councilmember Mungo's item, I think for some people that wanted to speak on item 24 and court. Item 24. Communication from Councilman, Councilwoman, Mango and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request City Manager to direct the Department of Development Services to review existing planning and zoning law and to provide recommendations for by ordinance the creation and or allowance of accessory dwelling units in single family and multi-family resident residential zones. Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. Today we heard a lot about affordable housing and the need for more inventory. I think this is a step in the right direction. I think we need to be creative with this. I know that some of the granny flats that are within our city are micro units and others have different types of opportunities for people to come in at a rate that is affordable for a different lifestyle. And I hope that we can put together a process that's streamlined and easy so that these can be safe, affordable places for people to live. I appreciate Linda Tatum's work in supporting the information that was necessary to get this item on the agenda tonight. So thank you, Development Services and Linda, specifically. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And thank you all, Councilmember Mongo, for bringing this forward. I watched this legislation in Sacramento pretty closely and carefully over the last year. And when it was signed into law, I thought myself, well, perhaps we'll build one ourselves at our at our home. I mean, there are a number of neighborhoods and space in our city where this would, I think, be a good fit and would help us deal with our affordable housing crisis here in the city. And I'm very, very confident that our Development Services Department will give us some sound guidance on on how to make this. The secondary units, granny flats, top quality and in the way, in the spirit of of our city, the way it needs to be. So I'm happy to sign on and look forward to getting a report back from my staff. Councilman Price. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward. I think this is an excellent item for us to at least consider and talk about. I do know that we have, in addition to talking about the affordable housing issues and concerns and goals that we have as a city, the the situation of senior housing and aging parent housing, you know, the traditional granny flat type scenario is one that is becoming more and more relevant for people in my demographic as our parents begin to age and want to maintain their independence, but being near family. So I think this is a really great consideration for us to have as a council. The one thing that I would hope the item would include is the issue of density and what areas this would be appropriate for. Because my biggest concern is we have some in some areas that we have parking impacts and we also have a some infrastructure and resource limitations. And certainly we don't want to continue building in those areas. And so if we could have the report back includes some possible areas where consideration could be given to modifying our current ordinances. I think that would be a really great, informative and meaningful report. So thank you for bringing this item forward and I think it's an excellent one to learn more about. Thank you, Councilwoman Pierce. Thank you. And thank you guys for bringing this item forward as well. I have the same concern that my colleagues Price has, which is looking at parking requirements or any mobility requirements. I mean, and Alamitos Beach. My street has multiple of the back houses. And so just including that in but I think it's a great opportunity to talk about affordability and increasing our housing stock. So thank you guys for bringing it forward. Thank you. Councilwoman Mongo. I misspoke. Do you want to mention anything regarding the parking requirements in the state ordinance or the state law and how it was passed? Perhaps I could shine a little bit light on the requirements. You know, I actually do not have the requirements with me right now, but we can report back on that. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Thank you. And I'll just add, I think it's important that we do explore this seems like pretty good stuff. As long as you like grandma, it might not be a good thing if if you know Grandma step grandma, you might not like too much, but in theory, in theory supportive here. Is there any public comment on this item? Race to the podium. I go home? Actually, I wanted to stay for this one because this is very important to me. I brought with me today the article in From Hawaii. I keep a house in Honolulu as well as a house here. Life is good. You can join it. Guest bedrooms available. We call them ohana units in Honolulu. Ohana means family, but we extend the idea of family to being besides mother and father. Because we do something called hanai. We can adopt people outside of our own family and they become actual parts of our family. So in a way, Long Beach is our hanai. You know, we have a huge family here. We used to have zoning for this, but we restricted it quite some time ago. I've been in the city since 1984, so I remember when we did that there was a movement in Belmont Heights that they wanted to down zone. So they changed the zoning from our two end to our one N so that the only one house on a lot and it was supposed to preserve the quality of the neighborhood and it was justifiable. Absolutely. However, there are areas of the of the city where traditionally we've had ohana units, Rose Park for one. A lot of ohana units and or Granny Flats, as you want to call them, throughout the city. But at this at this point, we're not allowed to develop them at all. There are some statue requirements in this thing here that I think that maybe you should take a look at, for instance, the size of the lot requirement . They say that you must have 3500 square feet or more in order to buy because we have five foot setback requirements in the zoning code. Makes sense to me. Also, they're talking about how big it can be. So in Honolulu they limit it to 800 square feet. So at least this is something where we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Let's take a look at what Honolulu did, because it's a really important issue for them, because if you think housing is expensive here, go to Hawaii. There is no more land to get. You know, that that's unless you're going to the big island. And I wouldn't recommend that area where we're getting more land. But the Ohana Unit thing, if we could loosen our zoning and this is about really making an analysis of what sections of the city this would be more appropriate for . Like it maybe it's not appropriate for Belmont Heights. But on the other hand, it might be an incredible first of all, property tax increase and value increase for the sixth District or the seventh District. And I think we can all get on the same page with this working together. So I applaud you all for bringing this forward, and I will give this to the city clerk if you want. I'll review this or come to Honolulu and see me. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Okay. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good evening, honorable vice mayor and council members and those of you out in TV. I want to commend the council. This is a great idea. It's low hanging fruit. And Nancy Ah, my mentor, before she passed away, a story that she told me she used to love to say. Did you know that in World War Two, the City of Long Beach issued a call to action to its residents to help house American servicemen? So the residents of Long Beach were building things to house people, you know, garages, attics, things were built. And and this was a patriotic act. This was part of the war effort to help our country. And and so they were rewarded. We got some housing for the servicemen. And then in the intervening years, that notion was lost. And these things fell through the cracks and they became illegal bootleg units. And I think that if we could find a way Nancy was very fond of saying we if we could just do a permit holiday and allow these units to be made legal, and they would bring in more revenue, they would bring in more taxes, everybody would benefit. And it would be a very low hanging fruit way to get more affordable housing for the city. So I just want to thank you again for bringing this up and have a good evening. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Elaine Hutchison, and I'm going to continue the trend here very much. Honorable vice mayor this evening and members of the city council. I am here to say thanks to Stacie Mongeau and to Lena Gonzalez and Councilman Nelson for signing on and putting this measure forward. It is a very important measure because it is one of the things that can be done quickly to make legal and to give permits for the housing that's already here so that people can legally rent those houses and make it available. We have a need for more affordable housing in Long Beach. This would free up some nice housing that's already here and allows for more to come to pass. So thank you very much. We urge your support. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Yes, thank you very much. I just wanted to address some of the points that were made. And like I said, I followed the legislation in Sacramento. There was quite a bit of debate over over this particular legislation from many of the cities because they were concerned about losing local control. This is state law now. And so we have to comply with the law. I think what we are asking our development services department to do is to help us, you know, make sense of this for us as a city here in Long Beach. And like I said, I have full confidence that they'll do a great job and bring us back some guidelines and our residents guidelines to move forward with with honoring this law. So I look forward to supporting it. Thank you, Councilmember Young. Yeah, I just came out right now because I. I've never read this law. I have no idea. No clue what it is. Can somebody clarify it for me? Or if nothing else, I request that when you come back with asylum to please explain first what it is that we want to study. You mean state law? Councilmember Mongo, you want to chime in? Certainly, sir. We are preparing a memo that describes what occurred. But there is a state law that was passed and is effective January 1st, 2017, which does require cities to allow accessory dwelling units. As of right, there are certain limitations and we're exploring what those limitations are. But they are as of right. And we are trying to determine what sort. Of. Development standards, if any, can be put. On those. Accessory dwelling units. Well, thank you for enlightening me and excuse my unawareness of. Thank you. So no further public comment. Members, please cast your vote. Councilman Pearce. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE relating to residential rental properties; amending Sections 7.24.060, 7.24.070 and 7.24.080 of the Seattle Municipal Code; requiring that landlords provide information to tenants about how to register to vote and how to update voter registration information.

SeattleCityCouncil_06192017_CB 118993

The Report of the Energy and Environment Committee Agenda Item for Council Bill 118993. An ordinance relating to residential rental properties amending sections 2.24.060.070.080 of the Seattle Municipal Code, requiring that landlords provide information to tenants about how to register to vote and how to update voter registration information. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you very much, Councilmember Swann. Thank you, President. This is an ordinance to require landlords to provide new tenants with voter registration forms and information along with the information for tenants. Back at that, they are already required to provide renters a statistically less likely to be registered to vote than homeowners. And this isn't surprising because renters who are being displaced by rising rents have registered to vote again at each new address. This also means that people who are more likely to be renters, such as low income people, young people, immigrants, people of color are less likely to be registered to vote. This legislation is one part of addressing this statistical disenfranchisement, especially given that we are a mail in ballot state. Although obviously the problem is far bigger than the legislation can address. The only objection I've heard so far to helping tenants register to vote as. I'm from the ultra conservative Rental Housing Association. Perhaps they are worried that if more renters vote, more elected officials will support rent control and other tenants rights. But other than that, we have had tremendous support for this bill. I wanted to thank the Seattle Department of Construction Inspection. Ali Banerjee from dental staff and King County Elections were working with us on this legislation and for agreeing to help implement it in a way so as to maximize its effectiveness. And I think especially Ali Banerjee's expertize on this and other demonstrator installation has been truly invaluable. I also wanted to thank our two members, Juarez and Gonzalez, who were very helpful in our committee discussion. And I want to particularly extend, thanks to Zachary Thibeault from the Capitol Hill Community Council, who originally brought the need for this to our attention and has been part of the process all along. And the committee recommended unanimously that we vote yes. Thank you very much, Councilmember Swan. I do believe we have two amendments that we can speak on, if anyone, before we talk about the amendments, if anyone had any comments on the base legislation first, now would be the time. I may see some comments after it's all done, but why don't we walk through the amendments? Councilmember Wallis, thank you. And I want to apologize. We had a bit of a cut, a typo in our referral, and I had to fix it. So for ease of just of discussion, we have Councilmember Gonzalez and I have two amendments, and the first one is Amendment A, so I would move to amend Council Bill 118.0. How do I say this point? 993 It's still the lawyer in me, basically this amendment that by the way. Oh, sorry. Let's do it. So let's. There's been a motion and it has been seconded to and well, you haven't described the amendment yet, but I'll describe it as amending the Council bill 118993 by adding a new Section three and I think by remembering the remaining sections. And now you describe what you're doing. Mm hmm. Very good. So what we have here and we discussed this at committee and if council members want wants to comment, that would be great. But we discussed it committee and with Stsci and a representative from King County election who had a representative here that the requirement to track voter registration to see the the productiveness or how well this would work in getting more voters or renters to sign up to vote that we would like to see the information come back to us. But anyway that this requirement would not be an added burden or administrative task to perform. So basically, it would just track voter registration to see how successful this this council bill would be. Very good. Any discussions on this particular motion? It has been moved in second. All those in favor of. I'll just refer to this benefit, number one, if I may. All those in favor of amendment no. Amendment number one, say I, I as opposed no one has passed councilmember words. You have a Second Amendment. Thank you. This is amendment number two. I moved to amend council bill 118993. This amendment goes is more of a technical amendment. So when we went back and looked at the language, we just basically changed the language from the packet that the packet includes the summary so the landlord or the rent would only have to produce one single packet. So it isn't anything real substantive, it's just making it easier for the landlord to hand out one particular packet to the potential renter. Very good. Any further comments on amendment number two has been moved in second and already all those in favor of amendment number two say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So now we have a piece of bass legislation has been amended twice. Are there any further comments from any parties? I just wanted to say one thing, and that is that one could argue, why are we asking landlords to do this? We have been trying to we, I think, appropriately enact landlord tenant laws for the protection of tenants, particularly dealing with unscrupulous landlords. And we've seen some horror stories out there, but I think if we look at what's happening in this country and we look at the history of voter suppression, that I think a great city will look at every opportunity to try to enhance voting, every transaction, every opportunity. So I think that it actually is good policy. And as Councilmember Walsh, I think astutely pointed out, that we're trying to do this at no cost or low cost to the landlord. It's I had actually had my staff figure out where the forms were and how it is to be done. So I'd like to think of this legislation. And again, I want to thank community and councilmembers for stepping up with this legislation and just thinking of that here in Seattle, we will do everything possible to make it convenient for voters to vote. It's one of our most important civic duties. And so in that sense, I think this is a great direction to go. And again, I want to applaud those that have thought of it, and it's my pleasure in supporting it. Any further comments and we will vote. Councilmember. Just a quick question if. I ask. Before. I know. I know, but I. Couldn't help myself, could you? Well, you know, it's a good idea. Are we asking for landlords to actually put voter registration. Paper. In the packet or just an announcement or direction on how people can do it online? Not the actual forms. Okay. So it's part of a packet that is already we provide a packet already for landlords to give to tenants during the right. So a point that was brought up earlier, it's pretty easy to go online to change your voter registration. I just want to make sure people know about that tool as well. You know, they get something and they lose it. Yeah, actually, I mean, the online tools are important even for landlord tenant rights because Dems often seek they are I mean, they are information packet. They often many rely on the online version, but we don't want to just have the online version because there's lots of tenants, especially the tenants who need to register to vote and don't have access to that information are probably less likely to go online. So we want to make sure all of those are covered. And to sort of pile on at that point. Obviously, people are relocating when they're signing a new lease for an apartment. And so at that point is a sort of an opportune time to change your voter registration documents. That's a good reminder. It's a good reminder during their change of residence. Okay. So those please call the role on the passage of the bill. Sergeant, I. Beg your Herbold. Johnson. Whereas President Herrell I six in favor not opposed. The bill passed and then Cheryl sign it please read the report of the park shall senator libraries and Waterfront Committee.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; granting authority to accept and execute revenue and funding source agreements to support the operation and services of the Lighting Design Lab; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06292015_CB 118399

The Report of the Energy Committee Agenda Item for Council Bill 118399 relating to the City Light Department granting authority to accept and execute revenue and funding source agreements to support the operation and services of the lighting design lab and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember one. Thank you, President Burgess. The Lighting Design Lab is an environmental project of Seattle City Life to promote the use of energy efficient lighting. They periodically accept grants in order to help finance their work, and every time they accept such a grant, they need council approval. And this ordinance would give city light the authority to accept those grants without a council in every instance. And the Energy Committee unanimously recommends that the Council pass this bill. Questions or comments. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Gordon Harrell. All right. O'Brien. Rasmussen. All right. So aren't. I. Back I and President Burgess eight in favor and and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee. Please read item five.

Recommendation to request City Council to receive and file a presentation on the Century Villages at Cabrillo 2016 Social Impact Report.

LongBeachCC_09202016_16-0888

Vice Mayor Richardson. Motion carries. Okay. We're doing 24. Then the public comment. Communication from Council Member Muranga recommendation to receive and file a presentation on the Century Villages at Cabrillo 2016. Social Impact Report. Mr. Guthrie. Anger. Thank you, Mayor. The Villages, it really is a wonderful project, has been a wonderful partner in the West Palm Beach area, providing homeless services as well as housing for those in great need. So I thought I would invite them to make a presentation, give us an update on some of their projects that are are going on there . And and also give me an opportunity to thank you for all the work that you do out there in the west and west side of Long Beach. Thank you, Councilman. Good evening, Mayor. City Council. City Staff. My name is Brian D'Andrea and with century villages at Cabrillo for some of our newer council members, CVC is a nonprofit that owns, manages and develops the 27 acre villages that Cabrillo Community in West Long Beach that's home to more than 1300 individuals on any given night, including 550 veterans. The Villages was previously a naval housing site serving the Long Beach shipyards, and in 1997 the site was conveyed under the McKinney Act for the benefit of the homeless. We at century think of ourselves as the stewards of this really special place. And I think the the secret to our successes out in West Long Beach really has to do with this growing collaboration of more than 20 different partners that have come together to advance our our mission of restoring health and hope among our population. And at the heart of that collaboration is the city of Long Beach, which is really the ultimate backbone of our larger efforts to end and address homelessness across the city. Each year at the Villages, we pause and we take a look back at the prior year to to to evaluate our progress. That process requires an incredible amount of coordination across all of our partner agencies and under the supervision of an independent evaluator, Dr. Beth Menke, who's unfortunately not here tonight. She's with Cal State, Long Beach. We go about the process of aggregating outcomes and impacts and successes. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work of one of my colleagues, Kim Crawford, our director of community development, who's behind me here. And I'm here tonight just to share a few highlights of our of that effort and of our 2016 village. That could be our social impact report. You all have a copy of it. The theme of this year's report is collective impact, and that's an approach to solving incredibly complex social problems by relying on the energy and talents and time of many different partners unified around a common agenda. And that's precisely what's happening out in West Palm Beach. Last year, thanks to the combined efforts of nearly 300 staff across all of our partners, we serve more than 2000 residents. We're achieving housing stability rates at at at a pace that exceeds industry standards. We're also helping our residents grow their incomes at a pace of nearly 5.5% per year, and that far outstrips both local, state and national averages. This year, we also evaluated the economic impact of the villages, looking at both our real estate development activities as well as our ongoing operations. Our operations have created more than $42 million of annual economic output across the county, supporting more than 600 jobs in our real estate development activity over the past past three years has generated more than $72 million of economic output, supporting nearly 375 jobs. So our report really validates, I think, what we've always known along the way, and that's that investing in permanent supportive housing changes lives and it can drive the economy. Lastly, I want to highlight one of our proudest accomplishments. A significant expansion of our internship program. Thanks to partnerships with local universities like Cal State, Long Beach, we've benefited, benefited from interns, volunteers and students who've contributed their time and energy to supporting our efforts. Last year, we had nearly 900 interns clock more than 30000 hours of service. They obtained meaningful and life changing experiences as a result and help support our larger effort. So we want to acknowledge all of our partners at the local university and obviously the students and interns that have have helped us. Next year, the villages will be 20 years in the making. Hard to believe. And over that time, the city has provided extensive support not only to our agency, but to many of our partners across the campus. That support spans many departments at the city, from Housing and Community Improvement to Housing Authority Planning, Building, Neighborhood Services, the port and many others. The city really should be incredibly proud of its investment in the villages and its leadership in helping to create the special space. The need for what we do is great. We know there's a large discussion happening at the city right now about homelessness. We look forward to being part of that dialog and continuing to partner with the city to to address this issue and continue our work together. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Andrews. Kind of. Oh. Oh. I was going to the. He's the second in the motion. Okay. Okay. Any other public comment on this item? I just want to thank Brian for his presentation this evening. And I think one of the most important things you left out is the current project that you're working in on the expansion of an additional 80 beds. Yes. Our anchor place development which the city has invested $4 million of capital and in 75 project based fashion vouchers is under construction. 120 permanent supportive homes will be coming online late next year. Thank you. Thank you. You guys do great work, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. I just want to chime in and say what a what a fantastic report. This is the presentation. I just took a moment to look at it. You guys are doing great job. A great job. I wish we could duplicate you and take you all over town because the need is certainly there. And and you're definitely on the radar in the region, you know, at the Scaggs regional, you know, regional discussions, we you know, when we talk about the greenhouse gas cap and trade funding, Long Beach is up in the front at the forefront because frankly, because you guys have led those conversations. We want to continue to to support you in that. If it hadn't been for you, Long Beach, you would have seen a dollar of cap and trade funding. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I also wanted to just say what a great job you guys have done. I have taken a tour twice of your facility and really been inspired by the stories that have come out of it and the model is fantastic. Really looking forward to partnering with you guys while you're based in the seventh. Your impact is citywide and anything that our office can do to work with you to build on all your successes and find ways where we can help other organizations connect with you and build on that as well. A great job. Councilman Gonzales. Great job, Bryan, to you and your team, I think. Incredible work. And I have to say, your social impact report is one of the best I've ever seen. It's, you know, just exciting to see all of the the numbers and what your impact is, not just in Long Beach, but just regional. And it's incredible. So great job. Thank you. Thank you. With that seeing no public comment, please go ahead and cast your votes to receive and file. Motion carries. Thank you. With that, we're going to go on to back to public comment. We're actually going now to the regular agenda. All the requested items have been moved up. And let me read the order of folks that are going to speak here.

Presentation by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) to the City of Alameda for the Alameda Main Library.

AlamedaCC_10202015_2015-2149

All right. Three C presentation by the United States Green Building Council to the city of Alameda for the Alameda Main Library Project. Pretty cool. Evening. Mayor Spencer and members of the City Council. I'm George Saki, library director for the Alameda Free Library. Excuse me. I'm very pleased to be here tonight to have my project team. With me as the city receives our. Lead gold for. Existing. Building. I want to really thank my project team. Building Wise was our consulting firm. Barry Giles is the founder and CEO. And he is here with us this evening. Levi Jimenez was our senior project manager. He couldn't make it tonight. Yvette Becerra is also a project manager with Building Wise. Westlands from. Stop Waste. Dawg really pushed us through this project and was a huge, huge help. Maria de Meglio, I think, was the heart and soul from Public Works. She's a. Project specialist. And really. Kept our project moving and attended to all the details that didn't fall through the cracks. Britney and Kerri from AC. I helped Maria a lot. Digging through our garbage. Thankless job, but we really do thank them. And tonight, we're honored to have Kevin Hydes, who's a member of the Northern. California chapter of the USGBC. To actually do the presentation. So I don't want to spend too much time at the podium. I'd like to bring Barry up here to say a few words about our project. Thank you. Madam Mayor, Vice mayor and members of the council, thank you so much indeed for the opportunity to be here this evening. I'm Barry Giles. I'm the CEO of Building Wise, and we are the consulting company that worked with your team to get them through the process, to get them to the end and get this great plaque put on the building event. And I and I'm sure she would say as well, it's we've been in this business for some years. We are a very experienced consulting company. But one of the main things we know is that we cannot complete these buildings without the help of people in there. And Jane and Maria, without fail, have been pushing and arguing and helping and asking all the difficult questions of the members of the team and to get us through to this program. So now you are in a moment going to be presented with this plaque and the building will be called, we believe, the first library in the nation to get a version for all of this LEED existing building program. What are you going to do next? Because the one of the big things about lead and the lead program, especially the lead ebb program, which I was very fortunate enough to write back in year 2002, is that we wanted people to continue to work on the building. And one of the ways to do that is to ask you, it's not mandatory. Can we come back in five years and do it all again? Because what is important is the data that comes back from that. How are you maintaining the building over the over the next few years? How are you improving it? No, we don't want you spending millions of dollars on the building. We want you to work with the team that you have and Wes Sullins and stop waste and everybody else who was part of this to maintain the building so that we can keep it going. The other big advantage of doing this building is that we generated a lot of new programs. We had policies. We have programs that went through the council, went through a lot of the public works. They can be replicated very, very easily in other buildings that you have. I assure you, plagiarism is alive and well with the USGBC. We'd love the opportunity to do it again. Now, without further ado, I introduced introduce Mr. Kevin Hydes, who's here representing the U.S. Green Building Council. Yeah. There's two of us with an accent. I'm Kevin, and then I'm mayor and council members. Don't say I don't need to say much after Barry. But I will say that the thing about certification, which I think is so important, it's actually something very tangible. And your public of obviously elected the members here to represent their values and vision and deliver on this this lifestyle that you referred to earlier. I love those words. I love this notion from the earlier awards as well that, you know, you're actually acknowledging and rewarding your own people that go the extra mile. You know, I think you should acknowledge and reward yourself for going the extra mile, you know, as leaders in your own community. And as Barry mentioned, these these certificates are really important certifications. It is the first in the country for a library with version four. You should be very proud of that. But as Bob knows, it's a journey. It's a journey. And this is this is you know, we celebrate today and then we move, move on. I'll remind everybody that two months from now in Paris, you know, the countries of the world, the major, our own governor and major and mayors from cities around the world are going to arrive in Paris to talk about climate change and what actions are they going to take to help the planet at large. And I think what, Alan, the city of Alameda is doing here in its own facilities, with its own leadership, is actually completely in alignment with those conversations that are going on at the global level. So congratulations to everybody and thank you for your leadership. Thank you. Mayor Spencer. You can come. Yeah. Inspector picture. This rebel, right. Oh. But know. Oh. Actually. Madam Mayor. And a mayor when you. Thank you. I just want to recognize two of my colleagues, because none of this certification at the library would have been possible without the two co-chairs of the library who stood up on the dais today. And that's our vice mayor and council member Ashcraft. Thank you. And thank you. And I it is a thrill for me every day to see our beautiful library. And we knew we wanted to do more. Back when we were on the library building team. But we had the restrictions of a budget to work with. But, you know, we did things like make sure that the roof was engineered so that we could put solar panels there at some point if and when the funds became available and they did. But it was always a very inspired project that started right from the beginning with huge community support, and it continues to this day, as Mr. Fakih can attest to. So thank you for taking us the extra mile. But I swear. And I do want to acknowledge the people of alameda because without their vote in measure ro to fund this. 78.8%. To match of the state of California from the State Library Board, which brought our tax dollars back to Alameda, none of this would have been possible. So the people of Alameda saw the need and spoke with their their wallets. Thank you. Any other comments? Thank you very much. Number item for oral communications. We do have a speaker under oral communication.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare and return to the City Council for its consideration, a sensible, financially sustainable, fiscally prudent, Medical Marijuana regulatory ordinance for possible placement on the November 8, 2016 General Election ballot. Such Council initiated ordinance would be placed on the ballot only in the event a proposed Initiative Petition regarding the same subject matter qualifies for placement on the November 2016 ballot. The ordinance prepared by the City Attorney for Council consideration and placement shall be modeled upon an ordinance considered by the City Council on February 2, 2016, which contained a phased in regulatory approach to Medical Marijuana in Long Beach.

LongBeachCC_06212016_16-0587

Item 41, please. Communication from Councilwoman Price, Council member Superman and Councilwoman Mongo recommendation to request the City Attorney to prepare and return to the City Council a medical marijuana regulatory ordinance for possible placement on the November 8th, 2016 General Election Ballot. Such council initiated ordinance would be placed on the ballot only in the event a proposed initiative petition regarding the same subject matter qualifies for placement on the November ballot. Thank you. Waiting for you, Councilman Price. Sort of secondary. Madam Clerk. Councilman. Councilwoman Mango is seconding the item. There you go. Okay. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. So I want to do a couple of things with this item tonight at the request of my colleague who has his anniversary tonight, which we talked about. I want to move this item over to our next meeting, which is going to be July the fifth. And not take this the item of a competing measure up tonight. But what I would like to do is anticipation for that meeting is I'd like the city attorney to provide us with a report on the proposed initiative and the items that have been enumerated in the proposed initiative that are different than what we have discussed previously at council in regards to things such as land use, cups, buffers, taxes. I'd like to just get a sense of what the differences are in the proposed initiative so that we can discuss that and talk about it. The other thing I would like the city attorney to do is to provide council with an overview of recreational marijuana and the interplay between recreational marijuana and medical marijuana. Educating us a little bit on what would happen if recreational passed, what would that do to medical? What would happen if both passed? How would they interplay with one another in terms of our land use options? And so I think those will be great discussion points. And as I indicated to my cosigners in regards to a competitive ballot initiative and thinking about one, I think it's important for us to have some data. The initiative that's on there is really the last place that we were as a council, and that's why it's offered. But I'm more than happy to to think about the suggestions that my colleagues have in terms of a competing ballot initiative and to incorporate any ideas that they have in crafting something that truly is a compromise that reflects the best interests of our communities. I understand. And it's. That the. Differences in the proposed initiative might be pretty significant in regards to land use and taxation. And those are data points that we need to have moving forward in determining what options we're going to give the citizens. It's this really is something that's going to go to the citizens. Many do want medical marijuana. Many will probably want recreation. So moving forward, we want to be able to give them the best choices in terms of the impacts to the city and really what we can manage as a city moving forward given the resources that we have. So the item is basically three, move. The. Competitive initiative to July the fifth so that my colleague Mr. Durango can get on his way and not be stuck here all night. And also, Councilman Austin will be here as well and then receive some more information from the city attorney's office from which we can start to have a dialog about what options we want the voters to have. So that would be my request. Councilwoman Mango. Is that the motion that you're seconding? On those three items. I think that for the purposes of considering an alternative, while I love councilmember your anger and want him and his wife to have a wonderful evening, I think that a study is important before determining if we would even want to consider a competitive measure. So I think that for different reasons I will support. The idea. I think voters should have. Choices. I think that there are many people here who fought very hard for a measure that did not pass this council originally, but I think would probably have that support. And I think the voters would likely be supportive of the original. System that did not pass and instead was proposed to be the delivery system. And so I think that there's a lot of space of common ground that could be found between now and then. And I think that a study. I've pretty much voted yes on every study to date, so I doubt I would change my methodologies now. Councilmember Turanga, did you want to speak at this time? I want to wait to see what of colleagues are going to say. But I do want to say that so much has been made of my anniversary tonight that I don't want to I don't want to be the the the one to rush this alarm just because I do have something to celebrate tonight. So I'll wait for my comments later. When they are, I feel they are appropriate. So let's go ahead and continue the discussion. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I, I wanted to not comment, but my thoughts here are what I would support tonight is I would support information, but I don't right now I couldn't support and I understand placing this ordinance as a starting point, and that makes sense to me. But we had that discussion about that ordinance already at council and, you know, and the council is well documented on that particular ordinance to start a process with placing a competing, competing ordinance on the ballot. I think you have to start in a different place, I think. I think we had the opportunity. The public went to the ballot if there was something that was going to be competing measure. I think, frankly, starting at the place of what was being proposed by by so many voters who signed that petition and adding protections or strengthening it, there would have been a better approach. So tonight, I can't support the portion to move this to the fifth. But what I can support and what I would encourage and what I hope we arrive at tonight is information, because I do agree that the voters should know exactly what they're voting on. I think that we should do an analysis of the potential impacts of the ballot measure. That's fair. And there is still time. If if there's still time, something more reasonable comes forward. But I could not support this tonight. So in its current form, I would say no. But if the if if there is a, you know, if councilman woman price and it's not as important to me to to right now do a substitute motion. I want to respect the intent of Councilwoman Price. But if she were to, you know, make her motion more about finding information, stand alone, about the measure that the voters have voted on, the voters have signed a petition for. That's something I considered tonight. Thanks. Councilmember Urunga. Thank you, Senator. I can't agree with both. Arguments at this present time, and I'll tell you why. We've we've gone through this. We've gone through this since my wife was on the city council. We got through this last year. We've argued it all. We got reports. I don't know how much staff time we've spent already on building an initiative or getting the task force together. We had people from the community participate in those task force, albeit it didn't go as smoothly as it would should have. But it it did its job and it came back with recommendations. The proposal that was put here that that the councilwoman is putting forward. We went through that discussion. We talked about it. We did the analysis. We even talked about some of those issues that she's bringing up now in terms of further reporting and further further study . We've done that already. I don't think that we need to go any further in regards to getting more information on this. I think the people have spoken. There was a petition that was put out there. More than 35,000 people signed it. We're in the process of validating those signatures. There is a high likelihood that those signatures are going to be valid and that there's going to be a ballot initiative. Our what we have here is an opportunity to let the voter speak. Now, if there are members of this council who do not want to. Let me rephrase it. If there are council members here who do not support the initiative, they can they can do so. They can write an argument against it. But for us to consider a countermeasure, to put on the ballot in the name of giving them giving the voter an alternative choice, I don't think is valid. We went through all of that discussion. So I'm in favor of letting the process go through. Put it to the voter and I would. I want to provide a substitute motion to receive and filed this item here. Is there. Does that come up? Okay. Councilwoman Price Thank you. Vice Mayor So I may have missed something in this process, but I don't recall that we've ever done an analysis of the impacts of the specifications of this proposed ordinance. We have never analyzed the impact of this many dispensaries. This tax base is limited at capped at 6%. We've analyzed it at 10%. We've never analyzed that at 6%. We've never analyzed the impact with. No. We've never analyzed the land use implications that this ordinance proposes specifically. All of the discussions that we had regarding cups and land use and taxes are now null and void under this proposed initiative because nothing that we discussed was included in the current initiative. The buffers have changed. The cups have changed. The tax base has changed. The land use has changed. We have not analyzed this current proposed initiative. And in fact, yes, the voters have a right to know what that impact is going to be. Let me be clear. Let me be absolutely clear. I am not saying let's not have marijuana. That is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is let us find choices for the voters that are more prudent than what is being proposed. And, yes, let's let let the voters decide. There is going to be a cost associated with us having this election. And the voters of the city of Long Beach should be the ones to decide what measure they're comfortable with. I'm not saying that anything about the proposed initiative, other than if we find that it is not the most prudent for our city, then let's at least consider an alternative that is more prudent for our city. And yes, let's let the voters decide. I understand that in a city of 500,000, 35,000 signed a petition. I understand that. But we have 500,000 voters in the city of Long Beach, and some of them would like to know what the choices are in regards to prudence. Some of them may choose a measure that allows for a 2000 foot buffer or a 15 foot buffer from a school. Some of them may choose a measure that requires a C P for these operations. Some of them may choose a measure that goes up to a 10% gap, and some of them may actually think that the more prudent measure is better for the city of Long Beach, especially when we just passed measure a promising promising our residents that this was going to provide some relief to our police department, who has been completely stretched to the limit. And now if we are going to add another burden to the police department, some of our residents may want to know how we're going to pay for that additional burden. This council may not be interested in that information. I, as a resident of the city, I'm interested in that information. So if you're not interested in that information, then vote no tonight. Do it and do it proudly. You'll get a lot of cheers from the audience, but if you're a resident, you may want that information. And as council members, we should do everything that we can to provide alternatives for the voters of this city. I yes, I am always going to pick the more prudent measure. It's not about marijuana. It is not about marijuana. It is about a business. Any business that has elements that are associated with what we've seen in marijuana would be one that we want to have caution with. It's not the legal operators that are a problem. It is the illegal operators that are the problem. It is the illegal operators that have cost our city millions of dollars in police resources. It's the same illegal operators that have cost some of our neighboring cities millions of dollars in police resources. It's the illegal operators that we're worried about. And for every one legal operation that we allow in the city of Long Beach, we will see 1 to 7 illegal operations. Are we ready to take that on? That's the question. Are we ready to take that on? That is a choice for our voters. But what I'm I'm not saying let's not have marijuana. I'm saying let's come to the table and find a compromise. I will meet with anybody who wants to meet with me. In fact, my staff has been meeting with medical marijuana companies, very, very reputable, business oriented professional people. We've been meeting with my staff has met with them. I've met with them. We're looking forward to doing business with a lot of these people that have demonstrated maturity in the discussion. It only took 20 years. So my recommendation to my colleagues would be and I can I can change the motion to request an impact report on the. Fiscal land use and enforcement impacts of the proposed initiative. Because to my knowledge, and I would expect the city attorney to correct me if I'm wrong, we have not analyzed the specifics of this particular initiative . We've never analyzed it. Is that correct? We have not done so. So? So a group of people hired signature gatherers and put together an initiative and presented it to us. That was something that was created by an outside group, not the city of Long Beach. Correct? That is correct. So that's not like this. It's not an offshoot of what came out of planning commission as my understanding. Correct. This is a citizen's initiative. So it's a citizen's initiative. Just for a moment, let's forget that we're talking about marijuana. Any citizens initiative, if they get enough signatures, do we not as a council, have a duty to study what the impact of that is going to be to the city? We are the only entity in the entire city of Long Beach that has the data that can answer those questions for our residents. Our residents don't know what the impacts are going to be. They don't know what the impacts are going to be. They don't know what it's going to cost the police department. You know, who knows that information? The city of Long Beach, our police chief. So we are now proposing way more dispensaries than were proposed before with no coops, limited buffers, limited tax. We're actually repealing the tax that the voters voted on in April of 2014 and capping it at 6%. Our residents may have something to say about that. They may want to at least know that that's what we're doing. So, you know, let's not get dramatic. And, I mean, I understand there's a lot of special interests here, but we're talking about taking a prudent approach. And I just asked my colleagues, you know, if we don't want to vote on the counter initiative or the competing initiative tonight, great. Let's vote. Let's take it up another time. If we don't like the other competing initiative I've proposed. Great. Somebody propose another one. Give us a starting point that you like. I'm trying to get us a starting point that gives us a prudent alternative. If you don't like my starting point, I welcome an alternative starting point. I'm reaching out to my colleagues saying, let's work on something that's prudent. Let's work on something that phases in. Let's work on something that doesn't stretch our police resources more than they already are. We get calls and my staff can attest to this. We get calls every day from our residents talking about property crimes, talking about traffic enforcement traffic, talking about things that our police department currently with their current resources, do not have the resources to follow up on. How can I, as a council member, turn to them and say, we just added more work for the police department? And I don't know how to answer your question about property crimes or traffic enforcement, because not only do we not have enough money to do what you want them to do now, but we just added to their workload. I can't do that. I want to at least be able to say to them, You know what? You had the choice. This is what you voted. And you know what? If the voters vote for it, great, great. If recreational marijuana pass is great, then we're in the same boat as Newport Beach SEAL Beach, Cerritos. Every city around us is all in the same boat. It's a level playing field. I don't want to put our citizens at a disadvantage. It's my duty to protect them. And when they say to me, the police isn't doing enough for me, I want to say, well, you know what? You guys voted on that initiative that's now stretching them even thinner than they were before. I don't know what to tell you. It's kind of like Prop 47. You know, the people voted for it. We're suffering the consequences for it. And maybe with this measure, we won't suffer any consequences. I don't know. I just know that when we're voting on something, we should be voting on the most prudent thing in terms of giving our residents choices. And I just don't know, maybe we can have an alternative measure that says something like, this is where we're going to start. And in six months or a year, we can tweak it to expand. We can do that if it's all going as well as we think it is. And the taxes are, you know, bringing in millions of extra dollars a year that we hadn't anticipated, then why wouldn't we expand it? So, you know, that's just something that we can think about moving forward is that there is a starting point. And if there's any takeaway to be had, it should be that the alternative measure that was proposed, that's on agenda item 41 tonight, that measure asks for marijuana. It is not a ban. My proposal is not a ban. My proposal is an initiative saying let's start with a prudent measure to medical marijuana. That's the proposal. So anybody who wants to come up and complain about it, I'm not saying let's a ban. So get your facts straight. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about starting with a prudent approach and expanding from there. So here's the deal. The main motion is to ask the city attorney's office or the city manager, whoever is going to do it for an impact report on land use taxes. Enforcement. And then I'd also like to get an overview because I don't think anybody knows the answer to this, of what's the interplay with recreational marijuana and medical marijuana. Nobody knows what happens. Who is it? But if recreation passes, is this entire discussion moot? Because if so, I don't even know why we're having it. And I don't think anyone knows that answer. So that's my that's my that's my motion. And I'd like to move the item to July the fifth and we can talk about it further then. If you want to vote for it, great. If you don't, great. It's a pretty simple item. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzales. Okay. So, you know, certainly listening to all of the discussion, I appreciate it. And I know we've been this is many years in the making, but I just have a question in terms of timeline and timeframe. So going, you know, understanding kind of what each council member that has spoken wants to do. What would be the timeline for a. Going with councilwoman prices. Option in terms of bringing. I mean, she's talking about July 5th, but what would be that like final deadline for submitting a ballot initiative? Mayor, vice mayor and members of the council. If I understand the question correctly, what is the last date that the council could decide to put something on the ballot? And I and I'll defer to the clerk. But I believe it's August 2nd. That's correct. The August 2nd date allows for the city clerk my office to meet ballot measure deadlines that are set by the county regarding arguments, argument writers, both arguments for and against and rebuttals for and against. Okay. So I think that because it seems to be to me that we're a bit fragmented here. So I don't think that there's any cohesiveness at all that I see and not that we have to get there. But I would say that most often than not, this council wants to be as as judicious and as thoughtful as as possible in making a decision. And so I think July 5th, at least for me, puts things in to kind of a rush. And I don't see where there's, you know, we would need more data. And that's the thing I know we've been doing time and time again. But if we are if there's any inclination of putting something on on a ballot, then, you know, July 5th is pretty it's pretty tough, I would say, for me to to at least take this all in and go forward with this. The the item itself in itself is very robust. So I don't think I'd be supporting anything coming back July 5th at this time. What I could say is that it would be great to get more information as to the land use, the taxes, enforcement and an impact report related to the initiative that's already put forward. I think that's fair to just kind of get an understanding of where we where we would be. And also, again, the interplay between medical and recreation, I think is is also fair. So that's something that I would support on that side, but not necessarily bringing anything back. Uh. So much so. I would support to receive and file this particular item. Thank you. Councilmember Andrews. Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You know, I've listened to this and that, and I think in the fairness of all of this, because I've been here since the beginning of these topics about medical marijuana, and these are individuals that's been here and it's stressed their time. I didn't listen to everything that we had to go through with medical marijuana. I think, in fairness, every one of the individuals, not only the individual out there who've been waiting to try to get this ordinance passed, I mean, it's been a long, long haul. It's been a long time. And I think if anything, you know, we talk about our constituents, people in the city of Long Beach, the you know, a large it is. And what they you know, the voters you know, we vote all over the city of Long Beach. And I don't kind of like the idea of certain precincts. They they're the only ones that vote when we have issues of this type, I think everyone would vote on an issue of this type because the fact that we're talking about medical marijuana and you have to understand that these individuals here have waited a long time. And I think if nothing else about the fairness of this, you know, these individual waited. We went to this ordinance. We waited. We waited. We've given everyone a chance. I think even Mrs. Price and we've been very diligent, even with a lot of your, you know, your own interest as individuals. Could you wait get an impact on it? I think we've already went through that. And I think at this point right now, we're going to have to do something or not just throw the whole thing out. Let's get this thing done. Because these people waited long enough. The people have waited long enough. It's time for us to do something. If not, let's just wait on the state and see what they're going to do. I think really at this point, what do we what are we waiting on? What kind of impact are we looking for? We've gone through that. We've gone through everything that I think is necessary in order for us to really find out what we need to do in order to get a medical marijuana, you know, when it's on the ballot, because the people right now, I tell you, we have they have the vote. They have the votes for it. I'm not waiting around to see what we're going to do up here. That's the people that are the ones who we sit up here and represent. We represent the people, not this little guys. This is sitting up here. So what I'm looking and listening to, I think it's time for us to do what we're supposed to do, get this thing over with, and let's move on with and get to something else, because we have a long night tonight. Mr. Liberto, I don't know when you're going to get you wallet. It might be next year. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to take an opportunity to make some comments as well. I think I'll do that now. And Councilmember Reyes Durango, former councilmember, is strong, is still here. So we're hoping to make sure that we wrap this up soon. So I I'm very appreciative and respectful of everyone's position on this council on the issue of medical marijuana. As Councilmember Andrews indicated, we have been at this for quite a long time. And those of us who just joined the council, you've also been at it at least for two years, and that's quite a long time. What I want to share, and I think Councilmember Andrews may have articulated it already, we had our chance. We had our chance for many, many years. And we got it right and that was undone. And then we got close to getting it right and then that was undone. I think we need to step back and accept that we haven't done our duty. I won't speak for myself personally. I and some of the others that are here. We have desperately tried to come up with a responsible measure and as I said, we did have it right and it was undone and undone because of fear mongering , really. If I'm truthful and honest about it, it was because of fear mongering and that kind of rhetoric and and and the politics that go behind it and the passion and forget the politics. It's really the passion that go behind it. It really does create a culture of fear mongering, which I don't think has a place in in a true democracy where dialog can take place and people can have differences of opinions, and then the voters vote or the council members vote, and then things are left as they are. Even before our item, the original ordinance had a chance to to play out for a few years. It was undone. And so we don't know. What I do know today is that after nearly eight years of having had the trust and confidence of those of you that have been involved for a long time, we didn't do our jobs. So there is a voter initiative that went forward. And as Councilmember Richardson had indicated, and Councilmember Urunga and Councilmember Andrews, people did spend time and resources to do that. But let's not forget that that voter initiative took place because we did not do our jobs. That's important to note. We don't get all these bites at the apple because now there's a voter initiative and we feel we have to put a competitive item on the ballot. I think that's highly disrespectful. The item that's brought forward to consider to place on the ballot is not that different from an item that was voted down . So why would we proffer that? I'm just mystified. I'm mystified that we would be here again at this time. This council had its chance. I think it's an abuse of our authority to go forward, to put something competitive to a voter initiative, not because I believe that every voter initiative is correct. I don't believe that. I think a lot of those that we see up and down the state are wrong and it's an it and it goes forward because democracy really didn't work in that moment. But I don't think putting a competitive measure is the answer to that. I think what we can do is educate our voters. And I do have a question for Mr. City attorney, Mr. Parkin. When we do have a voter initiative, what role can the city or council play in terms of the information about that or the analysis that would not put us crossways when it comes to electioneering? If the measure is certified by the city clerk pursuant to the election code, it will be brought back to the City Council. And at that time, the council have three options. One is to adopt the measure as submitted. The second is to place it on the ballot for November. And the third option is to request a report, which you could include these items. That report is due no later than 30 days, within 30 days. To discuss the impacts of the measure on the city at that time, when the report is presented back to the council , the council has two options to place the ballot, placed the measure on the ballot or to adopt it as submitted. So there would be that opportunity once it is on the ballot. The general election rules would apply to the city on the spending of city resources either to support or oppose a ballot initiative. Okay, so that process would take place regardless of whether this council took action today or not. It would have to be an action of the council to request that. Yes, at that time, absolutely. Having had experience with this council and watching other bodies, we always ask for information and we always do ask for a report. I don't see us moving forward without a proper analysis, and so I'm confident that that will take place. What I'm also confident about tonight is that I am not in support of moving the item to another date to forestall this discussion for another date. We do not have enough time to put a competing ballot measure on the November ballot, even if a majority of this council would be interested in doing that. If we look at the bond measure that just passed with our mayors, great leadership on it, that did not happen on a whim. That took many, many, many months of study and polling and research. It didn't happen over a three month summer period. That's what we do when we want to be responsible about putting an item on the ballot. We conduct many studies and we take the pulse of the constituency, and that's why that ballot measure was as successful as it was. Another reason why that ballot measure was as successful as it was was because we earned the confidence of our constituency. When it comes to infrastructure projects and the needs of the city and the neighborhoods in the community. When it comes to infrastructure, it's undeniable. We earned we earned your confidence in that area. On medical marijuana, we did not I think we lost your confidence and we lost our chance to do it right behind the dias. And I do believe that the voters should have a right to vote without our interference. I do support. At the time that it does come back to the council. I do support us receiving information so that we may be able to share that and then take a position once once the clerk finally certifies that it is on the ballot. Whatever decision this council makes, either adopt it on the spot or put it to the voters. Either way, we will have that information. But I am not in support of the original motion. I am in support of the motion to receive and file. And that's why I second and it and I hope my colleagues are with me on that. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. Just a couple of points. I'm not going to respond to all of them because I don't know that that would be very effective for our discussions. But the biggest difference I see in the measure that the vice mayor just referenced and this is that I'm not talking about running a campaign. I'm not talking about going out and getting people to support the competitive measure and running a campaign and having city employees volunteer their time to come and work in a campaign office. I'm not talking about getting union support to go door to door. I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about putting a competitive initiative on the ballot that lets the voters vote and choose simply giving them a choice of different alternatives. So there's a difference between having a campaign and really having a targeted effort to have what you want prevail. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about putting something on the ballot that gives the voters a choice. Let them read the material. Let them educate themselves. Let them vote. And that's really what I'm talking about. So that's the biggest difference. I'm not talking about running a campaign, but what I would request at this time. Actually, what I'd like to do is do a substitute substitute motion based on what I'm hearing from my colleagues, to ask the city manager or the city attorney or the designee that either of them determines to be the appropriate department to do this, to prepare a fiscal impact report, a land use report, and an enforcement analysis of the proposed initiative, as well as an overview for Council on Recreational Marijuana and its interplay with medical marijuana. And I'd like that report by July the fifth, if possible. I'm Mr. City Manager. And Mr. City Attorney. That is a week away. Two weeks away. They have. What is the likelihood of of you being able to prepare such a report and it actually being thorough and robust? Vice Mayor Councilmembers I want to point out that we have a large history of memos to the council and to the public regarding this subject. So working with that as a foundation, we certainly would give it the college to try to bring back something as comprehensive as possible. I can't promise it's going to answer everybody's questions, but we certainly, if asked by council, will. Put our. Nose to the grindstone and put as much as we can together by that time. And Vice Mayor, I'd add to that that we believe by July 5th we would be able to provide an overview of the recreational and medical. By June 30th, the state should hopefully determine if one of those measures qualifies. Okay. And would council be able to ask for follow up information if there was something that was missing in the reports that they didn't have to come back the following week. Yes. So that's my substitute substitute. Okay. And it's been seconded. Councilman Mongo. Do we think that this is? I guess I'd like to hear from my colleagues. I heard Councilmember Richardson say he'd be interested in hearing the study. It sounds like, from what I heard from the city attorney, a study would be necessary eventually anyway. So this would be putting us ahead. Did I misunderstand? Is this not a study of the impacts? Yeah, it's what would be required anyway, eventually. No, it's not required. No. When the election, assuming the signatures are verified by the city clerk under the election code, the Council will have three options, one of which would be to request a study. It's not required. Would you say that? Typically, I mean, I guess typically would be hard. I mean, if someone came with a ballot measure or it was an initiative that said remove all the trees in the city, it would be pretty simple to say we would lose all of our shade. So a study wouldn't be necessary. But I guess. I don't know what the likelihood is that most citizen initiatives get studies or not. Is there any kind of. There's no way they tend to be individually or specific. We've had in both situations where council is elected to put it directly on the ballot and other situations where they've requested the study and then placed the item on the ballot. Well, I think that deciding and getting that study is advancing the request in advance, which gives us some some better alternatives. So I'm always open to a study. Councilmember Suber now. Okay. Thank you. Things have changed a little bit here since I first clicked in, so bear with me. The I think we have a compromise position here, and that is for a study only. And I'm very late to this party. As most of you know, I wasn't elected until after the. The study group was almost done. A couple of thoughts. One is. I'm just reminded of the the airport international terminal, and I voted against that and the majority of my colleagues voted for it. And I just remember the line. What's the harm in the study? We're not voting for the international terminal. So I'm kind of would be perplexed if if my colleagues would go against a study on this. But I'd like to hear from the public. The other thing that occurs to me, and that is almost daily, I receive emails about a delivery model and I don't I don't have the exact count since our last vote, but probably 100 emails asking us to support delivery. And I think that should be a part of the study to. That's it for now. I'll wait for public comment. So that wasn't part of the Motion Councilmember Supernova. Were you asking the maker of the motion to consider that? Well, I guess what I'm saying is that we don't know what the initiatives is going to be. I can ask the city attorney if if the initiative would include that. Have we studied the initiative? Where are we with that? So we do know what the initiative language is that was submitted. So if the city attorney would like to speak to that. Councilmember Bowl is the is the question regarding the initiative that's being reviewed by the city clerk at this time. Correct. And it does allow for delivery. So we could look at that. Yes. Okay. So that was that was a critical piece that I don't think was part of our discussions in the past. So the study here would encompass that, I believe. Vice Mayor. That's that's what I'm kind of saying. So I think it falls within their guidelines. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So I began my comments and they were very conciliatory and in the hopes for a compromise. And I'm very disappointed that it's sort of turned into a shouting session. Our job was to conduct good public policy. The City Council failed to do so. What did we think was going to happen when we didn't vote to adopt a balanced, reasonable measure that we had controls to protect our neighborhoods? We had a cat per district. We had a c p that regulates our operating hours and all the tools that we need as a city to regulate it. The city council did not pass that, so I don't see how we didn't expect the public to go to the ballot. That's exactly what happens when you don't. Do your job. And then the measure tonight, my hope coming in was to find some soft landing that puts us on on a path to a productive conversation . But it started in the wrong place. And then people were bullied about bullied about it. And frankly, not a single member of the council who was actually in support of responsible regulation was asked to sign on the ballot initiative tonight. So it was insincere. It appeared insincere, insincere. And tonight was a bunch of political grandstanding that I frankly don't appreciate. So the options that I see from the city attorney are to place it on the ballot, adopt it outright, or ask for a study. My question right now is, does that study create any additional option than placing on the ballot or adopting it outright? Before you. And that is not before you this evening, but when it does come to evening. I mean, our options about the ordinance on the ballot, the ballot measure. If I understand your question correctly, no, it does not provide you any more options. It provides you the information that the study would provide. But you would at the end of receiving that study, you still have to either place it on the ballot or adopt the initiative. With that study, evaluate the impact of competing ballot measures in the state in terms of recreation. Generally speaking, it would be the study would only. Study the impacts of the initiative that is going to be placed on the ballot by the council. Could that study be expanded to include that an evaluation of recreation, should that qualify for the ballot could include that. It could. Well, I guess if again, if I understand correctly, yes, it could include and provide an overview of the impacts of a state measure on a local initiative. Okay. So what I'm what I would recommend and so is to move forward with Councilman Franco's recommendation. And when the time comes to study it, ensure that we can study it and evaluate the state. Because frankly, I don't want to have this come this very uncomfortable conversation, every councilmember council meeting until that happens. So I don't I don't want to study it now and have a report next council meeting and then continue it have another report at the next council meeting. I want to receive and file this tonight support councilmember during his motion and then do the study in the appropriate time so that we can have that conversation about what is the impact. And so we can be aware and informed as a city on what the impacts are. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. And I wanted to concur with Councilmember Richardson's comments. I. I appreciate you calling out boldly exactly what we witnessed tonight. And it does make me uncomfortable as well. When I referenced the mayor's effort for the bond measure. I was not referencing the campaign, but really the work that went into the effort prior to writing the ballot measure. That is where a lot of the work takes place. That is where the thoughtfulness took place, where many months. And when I say many months, it's over a year worth of study and data that went into it before writing the ballot measure. That's the difference when we consider putting ballot measures, ballot items on to an election. We don't just come to the dias and suggest that in a couple of months this could be written. And therefore we have an item. I would never compare this process to what the mayor went through. I think that would be denigrating that effort. And I want to be very clear that I was not suggesting that there was a similarity. I was actually pointing out the difference and the vast difference that exists. As I've stated before, I do support the substitute, the original substitute motion to receive and file. And I would ask my colleagues to vote no on the substitute substitute motion. If I may call for public speakers, please. Mr. City attorney or Mr. Sanchez, would the public speakers be speaking on any of the three motions or just what's at hand? They will be speaking on the motions on the table. So we have three, three. Motions on the table. Okay. Thank you. Hello. My name is Jason O'Toole. I'm a resident of the fourth District and I'm here today to speak on a few things associated with the measure. I think the interesting thing about this measure, I didn't read the current version of the PAC's initiative, but they're going to need 66% plus one to win because they have this tax change in their law, not just 50% plus one. So I think that was kind of foolish on their part to include that language in their initiative. I know this because I've drafted six myself for Matthew Poppers and we actually had to split two measures in other cities because we learned that if we put a tax regulation in our initiative, that we'd have to get 66% plus one instead of 50% plus one was just something I noticed from the discussion, but I came here to make a statement. I'm a little disappointed as a fourth District resident, I think that there should be no restrictions on the number of permits for collectives. I think it's unintelligent business policy because the voters of Palm Beach have already approved the ballot measure maybe four or five years ago. That says, hey, they want ten or 15%. I can't remember. That's for recreational or medicinal, but the voters already said they're okay with taxing it. And I think that, for example, I'll give you an example and signal, hell, we're doing a measure right now. And people have approached our PAC about bringing an edible factory to Signal Hill that could create hundreds of jobs. And I think that's really interesting because Long Beach is a far bigger city than Signal Hill, and I can only imagine the thousands of jobs this could create. But with the current proposal as it is for for delivery services unacceptable to the voters of California, they approve Prop 215, and there are no restrictions on the number of permits that can be in place. And I just think it's not very good business policy, you know, and I think that personally from my research working with marijuana campaigns, I think sorry, medical marijuana campaigns, I think opposition to these reforms and the laws are unacceptable because I think some of the original bans on marijuana are rooted in racism. And if you look at who's incarcerated for marijuana offenses and drugs, it's mostly minorities. And I just think that needs to stop or in a different time. I know Mr. Supervisors told me I've, you know, done some work for him in his campaign. He says he has different values. I'm not I'm not sure he meant by that. But my values seem to think that, you know, we should have as much medical cannabis limited as we want. The voters want it. 35,000 people signed the petition once they signed it. I think three years ago we petitioned. I did. We got 15,000 voters to sign that. I think, you know, the bottom line is with the three council members that are, you know, putting this motion up. If you look at their political districts and as a political consultant, I can tell you exactly why they're making these motions. District three is the most conservative district in the city, followed by District five. District four is kind of a wobbler. But, you know, in my opinion, I came out to say this. I think my council member. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Diana logins. Enough's enough. And I hope you're paying attention. If you want to reduce the police work, all you have to do is close down all those bars in Belmont Shore. I don't know how you deal with it because that's where the crime comes from. I'm truly saddened by Susie and Stacey's lack of compassion and disdain for the democratic process. Their proposal did not pass before, and it should not pass. Now to the educated enlightened. It is clear that this proposal is solely meant to thwart the will and efforts of the people to engage in the democratic process. MBS Price. The monger will profess to be compassionate but claim that they have concerns about funding, etc. but the truth is they will do anything to subvert the people's initiative and this issue. Do not be fooled. This is their personal agenda. Never forget Susie's famous words regarding the continuing the ban. That is music to my ears. Make no mistake, a ban is her ultimate goal. The city of Long Beach. Voters have spoken time and again in the ballot box in support of cannabis. Medically prop to 15. Or is this too much for you, Stacey? She just left. I just want you to know fully. And speaking to the audience fully legalizing marijuana in Prop 19 and then taxing it on Measure A, you must represent the will of the people. If you have one ounce of decency and compassion, you will vote no on prices and mangos propositions and you will favor. Your mangoes. Substitute motion. And in this case, because Councilwoman Price makes her living off the illegality of the substance in question, she should recuse herself from voting. It is a blatant conflict of interest. Diane Logins Advocates for Disability Rights. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms.. La James. Next speaker, please. Thank you. David Zinke, seventh District resident. Good evening. Later. Thank you. I think. I think I hear water coming. This chamber is about to flood. I for one, as a citizen, I'm fed up with the waste, fraud and abuse that has gone on for 20 years around this issue issue. And I think some of you were here and I've said several times before, you have turned. Medical. Cannabis into a litmus test for corruption. And I've told you before, you're not doing well, but you're a miserable failure now. Miserable. Not one person has mentioned July 1st rescheduling. Is taking. Place. All this discussion tonight is worthless. Just worthless. It's going to schedule to. It's already been told. Triplicate. How? That'll work with what you're talking about. I have no idea. And with legalization of recreational use, I have no idea what it's going to the effect it's going to have. And I don't think one of you has ether or Mr. Parkin, but you have allowed the prohibitionist influence in this council to rule. That is why this has been so difficult all these years. I've been here for all of it. As late as the last task force meeting, Deputy Chief Hendricks said, quote, It's all criminal. And that is the attitude that has been pervasive. And as I told my councilman when he said that this council runs the police department, that's not true. The police department runs this council. It's really unfortunate. But the crime, corruption and violence that we really all want to see reduced. It's just exacerbated by this corruption. You might as well have rolled out the red carpet for the cartels and gangsters. That's what you've done, in my opinion. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. I'm John Donoghue and I'm an expert in this subject. Let me tell you how that happened. I came back from World War Two. I read a wonderful book called Really. The Blues by a musician called RMS Mesmer. And soon as I read that, I said, gee, I got to get some of this. So I tried it. And guess what I discovered it's not a crime. Possession of cannabis and get away from the expression marijuana. Whether that expected to come from Pancho Villa and his revolutionaries used to sing a song called La Cucaracha, Cucaracha, Marijuana, Port Humor. So that's where that expression came from. We should be calling it cannabis. It's been used for thousands of years as a medication. And so this is what we need to know also. I'm also an expert in that. I was I've been I was arrested and did time. I did three years in the federal penitentiary for a half a dozen joints, banks and a crazy federal judge that told me I was worse than a murderer because I had several. Is this is what you get with this kind of misdirection information? Yeah. And also, I understand what Diane was saying about the Miss Prize. She's a prosecutor and a legislator and executive. So we have three forms of government. I don't think we're allowed to people to be on two of them. So I think she should recuse herself from this entirely. Also, I'd like to suggest that the certain certain times the the the you folks should have a limit on your we only get 3 minutes, but you get to talk forever and ever. Thank you, Mr. Donahue. Next speaker, please. Thank you. They're still members of Long Beach City Council. My name is Stefan Dawson, so I'm a policy advisor for the California Growers Association and an independent lobbyist for the medical marijuana community. While I normally celebrate any attempts by municipalities to provide regulated access to medical cannabis, I'm disappointed to see the resurrection of Council Member Price's poorly conceived and slightly designed proposal being discussed again here tonight. As I first said in February before this Council unanimously, unanimously rejected the price measure, maintaining the ban on a combined comprehensive commercial cannabis activity enabled by a delivery only approach is an inept public policy born of irrational taboos and political carelessness. This proposed system does. Not adequately address demand. It creates far more public safety problems than its proponents claim, and it guarantees the future license holders will be functionally unable to compete against the illicit marketplace. Ironically, this proposal would actually make me a weed lobbyist incredibly wealthy. I represent some of the biggest delivery services in Los Angeles who, after being shut down by that city's Proposition D, are pretty much looking for a patient base of 60,000 people to be able to supply. That said, I would never advise them to apply for a license under this proposal as it is designed to fail. In effect, this proposal is a poison pill, a political device designed by legislators to provide the facade of public compromise while remaining fully conscious that the substance of the law virtually guarantees the program's inevitable failure. Councilmember Price has both a direct financial incentive towards maintaining the status quo of prohibition and a record of callously lying about the issue. As such, she does not deserve the public's trust when she cynically claims to be representing the patients. If Councilmember Price actually came. To this issue from a place of compassion. Instead of trying to sneak in this proposal when the mayor is out of town and when every other public policy expert on this particular issue is at a conference in Oakland at the time, she would understand the actual role that delivery services play in this marketplace. Delivery provides access to two groups, the seriously ill. In it for seriously ill and homebound patients without a primary caregiver under law and frankly experienced by busy consumers like myself who already have and who are already aware of the potentially intense side effects of this drug. As the fastest growing patient. Base of cannabis are older individuals who have either never used or at least recently tried the drug. Best practices require that they receive in-person, capable education from staff members at a physical dispensary. The price proposal. Does not reflect the principles of sound public policy or a sincere desire to promote more conservative concepts of public safety. Rather, the plethora of laws and embarrassing flaws and embarrassing oversights in this bill merely demonstrate the deep seated hatred that Councilmember Price has for the culture she associates with cannabis use. This is, after all, the person who published a newspaper article hilariously warning of the imminent danger that stoners like myself pose to the ice cream parlor as a bell. Not sure. Please ignore your colleagues desperate attempt to drag all into a war that she lost a long time ago. Being identified with her with racially biased lost causes is a bad look for public officials seeking reelection or higher office. Her prudence is really prohibition. Thank you for your time. Mr. Garrett, could you clear? Cause the address. I'll be brief. My views on the subject of ice falling somewhere between that of Bobby Knight and Woody Hayes. Take whatever necessary steps you need to take to make sure that we never have legal marijuana in this city delivered to the city at all. Period. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to thank the public for their comments. Is there anyone else that's coming forward? Are you coming forward? Okay. We're going to wrap public comment up. So if you'd like to speak, please come forward now. Hi, my name is Bobby Waltman. I'm a resident of the second district in Orange County, public defender in Orange County. And I just wanted to add that for myself and other cannabis patients, those of us who are learning about how to use this medicine, which I really do think it is a medicine you need to learn about the medicine because there's not just one weed to smoke. There's not just one edible of one dosage to take. There are many products out there. And as this becomes more and more popular among the public, which it is, we need to educate the public. We need to educate the patients. And people need to know how to use it or else they're going to use it incorrectly. And that's when it can be dangerous. And so I do believe having actual dispensaries with bud tenders who are knowledgeable to educate the patients as to what they need for their particular illness or ailment would help these people use this medicine in the correct way. So I believe that a delivery does not provide the opportunity for those patients to obtain the information they need to make the right decisions as to how to consume this product in the way they want to consume it, to provide them with the pain relief or stress relief or whatever it is that's causing them to use this. I do believe that as dispensary provides them with more information and knowledge, and I think it's just a better way to allow these patients to get the medicine they need. Thank you to. Hello, everybody. My name is Michael Mooney. I'm also a public defender in Orange County. I'm a resident of the second District. And I just wanted to point out some some quotes that I that I overheard, which was, let's give the voters choices. It was pointed out by Councilwoman Mongeau and councilwoman, the price and delivery only is does not give the voters choices. What it does is people who are going to consume medical marijuana, they will be given the choice of, hey, I've got a delivery guy coming to my house. I mean, they're going to do this transaction in my front yard, hand-to-hand through a window, or I'm going to get in a delivery person's car. I'm going to invite this delivery person into my home. What that reminds me of is something I deal with almost daily in my job, which is illegal drug sale transactions. That's the choice that you're giving people by delivery only. You either conduct this business in the same way that illegal drug transactions are conducted or you don't get to safe access. We need dispensaries, dispensaries, storefronts, provide security, regulation and safe access to something that the voters want. Thank you. Okay. I think that is the last speaker. And I wanted to actually just address the last two speakers, not because we generally do this. I have to imagine that it took a tremendous amount of courage to come forward and identify yourselves as the profession that you did not because medical marijuana is illegal, but because the conversation here has become it's certainly in our council for many years. Suggestive that it might be or should be or it should be banned. And so I want to thank you for coming forward and and saying what you did, not because of the opinion you shared. But really, I think what I'm really trying to say is it makes me very sad that we have compelled people to come forward and identify themselves and perhaps risk reprisal at their workplace by doing so, because they feel so strongly about the failure of our policy dialog. And and I want to apologize for that. I am very sad and very sorry that it has come to that. I know people come to us personally and reveal themselves and identify themselves, but to have had to see that at at the diocese, I, I want to apologize to you, but I do want to thank you for that. Councilwoman Price. Q And I am familiar, at least with one of the last two speakers. And I just want to clarify, because I think there's some confusion. The measure that was on was not a delivery only it was a delivery phase and a brick and mortar. So I just want to clarify with a maximum of seven. So that just that I think that's an important distinction, especially I think as lawyers should appreciate that it's six months and then it phases into a brick and mortar after taxes are paid and all of that. So thanks. Thank you. And I know that there's an interest in hearing what the substitute substitute motion is so everyone can be clear. Mr. City Attorney. Vice Mayor, members of the council, we have three motions. The first the substitute substitute motion by CD3 and a second by CD five is to request a report back by July 5th of the fiscal impact, the land use enforcement and Taxes of the Citizens Initiative. And the second part would be to provide an overview of the recreation and medical marijuana. If recreation passes or if both passed, how do they relate with each other? And I was a substitute. Substitute that was a substitute substitute. The substitute motion by council member Urunga and second by the vice mayor is to receive and file the item, and then we have the original motion. So council members were voting on the substitute substitute motion. And again, I will reiterate that we have time to call for an analysis at the time that the voter initiative is certified, as well as call for an analysis of recreational marijuana when the state's measure qualifies. So for today, I ask my colleagues to vote no on the substitute substitute. And Councilwoman Pryce regarding timing. If we did put a competitive measure on, when would we need to vote on that? August 2nd. The August 2nd would be the very last day we would need. The city attorney's office would need to know before that time so that we could prepare something to bring it back for August 2nd. So realistically, we would need some direction sometime in July to bring something back for to adopt the resolution placing something on the ballot . And it's my understanding that August 2nd is national night out. So we have an either no meeting or a limited meeting that night. Right. No. Council Member Price Yes, that is correct. We will have a limited meeting on that day. So July 19th would really be the last time that we'd have the opportunity to discuss and vote on an item. Unless the council decided to call for a special meeting. Yes. So if we were to wait to order a report, that would just delay the amount of time the city staff has to get working on the report. That's correct. The the other issue that I'm hesitant to bring up, but the 30 days would be we need to have that report back in time for council to be able to take an action so that it could be still meet the deadlines to consolidate and place it on the election. If that was their choice. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote on the substitute substitute motion. Motion fails. Okay. Members. We are back to our substitute motion, which is to receive and file this item. And again, I urge you to vote yes. Council member, Cipriano. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Your Honor, for staying as long as you did. Happy anniversary. Item five. Madam Clerk, were we time certain? Four, seven? But were we also waiting for Council Member Austin. That's correct. For all three of those items. Yes. Yes. Okay. We can wait 10 minutes for that. What do we have? If you can put me back on track.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft resolution in support of Humanitarian Parole for Jose Luis Alvarez Sandoval, Department of Homeland Security Case No. A 92 812 968.

LongBeachCC_11152016_16-0985

Great. Thank you. And that moves on to the Parks and Recreation Commission. And now we're moving back over to item number ten. Communication from Councilmember Wodonga Councilwoman Gonzalez and Councilmember Pearce. Recommendation to request the city attorney to draft a resolution in support of humanitarian parole for Jose Luis Alvarez Sandoval. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember your. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to move that. We request the city attorney draft resolution in support of humanitarian parole for Lewis Iris. And the. Humanitarian parole is granted by Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to focus on that meeting for residents who cannot otherwise qualify for an immigrant visa to the United States , but who merit entry for compelling reasons. Persons granted humanitarian parole are permitted to remain in the US only for the period of time that is necessary to fulfill a humanitarian need or to tend to an emergency situation. Humanitarian parole is only valid for a period of one year and the applicant can resubmit to be considered for additional time after that period of time expires. Here's a little more information about what brought us here today. About a month ago, on Sunday, October 9th, I found myself with congressman member with Congressmember Alan Lowenthal on my way to Friendship Park at the US-Mexico border. While that tradition he spent weekends with my family, I felt compelled. Compelled to meet a man who had been separated from his. I went there to meet a man who had settled roots and had created a family in the United States, a man who called Long Beach Home, and unfortunately, a man who was unjustly removed from this country and forced to live to leave his children and wife behind. As an individual who comes from an immigrant background and who has witnessed firsthand political scapegoating of immigrants in dire need in dire times, including this presidential election. I found myself that Sunday morning. Talking to a man through a wall that tears millions of families apart. I witnessed firsthand the tragedy of our misguided and dysfunctional immigration system. Earlier this year, Jose Alvarez was on his way home after picking up his son from work, a seemingly non-threatening activity that would forever change their lives. On their way home. A California State University Long Beach police officer was on patrol and noticed the broken taillight across his car. The officer signaled all said to pull over. So initially we seemed like a routine traffic stop turned into a nightmare for the Alvarez family. After communicating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, ICE, the officer helped Hosier due to a 21 year old nonviolent felony drug conviction. Under current immigration policies. These types of criminal records prioritize individuals like Jose for deportation with no consideration for the family and the life he created in the United States or the comments he made after his arrest. Jose was held that was held at CSB before ICE deported him unable to communicate with his family. And the following morning, Jose found himself in Tijuana, Mexico, alone. Hozier is the father of six children and a grandfather all born in the United States. His youngest children attend school to Long Beach. One of his sons attended Long Beach City College before dropping out to financially support the family as a result of his father's deportation. His son Horace is a US Marine Corps veteran who served his country for seven years, including a tour in Iraq. Joseph is a family man and he recognizes a mistake he made in the past. After you. After he was convicted, he turned his life around. But none of these factors were taken into consideration as ice removed him without notifying his family. This heartbreaking incident created financial instability, emotional turmoil and trauma within his household. They now have to make weekly visits and alter their schedules to visit their father and husband at the border, as I witnessed that Sunday morning. To experience a separation this family must endure made me realize the injustice brought upon the Alvarez family. Current immigration policy has allowed one mistake to define his legacy and that of his family. At the time of his original conviction, Josette was penalized under the illegal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1995, which sped up deportations, deportations, increased detentions and criminalized entire communities. This scenario has played out in a million times, and families are being separated on a daily basis. As we celebrated Veterans Day this week or this last week. A day where we recognize those who have served our country. Emerging. My fellow colleagues at City Council to support the evolution of this humanitarian parole case. To reunite a soldier who was willing to give his life for our freedom with his father. Seeing the Alvarez family interact with their father through a wall that that Sunday morning made the criminalization of immigrants and a broken system all too apparent . This deportation did not affect only Jose, but that of his loved ones and the broader community and the broader immigrant immigrant community in Long Beach. Cal State. Long Beach students and their families questioned their own safety in a place meant for learning. Therefore. As a consequence of that arrest, California State University Law Week responded. By issuing general order 55, which stipulates that campus police officers may arrest a foreign national with an undocumented status only if there is probable cause to believe he or she has violated a state law, a law, a local ordinance, or a federal law unrelated to immigration laws for which a warrant has been issued by a judge. In other words, our pursuit officers shall not stop or detain persons for determining immigration status or arrest persons solely for alleged undocumented entry into the United States. This is called profiling. In a time when this country is discussing the criminalization of people of color, are reforming the criminal justice system. We cannot forget our immigrant community. The lives of millions of people count on it, and our economy depends on it. The hall where his family has given so much to our city and our nation, and as demonstrated by their son, George Walker, and his military service, we should support or celebrate. His request were given a terrible role as lawmaker. Families who live and work in our city should be able to live without the fear of being separated. Tonight, I support and urge my colleagues. To support the effort to bring Joseph back to his family through humanitarian parole. Thank. Thank you. Next up is Councilmember Pearce. Thank you, everyone. Who standing up today for jose and many families like him. I want to thank the council member, councilmember ranga, the immigrant rights coalition, the greater language interfaith community organization for bringing this resolution forward, one which is a city of immigrants. And we pride ourselves on that diversity despite what's going on at the federal level. I'm proud that in Long Beach we continue to take action to protect our diverse communities. Like Josie, many immigrants in Long Beach own their own business, work at our hotels. Our restaurants contribute greatly to our local economy as workers, consumers, students and taxpayers. Mr. Alvarez's story represents more than just his own experience of deportation. He's already sparked significant policy changes at the local, state and federal level. On September 28, 2006, Assembly Bill 27, 92, The Truth Act went forward to continue to make changes, and that's due to Josie and all the community support that has been surrounded by him. Every day we have people that are deported throughout this country and often they don't have community members like yourself standing next to them, fighting for them and advocating for them. And so we really want to applaud everybody for your courage today. I ask that my colleagues here in Long Beach support this resolution. Again, I want to thank everybody for their work. I know that family is where you base so much of your day out of and that being torn apart from your children, your grandchildren, your wives or your husband is not a place where you can be a productive member of society. And so my heart broke the first time I heard the story. I believe it was at portfolio coffee shop. Thank you, Andrea. And I am inspired by your leadership and by Jose's family's courage to continue to speak out and advocate for what's just. And so I hope that my colleagues tonight will do the right thing and vote to support this. Thank you so much. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. I want to thank Councilmember U. Ranga for taking leadership on this issue and all the co-sponsors who signed on to this item. I'm happy to voice my support here. I know that sometimes these issues are challenging, but what really got to me was when I sat down with the Immigrant Rights Coalition and was able to speak directly with the family and understand from a firsthand perspective what they're facing. And it can't be easy for your family, your personal life, to be thrown into the public space on a very contentious issue. So I want to applaud you for your perseverance. And and I know that our government doesn't have it all together and within this space, but at least we can be right in our hearts here in local government. So I feel one 100% good about my vote tonight in support of this resolution. So thank you. Thank you. We're going to we're going to go ahead go to public comment the first. But before we do that, I think there's a representative from Congressman Lowenthal office who's here. Is that correct? Okay. So we're going to have her speak first. And then if I can have if you're planning on speaking on the side, if you can please just line up at the podium right now so we can be expeditious in the comments and then we'll go back to the council. So thank you so much, please. Thank you so much for the opportunity. And thank you, Councilmember Ranga, for bringing this to the Long Beach City Council. The congressman is in Washington, D.C. today, but he wanted me to read this statement on his behalf. I ask you to please support Jose Alvarez and his family's request of humanitarian parole to the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday. I will just join Jose's family in Washington, D.C., to urge Secretary Johnson to change the policy within DHS that prevents family members of current and former members of the U.S. armed forces from qualifying for parole in place for military families based on nonviolent criminal convictions. While these convictions must be considered, they are just one factor and should not outweigh the fact that Jose has led an exemplary life as a Long Beach resident and family man for the past 21 years. Policy decisions that. Involve keeping families together should not be seen as black and white, but as one of many factors to be waiting, considering an applicant's petition for parole in place. This is especially true for family members of our servicemen and women who already face disproportionate stress in service to our country today. Please think about all those immigrant families in our community and about all the invaluable contributions they have made to our city's social, economic and cultural fabric. Thank you. Thank you so much. Give the congressman our best. Next speakers, please. Good afternoon. My name is Susanna Alvarez, and I am the oldest daughter of Jose Alvarez today. I'm here to thank Councilman Aranda and council peers and Councilman Gonzalez for taking the leadership in an issue that is not only impacts me, but millions of immigrants across this country. I also want to thank the mayor of Long Beach and the offices of Congressman Alan Lowenthal for having our back in these times of open racism and disregard for human life. I am here in the Chambers of LAMP because of the horror of the City of Long Beach, singing the song of justice for my father to support his return to us. His return to his family has returned to the city of Long Beach. My father was unjust, unjustly deported with the contribution of one police officer from California State University in Long Beach. There's one officer alone who acted like an ICE agent. Took my father to the campus, held him there until ICE came to deport him to Mexico. His deportation, of course, so quickly that the lawyers and immigration rights organizations didn't have enough time to intervene to stop it. However, we have been receiving support from organizations locally and nationally. As a Latina mother and woman, I am concerned for the future of my children. I am concerned about my kids growing up without their grandfather. I am concerned for the seven generations of children who will grow up without their grandfathers or their mother, simply because the deportation machine has no regard for who has no regard for human life. Today. My tears won't be of sadness. My tears would be of hope. I hope and have faith. Though we approached President Obama, we will plead and urge him to bring back housing. I want my father back. And President Obama has the authority to approve his request to come back. And today, the resolution will help in bringing my father back. On a related note, when we held an event at the border. So for my father coming back, my mom and my siblings were in an unfortunate car accident. My mother is in the hospital in San Diego right now being treated for her injuries. Now more than ever, we need our father back. Thank you for the city of Long Beach, for protecting immigrants, and for urging President Obama to try to bring back Jose, my father. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you very much for speaking. That's speaker. Hello. Good castle. I just want to say, hopefully this resolution passes very. Thank you for your time and for all the effort, you guys, from the effort of the, uh, the, the people who has helped us as well. Um, thank. It's Victor, right? Yes. Well, first of all, Victor, I just want to thank you for your service to our country. My grandmother, your other brother, his portrait. Okay. I thought it was you. So it's okay. Well, thank him for his service to the country. And thank you for being here. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is and that I don't know. And my community organizer with the great Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization. I started organizing with ICA about more than a little more than two years ago. So start a. Mary was one of the first leaders that came with me and has been organizing with me. She's been volunteered by her husband and other members of her family. Now, is the sister involved who today is in a hospital in San Diego and couldn't be here if I was Joseph's wife? This case hits home today. I urge you to please support Josef Albers and his family. This vote doesn't is not just to bring Josie back, but this vote will also give the students the hope and insurance that the city will start with them. And he also will give the immigrant community in Long Beach a message that the city stands with them. And in these moments of fear, you are willing to take action to bring and to keep families together. And that's what we need today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, I mean, Maria Reyes, yesterday I keep our eye on a general gathering of those Gonzalez, kipper poblano salpointe Potrero, Jose Burger. They are more important. They're separate to Casa. Forgive me. And why not? So from an accident in Tijuana, yesterday was probably not anyone missed hospital hospitalization. You know, you're not supposed to recuperar it. You alone operate on Cinco versus a mere man on a particular in L.A.. So, you know, they may get less noticed that that translate. But at the OC, you know, just go ahead and just translate for what she said. That'd be great. I'm sorry I didn't catch it. Can we start? Sure, I can. I can translate the beginning. So I think it's okay. What what she said essentially was, is she's very concerned, obviously, about the case, and she's very concerned about her sister, who was in a terrible accident in Tijuana. She spent she still been in Tijuana for five months, I think is what I think is what you said. In May as. Well. Five surgeries. It's for one month that she's had a variety of surgeries. And it's very important for you for for him to be able to return to the United States. And if you want to continue, let her continue in the police and you're. On. See reality what or may not be Yeltsin corporacion this is I. Would say my sister has already had five surgeries. You know, what I'm aware of within the U.S. generally went through the process Albania the and then came over LA. So what we'll do is just so we can understand it, we'll let her say a few sentences and then if you want to translate, then let her speak and then will translate. It'll just be easier to hear because it's a little hard. Thank you. Let me. Okay. Okay, okay. Okay. Yeah. And Barcelona is one area. And my concern is that when they bring her home. I'll wait to see who told us that. All of her children work. Experience so they. They'll have their jobs and there's no one. There's. There's not there's not going to be anyone. There will there's not going to be anyone to be able to tend to her. She'll have to go to the doctor. Danny gave up, and we'll have to retire. We'll, uh. We'll need to take her to therapy. She needs her husband so that she can get around. But as we all know, some point in the story you wouldn't say. And that's the reason why I'm asking for your support to help us to get hotel back. It is very important. So is we majekodunmi and also prone to the necessity of his. His youngest has also suffered an injury. He all he also needs his father so that he can take him to the doctor because she is not able to. He is no necessity. Welcome in parochial throwback. One royal reporter on the throne. We also need him so that he can work. And he is he can support his family when he was deported. Now, she was the one that was working. But a border parliamentary in Montana and also. In order to pay the rent and support the family. But what a blessing. Why again, not the people? Most people. Now there is no one that can look after the younger children. Whereas the more important. He at the end. And that is the reason why it is so important that he comes back so that he can look after his family. It is one more in York and why not the end as soon as this little girl get on? Well, I know, I know. It is very difficult to know that my sister is down there and that there is no one there that can help her if she needs to be moved around. So I get one day you get a certain amount of nothing for a man of the year. And up in there. She's there all by herself. And there are times when she needs to use the restroom. Restroom, and there's no one. So she needs to call on the nurses. And the nurses aren't always available. Where would you say Margaret ICAC would appoint. That is, that is all. Thank you very much. And please support us. Please help us. To send you to this next speaker, please. My name is Elena macias. Good. Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen. The United States is a nation of immigrants. Over the past 240 years, the nation has gone through four periods of immigration policies, the last three largely founded on fear and prejudice that tended to escalate with each period of national instability. Only the first 85 years of immigration were relatively free and open. Citizenship, however, was limited to Anglo-Saxon Protestant men of property. Citizenship for women was limited. In 1804. It was restored with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, but was not fully realized until 1940. The second period resulted after the rise of worsening economic conditions in some parts of the country. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Immigration Act of 1882. These laws sought to limit competition for worker wages and set the national quota system. The policy to preserve the national origins of the United States population to that of the previous census. It would not be until 1965, at the height of the civil rights movement, that immigration would open to Latin America, Africa and Asian Asia. 30 years later, the opening was cause for a backlash in some quarters against diversity. The third period changed from economic security to national security issues due to the threat of World War Three excuse me, World War Two. Enforcement of the borders and strict numbers of immigrants were instituted as well as targeted deportation. Fear of communism exacerbated concerns. We moved from free and open to terrorism as a current and fourth driver of migration policies in 1996. After terrorist attack, the Federal Government made a radical shift to limit habeas corpus and create a new detention industry. The result is widespread arrest and deportation of immigrants. With the passage of two laws the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the net cast for terrorist was even wider for foreigners that included the unauthorized immigrant as well as the authorized and the legal permanent resident. A simple stop for a broken tail light that used to result in a fix it ticket became grounds for detaining immigrants. A misdemeanor, if committed by an immigrant became a felony, thus grounds for immediate deportation. An individual who had served a sentence for nonviolent offenses became a target for deportation the minute he was released from jail. We got to serve the time as I was going to wrap it up. I urge you to support the return of Mr. Alvarez under the California Trust Act. The police officer had no duty to detain him. It happened because the policeman was informed. Had this happened to an immigrant in a similar situation just two decades before. The family would be intact. I urge you to support the question before you and reunite this family again. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Maribel Cruz and I'm with the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition. I am here today in support of Jose Alvarez to his family. Just as you heard, his family has suffered through the tragedy of family separation, which is one of the biggest fears in the undocumented community. As a representative of this organization who has fought for immigrant rights locally for the last ten years. We cannot let the injustice, of course, this case go without a fight. California has supported undocumented people through providing access to health care, driver's license and other programs. And we cannot let the deportations and the separations of family go unchallenged. The average family represents thousands of families here, locally and regionally. They represent millions of families across the nation as well during the election process. Immigrants were used as scapegoats and talking point. And we cannot turn a blind eye to the real pain and the injustice that is that this family is experiencing. This is why organizations like LBI Mercy I go in and Dawn came together to support this family in this year. We have held press conferences, actions at the border and circulated petitions and even testified at the state legislature in support of the Truth Act and will continue to support Jose in his appeal to come back to this country, to his home as an undocumented person and resident of the fourth District. I am disappointed that my council member is not here to listen to the testimonies and to vote on this resolution because family separation happens in the fourth district as well. Every day, immigrant communities are threatened with unjust policies and practices that target the immigrant community. I stand here as a beacon of justice and organization, will not stop fighting for his say, his family and our community. I urge all the council members to support this resolution and bring Jose back. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. Good evening. City Council and city staff. My name is Tanya Omalu IU and I am a resident of the First District. I am a member of the Building Healthy Communities Long Beach Steering Committee and also the founder of Project Alpha, our organization advocates for the reentry of formerly incarcerated individuals. And as a proud member of all of us or none. A national, grassroots, civil and human rights organizations fighting for the rights of formerly and currently incarcerated people and their families. We are fighting against the discrimination that people face every day because of arrest or conviction history, as we see with our brother, Jose Alvarez. Through our grassroots organizing, we are building a powerful political movement to win full restoration of our human and civil rights. I'm here tonight to ask you for your support of the humanitarian parole of Jose Alvarez in June. The Beach c Long Beach Steering Committee wrote a letter asking President Obama to stand by Jose and his opportunity to be reunited with his family. And today I stand here to ask you, the city council, to please do the same. Jose, his case is unique, but his story is shared by so many others. Jose served his time for his 21 year old felony conviction and has since worked hard to support his family. California voters are recently increasingly asking for second chances for our community and reform of our justice system. From the passages of Proposition 47 to Proposition 57 to the success of many community based efforts, these propositions fill me with hope that we do not have to live a life sentence of incarceration for the time we spent behind bars . Jose was caught in the middle of a very harsh immigration policy and local law enforcement's collaboration with immigration officials. His individual situation was not considered. He was simply labeled a high priority system, some even at high risk and deported, disrupting his and his family's life. Deportations like this tear Long Beach families apart. And it's not just the Latino community. It's Cambodians families. It's Filipino families. It's Samoan families and so many others. This instability leads to stress trauma impacting our community's health and well-being. As a formerly incarcerated individual. I was given a second chance by many of you sitting here. I was allowed to share my passion for community service by getting involved and giving back to my community. You see, I cannot and do not really want to give back, but I do, because that is the only way I can heal . I believe that a safe and just community includes embracing those who have made wrong decisions and are now courageous change agents in our community. I thank you and the City Council for second chances and for the opportunity to be rehabilitated and now reunited with my family. Jose, too, deserves this opportunity to be granted humanitarian parole and the necessity to be with his family. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Um. Well, my name is one where I come from. Bixby North. So, uh, just a few things I got to say. Make it quick. Um, well, first of all, this paranoia of immigrants is really. I mean, it kind of goes against the very creation of our country since. Our country was literally built from immigrants, whether they were from England, Africa, France. Everywhere. Okay. Okay. Now we're feeling now we're just here fearing people coming from our southern borders that are mostly that are mostly natives, I mean, generally mixed natives, but they're mostly natives. But, you know, I mean, originally this was this was their land. I don't see why we have to keep doing this. And then another thing is that, like, look, like many people said, these minor offenses should not be basis for deportation. I mean, come on. Not not having your lights fixed properly. Like how? Getting deported for that. How is that going to fix anything, really? And then. Because of this, these things, people tend to live in fear. And, you know, it's it makes it hard for people to live in everyday life and support their families. And then here's another thing, because many because these people have to support their families and sometimes even the rest of the country working in farms, manufac, you know, manufacturing plants and other such places. Well, we're limiting their ability to do that. And my last point here is that we should serve as an example for every other city and basically the rest of the country as a sanctuary for immigration, for for workers. And this this will be another step towards a truly free United States of America. I am done. Excuse me. What is your father, Juan? Why are you here? I'm right there. You know, you went. I remember. I remember you when you were very small. Good job. Thank you for being here. Well, our future is bright. I want to thank you for putting this on the agenda. You know, I realize that it was on the agenda about two weeks ago, but it's really taken on a different a different color now, a different tone. And so I think it's important that everyone's here. You know, Mayor Garcetti said, we see something that is hostile to our people, to our city, bad for our economy, bad for our security. We will speak up. We will speak out. We will act up and we will act out. He went on to say that the Los Angeles Police Department will continue to enforce a special order for the Gates signed directed that bars officers from contacting someone solely to determine their immigration status and went on to quote Our law enforcement officers and LAPD. Do not don't go around asking people for their papers, nor should they. That's not the role of local law enforcement, he said. And I would suggest that that's the same for the campus police. You know, we're not supposed to be afraid of our president. We're not supposed to be afraid of our police chief. We're not supposed to be afraid of going to school or picking up our kids from school. We do that every day and everyone else should have that freedom. The word of the day is fear, as that gentleman up there said. I think he's left now. But as community and civic leaders, we cannot let our community live in fear. If you don't address the fear your community is feeling, if you remain absent or you stay at home, or if we have leaders, do not stand in front or stand besides our community to keep the city from feeling unsafe . We're not part of the solution to calling the fears of our community. LAPD Chief Beck said, We are not going to engage in law enforcement activities solely based on somebody's immigration status. We are not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts. That is not our job, nor will I make it our job. And for that, I take my hat off to Chief Beck. This is me wondering what about the city of Long Beach? I want to first highlight and thank Mayor Garcia. I he was on the stage was senator our new senator, Kamala Harris at the table a presentation where they came out and also said that there needs to be some assurances for our immigrant populations and others. But I would like to know what actions will you take to help residents of Long Beach? Students at Long Beach Unified School District, students at Cal State, Long Beach, Long Beach City College. What actions will we take to make them feel safer? President Johnson. Jane Connelly, after those deportation initiated by her campus officers, said that temporary orders in place to protect undocumented people from being detained for immigration violations by campus police are now permanent. You can be certain that we will continue. Cal State, Long Beach, long standing tradition of welcoming the family and friends of our students regardless of their status. So we have an opportunity to act to make a statement. It's just a resolution. It's a nonbinding, non enforceable action that is symbolic to show support and acknowledge the fear in the community. But it matters and it matters to us. It matters to the community, matters to everyone behind me. So I ask that you send a message to our community that you care, that we want everyone who calls Long Beach home to feel safe and leaders in L.A. have come forward. Cal State, Long Beach, the leaders have come forward. And I know that we're looking for you to come forward as well and support this resolution. I thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good night, council and everybody here. My name is Alexis Namatjira and I'm staff organizer at the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. We work for we work with low wage workers, day laborers. When I those who are not let us who are most of the time some of the most impacted by immigration enforcement. When we first heard about the Jose Alvarez case, we decided to take it on a pro-bono basis and working alongside WRC and ICAO. And now we're here. Hi. On behalf of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, I would like to commend what's going on right now. I would like to commend the sort of the bravery with you are elected officials who are about to take such an important action, even though it's not binding. Even though we know that you don't have the authority to bring their back, but you do have a microphone that you can amplify and you're staying true to your constituents and their actions. So I would like to really commend you for that. You know, we're we're extremely happy to work under the you know, with the leadership of Congressman, I don't know, one time their staff, you know, not only will we be able, if this passes, to deliver this resolution to President Obama next week, but also to deliver a congressional sign on letter. To amend that. 2013 policy that Iran to start from law and his office addressed, where the administration sort of, you know, failed to take a step further to protect the entire lives of sort of the diversity of experiences of American soldiers. You know, we absolutely support a change in our policy as well. And we know that we're in extreme danger and we have a target in our backs because of President elect Trump. But we vowed to, you know, continue to work with the most impact that we vow to continue to work with our partners, including, you know, to come in defense if there are any attacks whatsoever from this action. Thank you very much. Have a great night. We expect a positive outcome and we look forward to bringing Rosette back and taking this message to the White House later on this month to urge President Obama to bring her back. Thank you very much. Thank you. And before the next speaker, I'm going to close the speakers list and the other speakers that are going to get in line. Please get in line. Any other speakers? Okay. So what I'm going to do also is unless there's counsel. Objection, I don't think there is. Because of the the length of time we have, we're gonna go down to 2 minutes. Okay. So. And if you need translation, I'm at double your time. Okay? So don't worry. If you need translation, you'll be fine. But, Madam Clerk, if you can reflect that and please continue. So, first and foremost, thank you for taking the time and, you know, hearing our resolution, hearing all of our stories. My name is Luis Flores. I'm the president of Fuel Future underrepresented educated leaders, as well as a dog and youth coordinator for the mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs here at L.A.. So, you know firsthand to have the experience of, you know, working with these communities, working with all of our undocumented students on campus at Calle Colombia, there's close to 1000 undocumented students. So, you know, when when the news broke out that, you know, Jose had been deported, it created an uncertainty between just not just the campus community , but between, you know, a lot of us here at home. You know, this was a story that was heard around the media. It wasn't something it was something that was more locally known. You know, there were students even doubting taking their parents to a graduation ceremony because they feared even having, you know, their parents being deported just for seeing them graduate, which is not something that's supposed to happen. Universities are supposed to be, you know, a safe space. Like, you know, there's been a lot of conversation around Sanctuary University going on with the UC chancellor and all that type of stuff. You know, university is supposed to be a safe space. And, you know, you guys here, as our elected representatives, have the opportunity to set the tone and to support us here in our resolution. And, you know, like I said, we're going to make it short and quick. You know, I have you know, we're just really supportive and really thank you for all your time and support the beginning so far. So let's bring Jose back. Thank you. Thank you. You're all you're all in fuel. A great program at Cal State Long Beach. So thank you for for that book. Next speaker when as much as me tomorrow sister will baby one in six to these three told me my name is Estuardo and I live in the sixth district. A.S. Bissaka took exception. I would like you to know it's better, I think, unpleasant. Beside your character, they say punk is so unique. Persona move into my community before starting. I would like you to know that I'm a person very involved in the community. So in a. Community or también. Community involved person but also so persona came to look at local community that about them. I am also a person who involves the community so that the community will vote illegal. So they'll say the case of Jose. Is in particular is particularly on Castle Calhoun. It must prove Lemus case that shows more problems than it was familiar to. Friend though we have families that are suffering the most, Ninos Castaneda handle the qualification. Children whose grades are going down. Mama Maria's studies were stellar. My friend. Maria Esther. Studies was stellar. Is devastated. But not until your considerable the they ponied up the insulin is the. For that reason I think that we should pay attention to this case. Jack, I realize you're not machismo and cheesy muscle free me into it as much as it has brought up on a lot a lot of suffering expressed curiously yesterday. Kiev, Orlando, Podesta, Castle equal say. For that reason, I am today showing my advocacy for Josie's case. But what about repeated? Because as I repeat see and I went to the committee all alone they lito if when he was young he committed a crime elope ago he paid for it. No, no, I must say. I mean just go say in Nazi that and it's not only Jose say there are many houses in the city it those a clear but so if he already paid up in case momentarily the opportunity that I think it's time to give him an opportunity. Berkeley, a c la comunidad immigrant at the Net Esperanza, because in that way the community of immigrants are going is going to be, I hope, the killer. Yes. Some posters. That the that laws are fair. Casey commit the only road that if I make a mistake kanaloa committed. Who has not made a mistake? Your Pensacola Maria de nosotros remains committed on a roll. And I think that the majority of us have made a mistake when we were young. But you can be familiar. But we change because our family can be almost put a lot more than seahorse. We changed because of the love we feel for our children. You know, school improvement demos. I'll sit on my horses, Theranos, and we promise to become better citizens. Corazon Aquino will be the power forward. For that reason, today I'm asking you to please keep voting vote but regressing so that Jose can come back. But I could. But I do that as a spouse so that he can help his wife. But I closed Suzy Joe's parents services qualification so that his children's grades can improve, but to impact the totals because this impacts everyone. The decision to my Mousawi The decision that we take today by impacting them is going to impact the future. Muchas gracias. Thank you very much. Thank you. Middle class US Senator next week. My name is Alex Bellinger from Cal State Long Beach. I'm just going to reiterate what Fuel said when this happened on campus. Our undocumented students were terrified. They felt unsafe. And they still do. Especially after last week two. And while I can't speak on behalf of Colby as a whole, I know that I and Hilda, as well as so many students, support this resolution. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Hilda. I'd like to just begin by saying that I personally know Victor and his younger sister. And when I heard this story, I was so heartbroken that I can only imagine how he felt and his little sister felt along with his whole family. It wasn't until a few months later when the ICAC came into my house and took my own brother. It wasn't until I felt the same pain. Sorry if I get a little teary, but it is an issue that has been occurring all over Long Beach and and it's something that should be taken into consideration. And I believe that it's time that you show your constituents that you do care. So. Sorry. And so I highly, highly encourage you all. To support this resolution. Because it's happening. Nationwide. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. Good evening. Council. I thought I might say something in support of this resolution, but also. As that. You actually hear what's happening here. People are scared of the police, the the the people that are employed to protect us. People are scared of. And I brought this up before in this room to you guys here. And I feel it's been ignored and you guys shouldn't be ignoring it. It should be something that's on your agenda to fix every day. If people are saying that their family are being deported and you want to support it, well, make some changes within the government. I've talked to a lot of officers out here that said, well, we are only obligated to do what we want to do. I talked to sergeants. I talked to watch commanders, lieutenants, all of them say the same thing. They're not obligated to follow every law. They're only obligated to follow whatever the law they choose. And so with that in mind, why would it be so difficult for them to put aside a simple stop for a tail light being out or for something simple like that? Something my Newt. It just doesn't make sense. And for you guys to say, oh, yeah, well, we support what you guys are saying. Well, you have to go beyond that. You have to make some changes in your in your policies and procedures. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. And just as a reminder, this was not the Long Beach Police Department, but it was the late Cal State Long Beach University police. It's not the same department. Go ahead. Next speaker. My name is Celia McGill. I have been nice living here in Long Beach and I am single mom with three children, 26 and a three citizen. Dad, this is 22 and 19. My life here in noisy ikea been working very hard to support my citizen in in I support this story because I feel in in that situation when I got my citizenship I spent a hard time trying to get it. I, I have to pay a lot of a lot of money for lawyers. I have to go to the court. I get to fight with with it. Many people with a lot of people. And until now, I don't understand how this country be new people from all the countries. And for us, the people living here for a long time and we are here working hard to support the system in any time we are in race to the station. They support us when we are they they they ask when we are all and seek when we give in everything, all or energy, when our children's grow up, we we don't get any friends in our country when or life we are living here now we are with this system in our family is here. We have not no normal life over there. That's why I support these gays. It is I was feeling in this case, my situation. They really can they make it this story that made me cry that that made me cry. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next week. Thank you. My name's Andrew. Do you want to help him out with so we can lift the. You can lift it. There you go. Okay. I just want to make sure that you're right. I appreciate it. Thanks. Okay. Thanks. My name's Andrew Guy, and I actually live in Councilmember Pierce's district. In January, I'll begin classes at Cal State Long Beach during our teaching credential. And it really shames me to think that the university where I'll be earning that credential, was instrumental in tearing apart a family that's so, like so many other families, I'll be serving as an educator in our city. Long Beach prides itself on its diversity, like Councilmember Pearce said, and many families of many different ethnicities and economic backgrounds make the city their home. They were given its character and its vibrancy. And yet one of Long Beach's major institutions caused the Alvarez family to fall victim to a system of immigration and drug control laws that target and disproportionately punish our working class neighbors of color. Many of our friends and neighbors are looking uneasily at the prospect of the next four years under the leadership of a man who has made plain his contempt for them and his disregard for what they contribute to our community. Many of them are as vulnerable to the injustice visited upon the Alvarez family as Mr. Alvarez himself was. Many of these families, the same families at Cal State Long Beach is intended to serve, are afraid to send their children near that campus . It is our duty as a community to protect one another. And the people of Long Beach are looking to the council tonight to help us do so. I hope that the city will do the right thing and assist Mr. Alvarez in getting back to his family and to Long Beach where he belongs. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good luck on that credential. Speaker Hello. My name is Alicia morales, lead organizer with the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition, one of the groups on this case, also a resident of the Second District. And I just want to thank you for taking the time to listen to this story and to the community and to the organizations and most importantly, to the family . Through this heartbreaking and tumultuous time. You've heard their fears, you've heard the realities that a lot of our people are living in. And you've also heard their their spirit to keep fighting for justice. The family felt great devastation after the first appeal got denied. The first appeal got denied. And we hope that with your support by passing this resolution, that his second appeal will be heard once again. And hopefully this time the outcome will be different. I encourage you and I ask that you not just support this family, but with everything that's going on in this time with the president that has a president elect that has instilled so much fear in our community. I cannot explain how many tears I have to see and go through every day. People are scared and they need you during this time when fear is common for us. We need to know that you have our back. How you're going to defend us. That you're going to help us. Our livelihood and our safety depend on you. Thank you. Thank you. And then, as it was, Mr. Goodyear, you're the final speaker. Okay. Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is James Davidson on the president of the Westminster Chamber of Commerce, a certified public accountant, a certified government financial manager, and a certified fraud examiner. The topic I'd like to speak on tonight is fraud. Is this the proper time to do that or are you entertaining? Only this topic. Only this. Topic. Okay. I beg your pardon. So when is the. So public comment section is actually over? However, there is at the end of the meeting there is a second public comment period that you're welcome to address. Okay. If if your issue is is not on the agenda tonight, you can address it at the end of the meeting. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker. Very good U cleric as he addressed a number of issues. First of all. No one in this city who's an immigrant here legally should have any concerns whatsoever. Period. I want to address actually the law, as I understand it. And it's rather ironic what took place here this evening that is taking place mirrors what took place in the L.A. County Board of Supervisors chambers about a year ago, where busloads. Busloads of. Busloads of immigrants illegal came in and addressing the need to divorce them, had the county divorced themselves from the federal policy, so forth. And it started out with everybody speaking in their 3 minutes. So many were there. They also had to cut it down after three and a half hours to 2 to 2 minutes and less than that. And. To an event, real. Victims, i.e. or there were three of them whose family is three families whose members whose family members were slaughtered. As a result of gang members illegal that were released from prison because they didn't turn them over to ICE's so it. Again the people in this city who are immigrants. If you're here legally, you should have no problem whatsoever. And I found it rather astounding that we have people from a university that don't understand what happens when a nation does not maintain effective immigration policies. Period. If the man was not stopped because he was of one color or another, he was stopped because he had a red light period. And then they followed the controlling existing law. If the law needs to be changed, you change it. Thank you. Time's up. Thank you. Okay. Public comment is closed. We'll go back to the city council. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you to everyone who came out to speak tonight. I want to start by thanking my colleague, Councilman Urunga. I had an opportunity to speak with him tonight before the council meeting started. And I can't express in words how appreciative I am for the compassion and the sentiment behind this item. And I did not know until tonight that he had actually traveled to the border. And I one of the things that I really value. There's many things I value about my colleagues. But one of the things I really value about him is that he is a man who works very hard and with a lot of passion. And certainly this is one such issue where he's exemplified that passion and the sentiment. And I want to applaud him for his efforts. I think he just has. Bringing this issue forward is a very, very important issue. And I cannot overstate the commitment and the sentiment that he brought and how valuable that is to our community. This council has more immigrants than most other cities in this country. And our commitment to immigrants and immigrant rights is very unique. I believe it was about a year ago that I had the opportunity to vote on an item that supported federal legislation in terms of immigration reform. And I was very proud to support that item and continue to believe it's something that we need to work on as a nation. And I agree with the sentiment of several of the speakers regarding the fear. The fear is real. The fear in light of the election for many people is real. Many people throughout the process of this election were demonized as a result of their religion, their background, because their parents may come from a country that is not one that is of much popularity with certain rhetoric. I understand that fear very personally, and I know that it's real. I do want to say, though, that my. Concern with this item, and I shared this with Councilman Yarrawonga. I've had the opportunity to research this issue since it was first on the agenda several weeks ago and. I reached out to the city attorney today and I reached out to Councilman Yarrawonga about whether there's any way that we could work together as a community and as a city to find a pathway for Josie that's realistic and feasible. Because if you research humanitarian parole, it is a very, very narrow, limited exception within the federal law and one that is extremely difficult to qualify under. That's the reality. I've had the opportunity to research this issue and speak with federal officials who are familiar with humanitarian parole. And one thing that folks on this, people who come to the meetings have realized about me is that you may not always agree with me or my analysis, but I do meet with everyone. I really research things and study hard. And what I don't like to do is give people a sense of false hope because it feels really great in the council chamber when we vote on something and we get the applause. But we know as council members or we might know or we might have a sense that what we're voting on is actually something that we have no power over. We recently voted on an issue like that, and I don't know how we turn around and speak with that community because they left here with a sense of hope. And so my concern with this item is I wonder if my colleagues and this item is going to pass. It's going to pass regardless of how I vote. And that's that's for sure. But I wonder if my colleagues would be interested in having a resolution that goes more towards not this particular case, because there are thousands of families in the same situation as Josie. Thousands. I deal with families like that in my day job and hearing from children who have been victims of crime, who have been separated from their family and trying to survive on their own here in the country, it is very, very tragic what happens to the families. So I wonder if it would be more appropriate for us as a council. To author a resolution that urges, through the help of our congressmen, some changes in the law to allow for situations like this, because humanitarian parole really doesn't apply to this situation. If you read the law, if you read the letter of the law, there's only one element in the elements of that particular law that might qualify for this situation. And it's the public interest element. And there's really nothing about this situation that the federal government, not me, but the federal government is going to consider separate and apart from the other families that are going through this situation to qualify as the public interest exception. So I wonder if there's an interest by my colleagues to author some sort of a resolution that that more urges a change in federal law in regards to this issue, then as to focus on a specific situation, knowing that we may not be as impactful as we'd like ultimately in the outcome. And again, if that's something my colleagues are interested in of this item, I would ask that we urge the city attorney to draft such a resolution. And again, I, I would like to hear from my colleagues if they're interested in that. The other issue I have with this item is I really think this is a federal issue. In this particular case, the federal authorities are given the task of evaluating each application on a case by case basis and making a determination on a case by case basis. We are in the situation now with Josie, and my my heart goes out so desperately to the family. But again, we might have a situation next week or a month from now or six months from now with the family going through the same thing. And how are we going to say no to that family? We can't either author case specific resolutions, but we can as a city, unite to author something that's more general and more broad and hopefully more impactful on the general policy as opposed to a specific situation that may not fall under the parameters. So I commend the authors of this item for bringing it forward. I thank Councilman Yarrawonga for giving me the time today to share with me honestly and allow me to share with him honestly and to respect our differences in regards to the issue at hand. And I thank everyone who came out genuinely from the bottom of my heart for coming out. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Uranium. Thank you. Go to one person and thank you for your price, for your comments and for your recognition of my efforts that we're doing here tonight. There's some things that you said that obviously I can't agree with, and there are some things that, you know, we have to agree to disagree. And to further the discussion in regards to a comprehensive immigration law policy, I don't think is within the purview of this council. I also don't think that we can affect federal change, at least not quickly enough for this case that's taking place, obviously. So I can't support a change in the current language that we have as a draft to support the humanitarian parole. In our discussion that we had earlier, I mentioned about I mentioned four things. You know, there's the law, the spirit of the law. What's the political politically correct and what's right. And I finished my conversation with, I think that this is the right thing to do because of the devastation that has this has caused to a to a family that did not deserve this kind of treatment, a fix it ticket. To go and morph into a. Wider discussion, broad discussion about immigration and immigration rights was just incredible. And that's why we're here, because there was an unauthorized stop. There was a. Ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay effort from a sole police officer to inject himself or herself into an issue that he had no business being in who was first of all outside his jurisdiction to even execute that stop. Just made a lot of things wrong in in this case and that's why I stepping forward in supporting the humanitarian parole. And in the end, this resolution will not change the law. It may not even change Mr. Alvarez's condition. What this resolution does is tell the Department of Homeland Security that he has a community behind him. That he has people who support his case, that he has a community that recognizes that there was a mistake made many years ago. That he paid. Four through service in in in jail. That he paid his his debt to society. And has changed his life around. Which to me raises the question when is it determinable for a person to be considered rehab? I mean, if that's a definition, then where an individual has. Raised a family, raised a son to serve his country, who has started a business paying taxes and sending his kids through school. If that is not if that is not rehabilitation, I don't know what is. And if that is not turning a life around to become a productive citizen of not only Long Beach, but of this country, I don't know what is. You talked about creating a false sense of hope about. What do we have, if not hope? At any time. For any reason. And that's what this resolution does. It provides him with hope. It might not be. The outcome is still up with the Department of Health of Homeland Security is still their decision. All we're doing is saying, please consider all the factors in Mr. Alvarez's background. Consider his family, consider the need that they have for him. I just learned tonight that his wife is hospitalized and going through surgeries. When else is the husband important? To his wife if not at a tire need of of Merkel need at that point. This case goes beyond immigration. This case now becomes truly, truly becomes a humanitarian case. And that's why I urge my fellow colleagues here tonight to please pass this resolution for humanitarian parole, because it is the humanitarian thing for us to do. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. It's hard to follow. You can't remember hearing because I think you said it so well. But I want to be clear, we can do two things today. I want to recognize that the community and the family that's been working so hard to bring Jose back has done their research. They have found the best path that they feel that they can utilize to try to bring Jose back. And so I don't want to undermine any of the work, the tireless nights that you guys have have tried to figure out a way to get Jose home. And so I, of course, will be supporting this item, you know, to say it again, yes, we should do this tonight because it's the right thing to do on a multitude of levels. But too, I want to thank Councilmember Price for bringing up the idea and the concept that, yes, this is one person and one issue, but how are we as a city thinking outside of that? And so to have so many people living in fear every single day means that we have to act today, but that we can also act in a thoughtful manner in the long term. And so I would like to suggest that we do direct staff to figure out what is an overarching policy that we or an ordinance or some direction for our city to say that we have your back, that no resident, as Tonio said, should live in fear of their president, of their police, of their school. And what are we in Long Beach doing to make sure that we can go forward on that path? So when I went to urge a yes vote and to I would like to ask our city attorney if there a process that we can move forward on. Councilwoman Prysmian members. PIERSON Members of the City Council. Obviously, the item that pertains to Mr. Alvarez is on the agenda tonight. The other item that you're discussing really wasn't agenda is outside the scope of Mr. Alvarez's issue. So my suggestion would be if the council wants to entertain, that is another item that that we brought back with a suggestion that it be sent to possibly the federal legislation committee for consideration. That would be the best path to move that forward. Great. Thank you so much. So the the item that we would vote on today would be the same that's in front of everybody. And then we would ask for a second item to be directed to Fed Ledge. For some research on that that we could come back to. And also add that that federal led agenda will be in front of the council shortly. So it's currently going through the review process at Federal Committee and it will be coming shortly to you for you to. Add or delete anything to the agenda you'd like. Great. Thank you. I want to just get a clarification from Councilmember Pearce, because I know that as part of our federal agenda, we have a pretty robust kind of immigration reform agenda. And so that's there in place. So I'm I'm assuming, Councilman Pearce, that what you're discussing is essentially the the that this this would happen this resolution or this addition to the federal legislation that would have to do with this specific type of situation. Yes, right. That yes. Reference by Councilmember Pearce. I just want to clarify. We're not talking about price. Pearce. Price, yes. Sorry. So, yes, I just want to make sure to clarify that, because we do have a large immigration reform policy on the agenda that's going to come before the council in a couple of weeks, I think. And so this is in reference to the families, this specific issue, but broader than that. Okay. Good. Okay, so that's the. So, Councilmember Ranga, do you accept that as I'm assuming a friendly motion from Councilmember Pearce? Actually, I don't think it's a motion. I think it's something that we can bring back at a later date. Okay. You're going to bring it back. Okay. So we bring back another date. That's fine as well. Councilman super now. Thank you. I would also like to thank everyone for speaking tonight and speaking with passion. I, too, met with the councilmember this afternoon and thank you, Councilmember Turanga, for your passion and taking all your time and energy on this. I don't think anyone can deny the the each councilmember support for the immigrant communities. I think we've demonstrated that immensely. But I do want to echo Councilmember Price's concern that we don't want to do something that's misleading or are providing false hope. So I sit here tonight and you have to understand what a councilmember, to paraphrase Don Tanabe, I think he said something like, All I do every day is get up and help people. And that's what we try to do on a daily basis. So I'm thinking here tonight, how can I help this? Okay. As Councilmember Price said, this is going to pass tonight. But if I could add any value here, that's what I'd like to do. And it's very unique that an item like this, I don't receive any correspondence from anyone. And that was the case on this item. I didn't receive an email, a text, any letters, nothing in support of Jose. And what I would recommend moving forward is that that is put together that we have lots of testimonials here. And what's so unique for the fourth District is that this incident took place in my district. And we work very closely with Cal State, Long Beach and also the police force. The there are no northern border of Cal State, Long Beach. It's a fourth council district. And I heard nothing from them. And I just find that kind of fascinating that this with all the interest here tonight, that the agencies involved have not reached out to me. And I think that the point was made about the police force. Cal State Long Beach is a state agency, so you have a state agency somehow getting mixed up with a federal policy. And lo and behold, the irony is here we are at a local level trying to sort this out. Where are they? I would like to see them weigh in on this. I think we have a resolution. But maybe they'd like to speak up about this particular case. And I think that's the best way I can serve you tonight, is to suggest that you go after these entities and get them to come out and say, Hey , we made a mistake. Here's how we'd like to support your cause. So that's really what I have to say tonight. That's my advice. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. There's a motion and a second on the floor. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. I do want to I just want to say one thing not related to this, but it was brought up earlier. So I think it's important to say I'm just going to reiterate something I said a few days ago when I was at Turtle Island. If you know, Charla, they're probably one of the best known groups that deals with immigrant rights really anywhere in the country. And Long Beach has and will continue to be, regardless of what happens at the federal level, supportive of immigrants, those that are undocumented, those are in the process of getting citizenship. Those that are still in students, whether they're part of fuel or they're part of there are maybe 540 students, all that entire community. And I, as an immigrant myself who wasn't born in this country, I always say the best day of my life was the day I was given the opportunity to become an American. And all of particularly the students that are undocumented and the community that's out there, they just want a chance to be able to contribute and be the best they can be for for this country and for their family. So I just want to say that Long Beach will always and this is not a partizan issue. Long Beach will always support its immigrant population, the undocumented community and everyone that calls this place home. We're always going to be supportive of. And so I just want to thank you all for coming out and for your advocacy tonight. Okay. Thank you. We're going to take up item nine, please.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending the Comprehensive Plan to change the name of Single Family areas to Neighborhood Residential areas as part of the 2020-2021 Comprehensive Plan amendment process.

SeattleCityCouncil_10042021_CB 120155

President Gonzalez. High nine in favor. None opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the corpses affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item 12 into the record? Agenda Item 12 Casper 120 135 Relating to land use and zoning. Amending the comprehensive plan to change the name of single family areas to neighborhood residential areas as part of the 2023 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, the committee recommends the bill perhaps as amended. Thank you so much. Well, it is my absolute pleasure to hand this back over to Councilmember Strauss, who's the chair of Early and use the Neighborhoods Committee to provide a committee report on the bill. Thank you, Council president and colleagues with such enthusiasm with the vote. Just a moment ago, I bring to you another small and important change. The legislation before us amends the comprehensive plan to change the name of single family areas to neighborhood residential areas, which is a more accurate term. Describing the areas in which they cover neighborhood residential reflects the reality on the ground today, as our so-called single family areas include houses with multiple families or unrelated roommates, as well as attached and detached dwelling units. Legacy duplexes and legacy apartment buildings all built before the current zoning rules took effect, as well as multi-family units apartment buildings that are built in areas that no longer allow them to be built. Thus, neighborhood residential reflects the reality we feel on the ground that there are many different types of buildings that make our residential areas vibrant and many different building types that are already in what we know now as single family zones. This name change was recommended to us by the Seattle Planning Commission in 2018. The City Council has placed this proposal on the table for consideration as part of the Comprehensive Plan Document Process in 2019, 2020 and earlier this year. I want to thank Councilmember Muscadet for her work before I came into office on this, because this has been a long anticipated change. I have heard some concern from community members that this changes, that these changes do nothing more than. Let me take one step back. I've heard I've heard concerns from community members that this leads to so many different things. What I think we need to be grounded in today is that what we have before us is a bill that changes the name of these zones. It does not change the zoning. It does not change the uses. It does not change the height, bulk or scale of buildings in these areas. It simply changes the name in what we call areas of our of our city. We have held two public hearings on this proposal in July and September and notified all affected community councils of the change over this last summer in the Planning Commission's recommendations for this round of comprehensive plan amendments. They showed strong support for this change in committee. We adopted one amendment which was suggested to us by Councilmember Herbert. Thank you for that correction, Councilmember Herbert. Well received. And that amendment removed awkward language in both the Morgan Junction and Northgate Community plans that would have resulted from this change. I was more than happy and glad to work with Councilmember Mosqueda on this change and happy and I feel lucky to get to work with her as she's been leading this effort for so long. I look forward to continuing a conversation about our growth strategy as we lead up to the 2024 comprehensive comprehensive plan. Major update. Thank you. Council President. That is the committee report. Wonderful. And I know that concerned Mesquita is a co-sponsor of this effort with you. So I do want to give her an opportunity to also make introductory remarks on the bill before we open it up for comments from others as as data, please. Thank you, Madam President. And I do want to thank the Land Use and Neighborhoods committee chair. Thank you very much, Councilmember Straus, not just for your co-sponsorship of this proposal, but also for your leadership throughout this process. As you noted, there have been multiple public hearings, committee conversations that we've had. We also, through with Councilmember Morales's office, had a conversation that rooted our conversations today with the research that we received from the Racial Equity Toolkit. Many discussions were had in community, including making sure that the 17 neighborhood plans who currently have references to single family homes were directly reached out to and that those individual neighborhoods knew about the potential change. We received over 400 individuals and organizations who wrote in to us with comments about the 17 neighborhoods and appreciated making sure that. I'm clarifying for the record how much public engagement was done on this with those 17 directly affected neighborhoods. And again, as Councilmember Strauss has has accurately summarized once again, for the record, the importance of the name change, but also centering us on the fact that this is just a name change to address a misnomer. A misnomer that is still in statute that I think is continuing to misrepresent the city that we want to be in the future and currently misrepresents the fabric of our neighborhood right now. I will just include the three comments here that came from letters of support from community members today. The first comes from the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the letter states. It is true that this legislation is a simple name change, but Seattle must take this first step of passing Council Bill 120155, as well as continue to address the historic and ongoing impacts of exclusionary zoning through changes to existing policies. The other letter that we received today came from the Housing Development Consortium. The letter states, With this amendment, you are laying the groundwork to create more opportunities for diverse housing in neighborhoods in Seattle and the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update. This is a down payment on on a purpose for opportunity and more opportunity for people in this city, families and children, to have access to wonderful neighborhoods across our city. And finally, from Habitat for Humanity, from Seattle, King County's Habitat for Humanity, they say one example of the kind of change we can see even more by passing this type of proposal is our work in South Park on Saturday. We were blessed to have the opportunity to celebrate the completion of our most recent development on this site, where we turned one single family home into 13 permanent, affordable homes. Today, there are now 13 families living in South Park, in part because of the zoning flexibility that is required by authorizing this legislation. You are taking one step, an important step in continuing to move Seattle to a place where everyone has a place to call home. I raise this three letters as examples of the diverse type of comments that we've received, the diverse type of entities that have written in to support this important but simple piece of legislation in front of us. As we proposed neighborhood residential. We are in all aspects, recognizing that language matters. We we are recognizing that neighborhoods are diverse homes to housing and commerce, diverse homes to parks and services, diverse homes to neighborhood amenities that can make our communities more walkable, climate resilient, that help us achieve our 15 minute commitment so that everyone can access all things they need without ever having to get into a car. The reality is that, quote, single family only doesn't reflect the current use and make up of our neighborhoods that really have duplexes and triplexes, row houses, connected homes, courtyards and apartments. Again, like the one that I lived in in Cleveland that has been zoned out and currently banned from being in existence. So I want to thank finally the members of the housing excuse me, of the Seattle Planning Commission, who, as we've talked about before, have recommended year over year. Every single time the Planning Commission has sent recommendations to council and to the Mayor. Since 2018, they have requested for this proposal to be included. And I spoke with members of the Planning Commission from before 2018 and they said we made that recommendation far before 2018 as well, but very happy that they are very happy to see it finally move into action. And in addition to the 400 individuals and organizations who we are working with on getting feedback from those 17 neighborhoods, letters and communications were sent to all communities affected. And this included deep conversations, especially here in District one at the Morgan Junction Community Association in July, where we met with members of my. First met with Highland Park, Morgan Junction, Alki and other West Seattle neighborhoods. And I bring these up to show how important these conversations are right now with just the simple name change, because we're going to be calling upon those same individuals, organizations, folks who have differing opinions to really set the stage for our 2023 comprehensive plan throughout 2022 will build on the discussions that we've had this year to make informed policy discussions, root decisions rooted in what community is informing us of. So I'm excited about those conversations being able to start from a place of shared understanding of what the current fabric of our city currently is. Again, thank you to Councilmember Strauss and I have to say thank you, Councilmember Waters. And I know she's loving this. Thank you. Peace as I lead into the other thank you's for Representative Macri Representative Fitzgibbon, Representative Shop, the Housing Development Consortium, South Side Chamber of Commerce, Seattle Chamber, Seattle Sierra Club Air. The Institute of Architects Sara City of Streets of Seattle. Seattle for Everyone. Habitat for Humanity. Seattle Planning Commission. Seattle Tech for Housing Lish Woodson Central Staff No on from Councilmember Strauss's office and Aaron House from my office, who have just been incredibly instrumental with helping to shape this policy in front of us. And we know we're going to look ahead to these major changes coming. As Councilmember Strauss said, we're not getting ahead of those discussions in today's piece of legislation that is narrow and scoped in its effect. But those conversations over the next two years, I'm very excited about that. We are going to be able to result in meaningful policy discussions and decisions that help us get at exclusionary zoning, on creating more diverse housing choices and on combating displacement. Setting the stage and setting the narrative that is rooted in language that is meaningful and reflective of our neighborhoods is critical. So I'm excited for this first step. And thank you very much, Councilmember Strauss, for shepherding us through a very inclusive conversation with community. Thank you so much, Councilman. Is there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold, please. Thank you. I just wanted to, though. Councilmember Styles very graciously thanked me for the amendment that I had flagged. Even though I'm not a member. I want to thank Councilmember Strauss for bringing it forward. And I want to thank the Morgan Junction Association for identifying it as a as a is a treat that was necessary for for readability. I really appreciate their their fine eye towards towards making sure in in a piece of legislation it's all about creating more clarity about what what uses are allowed. I really appreciate their paying attention to that level of detail. Thank you. Thanks so much, Councilmember Herbold. Any additional comments on the bill? Well, I'll put myself in a queue. You're on mute now. Council President. Apologies. The host mutiny. Was it, Mitch? Yeah. I'm starting to think that number one is taking host responsibilities. I have. Well, you'll be pleased to hear that. My comments are very short. I was just going to say gravy. I was going to say that I'm very excited to vote in support of this bill as the sponsors of this bill have mentioned. We've heard from many stakeholders for a long period of time on this name change, and I also believe that this will better reflect and include residents of a neighborhood. It's my hope that our zoning will also move forward in the near future to reflect our cities, the reality of our city's rapid growth in the last decade, and look forward to continuing to support the Council's work in allowing more neighbors and the density that will be necessary to invite those additional families into into all of our all of our neighborhoods so much thanks seconds member Strauss and the skater for your important work. That being said, Councilmember Strauss, would you like to have the last word? Just echoing the thanks to everyone who called it out and did it belted out well. And Deputy Clerk Schwinn adding to the conversation here. I appreciate all of you and thank you all for your great work. And Noah and Erin House. Thank you for all you've done. Appreciate it. Deputy Clerk Winds small nudge to keep it moving along. With that being said, well, the curfew is called the roll on the passage of verbal. Herbold. Wow. Yes. Oh, thank you. SUAREZ Hi. LEWIS Yes. Morales Yes. Mesquita, I. Petersen. I. So what? Yes. Strauss Yes. President Gonzalez High nine in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf. All righty. Well, please read item 13 into the record and I am 13.

A bill for an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 426, Series of 2007, as amended by Ordinance Number 335, Series of 2009, Ordinance Number 148, Series of 2010, Ordinance Number 11, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 191, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 258, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 630, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 63, Series of 2013, Ordinance Number 73, Series of 2014, and Ordinance Number 376, Series of 2014 designating the project to be undertaken and funded with the proceeds of the Better Denver bonds. . (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Reallocates funding for Better Denver Bond projects. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-19-14.

DenverCityCouncil_12012014_14-0975

Please put on the floor for a vote. Certainly can. And Councilwoman Sassaman, would you please have 975 ordered published? Yes, I move that council bill nine 7975 be ordered published. Been moved in second hand comments from members of Council Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. Once again, I feel as if I'm in Groundhog Day. This is an issue that concerns a bond proposal that people voted on. I mean, you had voter approval to build new construction for the better whole. And when that did not come about, because the symphony could not come up with the 30 million they had pledged, it was not that I thought we should go ahead and build it. It was that I felt that if we made any changes, we should be asking the voters for approval. They approved a specific amount for a specific purpose, and at that point it was not feasible to go ahead with that specific amount or specific purpose. So some time ago we made some adjustments and the committee got together and they decided a bunch of new things to spend the money on. And indeed that passed by ordinance. But the vote but the voters were shut out of that process. We never went back to the voters. Okay. So there was still some money set aside for year that you're still isn't ready to be remodeled. But there is a rule that if you have if you've gone to the bond market and you have money in hand, that you need to spend it within three years. So guess what? Once again, we're we're putting up new projects on this so we can spend that money. I understand where they're coming from. They're in a bind. But it could have been solved, I believe, by going back to the voters and asking for a whole new type of project or simply not letting the bonds all together. So I will be voting against this most recent reordering of the bonds, noting that the taxpayers still aren't getting what they have approved. Thank you. Councilwoman fights Catwoman Ortega. I'd like to ask someone from city staff that is has been working on this if they could please come forward. I see Kent Rice coming forward. Kent, can you explain what this. This is the remaining money that was left from that year that was not transferred to other projects. What is it being proposed to be used for? Thanks for the question and I'll just affirm the history that Councilman Fox gave. The bulk of the money was redistributed at the beginning of 13. So now we're approaching the end of 14. There are $16.8 million remaining of the original 57 million. Some of the 60 million was spent on interim projects to support Bettcher. What we are proposing in conjunction with the Budget Office is to reserve $16.8 million for whatever is decided to be done with. BACHIR When our new executive leadership team makes that decision, which is probably going to be about a year. In the meantime, the $16.8 million will be used for two purposes either new construction or maintenance. And those were the two purposes that were outlined in the original bond initiative. And more than half of the money will be spent at the performing arts complex. Some of the money will be spent at Red Rocks, and a small amount of it will be spent at McNichols. So we are tackling projects at city owned venues that are in the portfolio of arts and venues management. All of these projects would likely be done in the next couple of years anyway. So we're using the bond money as defined legally that it can be used for projects that were on the list. What we're doing is refilling our capital fund account, which was another that was item nine, seven six on the docket tonight with the excess money that we have at the end of each year. So that's a I hope not to circular description, but essentially the 16.8 will be spent on new projects and maintenance projects in city owned venues that our agency manages, manages. And when we're ready to spend money for better or the arts complex, when the team is looking at that makes a decision, we'll have $16.8 million ready for that purpose. So can you tell me how much it's costing to go through that review process of the whole performing arts complex, including Becker Hall? I can't because we don't know yet, but we're issuing an RFP or an RFQ, so requests for qualifications, a request for proposal before the end of the year will have to engage a planning firm. And that's in the same way that the NDDC has engaged an outside planning firm to design what is going to happen up there . So I'm guessing. We have a certain amount of money set aside to go through that process. We have money set aside for it. I just don't know what the exact amount will be. I'm guessing it's between 100 and 200,000, but until the bids come in, we don't know. Okay. And that will not be that will not come out of any of these funds. The bond funds. That I had to look to my advisor here know, clarify that they won't. Okay. Will any of it be used on 1247 Tampa? None of it is slated for 1245 Tampa. Oh 45 okay. I think that's all the questions I have. Thank you. Can't get you into town, if I may say, introduce yourself. For the record, I apologize. I did not write the executive director for Arts and Venues and we manage the city owned venues here that I've been describing. Sorry for that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. While I do appreciate the direction that Councilwoman Potts is coming from, it goes all the way back to the original 60 some million that was reallocated possibly early in this term. If I'm remembering the numbers, right. And at that time, the choice that the administration, a committee they set up and ultimately council made was to reallocate those funds. The other alternative, which I gave serious consideration to, was simply to allow that amount of money to go into future bonding capacity. And so at some point in the future, a mini bond or citywide bond. And I don't mean mini bond by small bonds, but a small bond list might have come forward. And I gave serious thought to that now. Or it could have just waited until the city had even more bonding capacity. And we could go back to the voters for a whole new list of projects. As Councilwoman Potts knows, it will be some time till we have significant bonding capacity in the city. Because of the length of the last bonds. I felt that people wouldn't get a chance to look at that amount right away. And if you put it towards one project and by the way, at the time I did have a pet project I was looking at which has since been funded in other ways. It would have been. Hard to get a citywide vote on one project because we always look, you know, how best can we serve the whole city, not one council district or one area? So ultimately, I decided that, yes, we should change the funds and impact cents in not only with better, but also probably you would say with the McNichols building where some of the funds were allocated with the Museum of Nature and Science, we have made different choices. So I think under the circumstances, we are doing the best with the situation that we did not anticipate happening in the first. In the first place. It's not a choice that we love making, but to the point of the voters. I'm wondering, Sean, if you or possibly David Broadwell, I don't know who the right person is, could talk about the requirements for changing projects in our bond ordinance when we pass it issuing new bonds. Sean Raab better never bond program. The Councilwoman is quite right as a backdrop, though, that the bond program is brought forward on ten separate occasions. Companion Ordinance Changes Projects Have the Council set up a 10% rule before they started the bond program, such that if a budget was reduced by 10% or was increased by 10%, then it was brought forward to this to this council for a vote. So that is the that is as projects get added and deleted. Similarly, we also bring those forward for council consideration. And then my point is we also cannot change the funds from category to category. If it's in a cultural area, it remains there. If it's in a parks area, remains there. Yes, well stated, Councilwoman. Indeed, there are the purpose there. Eight purposes within the bond program. We have looked at the the the the elegant solution that has been described tonight by Mr. Rice. And we have vetted the projects and they do conform with purpose to an eight and what we're trying to achieve with those. We've run those through bond counsel and they have agreed with them as well. So we think we're on good stead there. So whether it's technically or whether we're dealing in a matter of perception, what we're saying is very legally and in the way bond issues are laid out, we are within the voter intent. That is a true statement. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega. I just wanted to ask, what is the deadline by which these dollars have to be expended? It's three years from the date of issuance and the majority of the bonds were issued in the fall of 13 and a smaller portion in the fall of Sort 14, which means all of it has to be expended no later than the fall of 17. But the challenge we've had is that the majority of the money has to be spent by the fall of 2016. So two years from now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. You know the comments or questions on nine, seven, five seen on Madam Secretary. Roll call at no carnage. Layman Lopez. Montero. I. Nevitt Ortega I. Rob Shepherd I. Susman Brooks Brown. II. Mr. President. I. Councilmembers Montero and Ortega. Your votes. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you announce the results. 11 eyes one day. 11 eyes one day. 975 has been ordered published. That should have been all the bills for intro. We have one bill for final consideration. 847. Councilwoman Monteiro, what would you like for us to do this? Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call it out for comment. A comment. Go right ahead. Council Bill 847 is bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use in acquisition through negotiations related to the properties needed for the Federal Boulevard Reconstruction Project. And it's between West Seventh Avenue and West Holden.

Recommendation to receive and confirm the list of argument writers for the ballot measure submitted to voters for the Primary Nominating Election to be held on Tuesday, April 8, 2014.

LongBeachCC_01142014_14-0053

Motion carries. Now at your favorite time members, it's a new business and I'm going to do we have a do we have an item number seven? I'm sorry, we do have an item number seven, new business. I apologize for missing that, Madam Clerk. Item number seven. Item seven is a communication for Mayor Bob Foster recommendation to receive and confirm the list of argument writers for the ballot measure submitted to voters for the primary nominating election to be held on Tuesday, April eight, 2014. So great. Thank you. We have a few people here that I'd love to argue, so that's a great thing. With items moved, we have second on item number seven, so it's been moved on. Second, any any public comment on item number seven, come forward places. Yes. I'd appreciate if you don't take the time because it's supposed to be a list included and there's no list. I have no idea what I'm speaking to. You know it. Let me have the clerk get you that list. I have the list in front of me. You know, I asked, would. You like me to read it off? I'd actually like to look at it. Just briefly. Why don't I read it off so the public knows as well. Oh, thank you. Yes, sir. Would you please. Thank you. This is these are argument writers for the primary nominating election of April 8th, 2014. This is for the marijuana business license general tax that was approved by the council to go on the ballot just last week or the week prior, I believe. So for the measure, those in support are Jean ANAM, Esquire, attorney for the Long Beach Collective Association. That person will be writing in support of that measure to tax marijuana. Against the measure will be Lawrence D. King. He's a retired retail business owner, also is a Jerry Ship ski council member sitting to my right. Mr. Alonzo. And I can ask the city clerk point of clarification, is the ballot measure being called the marijuana business license general tax? Because that is absolutely misleading. This tax is supposedly on medical marijuana only. I don't know if that's a question for the clerk or a question for the city attorney. Mr.. Mays. Mr.. Mr.. City Attorney. There's a question forwarded by council memberships. What she's seeking is the title to the initiative that will appear on the April 8th ballot that speaks to taxing medical marijuana or marijuana. What she wants to know is what is the actual title of that of that ballot measure? Do you have it yet? And if you do, can you share it? I believe we do have it yet. Well, the way that the clerk's communication is here, it says marijuana, business license, general tax, which I believe is very misleading. Okay, we got that. But if he's saying they don't have it yet, why don't we? Why don't we go ahead and say, Neal, here's some public comment on this. Yeah, we're. Still working on the impartial analysis, which is due, I believe, this Friday by close of business. And we will have the ballot entitled summary as part of that. Thank you, Mr. Jeans. Sir. Well, I do I do want to address that. I think it's very important how it is worded, because it it is misleading at this time. So I do hope that that is clarified in it. It is called what it is. Okay. I, I don't know what the criteria was, but I, I think that Ms.. Ships has a very good grasp on it. And I, so I, I think that's great. I think she's shown her compassion in this, and I do appreciate that. So that's pretty much, I think all I have to say, except that I will say, even though I know it's already been passed, I think putting such an exorbitant tax, I mean, a somewhat of a tax. So like on the sales, like I could have. But with that, the way it's written that you guys have proposed is very, very harmful to to people who are sick and disabled. So thank you. But I am glad that she did include ownership scheme. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. La Jean's. Do we, have we. It's been motion seconded public comment, Mr. Dawson. He has just for a point of clarification, I mean, in terms of process, we do have these names. I guess there's one person who has signed up to be speak for the measure and there's two who want to write opposing arguments. Just quick, quick question. In terms of process, how does this work? I understand the mayor appoints the argument writer, the mayor, council members. There's one there'll be one argument for both. So the two people that if approved by the council this evening for the argument against the tax would both sign the measure. And so you'll have one argument for and one argument against. I think this is the resolution. Thank you, Councilmember Austin title. Our members cast your votes on item number seven. I am a yes. So that says the document. Bush and Kerry. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let us now proceed to new business. I'm going to start off new business with actually something that's very sad. It is with a heavy heart that I adjourn in the honor of debt. Dr. Dan Barber.

Recommendation to receive and file the application of Navarro Norton Partner, LLC, dba Lola’s Mexican Cuisine, for a premise-to-premise and person-to-person transfer of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 2030 East 4th Street. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_03032015_15-0179

Item 29 Report from police recommendation to receive and file the application of Novarro Norton partner for a premise to premise and person to person transfer of an alcoholic control license at 2030 East fourth Street District two. There's a motion in a second. Any public comment on the item? Seeing the vice mayor landfall. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know all the council members have been to Lola's on Ford Street, and if you have not, I hope you will stop by one of these days for some great food and service. I see the owners in the audience and I just want to indicate that you've always run a very solid business and been nothing but supportive of our community causes. So thank you for being a responsible neighbor. Appreciate your desire to compete with area restaurants and your desire to serve high end drinks paired with your dishes rather than operating like a bar. I think that was really honest and very supportive of what what the Street is aiming to do. I'm just pausing because there was a time where we had no food on Fourth Street. So this is a good problem to have. With that, I'd like to move to receive and file Lola's application for a premise to premise and person to person. ABC License. Okay. There's been a motion and a second. No public comment or we did public comment already. Excuse me, please cast your votes. Motion carries seven zero. Next item.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer to negotiate for and purchase or lease up to two parcels of land and acquire other real property rights as necessary or desirable for the purpose of providing temporary housing for City Light personnel and contractors at the Boundary Hydroelectric Project in Pend Oreille County, Washington, and for other municipal utility purposes.

SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119592

Agenda item 15 cancel bill 119592 billing to the city department. The committee recommends the bill pass. Cast Member Skater. Thank you, Mr. President. This is the last of the five that Councilmember Bagshaw had graciously considered in her committee. This ordinance allows city late to negotiate for the purpose or lease up to two houses in Ponderay County in order to provide temporary housing for city light personnel and contractors working at Boundary Hydroelectric Project in Metal Line Falls , Washington. One one house would be in support of numerous projects required by the licensing of hydro facility, and another would be in support of the overhaul of projects over of the project's large generators. Thank you very. Much. Okay. Any questions or comments? We just do things a little differently in Central one. I understand why you're struggling. I'm getting sweaty. Palms over here. Can we vote the French? Okay, here we go. There's no further comments, please. Got a roll on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw High. Gonzalez Purple. Whereas Muscatel High O'Brien High Pacheco. I somewhat like President Herald. High. 9 a.m. favorite unopposed. Bill passed and chair of Senate that will conclude our John is there any further business come for the council? Okay. If not, we stand adjourned and want to have a great rest of the day. Thank you for being here.

Recommendation to authorize City to execute an agreement with the firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber & Schreck, in order to provide legal services in connection with the City's proposed development of a new Civic Center.

LongBeachCC_05062014_14-0328

Thank you. Cast your votes, please. Motion carries. Item two is a report from the city attorney's office with the recommendation to authorize the city to execute an agreement with the firm of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck in order to provide legal services in connection with the city's proposed development of a new civic center. There's been a motion. Your second. Second gives the motion the second counsel for Johnson. Yeah. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I mean, I'd like to ask Mr. Parkin, could you describe. The process by which we chose this firm for this project? Yes. Vice Mayor remembers the city council. This firm was selected after. We solicited proposals from various law firms. We actually received multiple proposals. We interviewed six law firms, Hawkins, Delafield, which was the law firm that did the courthouse. They were the state's attorney, McKenna, Long and Aldridge. The Norseman firm who's working on it with us on the job, Desmond Bridge, the Brownstein Hyatt Firm, which was ultimately selected written in Tucker. Who are currently working on a public private partnership in San Francisco on the Park Presidio Project and Cuttack and Rock. So those private those all submitted proposals with estimated budgets and timelines. And we selected the bouncing hired firm and you said solicited. Was it a request for qualifications? Was it posted online? How did if you're a law firm out there in Los Angeles or San Diego or wherever. How do you know about this opportunity to participate? We solicited and talked to various firms that have expertize in this area. We did not do a posted online because there aren't a lot of firms that have the experience on the public private partnerships with working with municipal municipalities. So we did not post the item online. So you basically you your office contacted folks you thought would be interested in and asked them if they were participate. Is that correct? That's correct. We talked to other firms and others municipalities who have although there were no other municipalities that have prepared or done a public private partnership for a civic center. So we started with talking with other firms such as Nasr Men, who has been has an expertize in the three piece on the doesn't bridge on a public private partnership and a design build. And from there, we talked to the state of California to about the law firm that they use, the Harkins Delafield firm out of New York. And then we also had spoke with Richard and Tucker based upon their experience at the Presidio. Okay. Well, thanks. I appreciate the explanation. I think, you know, this is a very large contract, $450,000. And I appreciate there was some process here. But I do think that for large contracts, just as with all other contracts, it should be posted publicly. It doesn't mean you're going to take those those folks as solicitation. But I do think transparency, that's a better process. That's my concern. Okay. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second on the item for the consent calendar. Public comment. Kate seeing none. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Councilmember O'Donnell. Yes. Thank you. Council member, Neil. Motion carries seven votes. One vote. No. Okay, great. So we're going to we're going to move on now. We do have a hearing and then public comment before we get to the agenda. So let's go ahead and start with the hearing and I'm going to turn it over to the city clerk. I believe the oath is required because.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 11.14.150, 23.53.006, 23.53.015, 23.53.020, 23.84A.002, 23.84A.006, and 23.84A.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code for pedestrian access and circulation and to make corrections.

SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_CB 119333

Bill Pass and Chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item. Agenda item 24 cancel 119333. Relating to planning and zoning in many sections. 11.14 point 150. 23.50 3.006.0 15.3 2020 2320 48.002.006.0 37. District Code for pedestrian access and circulation to make corrections. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Councilmember Johnson thinks this legislation is required to help bring the city into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It explicitly calls out curb ramps as a part of pedestrian access and circulation requirements would require corner lot development projects to construct new curb ramps and curbs, which was an ambiguity in the current code requires development inside urban centers and urban villages to improve existing sidewalks, curbs and curb ramps. The current standards and defines accessibility terms and makes minor changes to add clarity on the curb ramps are only one of many options possible for improvement during developments. This doesn't change the types of projects exempted from those requirements, but then again does require particular development projects like ones on corner. Lots to make investments in new curb ramps. A lot of public outreach done on this topic to both the Commission for People with Disabilities, the Bike and PED Advisory Board, the Master Builders Association, and was unanimously approved by committee. Very good. Any further comments in that? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Gonzalez HERBOLD Hi. JOHNSON Whereas. O'BRIEN So on. I Lakeshore President Harrell eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP TI16-072 and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all necessary documents to enter into a contract, including any necessary amendments, with The Broadband Group, of Las Vegas, NV, for Citywide Fiber Network implementation planning, in an amount not to exceed $320,000, for a period of one year, with the option to extend for an additional one-year period, provided that the amount is not exceeded, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06122018_18-0480

Let's move forward with item number 20. Or number 19. This report from Technology and Innovation Recommendation to enter into a contract with the broadband group for citywide fiber network implementation planning in an amount not to exceed 320,000 citywide. Thank you. Let's hear from city staff. This item was pulled off the consent calendar. So we'll have a quick report from our interim director, Lee Erickson. Good evening, mayor and members of council. I'm actually going to turn this over to our Infrastructure Services Bureau manager Case and Lee for the Staff Report. Thank you. Members of the City Council before use a recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute a contract with the broadband group for citywide fiber network implementation. Planning in a mountain not to exceed $320,000 to provide some background is in September 2016, the broadband group was awarded a contract to develop a fiber optic master plan. By November 2017. The broadband group completed the Fiber Network Assessment and the Technology and Innovation Department sent City Council a high level assessment and recommendation to implement a citywide fiber network to interconnect city buildings. In December 2017, Technology and Innovation Department in Financial Management presented the critical technology infrastructure needs, which included this fiber network recommendation. At this time, Ted is recommending engaging the broadband group to assist with evaluating the most efficient implementation approaches for the fiber network, including coordinating plans with city departments and utilities, and evaluating opportunities for public private partnerships through development and issuance of a request for information. As specified in the 2016 RFP and contract. Additional services may be requested by the city, including one implementing any part of the proposed fiber plan and to assisting the city with development of public private partnerships. The source of the fiber network implementation planning cost of $320,000 is the General Services Fund budget, which is funded from charges to user departments. With that, I conclude my report and am happy to take any questions. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you. QUESTION And thank you, Lee. I appreciate the staff report. And this is such a big deal. We're excited it's moving forward. I just wanted to pull this off just to make sure that we just included our service providers such as Charter and Frontier. I know that they've been with us for some time and discussing this. They're also very excited. So I just wanted to make sure that we had that report and that we had, you know, some transparency in that process and it looks like we do so. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Seeing no members, please cast your vote.

Recommendation to receive the application of Norma Mora de Perez, dba Brite Spot Coffee Shop, for an original Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License, at 412 West Pacific Coast Highway, and submit a Public Notice of Protest to ABC on the bases of high crime in the reporting district, residences within 100 feet of the establishment, and a school within 600 feet of the establishment. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_06212016_16-0572

So Councilmember Richardson moved and Councilmember Austin seconded. So any member of the public that wish to address council on item 26. Seeing members cast your vote. All those in favor. Any opposed? Thank you. Next item is a 26. Item 27 report from police recommendation to receive the application of Bright Spot coffee shop for an original ABC license at 412 West Pacific Coast Highway and submit a public notice of protest to ABC on the basis of high crime residences with one within 100 feet and a school within 600 feet of the establishment. District one. So, Councilmember Gonzales, would you like to make the motion? Yes, I would like. And then Councilman Austin second. Sure. Thank you. And I'd like to ask our police officer for a staffer. That'd be Commander Rudy. Clemenza. Commander, thank you. Good evening, Honorable Vice Mayor, City Council. Item 27 is an application for an original on seal, beer and wine. ABC License for a restaurant. The police department has conducted their investigation and recommend that a public notice of protests be submitted to ABC for the issuance of this license. A license to sell beer and wine would create a potentially adverse impact to the neighborhood and the surrounding area. The basis for our recommendation of the high crime statistics in the reporting district residents is within 100 feet of the establishment. Any school within 600 feet. Furthermore, this location previously held an ABC license, which was ultimately suspended and later revoked as a result of numerous violations and violent crimes at the location in 2009. The owner applied for an ABC license in both 2010 and 2013, and the City Council protested the applications on both occasions and the application was denied. That concludes my report, and I'm available for any questions you might have. Okay. Thank you, Commander. And I understand at this point in the thoroughness and understanding the lay of the land with this area, it seems as though the reported crimes are at a 243. Can you describe that a bit? Because I'm showing here reported crimes in this district for ABC purposes are 243. Crime in a reporting district must be at least 140 to qualify. For a. High crime protest. So I'm assuming it's because of all of the high calls for service. As well as the past issues that have occurred. Is that correct? That's correct. Bright Spot is located in what we call reporting District 111, and that encompasses Pacific Coast Highway to 15th Street and Magnolia to Pacific. Our evaluation regarding calls for service during the investigation period of May 25th, 2015 to May 25, 2006 included two batteries. Based on the calls, both occurred in the parking lot and appeared to be prostitution related deals. In each call, the victim was hit with either a beer can or a beer bottle. There was one additional dispute, essentially a customer complaining about his order and then one unwelcome call, which involved a person under the influence of drugs inside the establishment, refusing to leave the location. Okay. Thank you. And I have no further questions at this point, but I do support the recommendation because I feel as though this is an area that certainly has high crime just in general. But I also think that this is an area that we're trying to progress and get better. I also understand that there's a high school in the area, educational partnerships, high school, as well as a single family residence in that area. So I think that this would just only exasperate the issue at this point. And so I do follow your recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Support. Thank you. So any member of the public that wishes to address the Council on item 27, please come forward. Good evening. Good evening. Vice mayor and city councilman. My name is Carlos Gutierrez. I represent the owners of Bright Spot Cafe. Before I start. With all due respect, I don't want to appear contentious. Or adversarial. I'm here to try to compromise or reach some kind of settlement. But before I do, I'm instructed by an attorney. By attorney to. With all due respect to these proceedings. Keep in mind that. We don't believe this is the correct forum. That the city has granted a conditional use permit exemption. We've gone to them and say we want to sell beer, but they said you need a conditional use exemption. Here it is. We paid for it. We qualified for it. You gave it to us. And now. In the process of the ABC proceedings the city is contemplating. Protesting the license. I think that's a little contradictory. Contradictory. And the ultimate question will be, or is, does the city of Long Beach support small business owners? In addressing. So we will address the issues that have the issues that the police have have brought up are. Three. One is that the the. The premise is that a high crime district. We have asked the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the ABC, if that is their opinion as well. They haven't replied to us. Normally when I handle these transactions, these applications immediately. Does the ABC say you're in a high crime area? Are you aware that that has not happened yet? And that's with all due respect to the police. Secondly. When objections I'm sorry. When protests come from the general public with these types of objections and protest, we can handle them even though they have some merit. There are burdens that we can overcome very easily. For example, if there's a resident was at 100 feet, the owners. Have. Or willing to put policies in place that will prohibit the operation in interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the neighbors own property. That. Declaration. Those policies are always accepted by the ABC. Similarly with the. School. The school is allowed to protest. Usually what happens is if the school doesn't protest, then the license is granted. Like I said before, we're willing to put in a lot of conditions in place. And when the licenses issues with continuances, we were amicable to that. Thank you for having us. Thank you. So anyone else that wishes to speak, please come forward. State your name. Good evening. My name is Magdalena, and I don't know too much about laws or regulations, but I know that I've been a customer of Bright Spot for the past 20 years. And with all due respect to all the restaurants in Long Beach is one of my favorites. And I know the owners, current owners, because it used to be owned by somebody else, they used to be employees there. And the hardworking people, in my personal opinion, they put their daughter through college. So Long Beach State University, and I think personally they deserve a chance to run a legit business, even though, like you have mentioned , it's a crime area. And I agree. But there's not only the restaurants motels around, it's I don't think the bright spot is responsible for all the crime, but I do believe that they do deserve the chance to run a legit business like everyone else in Long Beach. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Crystal. I'm just speaking on behalf of myself and my family who's sitting up there and standing here. Bright Spot is, is a location that we, we enjoy going to, um, we consider like a family location to go to and enjoy. I don't think that giving them the right to sell alcohol would have a huge impact on general high crime area. Um, I think if people were looking to overindulge in alcohol, they would choose other locations. For example, the pit stop bar that's on the corner of Magnolia and PCH or going to Eddie's liquor. That's two blocks down. I think it's more like. The opportunity to drink, enjoy beer and relax after a long day and whatnot. So it and the owners we've known for a really long time, we've known them before they owned the restaurant and they really are good people. And I think that it's intervening with their business. And I don't think that that. Is something that they should have to pay for just because it is a high crime area. I think. Thank you. Anyone else. Okay. Councilman Gonzalez. I just want to thank all the speakers I know for being patient. I know it has been a while for you to come speak, but I want to say that, you know, we certainly want to support small business in any fashion form, etc.. But I think there's a difference between being a high crime area and then also having crime happen on your premises, which is has happened before. And so what we can do, I mean, what we've done before with other businesses is we've helped them look at ways to change that kind of situation going on, whether it's, you know , security cameras, better lighting, you know, more communication with the city council and with, of course, the police department would be happy to coordinate that. So that way you can get to a point as well as just the surrounding community getting better. So we can get to a point where we can say, yes, we can offer beer and wine at this location. I just don't think right now is the best time. So, you know, we'll certainly stay committed to keeping in contact with you to ensure that we hopefully can get to a point where we can say yes. But at this point, I will have to support, again, our police recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Members, please cast your vote. Would you like a voice vote? Yes. All those in favor say i. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item, please.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing, and adopt resolution continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment for the period of October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015; and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association for a one-year term. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_09162014_14-0719

Item to report from City Manager recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and adopt resolution. Continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Assessment for period October 2014 through September 2015 and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association for one year term District three. Okay. I'm going to turn this over now to the city manager. Mr. Mike Conway. Again, thank you, Mayor Garcia, members of city council. This is the annual approval of a Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Annual Report and ongoing assessment. August 19, City Council approved the resolution granting approval assessment and setting today's date for the public hearing. There is a proposed reduction in the annual assessment rate for the insurance agents from $1,646 plus 1650 per employee down to $425.90 plus $22 per employee. But there are no significant changes to the proposed activities. Therefore, staff requests City Council receives supporting documentation of the record to approve the resolution, continue the letter of the assessment and authorize city management to extend the agreement for one additional year. I will take any public comment on this hearing item. I see no public comment on the hearing. I am going to turn this back over to the council, starting with Councilwoman Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Conway, for this item. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the great work that our Belmont Shore Business Association does for the community and specifically for the third District, specifically with the help of Jim Fisk, who's a member of our city staff, and Deedee Rossi, who's the executive director of the association . They host a series of events and community programs that really serve to bring the city together in the third district together. I want to commend them for their work and for their continued attempt to serve all the different and diverse interests of the business community. On Second Street, we've got retail, we've got restaurants, we've got bars, and their efforts to service all of those different businesses with their specific needs while also maintaining a balance for quality of life with the residents, is very much appreciated and I appreciate them taking another look at these assessments and lowering them where appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Can I get a motion. To. Kick moved by Councilwoman Pryce, seconded by Councilmember Andrews? We've done public comment already over the paper. Please raise your hand. The unanimous as no opposition thinking motion carries. We're going to be moving on now. Both of the hearings have been taking place. We have public comment, four items not on the agenda tonight. So as a call your name, please line up. We have three members of the public speaking today. We begin with, I believe it's Jeanne Gallagher, then Jorge Robles and then Veronica Ramos.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program (CHHIP), a public corporation chartered by The City of Seattle; authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to enter into an agreement with CHHIP to fund the Capitol Hill Housing Low Income Transportation Demand Management Pilot Project; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_05232016_CB 118681

Please the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 18 Council Bill 118681 Relating to Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program, a public corporation chartered by the City of Seattle authorizing the director of the Department of Transportation to enter into an agreement with AHIP to fund the Capitol Hill housing, low income transportation demand management pilot project and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So this is a small step we take to work with Capitol Hill Housing on a really great program. As I mentioned earlier today, they are working on a new orca pass that would be distributed to all residents of one of their units. It's a new tool that Metro and Auction is working on, similar to what we do for businesses who want to buy houses for all their employees as we go by residential building and capital housing, working with a few of their affordable housing properties. We'll be distributing these passes to everyone within those units. So this would allow the agreement to be signed so that the city could help fund that pilot program. It also relates to transportation demand management pilot project about shared parking that is going to be funded through the county, but it's pass through money that comes through the city to try to figure out if there are creative ways we can better utilize some of the off street parking that's provided in some of these buildings, specifically when residents aren't there during the day because they use their car to commute to work. Can those spots be used for local businesses? Thank you very much, Councilman Brian. There any further comments on this particular bill? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Johnson or is O'Brien by Bagshaw Burgess i. Gonzales I Herbold I President Harrell. I present serve it in favor and unopposed. Excuse me. The bill passed and Cheryl sign it. Adoption of other resolutions. Please read the Jan item number 19 into the record. Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda Item 19 Resolution 31668. A resolution relating to sound transit providing recommendations to the Sound Transit Board as to the content of the proposed Sound Transit three ballot measure to be submitted to the voters in November 2016, introduced on May 23rd, 2016. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So I want to thank everyone, everyone on the dais who's helped so much in shaping this resolution. This is our formal statement to the Sound Transit Board stating what the city of Seattle would like to see in a Sound Transit three package. I also want to thank folks that start in the mayor's office and also at Sound Transit for working collaboratively to getting where we are. There's still plenty of work to be done as the Sound Transit Board moves towards what will hopefully be final approval of a package to go to voters this fall. But great strides have been made. I'm just going to highlight some of the items that we call out under Section one. There's their letter to A through H in no particular order, but it is it calls for infill, a light rail station at South Graham Street, an infill light rail station at Northeast 130th Street. It talks about the alignment from downtown to Ballard, in alignment from downtown to West Seattle, stating that those should be in grade separated alignment for the ballot alignment and asked to consider alignments including the alignment west of 15th Avenue and also asks if cost savings can be or additional resources can be found on either of those routes . That potential tunneling could be considered in Ballard, specifically a tunnel underneath the ship canal and in West Seattle, possibly as it gets closer to the junction and talks about funding equitable, transit oriented development. We want we ask it to fund a robust bike and pedestrian access program. We also ask for to include funding for as an early win for the Madison Street BRT and other enhancements to the Rapid Ride C and D lines. And finally, we ask that the plan include planning money to study the West Seattle Junction to Burian and from Ballard to the University District to help facilitate those phases when they come before voters in the near future. Thank you very much, Councilman Brian, for this very important work for our city and region. Are there any further comments regarding this resolution? Councilmember Johnson I say how much I appreciate your leadership on this. Councilmember O'Brien. For members of the public who are tracking along with this, the Sound Transit Board plans to take up the 83 plan at a draft meeting this Thursday. And then following up on that, two meetings in June, one the first week in June, June 2nd. And then following on that, our general board meeting in June, June 24th. So this resolution comes at a very timely fashion and allows me the directive from the City Council to go forth and do everything I can to implement all the items outlined in the resolution today. So thank you for working on this and looking forward to helping deliver on all these things. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, you are our only hope. And a positive note. That. You are. Seeing no further comments or hearing no further comments. I will move to adopt resolution 316687 is a moving section of the resolution to be adopted. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution that is adopted. Then the chair will sign it. Is there any further business to come before the council? Actually, I need to move for an absence for June 6th and June 13th. It's been moved in second that I'd be excused from 606 and 613. All those in favor say I. I feel any opposed. Thank you. I to write that note how quickly I did a thank you. With that we will stand adjourned. And everyone, have a great afternoon. Thank you for once meeting.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2021 Budget; amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments; creating positions exempt from civil service; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_04262021_CB 120041

The Report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item one Council Bill 120041 An ordinance relating to the 2021 budget amending ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, changing appropriations to various departments, creating positions exempt from civil service, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts all by a three quarter vote of the City Council. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. I will provide this committee report on behalf of Councilmember Mosqueda. Council Bill 120041. Colleagues would appropriate nearly $18 million of federally granted corona virus relief funds, otherwise known as CRF, by increasing appropriations in several departments for programs that need additional funding to continue services through the end of 2021. These CRF funds were part of the Federal Cares Act that was adopted on March 27, 2020, and included about $131.5 million in direct funding to the city of Seattle. The $18 million of $80 million appropriated in this Council bill are the last remaining funds from the CARES Act grants to the city of Seattle. And these funds must be expended by the city before the end of 2021. These expenditures authorized in this legislation include child care provider stabilization grants, funding for emergency food access and grocery vouchers, renewed funding to maintain the Clean City Initiative and vaccine outreach. Efforts to reach underserved communities and ensure equitable access to the COVID 19 vaccine. The Finance and Housing Committee did debate this bill, and we voted on the passage of the bill. And the Finance and Housing Committee recommends that the full City Council pass this bill as. As as considered in our committee. Are there any additional comments? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the Court please call the rule on the passage of the bill? Boris by Louis. I met Alice. Yes. Peterson. Yes. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss Yes. Carville Yes. And Council President Gonzalez. I in favor not opposed. Great. Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it with a clerk. Please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well, the clerk please read item two into the record.

A RESOLUTION declaring the City Council's intent to consider strategies to increase the availability of affordable housing in The City of Seattle; and requesting the State Legislature to adopt new policies or modify existing policies in order to provide additional opportunities for cities and counties to increase the availability of affordable housing.

SeattleCityCouncil_09282015_Res 31609

Thank you very much will close the public comment period now and go back to agenda item number one. Consideration of resolution 31609. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So this is a resolution that came out of the Select Committee on Housing Affordability just over a week ago. This is a framework resolution that lays out the workplan for the Council as regards to hollow recommendations. There are three specific parts of the resolution. The first section talks about references, the attachment, which lists out the matrix of the different issues that are being prioritized when they'll be considered. But the outcomes we want to achieve are it also lays out the objectives we're trying to achieve, including increasing the number of rent controlled units, increasing preservation for folks in in housing. Also removing barriers for tenants, reducing barriers for new development to happen, and exploring programs to help existing homeowners. The second section highlights the asked to the state legislature. There are a number of laws that the state controls that we would like help on to support increased affordable housing. And finally, the third section lays out in adopts the would the goals set forth in the hall a process of 30,000 net new market rate units and 20,000 net new income restricted units. Over the next ten years. Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of approves approving resolution 31609 vote I. I oppose vote no. The resolution is adopted. Eight in favor. Zero opposed. The report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee. Please read item two.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance allowing drivers with valid disabled driver plates and/or placards to park for free in city-owned parking lots that are enforced in the same manner as parking meters in the public right-of-way consistent with CA Vehicle Code 22511.5, while all other operational policies and rules for these lots remains in place with no effect to privately owned lots.

LongBeachCC_03142017_17-0177

Thank you, Mr. Goodhue. Now we're going to move on to the regular agenda. Item six, please. Item six is a communication from Councilwoman Pryce, Councilmember Peers, Council membership, and Councilman Andrew's recommendation to request the city attorney to prepare a draft ordinance allowing drivers with valid disabled driver plates and or park carts to park for free in city owned parking lots. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank my Cosigners for signing on to this item. This item came to our office as a direct result of some constituent observations. There appears to be an inconsistency with state law in the public right of way and the laws in terms of what handicapped parking spots or folks who park in those spots can be charged in city owned lots. This is an issue for us where the accommodation is afforded throughout the state and if there's a minor revenue loss in the city in order to make it more consistent for handicapped residents, then to me that seems like a very fair trade. The inconsistency results in confusion from residents, and they have a sense that the cities might be intentionally misleading them in order to perhaps get revenue money from writing tickets, which is absolutely not the case. This ordinance that we're requesting be drafted is meant to apply only to the lots that are already patrolled, not automated lots. This this request is in no way limiting the city's move towards automated lots. And we hope that there is a technology available in the future where automated lots will be able to take into account those with handicapped placards, perhaps at the entrance of the parking lot where a ticket is pulled. So I ask my colleagues to please support this item and allow for the city owned lots to have the same policies in place in regards to charging handicapped residents as public right of way spots on the streets. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I just want to thank my colleague for bringing this item up. I also have heard this concern from folks at our senior center on Fourth Street and several other folks in our communities. I think it makes a lot of sense to try to align us where we can. And so looking forward to council support. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I want to thank our concentration for bringing this item forward, because this ordinance would be about making access easier and making all of our policies in the city owning pilot parking lot. You know, the same you know, someone is wrong with our policies. We need to fix them. You know, and thank you very much to our residents who brought these concerns to our attention. And thank you again, you know, Councilwoman Parks, for bringing this forward. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? I see no public comment. Members Pisco and Castro votes. Councilmember Mongeau the motion carries. I'm going to skip the next item to serve councilman mangos here. So let me go to item eight. Okay. That's one.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. R-7193 and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into contracts, and any necessary documents including any necessary subsequent amendments, with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc., of El Segundo, CA, Bitech Construction Co., Inc., of Buena Park, CA, Blue Nose IT Solutions, Inc., DBA Blue Nose Construction of Los Angeles, CA, Good-Men Roofing Construction, Inc. of San Diego, CA, Harry Joh Construction, Inc. of Paramount, CA, Horizons Construction Co. Int'l, Inc., of Orange, CA, MIK Construction Inc., of Whittier, CA, PUB Construction, Inc., of Diamond Bar, CA, SJD&B, Inc., of Walnut, CA, Vincor Construction, Inc., of Brea, CA, and, World Wide Construction, Inc., of San Pedro, CA, for various infrastructure repairs and improvements throughout Long Beach, to be performed under the method of Job Order Contracting (JOC), in a total aggregate annual amount of $40,000,000, for a period of one year, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07192022_22-0835

We have item 26. Oh. 26. Okay, Mr. one. No, we did 26. The infrastructure. Okay. Well, let's do 26. Report from Public Works Recommendation to adopt specification. Ah, dash 7193 and authorize city manager to execute all documents to enter into multiple contracts for various infrastructure repairs and improvements and a total aggregate amount, annual amount, not to exceed 40 million for a period of one year, with the option to renew for two additional one year periods at the discretion of the city manager citywide. Or any public company here. If there are any members of the public that like to speak on item 26 in person, please line up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the raise hand feature or dial start start nine. See. Now, that concludes public comment. All right, members, please cast your vote. Cattleman's in the house. All right, Councilwoman Allen, I. Councilwoman Price. I. Councilman Zuber, now i. Councilwoman Mongo I. Councilwoman Sarah I. Councilmember Urunga, I. Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. Hi. Motion carries nine zero. All right. Thank you. That satisfies the agenda now. So we have our second general public comment. Before we go to closing remarks and adjournment. Madam Clerk, you want to just make sure you give the rules on public comment and if there's any final public comment. So if you'd like to speak during second public comment, please line up at the podium. You'll be given 3 minutes for your second public comment period. Thank you. Now we turn. Thank you. Come on forward. You recognize?

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 160, Local 79; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_09142020_CB 119878

Agenda Item three Council Bill 1129878 relating to the employment authorized execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Wide 160 Local 79 and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass Council Bill 119878. Is there a second? Can. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill as sponsor of the bill. I'll address it first and then open the floor to comments. This Council bill authorizes the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 160 Local 79. The parameters of this collective bargaining agreement were approved by the Labor Relations Policy Committee, and its key agreements include the following terms. The agreement is a three year agreement on wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions for the time period of January 1st, 2019 through December 31st of 2021. The bargaining unit includes approximately 40 regularly appointed city employees of the city of Seattle, and the agreement does include retroactive wage adjustments. Like many of our other collective bargaining agreements for 2019 and 2020, and it also includes a reopen on annual wage increases for the year of 2021. Finally, the collective bargaining agreement does include agreements on shared health care coverage, payments and other matters, such as the employee contributions to the premiums for the Washington State Paid Family Medical Leave program. And I recommend and encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this council bill this afternoon. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Juarez? Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosquera. Yes. Peterson. Yes. So what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Purple? Yes. President Gonzalez? Yes. Nine in favor, nine opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda item four Will the clerk please read item four into the record?

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing, and approve the hearing officer’s recommendation to deny the business license MJ21701137 submitted by Long Beach Cannabis Club for a medical marijuana business located at 5752 East 2nd Street, but reject the hearing officer’s finding that Naples Canals are not a “public park” as defined under Chapter 5.90 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_10172017_17-0934

Motion case. Thank you. Listen, hearing number two, please. Report from financial management, parks, recreation and Marine recommendation to receive supporting. Documentation into the record to conclude the hearing and approve the hearing officer's recommendation to deny the business license submitted by the. Long Beach Cannabis Club for a medical marijuana business located at 5752 East Second Street, but reject the hearing officer's findings that Naples canals are not a public park. As defined under Chapter 5.90 of the. Long Beach Municipal Code District three. Thank you. Is an oath required here? Yes. Okay. Let's go ahead and conduct the oath. So parents, anybody who's giving testimony, please stand. Do you and each of you solemnly state, state that the testimony you may give in the course now pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Thank you. So, Mr. Modica, go ahead and take us away. Thank you. Mr. Vice Mayor, the staff report on this will be given by Brett Jacobs, our business service officer in the Financial Management Department and supported by the city attorney's office. Good evening, honorable vice mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you have before you a recommendation to uphold the hearing officer's determination to deny the business license application and a21701137 submitted by Long Beach Cannabis Club for a medical marijuana business located at 5752 E Second Street in Council District three. In addition to the calculator, you have been provided the hearing officers recommendation and findings, the appeal hearing packet, the appellants brief in support of their argument and the city's brief in support of its argument to provide some background on this item on February 22nd, 2017. The Long Beach Cannabis Club submitted an application to operate a medical marijuana dispensary at 5752 East Second Street on May 31st, 2017. The Department of Financial Management denied the business license application due to the proposed business location being within 1000 feet of a public beach and being located within 600 feet of a public park, which is in violation of one beach baseball code. Section 5.90.030. On June eight, 2017, Luggage Cannabis Club filed an appeal of the business license application denial. And on July 18, 2017, the City Council referred to appeal to a hearing officer on August 14, 2017. The appeal hearing was held and the presiding hearing officer assigned by the city clerk's office was Larry Minsky on August 23, 2017. The hearing officer recommended that the denial of the business license application submitted by Long Beach Cannabis Club be upheld due to the proposed business location being within 1000 feet of a public beach Mother's Beach, which is in violation of Long Beach Coastal Code Section 5.90.030. In addition to the hearing officer, in addition, the hearing officer concluded that the city did not meet the burden of proof to show that the proposed business location was also within 600 feet of a public park with respect to Naples canals. If the city council affirms the hearing officer's finding that Naples canals is not a public park within the meaning of Long Beach, most of the code section 5.90.02 of the Naples canals must be removed from the medical marijuana business buffer map. The Long Beach Medical Code Section 5.90.02 defines a park as publicly owned, natural or open areas set aside for active public use for recreational, cultural or community service activities. The city maintains it enables canals clearly meet the definition of a park under the Long Beach Morse Code, Section 5.90.02. Because the Naples Canals is a public open water area with a primary purpose of recreational use with activities such as kayaking, boating, swimming and paddleboarding. As such, staff recommends council adopt the hearing officers determination to deny the business license application but reject the hearing officer's determination that Naples Canals is not a public park. That concludes my report. And staff are are available to answer any questions council may have. Thank you. And so at this point, we'll go to public comment. Is there any member of the public would like to speak on hearing number two, please come forward. Larry Goodhew, a cleric as he addressed a stadium before. The landlord has proven himself and the owner of the property a highly irresponsible individual. He is essentially allowed his property, which he owns, in which he's currently trying to establish the objectionable business in, as well as the one next door to become a sanctuary for the two individuals at the epicenter of an insidious criminal syndicate period with which he could have easily done, i.e. simply by fencing off in the closed hours with an attractive fence, as other residents have done, as other business owners have done. But he has refused to do that. He essentially gives the middle finger to the residents again, his location. It was a primary location for that episode, for that criminal activity or the the nest for those two individuals until until he started applying for this. But he still ingratitude the odious owner of the building next door that is essentially run by the turd that floated into the shore, across the shore, across the pond about a few years ago. And he, together with his equally odious number two guy, which is certainly an appropriate description, championed those two individuals by play, by publishing articles favoring those two individuals. Those two individuals are ones that one of them threatened to kill. Threatened to kill a shop owner, catty corner from that location the other bit and put someone in the stomach. Those who have been banned from the library for a similar type of conduct and every time the female, the elderly, senior citizen librarian staff would walk out on the street for lunch break, they would spit. Which period the individual, individual owner and the manager of that facility has proved himself highly irresponsible. Yet this guy supports supports him and his equally odious individual, his number two guy, who when he was out on a medical leave and it looked as if it was he was not going to make it to pearly gate, not only to where the pearly gates immediately shut the day. The guy down below said even he had his standards and closed him off. You can't have landlord, you can't have people giving sanctuary to criminal activity. And it speaks ill of the very character of the individual who would want to open up something which is steps away from essentially nothing more than child trafficking, sex trafficking and child. Thank you. Sex trafficking. Thank you for your testimony. Saying no further public comment will close public comment. I want to just ask for the record, is the appellant at all in the audience? Okay. I don't see the appellant here. No one's responding. Just need to do that for the record. So public comment is closed, so we'll take it back behind the real council in place to overcome it. I want to. Thank staff for their efforts on this. This is an example of what we're to see from now on in regards to these establishments and some of the buffers that in my opinion, this one is a no brainer. But I thank staff for their excellent work and of course of the analysis of the Naples canals. I think I think it's hilarious that the hearing officer would have concluded otherwise, given what a huge source of recreational activity that particular canal provides for the entire city and never mind Christmas. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote.

Recommendation to suspend Council rule contained in Long Beach Municipal Code 2.03.020 (B) to cancel the meeting of November 6, 2018.

LongBeachCC_10022018_18-0873

Motion carries. Next item will move item 17 with a clock rate. Please read the item. Communication for Mayor Garcia. Recommendation to cancel the City Council Meeting of November six, 2018. I swear every second. Is there any public comment on that? You please cast your vote. Right? Yep. Very good. Here. Yes, sir. Thoroughly object. This meeting should not be canceled. Period. And when this city council. Can conduct. Their business in a manner in which the council agenda is not jerked around by the mayor like. Seinfeld's Kramer enters and leaves a room. Then then you can do that. But there's there's too much business. This council has to deal with. I think this will probably be the first night in probably six months. Before it got out before midnight. You should come next week and figure out. How and the remaining. Six months before he goes to prison. This Council will operate. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. GOODYEAR. Mr.. Also when you speak. I'm over the support item. Thank you. It's just. Oh, you took your name up in Supernova? Yes. I was just going to mention that the next meeting, not this one, but the next one that we're missing in October. It's not that we're not going to be working. We're going to have a meeting for community hospital at the Rec Park clubhouse. So please be there at 7 p.m. if you'd like to express your vision for the community hospital the future. I would also add, if you really want to be at City Hall on Tuesday, November six, you can come down here and hang out. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Fine. Thank you. Please cast your vote.

Consider Sending a Letter to Alameda County Requesting Assistance in Protecting Essential Workers, Especially Grocery Store and Retail Drug Store Employees during the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Councilmember Vella)

AlamedaCC_05192020_2020-7959

Okay. So then we come to a counselor referral nine if we can do it in 3 minutes. Considered dynamite. Best Consulting is sending a letter to Alameda County requesting assistance and protecting essential workers, especially grocery store and retail drugstore employees during the COVID 19 pandemic. Okay. That's serious. Councilmember Vela. Yes. So Council. City Council in Emeryville has already sent a letter. No masks are required for under the public. Face coverings are required. My hope is that we can actually have it so that the big box retailers will start providing it. They have an ease. It's easier for them to obtain some of their simple PPE, whereas the workers are busy working. And so I just hope that we can support this recommendation to the county. I know some of the Board of Supervisors will be supporting it as well. Okay. I mean, there are safeguards in place, but I think more can be done. And and I think this is a well-stated letter. I think the city manager might have if we'd given him a minute, here to talk about the testing facility we're working on bringing to the city soon. And it would provide the opportunity for essential workers, which are which include our grocery clerks and and the people at the restaurants who are doing the, you know, the takeout and delivery and meeting the public. So we're going to do our part now, limited, too. Okay. So, Councilmember Vallabh, would you like to add any any clarifying questions, discussion from the council? Councilmember Vela, would you like to make a motion? I just move that we authorize the city manager to send a letter on city letterhead with whoever whatever councilmembers want to sign on to supportive of this. Okay. Do you have a second? We've just changed the language. It's been moved by Councilmember Vela, seconded by Councilmember Ody. Do we have any discussion? Since then, we have had any public comment. No public comment on this item. Okay, maybe we have a roll call vote, please. Councilor, decide. Yeah, right. Next light. Hi. Odie. Hi, Vella. I may or as the Ashcroft. I think. Carries by five eyes. Great. Okay. I'm going to leave one minute at the end because we're going to adjourn in someone's memory tonight. But we're now on to item ten. We could do council communications really quickly. Who wants to start? That's it? No. For you, counselor. Everybody. Anybody? Councilmember de SAC. Okay. Hearing then. So council we. I'm asking that we adjourn our meeting tonight in memory of a very recent member member of our Commission on Persons with Disabilities. His name was Anto.

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the executive to execute an airspace lease agreement with the Washington state Department of Transportation for land and facilities in the State Route 520 interchange at Montlake Boulevard for a term of twenty years with the possibility of two twenty-year extensions; and to take all actions necessary to implement the terms of the lease.

KingCountyCC_10202020_2020-0103

Thank you. By your vote, we have give it. We have advanced both on a do house recommendation. And we will expedite, expedite both of those items and place them on the council's consent agenda. That takes us to nine. This is for discussion and possible action. It's an ordinance that would authorize the executive to execute the airspace lease agreement with the Department of Transportation for land and facilities in the state. Route 520 Interchange at Montlake for Metro Service. Mary Bourguignon of Council Central South is sure to provide the South reports on the line is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, I'm Mary Ferguson from the council staff. And the materials for this item began on page 363 of your packets. As you noted, Mr. Chair, this lease is for part of a long term Washington State Department of Transportation project, which is the reconstruction of the state route five. 20 bridge portions of the bridge began opening back five years ago, and currently Washington or the Department of Transportation is out of the final portion of the reconstruction, a project that is called the rest of the West or the portion of the bridge that is closest to the University of Washington and the Montlake area to prepare for that construction. Two years ago, the council voted to close what are called the Montlake flier stops that had been serving five Metro Transit bus routes because washed out needed that area for construction. With the work underway, the plan has been that washed out will be constructing a lid at the edge of the bridge and that lid will serve three metro transit bus stations, one going eastbound on five, 21 going westbound on 520 and then one serving Montlake Boulevard traffic going northbound. The proposed ordinance that is in front of you would approve a 20 year lease agreement between King County and washout with 220 year extensions for Metro to operate and maintain those transit stops. And I'll note that this lease does not require any payment for King County. Essentially, the county's payment would be to operate and maintain the transit stops. In addition, Metro would be able to obtain the use of a bike parking area just north of the Montlake, led in return for operating and maintaining two of washed out parking areas near the new Northgate Link Light Rail Station. So if you turn in your packets to page 366, you'll see two tables that summarize the condition of the proposed lease. Table one shows the square footage that would be occupied about 3000 square feet on the Montlake lid for these three bus stations. The base rent again, no rent payment for Metro to agree to maintain and operate these bus stops. And then again, the addition of the bike parking area, the term 20 years with two options for 20 year additional extensions. And then finally the commencement date, which will not happen until washouts work is completed, which is estimated to be in 2023. You can then see on table two the estimated fiscal impacts, which again because there are no lease payments, would be the cost to operate and maintain stations in this area, as well as the planning work that is underway now to prepare for those operations. That concludes my staff report. Mr. Chair, we do have Fran Juliano from Metro on the line, if you want to talk more about this project. But again, this is just one more step in a long term planning process for this area and for the transit service to serve that area . Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Colleagues questions. See none at entertaining motion will approve ordinance 2020 103. Movements detect ordinance 2021 of three years before us with the departure recommendation. See no further discussion. Minimum quote I'd ask you to please call the role. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council member Baluchi. Also remember about duty. I don't remember, Dombrowski. I don't remember. Done. Councilmember Coles, I. Council member Lambert High Council member of the ground. I. Councilmember one right there. Councilmember one right there. Council members are high. But. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. The vote is 790 knows council members done and by Mike Barrow excuse. Me but by your vote we've given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 103. We will expedite that to full council a week from today and without objection we will put it on consent as well. Councilmember one Right there, where are you registering your vote on 20, 21 or three? Councilmember Yvonne Rockefeller. Hi. Hi. Thank you. By unanimous vote, we have given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 103 and that will be on the consent agenda next week's full council meeting. A final item of the day is an ordinance that would authorize the executive to extend the duration of the Flood Control District's Interlocal agreement through the end of 2021.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $10,000, offset by the Third Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a contribution to the Long Beach Rowing Association (LBRA) at 5750 Boathouse Lane for the creation of a free Youth Learn to Row Summer Camp targeted for students attending Cabrillo, Poly and Jordan High Schools; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $10,000 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_06012021_21-0489

Right. Very much, Karis. Now we will go on to item 13, please. Communication from Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilmember Urunga, Councilman Austin recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by 10,000 to provide a contribution to the Long Beach Rowing Association for the creation of a free youth. Learn to Row Summer Camp. Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm super excited about this item, and I actually have a few people that are going to be calling in to speak about it. This item came about after we had the Coastal Commission meeting about the pool and one of the Coastal Commissioners and I know Councilman Arango will remember this, made a comment about competitive swimming and she talked about how she was a competitive swimmer and making opportunities for people who wouldn't have access otherwise to learn how to be competitive athletes. And it really got me thinking about Marine Stadium and the history of Marine Stadium as an Olympic venue and the city of Long Beach and the sport of rowing. I'm not sure how much my council colleagues know about the sport of rowing, but I didn't know anything about the sport a few years ago. Before my boys got involved in it. We used to see the rowers on Marine Stadium all the time, but had no idea what it meant to do that sport. Since my boys have learned about the sport, I've learned a lot about the opportunities in that sport in terms of collegiate admissions aid and collegiate scholarships, especially for female rowers. We've seen a huge boost in the last few years, ever since rowing became an official NCAA sport. Teams are now allowed to give out 20 scholarships per year, and with rowing being an equivalency sport, those 20 scholarships can be divided in any way that a coach wishes to. Rowing rosters are typically large in size, and plenty of scholarship opportunities are available in 2015. On average, NCAA D1 teams have 39 rowers on scholarships, with some teams having up to 50 student athletes receiving some sort of athletic aid. An 80% 85% of collegiate rowers were members of either a high school or club rowing team in the city of Long Beach. We don't have rowing as a high school team. And so the only way students in the city of Long Beach throughout the city could participate is through participation as a club sport, which is incredibly expensive. So this item provides a free summer camp at the Long Beach Rowing Association is going to help us administer. They're going to provide the boats. They're going to talk about it in just a minute. And it's for the students that are interested. So we've already reached out to Cabrillo Poly and Jordan administrators. They've been super positive. We're targeting students from those three schools because those are the high schools that we see a lot of underrepresentation on in terms of rowing scholarships and aquatics scholarships. And the administrators have been very, very supportive. We got our first applicant and accepted yesterday, so we're really excited about it. We're probably going to have 15 to 16 students. And for those students who participate in this program, if they decide they like the sport, I'm going to personally fundraise one year scholarship for each of those students that comes at $8,000 a student for participation in the annual club sport. So I may need some of your guys's help in fundraising for those students, but I'd love to give them the opportunity to do a year of college rowing to see if they're good at it. And wouldn't it be great if we have athletes from all over the city on college scholarships for rowing, especially our female athletes? So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Christina Dugan, who should be on the call to talk a little bit about the program. Kristina Dugan, please press star six. Hi. Thank you, Mayor, for the time to talk about this program tonight. And of course, thank you, Councilwoman Price, for your overwhelming support and is bringing this program to council. My name is Christina Dugan. I'm a resident and business owner of the third district. I've been a member of Long Beach Rowing Association since 2007, and I'm the regatta director for Elvira. I've been on the board. I work with the club on many of our programs and trainings. It's located the feeder, our Rowing Center, located on Alamitos Bay Marine Stadium. The Rowing Center is home to Long Beach Junior Crew. California adaptive rowing program, also called Cart and Beach Crew. From Colby, Oprah, Endeavor, Chen, Vance, rowing and sportsmanship. Sportsmanship through its members inclusion of the community and programs we provide learn to run programs and are an Olympic and national training site. But let's get into this program. I am so excited to coordinate this program called Row the Stadium, with the help of Councilwoman Pryce and then the volunteers who are members of V-Ray. They will be hoping we have two boats set aside. There are two boats, eight students. Eight participants are in the boat with the coxswain, who steers a 62 foot boat. It's huge. It's so exciting to be on the water. And I have to tell you, the ultimate goal of this group is to row the stadium. Every you should have this opportunity. High school students, young men and women looking to attend college are being encouraged to attend college, can have opportunities open up for scholarships and admissions. I'm not going to go much into this. Councilwoman Pryce went through all of this. But as she said, our first participant accepted yesterday. She found out from the College and Career Center from Cabrillo High School that other participants are excited to participate and asking about this. What is the program? Well, the stadium is a six week program. It'll meet Saturday and Sunday for 2 hours each day at our two rowing center, teaching the fundamentals of rowing both on and off the water. I'll be running has volunteer coaches, lunch drivers and experienced adult rowers will be working with the participants for dry land and on the water. But another part of this program, several current rowers who rode with LBJ will be participating in the leadership portion of this program by being junior coaches and working with the participants weekly. These two young people have developed a dry land training program, have helped to develop the name and logo for this program, and will also be in the boat with the new rowers to help them on the water, peer to peer coaching and team building. From their perspective, with the supervision, of course, of head coaches is really important to the program's success. Rowing is so close to my heart. Youth. I have run programs for many, many years. I am. Thank you. Our next speaker is Christina Durian. I know that she just spoke. So I think your next speaker is going to be either Kian Pryce or Gabriella Schaub. Thank you. Deborah Schwab, please begin. Hello. I'm Eric Garcia. Council members and constituents of the Long Beach community. My name is Siobhan. I've been growing as a part of the Long Beach Junior Crew program for about four years now. And during that time, I have learned so much about the sport and the opportunities available for competitive colleges, and this is especially true for female rowers. As Councilor Price says, rowing is a sport that has traditionally been targeted to male athletes. But that trend has changed. And today, female athletes throughout the nation are recruiting more and more for the sport. I thankfully had the. Opportunity to attend the Long Beach Junior Crew summer camp back when I was just 12 years old. And these camps ultimately were the reason why I fell in love with the sport and led me to develop a strong athletic ability, maintaining a fun and enjoyable environment with others. We are fortunate to live in Long Beach, a city but as hosted rowing in the Olympics and may someday host the Olympics for the sport again. And therefore, rowing is a big part of Long Beach, its history and our future. This camp will open the door to the youth from throughout the city and hopefully many more athletes throughout the city to learn this sport free of charge. This will open up future opportunities for our local athletes to continue to shine as they transition into college. I am excited to be one of the youth counselors in this program and thank you in advance for supporting our efforts. Thank you for listening. Thank you. John Price, we begin. Hello, Mr. Mayor. And Council. My name is Kim Pryce. We often talk about opportunities and people taking advantage of. Opportunities that are provided to them. But what I have learned. Is that something is not. Really an opportunity if you don't know about. It or if you. Don't have a real chance of participating in it. I feel that way about the sport of growing. I I'm fortunate to live near Marine Stadium or. Rowers enjoy. This Olympic. Site every day. My brother and. I have grown up seeing rowers practice their sport at this site. We started to learn the sport. Our family learned about how many college scholarships and opportunities there are for high school athletes who row. But not many people. Know about this sport. Rowing is an expensive sport to learn and. Practice, and that is why the opportunity to grow is not really an opportunity for everyone and only an. Opportunity for a small group. Of people. That needs. To change. I'm excited to currently. Participate in Long Beach Junior. Crew or learn the sport and encourage inclusion and help in a healthy lifestyle. We want to. Expand that beyond just the youth who are currently. Part of the team. A Rose Stadium camp will offer any student who would not otherwise have the opportunity. To learn the sport. The opportunity. To participate in a free introductory summer camp. So students who participate and who want to continue to score would be eligible. For a one year membership to join object. We are grateful for the administrators at Cabrillo Jordan and Poly High who have already taken time to learn about the camp and send their referrals. Thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes public comment. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. And I'll just conclude with the other thing that we're going to be providing through private dollars. So it's not part of this item is a transportation voucher. So any student who needs transportation, we will provide them vouchers with their preference so we can do Uber, Lyft or bus passes. We will provide transportation for anyone to participate in this program. And as you can tell, I'm super, super excited about it. I would love it if we had a few students from Long Beach get a full college scholarship for rowing. And wouldn't it be great if they someday came back and became Olympic athletes? And hopefully we host the sport of rowing in Long Beach in 2028? And I hope that this program helps shine the light on what we're doing in Long Beach to make the sport accessible for everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman's in the house. Thank you very much, Mayor, and thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilwoman Price, for introducing this item. And to all of my colleagues who supported it is super important to ensure that all of our youth have access to these types of programs that can grant them the amazing opportunity to develop new skills that they will be able to enjoy for the rest of their lives. Traditionally, these programs have not been accessible nor affordable to our students who live in the Westside or in the Washington neighborhood and in surrounding areas as well. This is why it truly, truly warms my heart to know that this role summer camp is targeted for the students, local students here at Cabrillo Poly and Jordan High School. And I'm I'm even more pleased to know that this is something that they can potentially take with them to college as well. And thank you so much, Councilmember Price, for sharing that transportation will also be provided for these students because that is a huge thing and a huge barrier for our Westside students to actually participate in opportunities like this. I'm super excited to support this item and for this program, and I'm committed to supporting programs like this that are aimed to empowering the youth. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Price. Thank you very much. Next up, we have council member Ringo. Thank you, Mary. Thank you, Councilmember Price, for bringing this forward. Anything that provides added access to our coast is very, very welcome. And I really appreciate you bringing this forward, especially with all the fundraising you're going to do in the end, the travel vouchers. I mean, that's awesome. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. I think our kids will love it for it. I will love you for. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. I thank you, Mr. Mayor. And, you know, I just want to take this opportunity to thank and salute Councilmember Price for bringing forth this very innovative program that, in my opinion, will really expand access exposure, but also open doors of opportunity for young student athletes who probably wouldn't have had it otherwise been exposed to this this amazing sport crew. I can tell you firsthand that college scholarship, athletic scholarships are life changing for student athletes or for parents, for families of student athletes. And to expand that, those opportunities are amazing. And I can just just I have two nieces who are involved in aquatic sports on sport scholarships. One went to university, too, Pacific. The other one is at Cal State. Long Beach is a water polo player today. Lastly, my son is also a scholar athlete on scholarship playing football. These these opportunities are very rare. But when when a kid has that opportunity, when a family has that opportunity, it it is one that is amazing . So this is a small investment that that could pay big dividends of a long term. So, again, congratulations. Thank you for bringing this forward. Councilmember, you can count on my office to help you with your outreach efforts and and assist in any way we can to make this a success. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Next up, I have Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just want to chime in and say thanks for intentionally calling out Jordan High School and Cabrillo. My experience is when these kids win, when the olive branch is extended and opportunity is extended, they take advantage of it. And I've seen some from, you know, Jordan High School. I work really closely with them. I see some great opportunities and some great success stories come out of there. So I just wanted to say thank you and you have my support. Please don't hesitate if you need any help with your ongoing commitment to this program. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes the council comments. I think we've done public comment. Just just to add to what everybody said, just a phenomenal way of reaching out to folks for an amazing sport. And I agree, we are going to get rowing for the Olympics. That's the goal. And a lot of folks are working to make sure that that happens. And we we are the world class Rowing City and have the history to prove it. And I think one of the best rowing facilities anywhere in the country, especially for for hosting these larger events. And and what we do currently, I mean, just take any on any given day, you can just go out and watch Marine Stadium or to the river and you just see folks, young people rowing. And it's just one of the I think the kind of the beauties of of that of the neighborhood as well, and of seeing all these young people enjoying a sport and taking care of themselves and really appreciating each other because it really is an every in every way team sport were there where, you know, people are learning and supporting each other. So I think it's phenomenal and a great way to reach out to young people. So thank you for that. That concludes public comment and council comment. So we'll go ahead and do a roll call vote, please. District one. Hi. District two. I District three district. I district for. My. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. All right. District nine. By. Version carries. Thank you. Next up is item 14, please.

A RESOLUTION setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal of Lou Bond from the findings and recommendation report of the Hearing Examiner on the final assessment roll for Local Improvement District No. 6751, and directing that the City Clerk provide any required notice of the hearing in the manner required by law.

SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_Res 31969

Agenda Item 27 Section 31969. Setting the time and place for a hearing on the appeal was barred from the findings and recommendations report at the hearing. Examiner on the final assessment role for Local Improvement District Number 6751. Thank you. I will move to adopt resolution 31969. Is there a second? I think it's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Juarez, you are the prime sponsor and are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you. As the clerk shared and I share it again this morning, but briefly again, this bill sets the time and place for the hearing regarding the waterfront Lyd, that we have been working on for a few years now. From the findings and the hearing regarding the appeal and the findings and recommendations of the report of the hearing examiner in which that report came out last year, and we had a recent one that just came out two weeks ago, this would be the final assessment role for the local improvement district number 6751. The resolutions that the hearing for December 1st in the public after the name Communities Committee to meet the requirements of equalizing judicial rule must take action this week with the resolution. This is a mandatory and procedural matter. I recommend council confirm resolution 31969. Thank you. Thank you. Casmir wise, are there any comments on the resolution? Harry Manuel, the clerk. Please call the role on the adoption of the resolution. Lewis. Hi. Morales. Yes. Macheda Yes. Petersen Yes. LE Why. Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Juarez. Yes. President Gonzalez Yes. Nine in favor and unopposed. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business. Is there any other business to come before the Council? Hey, hearing none. Colleagues, this concludes the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting was rescheduled to Tuesday, September 29th, 2020, at 2:00 PM. Again, next week's regularly scheduled city council meeting was rescheduled to a Tuesday, September 28th, 2020, at 2 p.m. in recognition in observance of Yom Kippur, which is on Monday, September 28th. The City Council will also hold a special meeting tomorrow, September 22nd at 3:00 p m That does conclude all of our items of business for today. So I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Section 16.52.2310 relating to the designation of the Ferguson House located at 1500 East 1st Street as a Local Historic Landmark, read and adopted as read. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_10082019_19-0980

Motion carries. Thank you. Now we'll go to hearing number two. Report from Development Services recommendation received supporting documentation under the record, conclude the public hearing. Declare ordinances amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding section relating to the designation of four properties located at 1500 East First Street 5281 East El-Arabi Street 3200 East First Street and 3735 Pine Avenue. As historic landmarks read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and adopt resolutions establishing a landmark designation for the four properties districts two, three and seven. There will be four votes required for this item. One for each address. Thank you. I'd like to say hello to Mrs. Garner at this point. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The staff report will be presented by Linda Tatum, director of Development Services, and Christopher Coons, Planning Bureau manager. And we will introduce our historic preservation planner, Mr. Alejandro Placentia, to make this that presentation. Thank you. So tonight's request involves the historic landmark designation of four different properties that we have throughout the city of Long Beach. Four of those addresses are 1500 East First Street, 3200 East First Street, 5281 East L Roebling Street and 3735 Pine Avenue. So the timeline here, the application for 1500 East First Street actually started last year. But this is sort of a winding process to get through this. The other three applications add on 3200 days. First Street and Robles and Pine Avenue were actually filed in February of this year and went through the Mills Act process and that's how they came before Development Services. As part of this process, the Cultural Heritage Commission holds hearings for each of these properties. They evaluate each of the individual properties. And in this in this case, they found that these four properties meet the criteria for landmark designation pursuant to the Cultural Heritage Ordinance here in the city of Long Beach. That commission, the Cultural Heritage Commission, made their recommendation to the City Council to approve those based on their independent evaluation. That. This. This is in order to qualify for landmark status, at least one of the following criteria needs to be found in the affirmative. So we have four criteria out of these. At least one of them needs to be found. Criterion A is specific to the association with the city's history. Criterion B is having a specific association with significant people in the city's history. And Criterion C is probably the one that we use most that relates to architecture and craftsmanship associated with the building. And last one criterion D is really associated with pre-history and archeology. So we'll just run you through the applications that we had here. The first property for consideration is located at 1500 East First Street. The CHC made two findings of approval for this. One, just finding a that the building's construction during the early 20th century is that a great association to the expansion period and the contribution of the broad patterns of the city. Finding C recognizes that the building is unique and an excellent example of a two story craftsman building. This one is particularly unique for its Japanese influence, and those are noted in the roof eaves and the roof ridge here. 3200 East First Street. That one is. The commission made two findings finding a and finding see the first one for city history as well as finding C for architecture. Item number three is a really unique property here. This is an art. That's the building designed by a famous architect, John Lautner. This is the only Lautner designed building that we have here in the city. The very last one at 3735 Pine Avenue is significant for its association with an important architect, Paul Taylor, and also for its mid-century architecture as well. With that. We have a recommendation to approve this these items tonight. Thank you. Fine, thank you. We have a mr. Good here. You're going to speak on this all. Okay. We'll call him in the diocese. Councilman Pierce. I can't tell you whether. Fine. Okay. One. Would you please call the vote? For the property at 1500 East First Street. Please cast your vote. You have three votes. Honestly? Well.

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 Budget, including the 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; adding new CIP projects revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2019-2024 CIP; abrogating positions; modifying positions, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_01062020_CB 119720

Oh, right. So next step is report of the committee reports. Will the clerk please read? Agenda item one. The report The City Council Agenda and one Council Bill 119 720 and many ordinance 125 724 which adopted the 2018 budget, including that 2019 through 2024 capital improvement program. The committee recommends that the bill passes amended. I just need a minute to get to my remarks here. All right. So Council Bill 119720 is the fourth quarter 2019 Supplemental Budget Ordinance, which proposes adjustments to the 2019 adopted budget, including appropriation authority for the grants accepted by Ordinance 126023, which was adopted by Council last month on December 16th. This ordinance would appropriate approximately $132.7 million, of which $101.6 million is for operations and $31.1 million is for capital. The operations appropriations include approximately $16.7 million or 16.4% from the general fund, of which $8.6 million are grant funded. This was an ordinance that was heard in the former Finance and Neighborhoods Committee, and the that committee recommends that the City Council pass as amended this council bill. 119720. Are there any comments or questions? Okay. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill? Herbold. I. Suarez. Lewis, i. Morales, i. Peterson. I so want strauss. I. Council President Gonzalez. All right. Eight in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Right. Adoption of other resolutions. Will the clerk please read into the record items two and three.

Recommendation to request Mayor to convene the Charter Amendment Committee of the City Council within 30 days to discuss placing a charter amendment before the voters to establish a City Ethics Commission, and to establish a Citizen Redistricting Commission, in order to promote good governance and ensure public confidence in Long Beach city government, and request City Clerk and City Attorney to develop framework options for the Committee to consider.

LongBeachCC_11072017_17-1003

So thank you. Thank you very much. And that concludes the conclusion items. Thank you all that came out. For those items we're going to go we're back on the regular agenda as well here, item 21. Communication from Councilman Austin, Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Super Na, Councilmember Andrews recommendation to request the Mayor to convene the Charter Amendment Committee of the City Council within 30 days to discuss placing a charter amendment for the voters to establish a city ethics commission and a citizen's redistricting commission. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'd like to also thank my colleagues and Co-Actors for signing on to this item. This is, I believe, a very important time in the discourse to ensure that there's confidence in government institutions. On this item, I want to be very clear is meant to be the beginning of a discussion that will hopefully make a lasting, lasting reforms to our governance here in the city of Long Beach. From the national to the local level, there has been a clear erosion in confidence in our government institutions, and voter turnout is a key indicator of that. Long Beach has tried to address these issues before. A little bit of history. The Long Beach City Council created an ethics task force in 2001 approving a proposal by then council member Bonnie Lowenthal. And that that as the ethics task force was comprised of many people who were continuing to serve in government today. They presented a report and recommendations in 2002. The City Council also adopted a code of ethics in 2003. We made we made some progress. In a discussion of charter reform, the city council approved establishing an Ethics Commission and redistricting commission in 2007. However, those issues were not those items were not successful on the ballot because they were combined with other issues that were far more controversial. And so it's important to note that every major city in California has an ethics commission or an Office of Equity, and they include Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Berkeley and Oakland . Cities that we base a lot of our policies on here as a city, these commissions handles duties ranging from conflict of interest, campaign finance, city campaign laws, lobbying, government ethics and including enforcement in some cases. And so I think the time has come for us to have a really serious conversation about improving our ethics laws and codifying them in our governance here in the city of Long Beach. Long Beach also has had numerous divisive experiences with redrawing council district lines. In 2011. It was polarizing and politically charged. The process was polarizing and very politically charged. Hundreds of residents turned out at community meetings about the proposed lines. Lawn signs went up and throughout some neighborhoods, and it was not a pretty sight. In 2008, our state adopted a independent redistricting commission model that has been widely praised throughout the nation. It actually was drafted or put together by a former city council member, Alan Lowenthal, and our current congressional representative. Several cities have followed this approach. And eight cities in California have created citizens redistricting commissions. And those cities include Berkeley, Chula Vista, Escondido, Modesto, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco. Common cause. The League of Women Voters and other good government advocacy groups are promoting these citizen commissions to increase transparency and to also restore public confidence. In 2015, I, along with Councilmember Gosar, proposed city proposals that the city state redistricting redistricting commission I'm sorry, again for Long Beach. Unfortunately, that proposal was sent to the election's oversight committee and has been stalled without further action to this point. These issues, I believe, are very timely and really merit our discussion in consideration as a city council and as a city. And therefore, I'd like these issues to be discussed in a meeting of a charter amendment committee. And the item tonight. I want to be very clear, does not seek to lay out the details of what an ethics commission will will do or the scope of responsibilities. We're looking forward to having that conversation. But this is as I mentioned in the beginning, I started the conversation in the item here, and I'd like to just a minute my item briefly, because it asks for the the the for the mayor and the charter amendment committee of the City Council to be convened within 30 days to discuss placing a charter amendment before the voters to establish and the City Ethics Commission and to establish a citizens redistricting commission. I think in light of the timing that we are going into the holiday season, it would be a little rough on staff and to to come back within 30 days. And so I would like to change that, to propose 60 to 90 days and within that window that that would give us, I think, plenty of time to prepare, but also in that period of time allow the Council to do due diligence to do their independent research and come back for that at that meeting with with the information to have a robust discussion. So with that, I ask for my colleagues unanimous support. Thank you. Councilman Price. I want to commend Councilman Austin for bringing this item forward. I think it's very important as a as an elected body that we have the confidence and and good faith of the people that we work with. It's essential to our ability to get things done, to have their trust. So I'm happy to support this item. And I believe it's this is a huge step forward for us in instituting good government practices in the city of Long Beach. And I really appreciated the presentation that Councilman Austin gave, because I think it does a really good job of showing the history of this issue in the city of Long Beach, which I was not aware of up until today, and also knowing how many other cities have initiated these practices. I know I work in a county that recently initiated an ethics focused committee or an ethics officer, and I think that's very important. So I'm I'm completely supportive of this, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on this. And more importantly, I look forward to having the bigger discussion when staff engages with us and gives us options of what some models could look like and what some of the changes to the way we continue to do things would be and how those would benefit our residents and ensuring that they have confidence in their elected officials. I think that. I am not obviously as familiar with the redistricting process as Councilman Austin is, having not been through it before. But it sounds like it was a very divisive process. And and I don't know that that process has always been fair, not just in the city of Long Beach, but around the nation. That seems to be one of the most politicized processes in governance. So to the to the extent that we can employ some best practices to take the politics out of such a process and enhance transparency and really strive for this concept of equity that I know is important to so many of our colleagues in such a process. I would be completely supportive of that. So again, I want to thank you for bringing this forward, and I wholeheartedly support this item. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I, too, want to thank Councilmember Austin for a robust presentation. I think that it was well done and well researched. I appreciate that our community needs to be able to look to those that are leading either the council or city departments and or our commissioners and look at the barometer in which we we really exercise our ethics. And so I appreciate this. And I also am a big supporter, and I will stand beside you in ensuring that we continue to have ethical leadership. And when we when people make mistakes and there are challenges, we need to have a system in place to first and foremost prevent it. And I think that there are lots of good models, including Metro, that lay out some of the best practices and standards to ensure that those that are stepping up are given the tools to be strong leaders and ethical leaders. And I think that if you don't have your ethics, you really don't have anything at all. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Bishop Brown. Thank you. And thanks to Councilman Bronson for bringing this item forward. I'm going to support it. I just had a question and maybe it's for our city attorney in convening the Charter Amendment Committee. Let get the language here. So if we have a citizens redistricting committee that would be made up by whatever standards are set by the redistricting committee, is that how that works? Or it will be wide open. It currently under the the redistricting is provided under the charter, I believe it's charter section 103 or 1 to 1. So in order to change that, to create a independent committee, I believe the motion is to have that discussion to see what that would look like. It would require a vote of the people to establish a charter committee to look at and redistricting. And part of the discussion and process would be bringing back maybe examples of maybe background or certain types of expertize that the council would want those members to possess in order to sit on that committee. Okay. Thank you. So that is yet to be determined. So there there if any detractors on the system, we don't have the system in place yet to be determined. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? Please come forward. I see two members of the public. They're going to speak. Okay. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and council members. Thank you for the opportunity for me to speak. My name is Sylvia moore. I'm Southern California, organizer for California Common Cause. Two years ago, I was here at the invitation of Councilmembers Gonzales and Councilmember Austin talking about the idea of a redistricting commission. And Councilmember Austin, thank you so much for your great presentation on Common Cause. We definitely support this proposal. We're very happy to see that this conversation is moving forward. So why an ethics commission? It helps promote public trust by providing local oversight and education about a city's ethics laws. And it would also fill a gap as to local ethics laws that the IPC cannot enforce. Similarly, with a redistricting commission, commission, redistricting commissions are now considered the high watermark for fair, transparent and inclusive redistricting. And that's why state and over a dozen jurisdictions statewide, including Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento and Modesto, have created citizens commissions to bring community and neighborhood input into the redistricting process. And local commissions have long been pushed by good government groups, groups including common cause and civil rights organizations like MALDEF and ACLU, because they generally result in fairer lines that better respect and protect minority communities. And for the foregoing reasons, we hope that you move forward on both proposals and if you do. California common cause we pledge to lend our assistance to and helping to provide technical expertize and assistance. We have a long history of helping jurisdictions establish conditions, including just last year when we collaborated with the Sacramento City Council in establishing that city's first Ethics Commission and Redistricting Commission. Thank you very much for your account, the council's time and consideration on this important topic. Thank you. Again, there's more. I just want to just just commend common cause. I think there are very few organizations anywhere that do better work than the work you guys do. And so it just means a lot whenever you guys are here and supportive of the work. I'm a huge supporter, so continue the great work you guys are doing. You guys are are always leading the state when it comes to these important issues. So thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Mr.. Good, you. Very good, you resident in Long Beach since 1977 and it's very face. The motion is so obvious. Most people think it needs to be discussed. But let me offer these thoughts on this is looking back on it. This is at this point. Not unlike closing the barn door after the horses are out. And let me make it clear also that I think within this council and within this community, there are people that should get and have the caliber and the integrity to be on this commission or involved in this commission. However. Having our current mayor or any of his criminally blessed fellow travelers involved. And setting up a commission dealing with ethics and honesty would be like Harvey Weinstein opening up an academy to teach female women how to advance in Hollywood, period. Let it move forward, but let it be well distance from the mayor and his criminally complicit fellow travelers. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next picture, please. Thank you very much. My name is Sterling Reagan. I live in the eighth district. I live in fourth range three, just Avenue. And when I heard that this proposal was coming up, I was shocked by the fact that this is not already implemented. I would have thought that as soon as a municipality is established that an ethics commission would be there with it to to ensure that the processes are safe and secure. And so with that in mind, if you are thinking about not doing it, I have a few reasons why you should. So currently we have a grotesque level of political apathy. Currently, here in Long Beach. It's something like 13 and a half percent voter turnout in the 2016 election, and it's hope to God that it's not that bad. In the. Next one. That's coming up. And nationwide, it's somewhere along 40% voter turnout, eligible voters. That is just not acceptable. And maybe this commission can help people more trusting in their government and say maybe I can be a part of the process and help out my community. I also think a city commission is good because it is very personal to the community. So the people that are, you know, you know, organizing the districts and the people that are ensuring that our councilmen are ethically secure, they are our neighbors. They are good local people. So we know them and we can. Keep them in. Check as much as possible and we know their motives. So that's a positive thing. And you know, guys, this is just common sense. You want your councilman to be ethically secure. You want your elected officials to have a certain degree of checks and balances with their own people. So this is a very positive I'm very glad that this is finally a part of the discussion, at the very least. And thank you so much, I hope support. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker. Thank you. I'm back again. The part that I think about this is that the Ethics Commission proposal that you have here kind of rounds the picture of the economic development package that we were talking about before, because what it's doing is going to encourage the entire city to know that our leadership is trying to make sure that everyone is involved and everyone is is working together, is trying to make sure that economically we're working together as a as a community. It's going to be the kind of issues that are going to work with all minority groups and everyone is going to win out of this package. So I think tonight has been a very positive night because to know that we're concerned about our ethics, we're going to be concerned about our economics. We're concerned about our community. So so, Mayor, I think this is fantastic. And I hope that the best success and I think it's going to be a great effort to but for us to move forward as a community. So thank you very much. Thank you very much. And with that, I just want to also thank Councilmember Austin. These are issues that need to be discussed. And we look forward to having a good, robust conversation when they come before the charter amendment committee that the charter committee, which of those who don't know is basically the city council. So that will be back will be back to us in a in a in a special meeting. So with that, thanks again and particularly to common cause and please cast your votes. Motion carries.

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; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_05102021_CB 120039

If part of the Finance and Housing Committee agenda item 26 Council Vote 120039 Amending Ordinance 126 237, which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2021 three 2026 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends that the bill pass. Thank you so much, Councilmember Skinny, you are the chair of this committee, so I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee's report. Thank you very much. Madam President, I just want to confirm that you can hear me. Okay? Okay. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Item 26 Council colleagues. This is the first bill for our consideration from the Finance and Housing Committee for your discussion on the carry forward legislation. This bill allows the departments to continue programs from last year into 2021 with unspent dollars from 2020. This is not new authorizing authority. These are existing programs and services that the council had already approved. And this is not an extended amount. This is allowing dollars that would typically be sent back to the overall budget, if not otherwise appropriated for the exact same purposes from the previous year, to be used again, to carry forward the already authorized use. And this allows for us to carry those dollars forward into the 2021 appropriations for those discrete programs. The committee unanimously recommended passage of this bill. Thank you so much. Councilmembers Dana, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill will occur. Please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 120039. ROSQUETA. I. Peterson. I. Salon? Yes. Strauss Yes. Lewis Yes. Whereas I. MORALES. Yes. Council President Gonzales. I am in favor and unopposed. 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 the short title of item 27 into the record.

Recommendation to request City Council to oppose any bills or ballot measures that would weaken the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), thereby increasing health care costs for state and local governments and limiting patient access to health care services; Request City Attorney to draft a resolution in opposition to bills or ballot measures that would weaken the MICRA, thereby increasing health care costs for state and local governments and limiting patient access to health care services; and Request that the City of Long Beach become an official, non dues paying member of Californians Allied for Patient Protection (CAPP), a coalition which is dedicated to supporting MICRA.

LongBeachCC_01212014_14-0069

The recommendation for the Office of Council Member Sujatha Lowenthal with a request to the City Council to oppose any bills or ballot measures that would weaken the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, thereby increasing health care costs for state and local governments and limiting patient access to health care services. And request the city attorney to draft a resolution in opposition to bills or ballot measures that would weaken this act and request that the City of Long Beach become an official non dues paying member of California's allied for patient protection. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over now to Councilmember Lenka. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I would like to make the motion to approve and add a few comments. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act has protected patients and our fragile health care network in California for over 35 years. Its original purpose is still relevant today to ensure that injured patients are fairly compensated, medical liability rates are kept in check, and that physicians and clinics can remain in practice. Treating patients. Eroding Michaels protections to increase lawsuit payouts will hurt community clinics, especially community clinics, doctors, hospitals and other providers by increasing medical liability costs and threatening the health care system's ability to take on more patients. As California implements the Affordable Care Act, the timing of the collision of these two items couldn't be worse, especially since we are struggling to implement the Affordable Care Act. Attached to this item is an extensive list of micro supporters that formed the Californians of Allied for Patient Protection. More than 800 organizations including hospitals, community clinics, county and city governments, business and taxpayer groups, labor unions and members of public safety that support Micra and oppose any changes. This is a broad coalition across the political and health care spectrum and council members. I would like to ask you for your support. Thank you. Q Councilmember, I'm sorry, did you make a motion? Did did an emotion on the floor get the motion in a second? Councilmember O'DONNELL. Quick question. I know I've. Had a variety discussions on this topic as well. I thought we were listed on the list of micros supporters, my incorrect on it. So I thought we had discussed it. I did see your name. On a list not too long ago. I didn't see it on a list. We had brought it up in some conversation but did not formally take a position. And I had checked that. And Mr. Modica or his staff. Oh, there she is. She can respond. I know we. Yeah. Maybe we can let let's go and look staff respond real quick on. That and then you just hang let me just clarify what I know. I saw it on a list and I don't know if it said the city of Long Beach or it said the Long Beach Department of Health or Health Department. I don't know. But I, I given that we have doctors and provide medical services, I thought we were already on this. List of the city council. The city of Long Beach has not taken a position on this, but we are awaiting your direction. Okay. So so you're saying there's been no official position on behalf of the council, correct? Correct. Okay. Mr. O'Brien, do you want to continue the floor? No, no, I just I. I know I saw it on the list at some point. Either it's not there or I'm in. Very incorrect. But we're going to edit, it appears. Councilor Johnson. Well, thank you, Vice Mayor. There's certainly a very contentious conversation that's been happening since 1975. I think the issue here is how do you balance the rights of injured parties to be fairly compensated, particularly when something goes horribly wrong and people are negligent versus the right of doctors to be treated fairly and certainly the need to keep health care costs low and have access. I think my concern about this item is that whether or not Micra was a good idea in 1975, it basically locked in an amount $250,000 without inflation. So if we assume for argument's sake that two or $3,000 is the right figure in 1975, why would that possibly be the right figure in 2014 given inflation? So what happens right now in our micros at every year, that amount effectively goes down. And I just don't think that's good policy. I think on a wide variety of issues, for example, along with his Campaign Reform Act, we we build in inflationary adjustments to make sure that once they come to a number , that number changes with time. You know, and a number of years of assuming we'd never made the change to fit $200,000, you know, might buy a Honda Civic in a number of years from now. Do we really think that's the right number? So with that, I'm going to go and make the motion to receive and file this item. There's been a substitute motion to receive and file. And a second on that. Councilmember DeLong. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I strongly support this item. I think it's a great idea. It certainly helps in making health care more affordable, which is obviously something very concerning to the community. But I would do a substitute substitute, which is for the city to take a position as recommended in the original item, but also send it to our request staff to come back with perhaps a detailed list of actions that the city could take and what some potential time table would be to support it. A second. Okay. There's been a substitute. Substitute. And can you can you repeat that second piece council word on. So the same piece is to direct staff to come back with a list of items that the city could take to advocate on behalf of this item in an associate estimated timetable. Councilmember Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor, and I appreciate the discussion that's taken place. So certainly, given a city such as Long Beach, where affordable health care is not only a challenge but seems insurmountable at times. I think this is certainly the time that we want to ensure access first and foremost, prior to considering any other priorities. And right now we have a great percentage of our residents who don't have health care and who are struggling to learn enough about signing up for affordable the Affordable Care Act. And anything that erodes that option is something that frightens me and concerns me deeply. You know, I won't trivialize it by suggesting that we're a tale of two cities, but we don't all share the same narrative. Everyone on this dais has health care that is not reflected across the board with our residents. And that's an unfortunate fact. And I'd like to ensure that we stand up and be sure that we don't further erode access to affordable care. And I think starting by supporting this is a good start. So council members, I do urge your support. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. It's just a point of clarification. I wanted to find out exactly where this ballot initiative is in the process. Had the signatures qualify and has it been assigned a number? Where are we in the process? Might we be jumping the gun here? I believe it has qualified for the do you have the sufficient signatures for that? And then the language is available as well. I'm going to let the city staff come in on that as well. Mr. Hanging has a comment. I believe this ballot measure is still up for circulation. It has the attorney general's title in summary, but I believe February is when we find out whether or not it has gathered signatures. And that is the reason why I seconded Councilmember Johnson's motion to receive and file this just because we are there's a lot of uncertainty as I look at the list of supporters for this this coalition to protect Micra the there are very few municipalities that are that are currently listed here and again I don't want to see us jump the gun here I do understand the merits in the of the argument to to to to support this initiative. But at the same time, I'm not sure if it will even qualify. And by doing so, what message are we sending? Constable Lowenthal. Thank you. And I just wanted to add that we are one of the few cities in the state of California that has a health department. And perhaps our concern and obligation as a municipality would be greater in that regard. And so I take that very seriously. Hosting a Department of Health right here in the city of Long Beach and see it as a privilege and also see that it is our obligation to send a message, especially because we have a health department here that is working to ensure that the Affordable Care Act is is is something that our residents have access to. Got somewhere, Austin. So are we asserting that if we don't support this, our residents won't have access to the Affordable Care Act and Affordable Care if this somehow goes awry? No, I'm drawing the nexus between affordable care and the dangers that bless you and the dangers of increasing the meritless lawsuits and the amounts that can be paid out. There is that nexus. So the higher those costs are, the more primary care providers we drive out of that business. And so that's the nexus. But no, no, to answer your question specifically, absolutely not. By not supporting this, it doesn't mean that people won't be able to sign up for the health care. The nexus I'm drawing is to the affordability. There's a direct link to affordability by ensuring that certain costs are kept down. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. Well, thank you, Vice Mayor, and I certainly appreciate the diversity of opinions on this very contentious issue. But I think it's important to note that meritless lawsuits lose. This is not about that. The question is for the lawsuits with merit, where there's been proven negligence and we have major damage to somebody's someone who's perhaps in a wheelchair for life or has lost vision or has had some other horrible thing happen to them that shouldn't have by definition or negligence. We're telling that person that under no circumstances can you have more than two or $3,000 for your pain and suffering, even though that was the same amount in 1975. So I guess I'm just kind of curious from the body I haven't heard so far what the possible reason is for basically not having an inflationary adjustment. Do we really believe that that person who's been permanently disabled, for example, should every year receive less and less just by the nature of inflation? I mean, I don't understand the reason unless we just don't believe in medical negligence lawsuits. And maybe that's what we're saying here. So I do oppose the motion. And keep in mind, this is not about meritless lawsuits. This is about people who've been seriously harmed and have a jury has kind of conclusion that they are merited, some compensation, further tremendous harm. And whether or not that person should have an award that's adjusted for inflation or whether you should pretend like this is 1975. So I urge a no vote. And I'd be curious to hear if anyone has a reason why we oppose basing inflationary adjustments here and we support it for virtually all other policies . Counter Ron Paul. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And. Well, all meritless lawsuits don't lose. You and I both know that. So but that's that's not to be debated. Actually, on the second page of the agenda item, there is a cost implication there on how local budgets would be increased as a result of raising the cap from $250,000 to 1.1 million , as the item suggests. And so that's not inflation since 1975. That's more than that. But I'd like to go ahead and just vote. Yeah, I'll call for the question. Okay. The question has been called, is any objection going to go to public comment? It is somewhat oblique, but it does. Is of concern on the part of the appropriate bill to keep medical costs down and to prefer and to make medical capacity even further. I would suggest that they be made a health certificate, emergency aid certificate, given for two hour sessions of the procedures to be had. It often takes 10 minutes for the paramedics to get there, or even a lot more time. During that time, a person could die or suffer up the agony if not served. That should be done at the school and biology class. But I would guess that we should be even open to the public to have to have these training sessions issued. It could be covered monetarily by the Red Cross and by funds given to the fire department. Those two entities could contribute to be the sponsors of it, or just be a health official, a nurse at school. How often have we wondered? What would we do if somebody was giving birth to a baby or is choking on food or had a seizure epileptic? I dare say not even the council knows what to do. What you do could be covered in a couple of intensive 2 hours at the most to cure this problem in medicine . I think that this would reduce the cost of medicine. Might she not show? I would also affirm competency for these dire situations. Mr. Vice Mayor, I want to point out to Mr. Dunne as the registered nurse practitioner on this council, I could respond to any of those problems. Thank you. Well, certainly glad that I think I'm in good hands, but I just want to. Not my district today. Thank you, madam. Okay. Thank you. The question's been called. So we're going to go out and take any public comment. I don't see any other public comment. There is a there is a substitute substitute, which was Councilmember De Long's motion. And we're going to take a vote on that. I'm sorry. The substitute substitute was wrong. You want to repeat it? Yes, it supported the original motion but added directions to staff to come back with recommended list of items that we could advocate as well as an estimated timeline. Okay. So that's the item on the floor. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Council member, Neil. Motion carries seven votes. One vote no. Next item, Johnson. The attorneys. Adam 14 A report from the city manager in the Financial Management Department, along with Parks Recreation Marine to approve the award of a contract to biotech construction company for Bixby Park Bluff. Improvements in amount not to exceed $2.450 million.

A bill for an ordinance amending the Building and Fire Code of the City and County of Denver. Amends Article II, Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to add amendment package 6 to the Denver Building Code and Denver Fire Code Amendments, to implement a new occupancy group, the R-X Occupancy Group, that generally provides for residential occupancy in sleeping units with an associated detached community building. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-2-19.

DenverCityCouncil_07222019_19-0628

Thank you, Mr. President. Bill, 6 to 8 looks innocuous enough. It's a little change to the building and fire code of the city and county in Denver. But sometimes embedded in mundane city regulations are either barriers to those who are fighting for an equal opportunity to live and thrive in our community and opportunities. And so this is one of those changes which has been needed for some time to help pave the way for more tiny home villages. I want to first commend our building officials, Scott Prisco and his team, and all the folks who found ways to do variances repeatedly to be able to build the first tiny home village and then to move it to a new fight site. But we don't want there to have to be special exceptions each time. And so this building code amendment is a first step to making sure that relocated buildings can be built without foundations where they meet certain zoning requirements that will go through in a parallel ordinance that is going to be hopefully before this council at the end of the summer and into the fall. But it will also just enshrine some other minor changes to the bathroom codes and other things that will hopefully lower the barriers for tiny home villages. So I'm not calling this out for a vote, but I just want to call it out to thank the staff who is really my partner in finding a path to get this before the council much quicker than it would have if it waited for the rest of the building code amendments in the fall and to the beloved village and the folks with their team, both architects and construction folks who've really helped the city understand the kinds of flexibility needed to make temporary uses like this a little easier to get through the city system. So with that, I'm excited that this is on consent and it's the final reading. So after this, they will be able to take advantage of it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Kenny. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. Our bills for introduction are ordered published and we're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote by otherwise.

A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver College Affordability Fund Article, Article IV, Chapter 11 of the Revised Municipal Code to clarify operations related to the Fund. Amends Article IV, Chapter 11 of the Revised Municipal Code, the Denver College Affordability Fund Article, to clarify operations related to the Fund. Councilmember Herndon approved direct filing this item on 5-7-20.

DenverCityCouncil_05182020_20-0207

Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because of ordinance results. 1339. Is comfortable. 131 has passed. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put accountable to zero seven on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the. Council bill. 20 20207 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. Uh, I'm sorry. And just do pass so far. Yes. Okay. It has been moved and seconded. But Councilmember Herndon. And you do have a motion to amend. Do you want to go ahead with your motion? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill series. Of 2020 0207 be amended in the following particulars on page two Strike Line 15. All right. It has been your motion to amend has been moved and seconded comments on the amendment. Councilmember Herndon. Yes, Mr. President. And this amendment. Will allow the changes to become effective upon passage. Should have passed. Thank you. Uh, I don't see any other comments on the amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the motion to amend. Black. I see tobacco and Flynn i Gilmer i. Herndon, i. I. Cashman Kenny Ortega I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer Torres, I. Council President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 1339 accountable to zero seven has been amended. All right, now, Councilmember Cashman, we need another motion for 207, uh, to pass as amended. Can't just roll the tape. Rewind and play. Doh. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 20 20207 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. Thank you, Councilmember. It has been moved and second in the required public hearing for council bill 207 is now open. May we have the staff report? Hi. Good evening. Council President Clark and members of City Council. My name is Teresa Pena and I reside in Councilman Cashman's District at 2626 South Madison Street. Regrets from our board chair, Steve KURTZ, who has done heroic work with our college corporation. He has a very important day. It's kind of top secret with a proper name, Tiger Woods. Otherwise, he'd be here with you in a moment. After I make some comments from the board, I'm going to turn this over to John Williams, the executive director of the Office of Children Affairs. Since Prosperity Denver Initiative past, we have worked diligently to launch the Denver College Success Corporation Initiative and really in compliance with all of the ordinance requirements and consistent with the will of the Denver voters. As part of that work, since we began meeting over a year ago, a year ago, actually this year, this month, we have met with over 100 scholarship organizations. They are the beneficiaries of this money, over 100 opportunities that our staff and our board have met with and received. A lot of feedback on how best to serve the Denver students that this tuition reimbursement and support services would serve. As we have been meeting with our scholarship organizations, we've identified some technical hurdles that were in the language. And so that's why we're in front of you tonight, asking you to please re amend the ordinance. If you approve these changes tonight, we will distribute over $5 million in tuition. Scholarship into scholarship reimbursements, over $2.3 million in student service supports. More are pending, and over 800 Denver students, at a minimum, will be served by this ordinance, many of them first gen and low income. Speaking on the board tonight, I respectfully request your support of these changes. It is a critical resource that we get this money out to our scholarship organizations and more importantly, to these students whose lives, as you know, have been upended with the COVID 19 crisis. It is critical that we get this money out as soon as possible. With that, I will turn it over to Don, who will take you through the technical changes, knowing that we have met and discussed many of these changes with you. Thank you for your support and we appreciate your time. Good evening. See. I'm looking for a presentation. I'm not. Sorry. I'm looking for a presentation. I don't see it. Um. Do we? Do we know who might know where the presentation is? That was actually the whole just seconds during it that ironed out. We got word that they're putting it on a thumb drive to bring it up right now. So we're making progress. Thank you. Do you. Do you know how to sing or juggle or. I know how to play the trumpet, but I don't have it with me tonight. Oh. But next. Imagine 2020. As See. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you for your patience. Good evening. Council members and Diane Williams, executive director of the Office of Children's Affairs. Here to talk to you about the proposed changes to our Denver College Affordability Fund ordinance. This is Bill 2207. As Teresa mentioned, this this ordinance was passed by Denver voters in November of 2018. It created a new charitable organization, the Denver College Success Corporation, or DCC. This fund is funded by a point 8% sales tax increase or about $0.01 on a $10 purchase. The total projected revenue for 2019. This is our first year of operations. It's about $11.8 million that we're talking about. Here's a list of our current board members. As Theresa mentioned, our board chair is Stephen KURTZ. We have seven board members and one city council appointee. On Councilman Chris Herndon Oversight for the Denver College Affordability Fund is provided by our office, the Office of Children's Affairs. We have an annual contract with DCC with the renewal of the city's option, and the current ordinance calls for a sunset provision after 12 years of operation. The ordinance does set some restrictions on our spending for the College Affordability Fund. We're limited to 5% of the tax collected and administrative costs 10% the first year and 5% every year after, and 95% of the tax reserved for reimbursement to our support organizations. So we wanted to share a little bit with you about who Denver College is. This corporation serves, as you can see here in this district map. We currently have identified about 1800 young people who have scholarships or support services that are eligible for reimbursement with the Denver College Affordability Fund. And this is the distribution of those students. Currently, those numbers are growing every day as more students partake in those services. We've identified more than 60 supported organizations or so that provide those scholarships and support services throughout the Denver area. And we've done quite a bit of outreach to those supported organizations in the last year to really understand what their needs are and understand how they would apply those funds and use those reimbursements. Also, as Teresa mentioned, we are serving many, many of our most needy students with the Denver College Affordability Fund. As you can see, the breakdown here by gender and also by ethnicity, we have a large proportion of students of color and we also have a large proportion of students who are low income based on the requirements of the ordinance. This is a list of just some of the organizations that excuse me, some of the organizations that provide those support services to students. Not an exhaustive list by any means. We have many, many other organizations that are eligible for reimbursement. But this is a list of just some of them. The reasons that we are coming before you tonight and asking for changes to the ordinance was really based on feedback that we've received from our supported organizations as we started to work on the business rules and the requirements for releasing funds for reimbursement. The current language has caused some unanticipated barriers to participation, and we're requesting these changes to allow more supported organizations to be eligible to apply for funds. Our current projections show that without these changes, the vast majority of our supported organizations would be unable to provide the required documentation to receive reimbursement. And it really is. More than 90% of the organizations would not be eligible to apply based on the current restrictions. Nonprofits right now are under tremendous financial strain. We think that the nonprofits we know that the nonprofits who provide these critical supports to the community need access to these funds now more than ever so they can continue to provide those supports to our students. We really want to ensure that every dollar is delivered to our support organizations, as promised to the voters. The proposed changes that we're asking you to approve tonight. We have eight changes that we're asking you to make to the ordinance language. We're changing all references from tuition to scholarships, amending the residency verification for the first year disbursement only to allow organizations to really build those processes that will allow them to gather the correct data. And the following years to be able to apply for funds allows nationally accredited institutions eligibility. We're also changing language to reflect the full cost of attendance and not just tuition and scholarship, allowing financial need to be reviewed just once. And that one time is the first year of post-secondary education. Revises Dooley, Inc. to encompass a wider range of nonprofits as not limited to for our Board of Directors discretion to support services and removes restrictions on charter school affiliated organizations. This is a more detailed breakdown of the changes that we are proposing. And as you can see, as I just mentioned, a lot of what we're doing are technical changes that we think will allow us to have more discretion in how we distribute the dollars and also allow for more flexibility for support organizations to be able to receive the funds. The first proposed change changing the word tuition to scholarships, advances the intent of voters. As we all know, tuition is really only a portion of the total cost of attendance. And it also satisfies concerns that we heard from many of our nonprofit partners and removes barriers for nonprofit partners who may have different ways of categorizing their scholarships. The residency verification is that continues that we're proposing also advances the intent of our voters. Historically, residency is really challenging for nonprofit partners to collect. As I mentioned earlier, we want to give them some lead time to be able to build systems that will collect that information is needed. And we also want to make sure we're removing barriers for families who are requesting scholarships and for our reimbursements. The next proposed change is an option to be registered at a nationally accredited institution. This is another technical change. The original language allow for regional accreditation. And this includes national accreditation. Updating that language. Also updating our language to define scholarship using the term cost of attendance. As I mentioned earlier, it aligns the audience with universal and well deferred, well defined term cost of attendance, and also gives the board more discretion to determine which cost of attendance are reimbursable. The next change. We are changing the language to add, but not limited to under definition of support services. This gives our board explicit discretion to determine the services or category of services that are reimbursable and allows much more flexibility and inclusion of support services from what is currently listed in the future. The next proposed change replaces the words a given with the student's first academic year. It specifies that first year of post-secondary education. This is an important change because we don't want to create barriers by continually asking for financial eligibility verification from our students. Financial need is only determined once, which is for the student's first year of post-secondary education. Adding this language creates more specificity and also clarity. The next change removes the language of duly incorporated. It replaces in good standing under the Colorado revised nonprofit Corporation Act with In Good Standing with the Colorado Secretary of State's office. This removes the potential limitation of eligible nonprofits to Colorado entities or nonprofits defined as corporations and explicitly makes it possible to include scholarship granting organizations that take other forms and or incorporated in other states but are serving Denver students. The next change removes the words operate independently from any school district or charter school management organization. From the definition of requirements for participating organizations. Really, it's just removing unnecessary barriers for otherwise qualified organizations. These are some of the changes, and we'll be happy to answer some questions. We have some other members of our Denver, Colo. Success Corporation and any here tonight, if you have questions. Thank you very much. All right. Tonight, counsel has not received any written comments for this section of our hearing on Council 207. But we do have three individuals who signed up to speak. First up is Jesse Pearce. Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Paris and represent for Denver homicide allow Black Sox movement for self defense positive and commitment for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile News. I just wanted to say I wish there was something like this when I was in high school and in college . So I'm in full support of this being out of high school for 15 years and being out of college for eight years. This would have been really great, my first year of college to have. I will be in some ways debt. But so I'm definitely in favor of this and I urge the Council to vote in favor of this as well and follow the lead of Denver voters as I voted yes on this in 2018. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Laurie Rabinowitz. President Clark Council members. Thank you. My name is Lori Rabinowitz and I serve as the CEO of Denver Scholarship Foundation based in Denver, where I also reside. I am honored to speak this evening on behalf of more than 60 area nonprofit organizations that provide scholarships and wraparound supports to Denver students. As we ask you for your approval of the amendments put forth by the DCC this evening. The current health crisis has made this timing even more imperative as students throughout our community are making decisions right now about their plans for the fall. We respectfully request your approval of these amendments tonight to allow even more students to have access to opportunity during this pivotal time. You may know that nationally there are reports that as many as 20% of students are contemplating not going to college or not going back. Given the current uncertainty created by COVID 19, we as organizations are committed to doing everything we can to keep this pandemic from completely derailing our students futures. Futures they have worked so hard to pursue, so many of our students and families have been disproportionately impacted by the virus hit the hardest with job loss, food insecurity, housing instability , and diminished access to technology. These are incredibly challenging times, and yet our families remain extremely passionate about their students pursuing higher education, beginning or continuing this fall. Our organizations look to the day that all students have access to financial and wraparound supports to go to and through college completion, building economic mobility, future workforce, and growing our own talent right here in Colorado. Our organizations are committed to our students success, our students, our first gen, low income and or students of color, and our students dedication, resiliency, perseverance, coupled with the investment of the human and financial resources of our nonprofit organizations, see our students thriving and working to address the most common barriers to post-secondary education . Our organizations are very lucky to learn from our students every day. They are wise beyond their years. I will leave you with a quote from Daniel Rivera Ibarra, who received several scholarships in support of his journey to the University of Colorado Denver, where he is currently enrolled and persisting toward completion of his bachelor's degree. When asked why he was. Persisting during the COVID 19 crisis, Daniel writes When we get on an airplane, flight attendants tell us that in case of loss of cabin pressure, we must put our own oxygen masks on before helping those around us. Continuing education has the same effect. The more we invest in our own success, the more we can invest in the stability of our families and communities. I will be the first within my immediate family to graduate from college. I want to leave a path for the next generation to follow. That is what we get to do this evening. Your approval of the proposed amendments brings us all one step closer to bringing college within reach for all and addressing this critical equity issue with vigor. Thank you so much for giving this to our students and families tonight. Thank you. Next up, Jim Chavez. Good evening, members of council. Nice to see you all tonight. My name is Jim Chavez. I'm a I'm the resident of Highlands Ranch, Colorado, but I work here in Denver as the executive director of the Latin American Educational Foundation. We are a 71 year old college access and success program that provides direct scholarship support and critically important student support services to hundreds and hundreds of college students and their families each year throughout the state. But in particular to students here in Denver. I'm here also tonight on behalf of many, many other scholarship organizations or supporting organizations that, like the Latin American Educational Foundation, are hoping to participate in the Denver College Affordability Fund program. I'm here to express our support and, frankly, to ask for your support for these proposed and requested technical corrections to the original ordinance. The Denver College Affordability Fund was established by the voters to increase the college enrollment and degree completion of Denver residents with a particular focus and goal of supporting students from lower income families. We scholarship organizations are all deeply committed to helping students pursue their college education and creating a more educated workforce for Denver. We are even more excited that together with the city of Denver, we can make college education available and affordable to an even greater number of students. As a number of our supporting organizations began to work with the Board of Directors of the College Denver College Success Corporation, we identified several issues with the original ordinance that were significantly troubling. These issues are not just administratively challenged and burdensome. They are prohibitive. These issues, if not corrected, will severely limit. And in fact, they're going to prohibit many, if not all of the scholarship organizations from participating in this program. Ultimately, if not corrected, it will be the future generations of Denver's young, talented and aspiring students who will be the ones to pay the price and will be left out and not provided the financial support needed to pursue their college education. So we're asking for your support in correcting all eight of these technical issues, which, if approved, will ensure that students across Denver will have a greater opportunity to afford and attend college. So thank you again for your commitment to Denver's young people and our next generation of leaders of this great city. Happy to answer questions as well. Thank you very much. All right. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of council. First up, Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, thank you all for bringing these changes forward. I think a lot of them, having worked with youth, are really important to making or to facilitating a more streamlined approach to the scholarship. I do have some questions about number eight. Originally, there was a prohibition on reimbursing organizations that were associated with charter school organizations or the district. And so I'm wondering, what kind of analysis do you guys have that tells us why this change is important and who would be able to step in. Or how many. Inquiries you've had that warrant this change? I'm going to invite Trey Rogers, the lead counsel for the Denver College Success Corporation, to answer that. Favorites. Pear Tree Rodgers 4131 East 26th Avenue here in Denver. I believe I'm in Councilman Herndon's district. Thank you, Councilman, for the question. So this measure ran twice. It ran once unsuccessfully, and then again in 2018 when we looked at amendments for the 2018 run. We left that language in from the first run. Frankly, as we talked to the group that put the original measure together, no one can recall why those exceptions were included. I'm sorry. If I could just ask if you get a little closer to the microphone, things better? Yes. So we're not sure what the reason was that it was included. It was frankly never to have it in the second time. Now, why the change? Two reasons. First, we've identified a number of supported organizations. These are nonprofits that support students that are affiliated with Denver high schools, Denver East, Denver, North, South. All of these have nonprofit organizations that provide scholarships and support to kids. It is a reasonable interpretation of the ordinance, as it's written, that those organizations could not benefit, that those scholarships could not be reimbursed because those nonprofits are affiliated with schools. Perhaps that could be read to mean affiliated with a district. What are what are some examples of those orgs? Some examples of those. Which orgs are we talking about? You know, I know that at least those three high schools have, you know, it's the East Foundation or something like that, the South High School Foundation. These are typically small organizations that are funded by parents and community members that then provide scholarships to students. So and I believe there are others. Those are the three that I'm familiar with. The second reason is we've identified at least one nonprofit organization that is affiliated with a charter school, and that is the New America School. It has a foundation that provides support to kids that go on after graduation from that high school. That organization would be excluded from participation without this amendment. So it's these types of organizations, those affiliated with public high schools. And the one is the only one that we're aware of, affiliated with a charter school. Those organizations would be excluded. It is the philosophy of this board that this ordinance should serve as many Denver kids as it possibly can, especially in this time of great need. I hope that answers your question. And so. For the reporting. That you guys do annually to council, how does the public access that kind of information, disaggregated information about where the dollars are reimbursed to? You know, we haven't done a report yet. There are great details in the contract between the city and the organization that detail what must be included. That's a contract that was approved by this council. It would certainly be the report would be provided to the mayor or to the council to I believe the auditor is required to receive it. And then we certainly anticipate anticipate publishing that report on the organization's website. So it would be totally publicly available. I would also anticipate that there would be a listing of the organizations and what they receive. So there would be really total, total transparency there. That would be awesome. I think the transparency and disaggregating would be really important to people who may have originally kept that language out of there for a reason. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Leach. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the members of the board and the organization for answering a lot of my questions from committee and following up with me afterwards. But I had one I only sent a couple of hours ago, so you might not have had time to see it. But one of the questions I had was, you know, is there an unintended consequence by opening the doors up so much to additional organizations in terms of not having enough funds and how to prioritize and making sure that there's a fair and transparent way to prioritize. So can someone just talk to me about, you know, if you're how how right now, like, are you already having to prioritize or in future years? And then I have a follow up question about the revenue after that. So, Councilman, thank you for that question. I think we are actually afraid that we're not going to have enough, because if this language doesn't change, as Jim said, we're definitely not going to be able to distribute the $11 million we had from 2019. So right now, we're going to be able to keep a reserve and we are continuing to do outreach, whether it's an organization that gives to scholarships like the West High School Alumni Association or whether it's a larger organization that's giving hundreds out. So we don't feel like we're at a point yet, and we will be able to establish reserves, at least for the first couple of years, to ensure that we could have the right criteria to not run out of money and establish that. Does that answer your question? It does. And I think that my sense is when we talked about this, you know, there's because this is in arrears, the goal is that you're growing the pie because folks are still fundraising. But I also think we are going to see organizations knowing these dollars are there, give more scholarships. So I do think that the transparency of how your prioritize so it might not be that everyone gets the so equal would be to give every organization 80% of the funds they requested. But for smaller organizations that might not be equitable, you might need to give a little less to larger organizations, a little more to smaller, I don't know. But I just think, you know, you have a lot more applicants and they will give more scholarships knowing this money is there. And so I do think that that is going to become an issue probably quickly. And I guess that would be a good thing. That would mean we have more youth from Denver that are, you know, in these income guidelines that are going to be getting help. So I think it's a good outcome. I just think that the fairness question becomes a factor as you have this broader pool. So I just want to know that that's on the radar. So you raise two important questions. One is in the language, we can give up to 75% in both the scholarship as well as the student support services. If we felt that we end that equally across the board, we couldn't adjust it for one organization to another. So if we were in a situation where there was a limited pot of money and a greater demand, we would probably just sort of melt down. So the language gives us that possibility. The other issue is in Denver public schools. As you know, our enrollment has peaked this last couple of years. So what we're going to see is a significant reduction. So we're we're seeing the greatest peak is in the next five years. And after that, as the students roll out, we're going to see a pretty significant decline in students enrolling in DPS and therefore graduating. Okay. Can I follow up on that, Mr. President? So I just want to go back. So what you said is that you can it's a maximum of 75%, but it's not a guarantee. So you in theory, could say, listen, we're going to give the full 75% to a small organization and we're going to give the 60% to a large organization. I mean, like you could you have some discretion in the language I'm seeing nods and shakes, so you might want to team up a little bit on the incentives. Which does give us up to 75%. If the board were to adjust it down, it would be for all of our scholarship organizations, not for scholarship organization, a 60% scholarship organization, be it 75. It's equally distributed across every scholarship organization that is submitting for their scholars. Okay. I just want to clarify what the ordinance says versus where you may have adopted a policy. And so what you're saying is you will not prioritize. You will treat every organization the same. You've made a policy decision as a board about that. I just I think, okay, same might not always be equitable, which is why I think that I'm not sure I would be supportive if I, if I'm going to be supportive of the ordinance rate and this is the question portion, but I don't want you sitting there thinking I'm going to change my vote. I just want to clarify what I expect and hope will happen after these votes and see if I'm on the same page with the organization about that process. So the only policy the board has adopted at this point pertains to there's a requirement for a sliding scale, right? And so the board has put in place that sliding scale and that's need based. So need based for organization issues for student per student. Okay. Now we have a councilwoman to address the issue that you're raising yet because we haven't had to write, we will not distribute all of the dollars in this first distribution, probably not in the second distribution. But I agree with you that the board does have the discretion to adopt a different mechanism once we get to the point where there aren't enough dollars to satisfy all of the requests. I think the board has the discretion to come up with a mechanism that takes into account size, equity, etc. We're just not there yet and the board hasn't considered it. Totally hear you. And I'm just also absorbing the very sobering news that we'll be graduating fewer kids. And, you know, I mean, anyways, so so my one other question was about revenue for this year, which seeing as you think that I mean, you obviously for 20 $20, you already have your 20 $19. So you're starting ahead. I'm assuming you revised. On your 2020 estimates considerably. So I'm not sure about the reserve situation given 2020 sales tax. So can you just someone speak to me about how you are proceeding given the fiscal climate and the drop in sales tax that's likely coming in 2020? Yes, it's a very good question. So currently we're working with the Budget Management Office to finalize what they think the revised projections will be for 2020. We've been receiving our regular payments so far, but we do anticipate that we will have to adjust our on our our payments basically for the remainder of 2020. We haven't received the projections yet for 2021, but it is something we're going to have to deal with as we look at the economic picture throughout the city. We are relying on sales tax. So we've had a lot of conversations with budget about what might be coming for for 2021. I just think that underscores it may not be as far in the future that you have to prioritize as you might think. It'd be great news if you did have that much time. But thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Next up, Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure who to direct these questions at, but first of all, will you remind me how the board was seated? Were they appointed by the mayor? Were they selected? Yes. The ordinance calls for the board members to be appointed by the mayor. And there's one city council person on the board who was appointed by city council. Okay. So on page 11, it talked. So this is about the residency verification and it talked about gap years and it would allow. It says work care for parents, travel, etc.. So is that currently or any of those costs currently covered? And in this allows for them to be covered. Any of the cost of well of get here. Let me just pull this up. So this is page 11. So the proposed changes. Option to be registered at a nationally accredited institution. I think I'm reading that from the right page. Or not. Maybe that's 17. So. I think I think I've got your question, if I could. The ordinance now reads that the student must have lived continuously in Denver for the 36 months prior to beginning post-secondary education. So under the current ordinance, a student who wanted to take a gap year or needed to work to earn money to attend or had a sick relative could lose qualification by moving out of Denver to work or care for that family member, etc.. So this amendment creates the opportunity for that student once they have met the requirement to then take take that break or take that gap without losing eligibility. So it doesn't mean that we're covering any of those costs, not that person during that time frame that they're taking that gap year off. That's okay. It's simply that they don't. That's a clarification because this didn't really explain that in your PowerPoint. So for the qualified organizations, so it removes language about operating independently from school districts, etc.. So give me an idea of what kinds of eligible entities this opens the door for that currently are not allowed. So Councilwoman, again, that's there are we've identified a number of organizations that are affiliated with Denver Public High Schools. So there's a foundation at at least one at South, one at North. I think there are others. You're talking about some of the scholarship foundations attached to the schools. Some of them are alumni associations, that kind of thing. Exactly. Okay. But beyond that, give me some other examples. Another example. This opens the door for. Another example is there's a there's a nonprofit organization affiliated with the New Americas School that's a charter school. And so under the current language of the ordinance, that organization could not participate simply because it's affiliated with a charter school. So but charter schools technically are part of the school district, so why would that be excluded currently? Is that simply because of the language of the ordinance? And as I mentioned earlier, frankly, in going back and looking at this, we're not sure why it was drafted that way in the first place. And I guess on the flip side, does this open the floodgates for every charter school to now come in and access for their students? It does not. And so a support organization has to be a501c3. And so and it has to serve that purpose of providing scholarships and support and or support services. So a charter school would not qualify as an independent organization if I were 1c3 affiliated with a charter school or a school, a public school would go to America . Isn't that a national organization that works with different charter schools across the country? I don't know the answer to that, Councilman. It's not I'm. It it come to the mikes. We could hear you. Governor Polis, when he was on the state board actually started. And it was for immigrants who were from 18 to 21 and their school district hadn't been served well. DPS didn't approve that particular charter initially, but then all the surrounding school districts. Another example would be like the DPS Foundation. So the foundation currently doesn't give scholarships, but if they were to start, they couldn't qualify to be reimbursed as part of this language as it currently stands. Okay. I have one more question, Mr. President, and this is for Kim Garcia, if you wouldn't mind, coming up. So Jim, in your comments, you saying you were hoping to participate in the College Affordability Fund? And it's my understanding you guys have already been participating. Is that not the case? Thank you for that question, Councilman. And we have not yet, like ignored. Nobody else has yet participated. We've we've submitted an application and been and been been deemed an eligible institution. Assuming we get these changes made. So we've not participated. We've given out scholarships and tried in the prior years to make ourselves eligible. But there's been there has been no first step yet where we have participated. In the thought that these were issues that were resolved when the fund was originally created. Because I remember you being one of the active proponents of the fund being created and alone, that your organization is ineligible. It sounds like it's part of why this particular change that I was just asking questions about is is being asked to to be considered for change. So we've been deemed eligible as a as a qualified by the 23 that's established and has already put scholarship dollars out to our students, like in the prior year. However, without these changes, we couldn't we could not currently we could not currently verify and meet some of the requirements of the actual reimbursement process. So we would not be able to be a recipient of dollars moving forward. Okay. And remind me of Trey, how often the reports are provided to city council that gives a full accounting of the the spend of the dollars. So there there are two reports, categories of reports required under the contract with the city. The first is a comprehensive annual report. The second is a quarterly report. And I think and maybe you can help me, I think that quarterly report goes to the Office of Children's Affairs. Yes. So our current contract between Office, the Children's Affairs and the Denver to Assess Corporation requires a quarterly report as they have been disbursements. Yet we don't have any reports yet, but we do require a quarterly report and an annual update to city council. Okay. So the one of the committees wanted you to come in and give some of the updates that we're seeing in the quarterly reports. We could have you share that with us. Absolutely. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Councilmember next up, Councilmember Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. What are the total projected expenses for 2020? No less than 10% of the total facts are gathered. You know, this has been a start up here. It's been a fairly expensive year in terms of kind of getting this organization up and running. I don't know the number. I do know that we are remaining substantially below the 10% maximum, which would be about 1.2 million. And we're well under that. I would I don't have the numbers handy, but we're well under the the threshold that we could spend in the first year. If you could please follow up with us, because I would assume you are well below that 10% for the first year. But it would be helpful for us to understand exactly what your projected expenses are for 2020. And then my second question is, with these changes, first and foremost, we really appreciate the 1800 youth that you're serving currently, and there's a large portion of them in District 11, and we really are appreciative of that. But with these changes, what are your projections around increasing the number of students who will now be eligible? Yeah, more and not very specific. I would tell you, we can't we cannot fund the full 1800 without these changes that 1800 figure considers the changes we have as we've worked with the supported organizations. We have said, look, let's just assume we're going to get this done. If we don't, then we'll come back and we'll figure out what portion of the 1800 we could reimburse for, but it would be substantially lower. I can't tell you how much lower, but it would take a substantial chunk of that 1800 to make those reimbursements ineligible. And you've got do you have any data on that? Okay, leave it. We'll leave it at that. Okay. Well, we'll follow up, please. And maybe in the quarterly reporting that goes to Diane and her team with the mayor's Office of Children's Affairs. Some of these questions could be answered and then you could forward on that information to us, because I'm interested in the conversation where this is going to allow more organizations to be eligible . Thereby they're serving probably more students. And it would be helpful, especially with the grossly reduced sales tax revenue that we're going to see for 2020, that we are not promoting this and getting a lot of student students excited about the scholarship, a scholarship opportunity. And then we unfortunately don't have the money. So where we can follow up and get that. Information, I guess absolutely in our contract requires in those quarterly reports that we give a full accounting of the number of students who are eligible, the number of organizations, the dollar amount. Also some demographic information about the students who are eligible. Remember, the students don't receive funds directly, but the organizations receive reimbursement and all of that detail is required in those quarterly reports. Great. Thank you. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilmember. Next up, Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President, as the the council member for District ten, what happened? How come our number is so low? I mean, we do have people who go through door more. I know that we're generally an affluent district, but we do have some diversity in our neighborhoods. So I'm just curious why the District ten number is as low as it is. Mm hmm. Rod McDaniel, 2200 block of Hudson Street here in Denver. Thank you for the question. My organization is helping DCC process all of the initial applications. The way the fund works is ultimately the supported organizations asked for reimbursement. They're supported organizations maintain and have the relationships with the scholars. So I think really the question is, are your constituents who would otherwise be eligible? Finding the scholarship organizations that are doing the scholarships for Denver students. So unfortunately, I don't have a great answer for you in the in the why those kids aren't applying. But certainly I think we'll be able to in the quarterly reports that the John mentioned, offer up a list of all of the organizations that are granting those scholarships and potentially help you help those students reach out to the appropriate resources. So one ask and I'm in favor of this as well. So I don't think that I'm going to change my vote. But but one ask that perhaps we could all benefit from some information that could help that we could provide to our, you know, the people, our stakeholders, our constituents. And so that we can encourage people to to be aware and to apply when when it is necessary and relevant. So thank you. Certainly. And we'll take. That forward to the to the board and staff. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank Councilmember. Next up, Councilmember Flynn. Thank Mr. President. Who is the best person to answer this? But speaking of the point that Councilman Hines just raised on the presentation says nearly 1800 Denver youth received scholarships. But when I added up all the numbers from the 11 council districts, I came up with only 1500 can. Where are those other 300? Thank you, Councilman. So the number there's two fundamental figures here where students live now and students where they went to high school. So the map is where students are living today in the Denver area, attending various universities. So the 1500 is actual students that are still in the Denver area that are benefiting from the scholarship organization. So it's where they're living now. We don't know where they were living when they got the assistance. So maybe they all 300 were in Councilman Hines district. That's right. So there's really two figures. Where are they today? So it's representative of the fact that these tax dollars are not only helping graduates from Denver, many of those graduates still live in Denver as they're studying at university. And there's also a group, of course, that go to universities outside. So that 300 is going to be largely the kids that are in schools and don't live in the Denver area anymore. Mm hmm. All right. Thank you. And I guess just as an observation, well, I'll save it for comments. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember said walk you back up for questions. Yes. Somebody who can speak to income verification. Which one again? So my question is, we're trying to eliminate some of the barriers related or associated with. Income. Verification. And so we're not going past that first year. But since it's a reimbursement, what do you guys require? As for the income verification proof? Like what is the documentation or what is the figure? Do you all use EFC or what do you use? So for most students, that is going to be their Pell application. And so the threshold for eligibility is 2.5 times the Pell threshold. As far as verification. We have asked the support of the organizations to verify that their students meet that threshold. And then within our eligibility criteria, there is a higher compensation rate for students that are higher on that need threshold. So we've also asked those organizations to tell us if the students are where they are within that 2.5 or are they above 1.5, or are they between 1.5 and 2.5 times the pill threshold? What do we require? As for the backup documentation? So at this point, it's a certification from the organizations. We do reserve in our contract with the organizations the opportunity to claw back dollars if we find out that there's been a mistake or a misrepresentation. But at this point, it's a it's a verification from the support of the organizations. And so if the scholarship ever gets audited and the auditors say, okay, we've had a complaint that students who are getting the scholarship are not they don't have a EFC of zero, they don't have a low EFC. What what is our, I guess, defense to that? So the remedy there would be for the organization to claw those dollars back from the nonprofit. It would also really put that nonprofit's participation in the program at risk. And so that's a that is certainly an incentive for those supported organizations to do their due diligence and to give us accurate and complete answers. So when you guys do the report. To us, is it possible to include information on it even without identifying information, but information on EFC ranges that each organization is. Putting forward? Because I think that when it does come down to. Prioritizing funds for students, going the organization route. Might not be the best idea. But prioritizing students based on EFC or their documented need could be the direction we go. So you might. Have kind of. A smattering of scholarship reimbursements at different organizations. But not. Fully reimbursing all of the invoices from one organization at the expense of other students who may qualify. But, you know, maybe they're a new org or something. Yeah, it's a good point. I mean, this is why we have that stratification for the students of greater need. There is a greater reimbursement rate. I think Robert Daniels probably the best person to speak further to this, although I would note that. Well, let me leave it at that and Rob can address that one. Thank you, Councilwoman. So I think the key thing here, what we have is, is this outreach has happened. And, yes, those have become part of this new organization, privacy. And the idea of COPPA, the Privacy Act around education becomes a critical element. So many of the services, even the larger, most effective. Hated ones only work with the financial aid offices at the specific colleges and get yeses and nos in terms of Pell eligibility or above Pell eligibility. So the information that even the CEOs have is going to be somewhat limited in terms of what we can report on. So we're asking for the tranches, the the tiers in the number of students within those tiers, and they'll be the organization will be able to report back on that. But getting into very, very specific sort of sub tiers, dividing that up between, you know, more than a few is going to be very difficult because the CEOs themselves don't have authorization to access that information. And then the other part of it is FAFSA is the critical element. And what the audience lays out is this idea of 2.5 times Pell estimated family contribution that allocates to that. The other piece of it is free and reduced lunch in high school. That's 185% of FPL, as most folks know. So that group is, well by virtue of being in the free and reduced lunch category in high school, would be eligible. But again, that's a it's not a stratification where we're going to be able to say at a very detailed income level where families are and. I hear. You and I hope. That eventually you guys figure out how to do that in case we do have a situation where we have to break it down to that level to decide who rises to the top when there are limited dollars. And for me, I think it would be important to see that disaggregated information in our reports, because it's not helpful to see the East Alumni Foundation get reimbursed for $30,000. It's not helpful to, like, not see how many kids was that, what tier did they fall in so that we could understand the impact that we're having as a city. Thanks for that information. We'll take it back to the board. And thankfully, as the organization evolves, they'll be able to get there. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Ortega, you back up with another question? The question. Yeah, I just wanted to confirm that the 36 month prior for the eligible students to get reimbursed has not changed. Right. So we were well, I was talking about the gap year in trying to get clarification on that, that that's for somebody who had already lived in Denver, the gap is when they have to, as you were saying, maybe take care of a family member or whatever. But they had been eligible. They had been deemed to have lived in the city of Denver. And as long as that 36 months still remains intact, will you just verify that? I can verify that going forward? That's correct. What we found, Councilman Ortega, is that the first this first group and none of the supported organizations have any method to collect three year that that information. So essentially the board is asking council to make this amendment to give them the first year of leeway to help themselves get on board and modify their processes and applications to collect all that information. So the 36 month is in place going forward. They're just asking for the start up period right now. Okay. And being able to look at the data and confer, you know, how many kids are Denver kids versus, you know, just waxing things so much that we're taking more kids outside of Denver? I mean, we do this with our cadet program today, right? We serve more kids outside of Denver than we do Denver kids with Denver dollars. And so I don't want to see that happen. I mean, I understand we've had kids have to leave the city. And if we can verify that, then I'm good with those kids being covered. But I want to make sure that we're not making it so flexible. We're we're just kind of hand-picking kids outside of Denver. Understood. I want to continue to prioritize our Denver kids. So thank you. Thank. Councilmember Councilmember Flynn, you back with that other question? Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Along those same lines and I don't know if these amendments change this in any way. Tell me if they do. I don't know who would answer this. But for students who live in Denver but go to, say, a private school or go to a public school outside the city, how what's their point of entry? Is it through the SOS or where do they go? And does this change any of that? Thank you, Councilman. The Essos will be their point of entry. The CEOs would certify that they meet the qualifications of the ordinance. And these amendments do not change that. With the exception of the possibility for a gap year and the exception that Rob spoke about, which is in this this the exception for the first year, which is just administrative necessity. Do we do the do this? Are they the the. What does that so stand for and for the support organization? Thank you. Too much too much acronyms. Are they given the standard guidance from the board as to how they do that outreach? How do we identify where they might be? And very, very much so. We have a contract with the ASOS that requires them to comply with the ordinance and spells out what those requirements are. And then Rob and his staff have worked very closely with these ASOS as they're passing out their data to help them interpret correctly and to give the the the to give us accurate information for reimbursement. Does that make it any more difficult or does it make it less difficult along the lines, what Councilman Ortega was just asking to keep a separate track of students and Denver residents, students versus students who who have gone to school outside the city versus nonmember residents, students, perhaps, who even went to school in Denver. Right. That will get easier going forward. The issue that we're addressing here is, is really the fact that we're now reimbursing for academic year 1819. A senior in college in 1819 would have started four years ago. So 14, 15. And then to go back three years before that means that we would be asking for residency verification from 2020 11, 2012, that that information was not collected by the SOAS and there is no way for them to get it in any reliable way. Right. And so that's why we have the one year if you went if you went for three years to a Denver high school, we can reimburse that going forward. The SOS, the support organizations will collect that information as part of their application process. And so in the future, we will have the information to make sure that the that the request for applicable reimbursement comply. And I'm and I'm very good with that. I completely understand that we can't go back and construct records that were never gathered. And that's understandable. Understandable. I'm just hoping that all of the organizations are aware of that. To verify Denver Addresses. I've had a few experiences in my district lately where city agencies didn't even realize that part of my district was in Denver, including a homeowner in Bear Valley who was turned down for a building permit saying You don't live in Denver. Yeah, which is kind of odd. And I know that there's zip codes around the northern end and the western end and even out toward Aurora that are Denver zip codes, but they're in Adams County or in Jefferson County. So I'm hoping that that we're very strict about how we read the addresses and verify. We very much are in. Our understanding is that the auditor has the definitive the definitive database on who's in Denver, who's outside of Denver. And so we're using that kind of as the touchstone for whether an address is in Denver or outside of. Excellent. Thank you. It's almost great. Thank you. Councilmember seeing Councilmember Ortega. Just one last quick question. Is there some standardization of the format in which the data is being collected? So it's consistent from everybody so that everybody's filling in the same data fields and all of that. Can you just speak to that? And was that created by the the governing body, if you will? Sure. We've so my company has worked very hard to help standardize those templates that we're handing out to the supported organizations so that all the information is collected in a standard way across the board, so it can be reported in a standard way. And we're essentially treating everybody the same in terms of what they need to submit. The organization is still to answer the second part of your question. The organization is still in a startup mode, so a complex, fully baked database is not in place, but it's on plan to be done this year. Yeah, I mean, that will make it simple for everybody if they're utilizing the same format. I mean, everybody may not have the same tracking system, but as long as they're using the same database, if you will, to to provide the data, that's what's what's critical. So thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. The public hearing for accountable to zero seven is now closed. Comments by members of Council Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for their astute questions as we are moving forward with these consideration for these changes. And the. Obviously, my colleagues know I serve as a council rep for this, but I'm not sure if all of my colleagues know when this was first brought forward to the voters in 2015, I was the council's sponsor. This has been something that I have been very passionate about when it comes to investments, how they should be. And people, some of when they're younger and. Just our youth, are the best investments. That we can possibly make. And so I was significantly disappointed when it wasn't successful in 2015, but excited when it came back and nervous election night because it was closer than I would have liked. And then it was proven successful. And then about a year ago when I applied Councilman Council President Clark, because I, I quickly said, I want to be on this board for us to come together with nothing about a year ago and get us to a point now where we are we're we're have the possibility to deliver $5 million to our supporting organizations who are working diligently to support kids of color, lower income, who don't let this COVID crisis prevent them from seeking out that higher education that they desperately need to be successful. I candidly run out of words to say how important this is, and so I just want to say thank you to my colleagues for my consideration. I do hope that this passes because these dollars can't be anymore, can't be delivered at a more crucial time. If you think about how our nonprofit, nonprofit community is getting killed because of what is happening through COVID. So I obviously am in support of this, too. Everyone has been involved for the board members to rob Trey to Loma. I mean, there are so many people, if I try to name them, I know I would forget someone and I would feel horrible because of that. So I'm not going to do that and just say thank you for everyone who's been a part of this, because this has been a huge lift. And for my colleagues, we will overload you with data because these board members, we have gone through so much data as we're looking at supporting organizations or students and making sure we're doing this right. There will be no concerns about the amount of data we're going to put in these reports. And I would urge my colleagues to support this as I am thoroughly in favor of this and look forward to getting these getting these disbursements out. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I am excited to support this tonight as well. I would say my dad was in the Army. He was a railroad engineer. He was a letter carrier. He never did a day in college. And it is entirely possible to do to have a fine, productive career without going to college. My dream was to go to college and I was I was a Pell Grant recipient. I was very you know, I grew up poor and I would have loved to have a program like this. And so so I'm really excited that it is here that it's available for Denver kids. I didn't qualify because I wasn't in Denver, but but you get the idea. And so I'm I'm really you know, I'm really excited to to support it. One other thing that I had mentioned I'm sorry Mr. Paris isn't here for this. I am. I'm really excited to see that 100% of the people who testified tonight for this and for everything tonight was was in favor, which I took office July 15th of last year. I think this is the first time, predominantly because Mr. Paris likes to argue against things. But but that shows in many ways the the success of this program that we can get someone who often testifies against things to get on board. So it's a thank you for all you do, and I'm excited to support it. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I also am really excited to support this night. I just wanted to congratulate all of you for your hard work and for the incredible accomplishment that you have brought to the community tonight. And this is just really exciting and, you know, it's going to change the lives of kids in Denver. So thank you for what you have done and the gift that you've given our community. And congratulations. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Torres. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank everybody who's built this and the voters who approved it and just want to make sure for our residents and our students, this is inclusive of our immigrant community. Of our undocumented students. And so I really do hope they take advantage of it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you. I would like to take the board and everyone here who spent time on with me to get me to support this this evening. And for me, my father worked on the bilingual bi cultural act of 1975, and he always said that it was education that. Is our passport to our future. And I really believe right now that in this time of COVID, the people who have and those who don't, it's going to even be a greater divide. And it's my job as a councilperson to make sure that I can do anything possible, to make sure to lessen that gap. And this is one way to do that. So in the words of Cesar Chavez, once, you cannot you cannot and educate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore. And so thank you for doing this. Denver's not afraid to educate our youth. I think, Councilmember, I will add my thanks for everyone's hard work. I'm definitely supportive of this tonight. And let's vote Secretary Roll Call. Black Eye. CdeBaca. Eye for an. Eye. Gilmore Eye. Herndon High. High Side. Cashman. All right. Kenny. Ortega. All right. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Council. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 3939 accountable to zero seven has passed. Kels will not meet on Monday, May 25th in observance of Memorial Day. We'll see you at our next meeting on Monday, June 1st.

AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the surveillance impact report for the Seattle Police Department’s use of Automated License Plate Reader technology.

SeattleCityCouncil_04192021_CB 120025

Agenda Item ten Council Bill 120025 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the Surveillance Impact Report for the Seattle Police Department's use of automated license plate reader technology. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended. Thank you so much. Because, Mr. Peters, I'm not handed over to you to address this item. Thank you. Council President. This is one of the five sort of existing surveillance technologies that are used, and my comments earlier apply to this as well in terms of the, the lengthy process that the each of the surveillance and bank reports go through to get to this stage, and that the inspector general, the Office of Inspector General , will be continuing to monitor the use of this technology. I want to thank committee members for amending this this ordinance in committee, which helped to address some of the concerns. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any. I'm sorry. I understand that customer, a Herbold, has an amendment on this particular bill as well. So when he handed over to her to make her motion. Thank you so much. I move to amend Council Bill 12 zero zero 25 as presented on Amendment one on the agenda. It's been moved and seconded to amend. The bill is presented on Amendment one. I'm going to hand it back over to Councilmember Herbold to walk us through Amendment One. Thank you. So this amendment requests that the Seattle Police Department report no later than the end of the third quarter of 2021 on the feasibility of retaining records of nine case specific automated license plate reader data for no more than 48 hours. This alters a previous amendment that I brought was passed in committee. That amendment asks SPV to consider retaining records for no more than seven days. Since that committee meeting, we were contacted by the ACLU, a member of the workgroup, and they pointed out that their recommendation was actually for no more than 48 hours. And so I'm altering my my my previous amendment. And this is consistent with the recommendation contained within the Workgroup Surveillance Impact Report. Thank you. Thanks so much, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any additional comments on this amendment? Harry. No additional comments on the amendment. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One? Herbal? Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. I. MORALES Yes. Rosetta I. Peterson. Yes. Silent? Yes. Council. President Gonzales. I vote favor none of those. The motion carries, the amendment is adopted and the amended bill is now before the council. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Customer responses. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify to members of the public who are watching that my previous comments were meant for this item and the next item. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Any additional comments? Carry none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill? Herbold. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. MORALES Yes. Mascara. I. Peterson. Yes. So want? No. Council President Gonzalez high seven in favor one opposed. The bill passes as amended and then sure will sign it with a piece affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Well, the clerk read item 11 into the record. Agenda Item 11 Council Bill 120026 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting surveillance impact reports for the Seattle Police Department's use of parking enforcement systems, including automated license plate reader technology. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record regarding the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing; and adopt resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA), to benefit a partnership to be formed by Abode Communities and American Gold Star Manor, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $60,000,000. (District 7)

LongBeachCC_09082015_15-0913

Okay, thank you. We're doing a couple of items, and we're gonna go to our regular agenda. One, a couple items quickly out of order. Just left some folks here we do item 17. Real briefly. First, Madam Clerk, for an item 17. Item 17 report from Financial Management and Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record regarding the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a public hearing and adopt resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority in the amount not to exceed $60 million. District seven. Okay. There's a motion. Can I get a second? Okay. There's a motion and a second. Mr. West, you want to add to that? Yes. We have a quick staff report by our treasurer David Nakamoto, and Amy Bodak, our. Development services director. Thank you, sir. Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council before you is a recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record regarding the temporary hearing and adopt a resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds by CMB to benefit the Abode, Communities. And American. Gold Star Manor Partnership in an amount not to exceed $60 million. The project. Current current affordability covenants are expiring are and are at risk of reverting to market rates. CFM will issue tax exempt bonds to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of the apartment building known as American Gold Star Manor. The intent of this acquisition is to preserve 337 affordable senior housing units for 55 years. There is no fiscal impact on the city associated with this action. The city has no financial obligation or liability associated with this financing. The project is expected to provide approximately 50 jobs during the rehabilitation. City action is requested on September 8th, 2015 to facilitate CMF forthcoming bond issuance. This concludes staff's report. Okay. Thank you. Is there any public comment on the item? Come forward. Very good. I'm not quite clear, obviously, if we can provide that type of housing for that number of citizens. That's great. But if we have no liability. Why are we even discussing this tonight? That that hasn't been explained. What's the city's role? Thank you. Next speaker, please. Here we go. I live in Long Beach and run the manor. And this is a second step of our plan to do the renovation. The first one was getting all of the vouchers we need from HUD for all of our goals, for all of our veterans, all of the seniors. And this is the one you voted on not too long ago to have the housing authority certify all of that. That program is going 180 miles an hour. This is step two, which provides the funding then to do all of the renovation for $58 million. It will make the manor the safest, the greenest and certainly the most comfortable facility of its kind in all of Long Beach in a manner will truly become the jewel of Long Beach. Thank you for your support. Thank you. Any other public comment? One more. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council, Gary Shelton at 240 Chestnut Avenue. I just wanted to remark that this is yet one more fabulous moment moving forward in the maintenance and and assurance of affordable housing in the city of Long Beach for senior citizens. I live in a senior citizen affordable housing project, and when these things come into that danger period of when the affordability is about to expire, oh my gosh, everybody begins to panic. And the fact that Goldstar Manor is stepping up and saying, let's do this, and the the city is saying and I believe to help Mr. Goodhew understand it, simply because this is within the city limits and the city council has to say, yes, we know this is happening. I think that's the extent of it, is how these bond issues, which is a tough road bond issues work. But in any regard, I just wanted to express that as a watchdog over affordable housing. I'm so glad to see this happening. And by the way, in case you're not sure, this is like the fourth time in the past 12 months or so that there has been a last minute saving of affordable housing toward 50 to 55 years into the future. The affordable housing advocates in town couldn't be any happier. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I just wanted to thank Gold Star Manor for hosting Councilmember your night. He wasn't available this evening. He's out. But thank you for all that you do to the community and and thank you for all your work. Did either the makers of the motion have any comments? Nope. Okay, great. Have a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. It's not. Is there is there an issue or. Yeah. I'm a yes, but. Yeah, it's coming in. I would say. Okay. There we go. The motion was Richardson. The second was Pryce. It's well we'll we'll fix on the record. On the record. What did the. Did it go through or. Yeah. Let's go and take a while. We're figuring this out. We're just going to go and take a vote. I was in favor of the motion. Say I. And you oppose any abstentions? The motion carries unanimously. So we're good there. Why don't we do my announcement? Then we'll go back to the agenda. Motion passes, it's up. Okay. So the announcements that we had was I want introduce our new h.r. Director for a second time. This time we're going to get it here. And I want to introduce and welcome alejandro vasquez who is here. Alex Vasquez, please step up here for a second. Just say hello. And I'm going to say a few things about her. As we all know, Debbie Mills, who's next to her, has done a great job. Let's give Debbie a big round of applause, first of all. And and Miss Vasquez is coming to us from the city of Los Angeles, where she was the assistant general manager in the personnel department. So she has worked in large scale personnel and H.R. environments. She is loves loves. Long Beach holds a master's degree in public policy from the University of Chicago, Bachelor of Arts degree in Social, Social Ecology from the University of California, Irvine. And she, I think, starts today or pretty or pretty soon. Is that that sound about right. And I know has a lot of experience in Long Beach as well. So thank you. Ms.. Vasquez, did you want to say anything to the council or. You don't have to. I'm putting you on the spot. Come forward and just say hi really quick. You have very big shoes to fill. And as you know, it's a it's a very big job. Yes. I'm just I want to just want to say I'm really happy to be here. I. Debbie's been great. She's been with me all day, making sure I have a great transition. And I'm looking forward to working with all of you as well as from the Human Resources Department. Thank you. Thank you and welcome you as well. Want to go out and do now because there's a big group of them here. We're going to ask the presentation from Candice Taylor Sherwood and Tom Leary, which I know they pull the speakers card. And we've got a big group, so come on forward. Hello, everybody. My name is Candace Taylor Sherwood. And while I am a Long Beach City employee today, I'm here. As a resident of the. Third district. Suzy Pryce, we love you and a proud volunteer and a certified member of the Community Emergency Response Team. And hello, everybody. I think we're gonna have to put this away. Hello, everybody. I'm Tom Leary. I'm also a city employee, and I'm here as a volunteer to help the fire department with the CERT event. So in response of National Preparedness Month Ready Long Beach 2015 is an annual Community Preparedness Expo that promotes a whole community approach to emergency preparedness and readiness. Ready. Long Beach will educate. Demonstrate and promote current efforts and programs. Within the city of Long Beach that support, preparedness, response. Recovery and resiliency. During a large scale incident. The use of volunteers may be essential to provide support and response when local first responders are overwhelmed and may not readily be available.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Cedar River Watershed; authorizing two years of ecological thinning, in accordance with the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan, in Sections 8 and 9, Township 22, North, Range 8, East, W.M., Sections 3, 4, and 10, Township 21, North, Range 10, East, W.M., and Section 33, Township 22, North, Range 10, East, W.M.; declaring the logs resulting from ecological thinning to be surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the sale of such logs pursuant to applicable City contracting and surplus property sale procedures; and directing deposit of the proceeds therefrom to the Water Fund for the purposes of the Habitat Conservation Plan implementation.

SeattleCityCouncil_01042021_CB 119958

Agenda item for Constable 119958 relating to the Cedar River watershed authorizing two years of ecological spending in accordance with the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Peterson, you are recognized in order to provide the committee's report. Thank you. Council President. Council Bill 119958 authorizes additional time to complete the necessary ecological thinning of trees to improve forest habitat and biodiversity in accordance with the Seattle or the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan. Both the Michael Shute tribe and the Sierra Club supported this two year extension with letters to the council, and this was also unanimously approved by the Transportation and Utilities Committee. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the bill. Before. Hearing no additional comments on the bill, will the Court please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez, I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. S Peterson? Yes. So what? Yes. President Gonzalez, I am in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item number five Will the clerk please read the short title of item five into the record?

Recommendation to request City Manager to direct the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department in coordination with the Public Works Department to provide an update on and current cost estimate for previously approved soccer field turf conversion projects at three parks - Admiral Kidd, El Dorado and Seaside; request further report on what other appropriate park uses could be developed at El Dorado Park in lieu of an artificial turf project; and report on when it would be feasible to bid on any such in lieu projects.

LongBeachCC_11172015_15-1201

Communication from Councilwoman Mongo. Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Dunga. Recommendation to request the Parks Recreation Marine Department to provide an update on and current cost estimate for previously approved soccer field turf conversion projects at Admiral Kidd, El Dorado and Seaside Park and request report on other appropriate park uses that could be developed at El Dorado Park in lieu of an artificial turf project. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Yes. So first I know that there have been a couple of questions that came up. Ramon, I have the email with your ten questions. I'm glad that you got to speak with Amy Bodak in the building, the planning department, to get a lot of your questions answered. I know there are many more responding to. These will take a bit of time, but I'd be more than happy to meet with you right after the meeting to give you some verbal answers right away, because I know they're important to you. My colleagues and I have inherited a $3.5 million soccer project. I know the question was, when was this approved? It was actually and I don't know if the chair but at the time, vice chair of Budget Oversight Committee wants to comment on that or if you want me to commit me to do it. So under Vice Chair Lowenthal, now Chair Lowenthal of the Budget Oversight Committee, Patrick O'Donnell made a motion that solidified 2.7, I believe, in the original motion for artificial turf soccer fields at three locations identified as Seaside Admiral, Kid and Eldorado Park in the 2013 budget. The recommendations of the committee came to the full council, at which time that council approved them. Over time, we've we've come along with a few different things. One, there was a misstatement by the director of Parks and Recreation that there was a drinkable water savings at every park. What it actually is, is that there's a drinkable water savings at Seaside, an admiral kid, but a reclaimed water savings at El Dorado Park. And that over time, the costs of these programs have increased and some of the grants associated are no longer available. And so what I think my colleagues and I are asking today is that when this item comes back to council for a decision that we have all our options on the table. So I know that we've recently hired a wonderful member of the Parks and Rec team to look at rehabilitating our grass fields. And I think that that's a top priority across our entire park system. We need to look citywide and I think we have an item coming in the next few weeks with me and a few others where we're talking about what that infrastructure rehabilitation of all of our parks would look like because we know we need to do that. And then if we do move forward, which we have not yet decided with an approval of any artificial turf soccer fields, we want to make sure we have all of our options. The state of California is considering doing a study on chrome rubber. We want to be sure that if chrome rubber has any adverse health impacts, that we are aware of those and we'd be able to consider it at that time. And we have a recommendation from the Parks and Rec Commission to consider natural infill of many different sorts and or according to that meeting, coconut husk, which has only one provider. So we want to open it up to potentially all natural fill. And then in discussions with some of our community partners that play soccer on the fields, a majority of the players of soccer in the community don't play on full sized fields. The ten and under, they call them U10 and U12 and U six and U eight. They play on partial fields. They take a full sized field, and they divide it up so that multiple teams can play at the same time against one another. And so what I think this item is doing is saying. When we do need to make a decision. We would like public works in Parks and Rec to bring back all of our options because what we don't want to do as a council is make piecemeal decisions along the way. We want to make a comprehensive decision in the best interests of all the residents and all the stakeholders. So I think with that, if we're comfortable going to public comment. Chair. Yes, we can do that. Let me call in the second or the motion first. Okay. Public comment, please. I think I'm going to my my talk is going to make it a lot easier for her to say, yes, I'm going to try to make it as easy as I can. In my view, as a person who's played soccer, I was one of the people that started. I got the soccer approved in a morally, you know, there was nobody playing and we had to sneak around and play and then they told us not to. And we ended up working, strangely enough, for the air. So. So. We? I know that a lot of the bodies bodies are buried. And maybe in June somebody asked me to get involved with this. I thought it was crazy. But then I saw this George from the Parks and Recreation angle. He's even crazier than I am. So, um. Basically what I'm trying to say is that, you know, I've done a lot of analysis. I've been involved with contracts, have been involved with sports, being a world class athlete for over 25 years. You know, that was about £15 ago. So what I'm saying is I've actually done a lot of research and I've determined that that when I break out the numbers, we've got about a 40%. You know, grass is about 40% less, 40 to 50% less even than the crumb rubber. The lowest value, the lowest cost, least cost item is what I've done in grass hasn't changed that much in price, but crime has gone up a little bit since the last proposal. And so. You know, all I'm saying is it seems like a lot of people love to play on grass. Everyone I know in soccer would prefer to play on grass rather than artificial turf. And I think Steve actually said that to me when I was at Eldorado Park. That's what they prefer to play on. He knows that. But we have a problem in that. I think, Charles, I'm going to say interpretation of what happened in that meeting. I know you said it. I've read the documents and I've seen the video. And I talk to you about the federal prosecutors that have seen it and the judge. So there's a huge difference between what our local prosecutor is saying versus what experienced, seasoned people who do this and deal with corruption every day know they know what things are said as legal definitions. You can't get around it. You can't just say, oh, this is a judgment call. There are certain things that are yes or no. And there's nothing that says, Hey, look, we did it, you know? So, I mean, the documents have got to show that. They have to reflect it. People have got to do it. So the numbers actually show that the grass is is cheaper for all of us. And I know that, you know, we have District seven. He's looking into it. He's doing a good job. But. I don't. Nobody can understand why we know grass is so much less expensive. And I mean, you can't justify 50% more for something when and it's safer and everybody wants it. Versus versus something that's, you know, 50% less. And everybody I mean, everybody wants to have that other thing I'm getting ready to take off. I understand. Thank you, sir. And, uh, just. Thank you, sir. That's all right. Actually, time's up. We won't pass the time. Thank you, sir. Okay. And Cantrell. And I appreciate you staying and listening to me. I sent an email today to all of you and recommended that you go to this website. The Dirt on turf. Because it has a lot of good information. Comparing artificial turf with natural grass. As has been said before. Natural grass can be half as much. And the geode fill or the coconut. Huske will. Is much more expensive than chrome rubber. Chrome rubber has not only possibilities of. I'm sorry I'm interrupting your conversation, Mrs. Mungo. Crumb rubber. Gets hot. It has to be cooled with water. It has to be cleaned. And so there's so many problems with it. I'm hoping that when Parks and Recreation and Public Works looks at these. Looks at the. Artificial turf they will also be considering. Putting in natural grass. May I ask is is that going to be part of the study? But natural grass will be considered also. Can I get an answer on that? I guess not. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I see no other public comment. I'll take this behind to the council now and the rail here and start off with Councilman Manga, the maker of the motion. I'll hear from my colleagues. Councilman Gonzales to the second of the motion. I think Councilwoman Mango for bringing this forward. I know this has been a big issue and I'm very glad that the speakers came up and spoke to us about their passion for this issue. Most certainly, quite frankly, you know, in the first District in Seaside, we just want to park and we just want grass. We haven't had grass for some time. And so it's been. You know, it's it's been a long time for us to have something, and we're just very excited to have the opportunity to look at options at this point. But I'll tell you, my community most, most definitely is very excited about this because they're they're they're they just want something to play on. I think, you know, currently it's been dirt for the last five years, very impacted neighborhood. I think some of our lowest poverty in the city. It's pretty tough. So I just thank you for being open to giving us some options. I know you have been working on this as well, Stephen, with Councilman Mongo and I know Councilmember Suranga and I have been talking about other options and I know he'll speak a little bit about Admiral Kidd, but this is all great discussion and I'm looking forward to seeing what what comes next of it. Thank you. Now turning things over to Councilmember Ranga. Thank you, Mayor. And I do want to thank Councilwoman Mangal for bringing this forward. You know, this is a difficult conversation to have, frankly, because, you know, we are in the middle of a drought, my my in my district Advocate Park, tons of kids and in the senior adult leagues play there. It's become dirt. I would prefer, obviously, grass just like everybody else. And like it's always been traditional how we've got to look at our options and, you know, the options that we have right now is that we do have this fund, these funds available to enhance our soccer fields. Whether it's artificial or not, you know, but even with grass, you know, there's other infrastructure stuff that we need to look at, too, that can be just as expensive, if not more so. The options that we want the staff to come back with are are viable. We want it. We want to look at them. And yes, when we do get the staff report back, we want to see it all. We want to see what all the options are and they're all before us so that we can discuss them and then take it from there in terms of what we would like to see . There's some research, obviously. And Control brought about that report in terms of what's out there, which is fine, something to look at and to to consider. But at this present time, I think what we need to do at this time is just to direct staff to look at all the options and come back with a report so that we can move forward from there. Thank you. Turn this. Go back to Councilman Longo. Thank you. I hope my colleagues will support Parks and Rec and public works, bringing back all of our options so we can make a comprehensive decision. I think that the decision to be made needs to be an informed one. So I look forward to that opportunity and the continued public input. Thank you. Thank you. With that, please cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay. Now we're going to go, I think, two announcements. Let me start off I want to start with Councilman Andrews because he wants to close a meeting in someone's honor.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation jurisdictional property located in Lots 1 and 2, Block 12, Eden Addition No. 2 to the City of Seattle, commonly referred to as 911 Aurora Avenue North (“Property”) and declaring it as surplus to the City’s needs; removing the limited access highway purposes property designation; authorizing the sale of the Property for fair market value through an open and competitive sales process managed by the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; authorizing the Director of Transportation or the Director’s designee to execute all necessary documents to accomplish the sale of the property; and designating the proceeds from the sale.

SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_CB 118791

And frankly, a committee, the executive wasn't there to make that case known to us or to the public. And so we're going to operate on the assumption that it's not ultimately critical. And so I think this is fine, but we can send the signal that in the future, if these are really timely, please be explicit on that . So we know the issues, the broad issue around housing, too. I in the interim, I would hope that Councilman Gonzalez, you and I can connect with the Office of Housing to talk about that, because if, in fact, the framework for looking at affordable housing needs to adjust a bit, then I think we'd want to consider putting these on the back burner for some time so that there's a possibility to use them as affordable housing in the future. But I, I want everyone off the housing to have a chance to make that case to you about why they do it. And we may end up that we're just in different places policy wise, but I don't think either of us know enough about that yet to do that. So let's take a little more time to do that. I agree. Okay. And I would also suggest we take advantage of this opportunity. I want to thank the community members for coming out and voicing your opinion. Their did I heard you loudly and clearly by saying we perhaps we followed the letter of law, but perhaps not at Spirit or its intent. So maybe we can take advantage and make sure we're listening to all voices in and type the have a better process as well. So thank you for your public testimony. Is there any further business to come coming for the Council? Our next meeting will be on January 3rd, 2017 at 2:00. And everyone have a happy holiday season. And if there's no further business, we will stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. You.

Recommendation to Receive the Report on the Initiative Measure to Change the Land Use Designation for an Approximately 3.65 Acre Site on McKay Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Office to Open Space, and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional District to Open Space District and Consider the Following Options: Option 1 - Adopt the Ordinance; or Option 2 - Adopt a Resolution Submitting the Ordinance to the Voters. (City Clerk 2220) [Continued from January 2, 2019]

AlamedaCC_01022019_2019-6304

Option one Adopt the ordinance or option to adopt a resolution submitting the ordinance to the voters. And I will give the brief presentation on this item on December 4th. A certificate of sufficiency was presented on the initiative and the Council ordered a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215, and that report is required to come back 30 days later, which is why we're here tonight. The report is attached as Exhibit one and city staff and the consultant are available to any answer any questions about the impacts report. But basically to lay out what is before council, you have two options tonight. You can call an election or you can adopt the ordinance. If you elect to place the measure on the ballot, you have two more choices. You can either go at the next general municipal election in November 2020, or you can call in a special election. That special election has to be called within 88 to 103 days, and the election date that we would be able to use would be Tuesday, April 9th. And. There is a new provision in the law that allows the proponents to withdraw the petition up to 88 days before calling it before the election takes place. And there are differences in costs for the two elections in November. It would just be the cost of adding the measure onto an already existing election. So it would be 25,000 for the printing. Translation Typesetting of the measure. If you call a special election in April a non established election date where we'd be running an election just for the measure, the cost to be 580 to $730000. The next things you need to consider in proceeding with calling an election would be to look at the ballot question, which is limited to 75 words, and decide any interest in authorizing or authoring an argument for the November election. You can postpone that until a later date. If you're proceeding with April, you would need to make that decision tonight. In addition to this item, there are two more items six D and six E on the agenda that are related. Staff has prepared six D as a supplement to the initiative to require a funding mechanism, and then six E is a competing measure to allow the voters to uphold the council rezoning the property recently. And then if the competing measure and this measure were both placed on the ballot and both passed, the higher the one that receives the higher number of votes would prevail. And. Since there is that new provision in the election code that allows withdrawal to 88 days ahead of time. All three of the ordinances are the resolutions allow a mechanism that if proponents do reach that agreement and do withdraw, the these resolutions would be null and void and wouldn't go forward on an election. So that's the basics. And I can answer any questions and also staff and consulting. All right. So, counsel, do we have any clarifying questions of the city clerk, Councilmember Vela. Who drafted the ballot question? The legal staff and staff worked together. We worked collectively, a group of us then and reviewed different options. And does council have an ability do we would we have to approve the ballot question tonight as drafted? Yeah, especially if you're going on the if you selected the April election date, you would definitely have to approve that exact wording tonight in it. Like for the previous rent initiative that was on the last ballot, the council approved the wording but then changed, kind of looked at it and brought it back at a later date to revise it. So if you went with the November date, you could do something similar to that. Any further questions, Vice Mayor? Not quite. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Interim City Attorney. The council. The Council has the authority to revise the ballot question. This keep in mind that it can't be more than 75 words. And the ballot question needs to be as neutral as possible. Could not be argumentative or. Or obviously not misleading, but it's intended to be informative and neutral and kept within 75. A question for the city attorney. Is that and does that comport with what the city clerk just told us, that if we're going for an April election date, we don't have the ability to do that? No. You have the ability, whether you go in April or November, to try to revise the ballot question. It's simply regardless if you're going in April and you're going to change, it just needs to keep within 75 words and be neutral. Then be decided tonight and. Be decided tonight. Right? Correct. Or when you are. When you make the decision, if you make whenever you make the decision to put it on in April, you made it tonight or you made it at a subsequent meeting. Still made the timeline to put it on in April, which means you have until, I think next Thursday or Friday to make that decision. You have that. Option a. Special revised language. Are you referring to calling a special meeting? Correct. Or actually either a special meeting or continuing this item to that to another date? Right. Right. Okay. I think the vice mayor had his hand up. Did you? Yeah. So I wanted to clarify that question. So tonight is the last regular meeting where we can approve this, but we have until Friday and 5 p.m. to actually put this on the ballot and approve the final 75 words or less language. Correct? Correct. If we want it to. Friday of. Next week, yes. January, January 11th at. 5 p.m., as I recall. Okay. All right. Anything else? Yes. Can can the 580,000. I was a little confused by some of the language in. And I can ask the question, are we talking about just 60 or 60? And here at the same time. Let's stay on the first one, if we could, just. Some of the language and I will apologize. I can't remember which one talked about polls being open. And my understanding was that they were looking at an all mail ballot. So can we talk about whether or not this will be an all mail ballot or whether it will be a full on polls across the city? So there are certain election code requirements in order to meet the all mail ballot, and this election did not meet those. So therefore, there will be polls open on Election Day. It will be a map to your polling place. You know, of course, people who are absentee will still mail in their ballots and have all of that same ability. But it's not going to be an all mail ballot. And is there a way in which this issue could be. Called it a special meeting that is an all mail ballot. You know, the school district has done them in the past. No, it did not meet the requirements and legal staff determined that it could not be. No matter what the timing. Okay, great. And then I have one last question for the legal staff. Yeah, I think one of the. No. I'm going to call it compelling. Not that compelling arguments for this initiative is that somehow the voters voted on W to make this land open space and that all this initiative is doing is following in his footsteps. But it's not clear to me that it was ever the entire parcel for this federal. Do we have any insights from our conversations with the space regional park or what or what not about what land they considered the park boundaries that the language of WW was very, very well, it was pretty clear it was the visitor center and expanding the beach and this is where nowhere near the beach, etc. was this parcels specifically called out? Do we know anything? They split it ultimately. Right? Selina Chen from the city attorney's office. People have been. Saying, and I think in the. Initiative, some of the findings. Are saying that the subdivision didn't. Happen until after 2008 after measure WW was placed on the ballot and that the Park District meant to acquire the whole. Of the parcel. Both another northern parcel, which is what we're talking about, the subject of the initiative and the Southern Parcel, which is referred to as Neptune Point. Based on my discussions with District Council, the Federal Government plan to subdivide the parcel and dispose of Neptune Point first East Bay Regional Parks District New as early as 2005 or 26 that the government. Was going to subdivide the parcels. Even though it didn't happen until later. The intent was clear to both the Federal Government and the Park District before Measure WW was placed before the voters in oh eight. But let me just ask to clarify. That would be Councilmember Desai. Thank you, Mayor. The subdivision occurred roughly in May 2016. Is that correct? I believe I received the quitclaim deed from the federal government. And I was I believe it has a date of 2015. When you look at the assessor's data, you'll see that there's is a parcel number for one. There's an API number, parcel number for one parcel or all of of the seven acres. And that goes until 2015 dash 23,016. Is that a question, Councilmember. Yes. Have you have you seen how the APN numbers have changed from 2015 to 20 16 to 2016? Dash 2017 meaning that in 2015, 2016 it was one passel for the seven acres and then 2016, 2017 and that it was then split into two parcels. And it looks like, judging by some of the data I've seen, it looks like it's May 2016 that. It's just. I think you. And often, if they depend on when a deed is recorded, the assessor's office doesn't necessarily make the change immediately. There's a time lag in there. So that may be the reason why. There is a slight discrepancy between when the quick claimed was recorded and when the assessor's parcel map was modified to show two different assessor's parcels. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Although we probably want to stay away from speculating on things that are not before us. Any further clarifying questions from the council before we go to public speakers? Yes. Councilmember. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I think we had a discussion about Friday, Friday, January 11th. That's the 5 p.m. for the 75 words. And then if we chose to do a ballot argument, we'd have to do that by January 16. Yes, I think. And then we'd have to decide and write that either here and now. Or. Give it to a committee. Okay. Right. Okay. So any further clarifying questions? We do have some public speakers. Okay. I'm going to call public speakers. We have to hear. We have six. We're good. You have 3 minutes each. And our first speaker is Doug Biggs. Spoiler alert. Next speaker is Angela Fawcett, the actress in the actor after that? Good evening. To be fair, Ashcraft, members of the city council. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm the executive director of Alameda Point Collaborative. A resident of Alameda, a neighbor of the project, and a frequent user of Crab Cove. I want the same safe community my neighbors want. And I also want a place where elderly and the medically fragile homeless can stay with dignity, get mental health services that improve their quality of life, and saves millions in health care costs. ABC lawfully and dutifully requested to receive surplus property on McKee Avenue for the purposes of creating a wellness and medical respite facility. When we were notified by the feds, we we reached out to and worked with the neighbors on this project, knowing the emotions of the topic. We hired a qualified facilitator to lead meetings with the Friends of Crab Cove to identify their concerns and develop operating principles to address those concerns. Thanks to their participation in that process, we've identified ways to improve traffic flow, ensure quality of operations, and identified ways to minimize loitering in the area. I believe that through cooperation and compromise, so much more will be accomplished than through conflict. Last week, ABC issued a letter to the community asking that the initiative sponsors withdraw the initiative as they are allowed to do so by law. Already the letters gathered almost 500 signatures, and in fact, right now it's more than 500 signatures, including leaders from almost every faith based organization in Alameda. Emmanuel Lutheran Church. Trinity Lutheran Church. Christ Episcopal. Twin Towers. Methodist Grace Church. The Pastoral Center. Alameda All Face Coalition Bueno Vista United Methodist Church. The Islamic Center of Alameda and more. Over 70 neighbors of the project have signed the letter, as have representatives of environmental groups, neighboring schools and the many just social justice groups like Renewed Hope, Ark and Alameda Justice Alliance. The Rose Up to defeat Major Cave. While we are ready to run a campaign and confident of winning, we prefer to continue working with Friends of Crab Cove and others to create the best possible project we can. Homeless are literally dying on the front steps of the project site. This is a project that needs to happen and should happen. The Impact Report is very clear on the serious consequences of moving the initiative forward. And when all is said and done, the opponents still won't get their park. Now is not the time for expensive conflict. It is time to look into our heart and into the eyes of those that need our help and work together to move the project forward. The city can help that tremendously by joining our facilitation process and ensuring that we will be held accountable for the agreements we make. I believe that will give strength to the voice of those with concerns that need to be heard. At this time, all we're asking is to pause, withdraw the initiative and allow us to move forward with the project. Thank you very much. Thank you. Angela Fossett. Hi. My name is Angela Foster and I represent forensic lab coats. Many have called us heartless, soulless and horrible people. This initiative started from a grassroots movement for justice. We were told we're doing a wellness center in Mackay and there's nothing you can do. It's a done deal. And the America I grew up. We have rights, a voice. Opportunities for input and to be hurt. In 2008, we were promised a measure to VW, an expansion of the park into Crab Cove Educational Services. And instead we're getting a parking lot and a maintenance yard. International parks may claim they don't want the property, but that is not what they sold to the voters of the city. Through their own words, campaigns and fliers to get Alamitos to support their efforts to give us more usable open space, park lands and educational opportunities. And we met with Marilyn to discuss options. Prior to today, we offered a conditional use permit in exchange for dropping the initiative. This initiative is the only voice that we have at this point, and no one seems to be listening to our concerns about Measure WW. We are being forced to give up everything we thought would happen to grab power for an experiment. I've been feeling so pressured by the city, community, social media and various organizations to give up our voice that it's made me physically ill. This is and has always been about open space and park expansion. You can call the Wellness Center for Homeless, but it is still a high density residential medical development in an area and location that does not fit. Bottom line. This is on a single access road that cannot accommodate high traffic activities such as ambulances, fire departments, tenders, delivery trucks and staff coming and going. This has never been the use of this property and the need to shut it down was just a few people picking up the phone with no site visits, testing or studies and instead having some discussions going back in time as far as occupancy and declaring no negative impact. How can a 24/7 facility have no impact when the last ten years was barely seen a footprint at the federal? If this council moves forward with a special election at the taxpayers expense. This is on you front of Crab Cove qualifying for 2020 election at a minimal impact and expense to our taxpayers. I implore you to adopt the resolution or add to the 2020 election. An initiative is not qualified and the election code to trigger special election for a reason. If you choose to spend up to 700,000 instead of 25 to do a special election, the City Council is liable for that expense. And taxpayers, not French or Kharkov. We do not want special election. I was also told in talks that you had planned on doing a walk and only ballot option and no absentee. And to me that's discriminatory to those who would be want to be heard but unable to walk into the polls. But I understand from correspondence that you had said that that's not, in fact true. But this facility is being set up in the city of Alameda. So this is not even being set up for to help the city of Alameda homeless first. They have to be qualified on a county regional level before grants. Thank you for that. Our next speaker is Dr. Cindy Acker. Congratulations. Mayor, vice mayor, all of city council. I am principal of a preschool through middle school in alameda and former president of one of California's preschool associations and former vice president of the National Childcare Association. I'm also a choir director, and I used to sing in a choir in San Francisco in a church whose greatest population was serving the homeless. And my three children were there and hung out with the people who were outside while I sang with the choir. And I think it was one of the most transformative, intergenerational experiences that they could have had. The students in my school have learned the importance of caring for their environment, and I would say that Kabakov has been a piece of that that has that we really appreciated with the education that they've been furthered with there. But I cannot divorce the experience of teaching children to care for others, to care for our elders, as the elder population is growing as principal of a school within a residential neighborhood. I'm not denied the ability to provide a service, but I am expected to learn how to be responsible for our neighborhood, to keep it safe and to connect with our neighbors and to try to to make that those relations with our neighbors good. So I submit that APEC has been holding the tension of the two opposites, examining ways to keep safe, positive relationships with the community and with the neighbors, and providing an excellent service to the community. And that isn't easy. I know that when I was president of one of California's child care associations, one of the hardest things that I had to do was to educate my community, to face their fears, to work toward the greater good. And so I guess what I'm asking is that the council does their work to educate the community and that the sponsors of the initiative also consider facing the fears and pulling the initiative and allowing the community to work together for the greater good of the community to remove the resolution in 60 and to help the community work together to care for the seniors, the homeless seniors in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Lisa Guerrero morris. Good evening, Mayor. And council members like to keep this simple. We were all aware of the first portion being available in 2006. This is the McKay property in 2008 stated in Measure WW 2008. In black and white reference referencing the second portion of the property when it becomes available so the park boundary can be completed. Park boundary under the starbase. It's in the second portion of that seven parcel, which was clandestinely split without public notice in 2015 and recorded by the Alameda County Assessor on May 11, 2016. How many times do the people of Alameda have to vote on this? In addition to the voter approve expansion 2008 in 2014, the city Alameda Attorney finding section two e states. The expansion of Crown Beach for open space use is the highest and best use of the surplus federal property at Crown Cove. The city and the council members were served with a writ to mandate to correct its previous illegal behavior in order to comply with the law. On December 18, 2018, shortly after, Mayor Ashcraft reached out to us to meet to the to meet, to discuss giving up our voice, to have the people vote for open space initiative. This was not an open meeting, but I felt being bullied in giving up our cause. As a lawyer, you are aware of the State Bar Code of ethics that we need to have our legal counsel present if a deal is being made. We had no idea. Mayor Ashcraft made a point that the city will do everything in its power to support the private use of this public land and that we are going to lose. 100%, we're going to lose. And if we want to have a say that this will be the only opportunity for our voice to be heard . So give up the initiative and we will listen to you. I'm sorry. This is not the Philippines. We don't we don't do backdoor deals. We cannot be bought. And we are standing up for the people that voted with Measure WW 2008 2014, a 2018 Open Space Initiative. We matter. Our voice matters even though we do not have deep pockets. I am so tired of people in power to change their own rules all of a sudden to serve outside money. So tired since the seventies. Adopted 2018 Open Space Initiative, just like you did with the first portion with Open Space Initiative in 2014 and have zero cost to us. Instead, you are driving up the cost of the special election to support private use instead of public. You said this land. We grew up a lot of families that grew up in the seventies. We ate our food. We fished our food on Crab Cove. We were free to be to do anything. Our slip and slides with no no other things. We still have families that the fish out there for their food so they could afford the rents here in Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Eric Strimling. Good evening again. Yes, people do have freedom to speak. And when you speak, people are free to speak back. When you devote yourself to preventing homeless seniors from getting the convalescent care that they need, people are free to tell you what their opinion of that kind of behavior is. And not just people, but community groups, not just community groups. But churches can come and tell you that working against the interests of homeless seniors who need convalescent care is not a good thing. No society anywhere says that's a good thing. The right thing to do is to withdraw this initiative. The right thing to do is to work for a legitimate open space. This is not open space. This is a space with nine buildings that are contaminated. This is a space that would cost the city many millions of dollars. You mean made into an open space? The alternative is do nothing. The standard NIMBY line, do nothing. Change nothing. Go nowhere. Not good enough for Al and me. That's not who we are. Certainly not who you are as a city council. I know all of you. You are not a group of do nothing people. Let's move forward. Thank you. Mr. Strimling, we have Elizabeth Middleburg, our next speaker. And our final speaker on this item, unless there's someone else who hasn't turned in a slip. Good evening, Mayor. Council members and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Elizabeth Middelburg. I am a chaplain and therapist at a retirement community in Oakland and a resident of Alameda. I was at Walgreens this morning at about 630 where the police just had arrived because there was a man sleeping in one of their bathrooms. And of course, that can't happen. But they pulled him out and it was an older gentleman and he shuffled out into 32 seven degrees sweater, probably not knowing where to go or what to do next. I think we can do better as a as a city. I think we don't need to have people out in the cold like that. I think it's an amazing project that is about to get started. I'm in full support of that. When I walked up to City Hall tonight, I saw the sign Happy Kwanzaa. The theme for Kwanzaa actually this year is to have a commitment to an inclusive good, to have a commitment to make the good of all accessible to all people. And I fully support that. If we say happy Kwanzaa, let's let's get with the theme. So I know the people that were. They'd have the. Of whom we were requesting to pull the the ordinances I have left in the meantime, but I'm still in favor of moving forward with the project. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. That concludes the public comments. I would like to hear from the council. I I'm going to start first and I don't usually well, this is the first letter, so I guess I don't do anything usually, but it will be the exception. I just have to say, because some personal references were made to me and because I am an attorney and I take my duties and obligations as an attorney and an officer of the court very seriously. I did, in fact, sit down with the two proponents of the project, Angela Fawcett and Lisa Gambaro Morris on a Sunday almost two weeks ago. During the holidays, my children were both home from out of town and I would have liked to have spent time with them. But to me, nothing was more important than trying to make this project put it on the right track. And so I spent almost 2 hours with the ladies, and I wasn't a legal negotiation, but I did indeed tell them that rather than engaging in a zero sum game where one side wins and the other side loses, that they had done a very credible job of advocating for the concerns of some of the neighbors and some of the businesses in the area, and that I respected that. I also am very grateful to Debbie Potter, our economic development director, for engaging the services of a facilitator, a very capable facilitator who met at least a couple of times with the Friends of Camp Crab Cove and Mr. Bates and his some of his group to try to find that middle ground. And I work as an arbitrator for the Better Business Bureau. My mantra has always been, just keep talking as long as we can get both sides to sit down and talk. Maybe you don't agree, but hopefully you listen to each other. And that's all I can expect of anyone. I don't have that magic wand to make you. Do you know what I want? And I'm. And I'm open. And what I tried to say was that there is compromise. If we're asking something of the Friends of Crab Cove, we have to be willing to give up something in exchange . And that was the suggestion that they could be a part of helping fashion something akin to a conditional use project. So I will step off my soapbox, but I needed to get that off my chest. And I will ask which council member would like to start for Councilmember Vela? And also that there was no Brown Act violation with you conversing with Council. I want to I would like to put that on the record that they. Say that. Well, they insinuated that you had said something along the lines of the full weight of council behind it. And I just want to put it out on the record that, you know, I haven't talked to any other council members about this or about my opinions on it. And I certainly think that if there's some sort of. Feeling out there that the council's mind has been made up or that we've discussed that all of our discussions are being held publicly. That's why we're having this on an on a public agenda. So I had a couple. I guess there were a couple of things that were raised that I do want to address. One is the the issues with Measure W, W Measure W W was put on by the East Bay Regional Parks District. It was not a city of Alameda measure. It was an East Bay Regional Parks District measure. They have their own separate board. They have their own. There's a Citizens Oversight Committee that oversees the expenditure of Measure WW funds. If this is purely about Measure WW, there is a public board of elected officials that can be held accountable and should be held accountable. If if members of the public feel that way. They have public meetings. They also have liaison meetings with them right here in council chambers that are open to the public. And so if there are issues that are related to measure. WW whether it's what you're getting out of measure. WW The parking lot and the use of the buildings or whether or not this land is within the definition of, you know, becoming available, I think that that's something that is debatable because first what happens is the federal government puts it up to see if it can be used for one of its priority uses then and only then if there's nobody that comes forward for those uses. One of those uses is actually the use that's being proposed by Alameda Point Collaborative. But if no one had come forward, then it would become go through a surplus process that would eventually make it open to the Park District. So I think whether or not this land is quote unquote, available for East Bay, regional parks is up for debate. But I also think if our constituents are feeling like there's some sort of misuse of WW funds, that I certainly encourage them to work with and speak with the East Bay Regional Parks District Board and to come to the lease on meetings that we have. There's additional costs that aren't just related to a special election. Those costs, in my opinion, are the types of things that we also have to consider, because what we're being asked to do by this initiative is essentially have the city find a way to commit resources to take this parcel which comes at a cost itself, and then to turn it in from one thing to another. And there's this notion out there that if any sort of property is not being used, that it's somehow open space. And it doesn't matter whether or not it's public land or private land or what type of public land. But we get these comments that come forward that say, well, it's it's it should be open space. It's just not being used. It can also be urban blight. And that's what this parcel has essentially become. So we just went over CDBG needs. We talked about what those needs were. A lot of them had to do with seniors. And a lot of them had to do with housing security. And I would think that end of life care has got to be up there. So, you know, I think I would have liked to have seen us reach some sort of resolution and not have to put this on for an election. But at this time, I can't support adopting the ordinance, and I would like to pursue the second option of submitting the ordinance to voters. I think it's a misnomer to say that it's on us to have this special election. I think we've tried to avoid it, avoid a special election, and that's why we tried to facilitate conversations. But those additional costs add up. And as we saw with the Jean Sweeney open space, those costs have grown over time from what we initially thought. Things like construction costs increase. They haven't those costs haven't gone down. So I think that there is a worry, at least on my end, if we wait and we might save a little money putting it on that general election, what other costs are we accruing in that time? And when I look at the city budget and I think about our fiduciary obligations, I have to weigh that in making my decision of if there's other hidden costs that are going to outweigh the special election. I also think that this is something that we need to call the question on, because if we're not going to be able to do this project here again, what we just heard in the last agenda item was that these needs exist and that their top needs. So if it's not going to be possible or feasible here, we need to know and we need to plan. If the voters disagree with us, then essentially we need to find a way to get this project off the ground somewhere else. And so, again, construction costs add up and that's why I'm leaning towards supporting a special election and not a general one. And I do think that there's a financial and fiscal issue that benefit to having it early. But I would like to have an opportunity to weigh in on that ballot question, because I found it to be a little confusing and hard to follow. Thank you. Councilmember de SA. Well, thank you very much. To me, the issue is straightforward, not simple, but as straightforward. Over 6000 residents took the time to sign an initiative which. Which means that they want to see this put to a vote. So I think it's incumbent on this city council to respect the wishes of the 6000 people who want to have this voted. Now the question then is do we do it on a special election basis or do we do it in November of 2020? To me, again, it's straightforward. If it's going to be put to a vote. You know, at roughly 600,000, $630,000 for a special election, that is just far too costly. If we're going to do it, then the most straightforward, reasonable thing is to simply put it on the November 2020 ballot. You know, this is not a simple issue. I mean, this is a very difficult issue involving the lives of of of people, not just Alameda INS, but people from from the region. But if we focus on the key things, the key things are people have gathered signatures to put this to a vote. So let's put it to a vote and let's have the residents vote. But in doing that, let's have it on the November 2020 election. There's a lot of issues between now and November 2020 that we can vet. But one thing we know for sure is that if we do it in April of 2019, you know, we're going to be spending $630,000 or so that we the city of Alameda. Just do not have for a special election. And I don't see a compelling case as to why it has to be done on a special election basis. I think the cases that and it appears to be that's something that the Friends of Krabbe cover asking for the November 2020 ballot. Thank you. Who's next? Council member Odie. Sure. I'll go next. And I'll just talk about the first two things. And if we decide if we do, an election will go. Into the decision tree here. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So I won't use up all of my time. I was struck by the comment. I think it was, Elizabeth, that we can do better as a city. I think that really resonated with me. And I don't think we have a choice here. We're going to do in favor I'm in favor of having the election and not adopt a resolution. But, you know, this is going to be bitter. I mean, we've seen it and on the blogs, we've seen in the newspapers, we've seen it here in chambers. But, you know, we don't really have a choice. And I hope it doesn't come down to the fact that we relitigate WW because my colleague, Customer Mirabella kind of walked through it. I mean, I can't put myself in the shoes of what East Bay Regional Parks did. You know, we can't be, you know, held responsible for what ever they told us truth or untruth, you know, in order to get us to vote for that measure. I voted for that measure. I remember. But, you know, we only he can do what we can do to take care of the people that we can take care of. So. I read these earlier and I wanted to read them again because I think it's important that we we remember what we just passed as a priority. We passed this unanimously for our community needs, for our CDBG, which I think represent the values of our city. And the second one there was homeless, preventing homeless and other housing crisis. Now, this this is a solution to help meet that goal. Increased housing opportunities for homeless and extremely low income households. This is an opportunity to meet that goal and most importantly, deliver supportive services to promote stability and independence. That's what this entire project is is devoted to doing, providing supportive services. You know, people aren't going to be doing some of the things that we we we've heard online. You know, some people are going to be transitioning. Some people are actually going to go there today as as it is. So I hope that it doesn't devolve into pitting one side of the community against the other. But, you know, I'm afraid it's going to. But I do think it's something that we need to resolve sooner rather than later. And I do think it's important that we have clarity. I do think it's important that, you know, we have certainty. This is a project that will go forward. And if it goes forward, it will continue to. Raise money. They will continue to exert costs and they will continue to add value to that property. And again, Councilmember Vela talked about it. You know this. If this passes, it's a it's a taking. And then we have the city will be on the hook for the fair market value of of that property. And there's nothing we can do to stop the project from going forward. So if we can if we let this drag on to November of next year, then I think our liability is a lot more than, you know, 600,000. I thought I had asked for that in the report and I really didn't see it in the report. But, you know, I think it could be in, you know, the tens of millions. So that's something I think we need to look at, look at, you know, instead of just looking at the small myopic view of how much is the special election going to cost, you know, what what liability are we exposing ourselves to if we do let this go to November? And, you know, Councilmember, I'm sorry, my fault Mayor Ashcroft talked about. It four. Years ago that have a long habit. And as she talked about her experience as an attorney and my experience as attorney is, you know, you'd like to have all the time in the world. And maybe we think that, you know, 15 months, 18 months, 19 months is enough time to negotiate. But most of the big deals get done right before trial. So having a deadline, you know, having a deadline, you know, if there's a deal to be made, I hope that people keep talking and people can figure out a solution that we don't pit our communities against each other. And, you know, if that deadline is January 11th or whenever it is, I think it's important that we impose that deadline. And the last thing I want to say is. You know, reading the report, reading what East Bay Parks wants to do with it and doesn't want to do with it, reading the implications of of this passing . This is going to be a homeless facility if we do nothing because it's going to stay there. It's going to become urban blight, and people are going to go in there and sleep just like they did at Alameda Point, that we going to spend millions of dollars to tear those buildings down so we can either do this the right way or we can let nature take its course. And that's the wrong way. And I think, as Elizabeth said, we can do better as a city. Thank you both. Very sorry. If I may just interject. Moment. I don't want I don't want the council to concede at this point that if this passes, it's just automatic taking of the property in the next item before the council if this moves ahead to an election. One of the things that that initiative would do if the voters approve it, it would compel the city attorney's office to bring an action in court to determine whether or not there had been a taking and also if there were a taking, what the fair market value would be in order to establish the cost to the property owner. So while it may ultimately be that there is a taking and there will be a cost, which we don't know. I don't want to concede tonight that there is an automatic taking by reason. If this were to pass, that will be decided down the road. Based on a number of different factors. Thank you for that clarification. Vice Mayor Knox White. Can I ask one question? If we move forward to put this on an, let's say, on the special election tonight, can it still be withdrawn by the once we have voted to put it on? Can it be withdrawn by the by the proponents? Yes, the the petitioners have the right to withdraw it up to the deadline. So even if the council took action tonight, the the resolution itself provides that if the petitioners withdraw, then the item basically stops. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to thank my my fellow council members for their well-spoken comments on this. I agree with Councilmember Desai. This is straightforward. He and I clearly have a different definition of compelling. And we can talk about the $500,000 for putting this in April versus November. But what we know is that if we do not move forward with this right now, the wellness center will lose tens of millions of dollars that it already has committed. And that is a compelling interest to me. As Councilmember already mentioned earlier, we just adopted not just things we need, but emergency things we need in our dire need of and don't have enough money for this meets that need. And I don't know how we don't move forward to find out whether or not we can meet that need or not as soon as possible. You know, we just ended a campaign. I got to talk to a lot of people. It just reinforced to me how caring Alameda is for as a community. You know, we sometimes come at things from different places, but for the most part, our community wants to be there. Homelessness was a major issue that was discussed. What are we doing about it? And over and over again, I said, Well, we've got this wellness center. And people are trying to stop it. I do not believe for 2 seconds that this is about open space. Because it's not open space, it's commercial buildings. This is about stopping a wellness center that is more or less funded and is well needed and well document that need is well documented. For me, I am hopeful that in the next week the proponents of this initiative will see that it is a lost cause to win at the ballot, and we'll see that the best way to get what they want, which is to fix the outcomes that they are most concerned about, is to sit down and work on those issues to address their concerns. And I, for one, will commit right now to be there at that table to help with those, if that is useful . I know our mayor has been you know, other people have also offered there are many of us here who will be willing to help do that. It is the number one way to get what you want, unless the only thing you want to is no homeless center at that site. Measure K was funded with $750,000. They spent over 350 to $400000 put on the put this on the ballot. And our community will see through what this is. This is not a community wide supported thing. And I appreciate that. 6000 people signed a petition. Those 6000 people were told a lot of things that were not true. And I stood next to the people collecting signatures and heard them say it. I know that at the last meeting before I was on the council, there was some indignation by some folks who did collect signatures, said they never did lie. And that may be true. I must not have stood next to them. Because the people I heard were telling people that this was about protecting existing open space from development. And this is 11 buildings. So for me, you know, I again, I it's not up to each individual, one of us to decide what the ballot in WW was. The Park District is the one that knows and we know from the Parks District that they were aware that this land was not going to be up for sale. They were talking before they ever put WW together about putting something on the ballot for WW to fund it. My understanding is the WW funds are already spent or spoken for. There are no WW funds. To my to my knowledge, to put this on, I would like to get some clarity on that before we move too far forward with this. And at some point in time here very soon, I'd like to actually ask if my council members will agree. I think there are factual misstatements in the initiative that need to be challenged. This is not going to be an argument about whether or not the voters passed open space. And we should honor that because that's not what this argument is about. This argument is about whether or not we are the community that we say we are. Who cares about homelessness and addressing this and taking those taking care of those who need help and taking the burden, the hand that we have now. Or listening to some folks who want to stop this just to stop it because they don't like it. And with some promise of some bird in the hand and another space magical. Another space that exists with magical money that doesn't exist. And so I would like to whether we move forward tonight to put this on the ballot for April, which would be my druthers or not, or whether we decide to continue this meeting so that we can get some more information about the splitting of the property, about whether there are WW funds here, because I think that I think the proponents should know. I think the proponents should know that there are going there will likely be people challenging them on this. I felt very bad. I got to spend time with Ms.. Fossett in Minsk some more. Said a number of campaign events that came to some of my events. I have got to enjoy spending time with them and talking about things and whatever else. I'm very sorry to hear that Ms.. Fossett is feeling ill about what has been happening so far. But I can tell you my experience with the measure campaign is that that was nothing. Our community will stand up like they did with Measure K, and they're going to stand up very clearly and stand up for the people in this community for that we need to take care of in this community, and I think we can avoid that. And there are maybe ten days, nine days left until that happens. But I really want to make a quick, clear, clear clarion call to please remove this from the initiative. And let's get working on the issues that we can address and let's take care of the issues you want to. But you know that don't do this to our community. We don't need this. It's time for healing. Those are my comments. Thank you. And I'm going to just finish with mine. Our city and our county are in the midst of a housing crisis. During my campaign, I said that I consider addressing and eventually resolving this housing crisis to be a moral imperative. And I do. I'm honored that my first meeting of the New Year as your new mayor was this afternoon with Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, who came over and sat down and talked with Ms.. Potter and me about some housing issues that the CASA Compact. And one of the things that Mayor Schaaf said that I think applies here is that it is not easy to do the tough work that needs to be done. And but we were elected to do just that. So as elected leaders, we can't look the other way at this housing crisis right here in our backyard. And we can't say not in my backyard. If we do, the crisis only grows worse. We need to take concrete steps to address this crisis and the proposal at McKay Avenue. This project that Mr. Biggs and others have put together is a well thought out way to shelter some of our most vulnerable homeless individuals that were referred to in the CDBG report. The reason that I support going forward with a special election is not that I like to see my city spend hefty six figure sums to do so. However, I know that this facility has funding commitments now that will not still exist in November of 2020. And I mean, the election would be November of 2020. The the project wouldn't move forward until sometime after that. Right now, there is a funding commitment from the Kaiser Family Foundation which understands the connection between homelessness and health and has taken bold measures in the East Bay and also in the South Bay to construct housing and resources for our unsheltered population. And Alameda County recently indicated that they are recommending that this project receive $11.5 million for Measure one that county residents passed last year. But these funding sources aren't going to sit in wait because as you can imagine, there are so many competing projects. This need is great around the Bay Area. We have the opportunity we need to strike while the iron is hot. I In addition to meeting with the representatives of the Friends of Crab Cove, I also had a meeting with Ted Biggs and Dr. Harvey Rosenthal, who owns the shopping center, the Neptune Plaza Shopping Center, and he's a member of the Friends of Crab Cove. And I wanted to get them together. I wanted to walk the property. I wanted to listen to what his concerns were and all of the concerns that he articulated about, you know, his shopping center, which, by the way, is fully occupied now and the safety of the businesses and the merchants . Those can all be addressed and all be taken care of with the sort of regulations and operating agreement that would exist. We would love to have the neighbors and the businesses help us draft that, Mr. Biggs, but I'm sure in the city offers its services to do any of that. As was previously noted, I did meet with the Friends of Crab Cove. In my long experience in life, I don't always get people to agree to what I'd like them to agree to, but I will reiterate that they are able to withdraw their petition any time up to January 11th, 5 p.m. and work with the city and the project sponsor to have their concerns as neighbors address. That door is still open. It will remain open until 2011. I want everyone to go away feeling that they have gotten something out of an agreement. So what is before us right now as a council we're looking at item six C, so we have to decide, first of all, do we want to just adopt the ordinance? I don't think I've heard anyone say that we want to adopt the ordinance. And the second question is, do we adopt a resolution submitting the ordinance? To the voters before that happens. I do think that it is a very valid concern that was raised by a couple of my colleagues that the opportunity to revise, amend the initiative language should be should be addressed if that's the will of the majority of the Council. Madam Cleary we can put it up on the screen. Well I. I. I would like to continue it. I'm, I'm wondering what other I'm, I'm never a huge fan of editing on the fly. So, but I mean, it's nice that you put that up on the screen, but I'm just not sure we want to do the wordsmithing here. But tell us tell us the best way to go about this. I was going to suggest that if if if you feel that the you're going to probably want you can change this item to next week anyway and give sort of a straw vote in terms of where you're headed. I mean, it sounds like the council's going to put it on the ballot. It sounds like it's probably going to go in April. You could appoint a committee of two council members to meet with all our staff and and other staff to come up with some language that could then be brought back to the Council for its final action next week, if that's something that the the mayor would like to consider. Well, as a matter of fact, I and we haven't had a chance to talk about this, but I've thought about that very thing. And the subcommittee I was going to propose and I also haven't talked to any of my colleagues, was Councilmember Vella and I, if you would be willing. We've done drafting before. She's really good. And and I and we've I've already tasked the vice mayor and council member to decide they're doing the deep dove into the city charter. So I don't want to pile too much on them. And don't worry, council member Eddie, your time is coming. I've got, you've got your number. Um, but if I'm. First of all, I'm seeing a nod of the head. Yes, yes. The party can not take down. Yes. Yes. Okay. And so with that, Mr. Ashby said we could schedule time to meet with you. Yes, I probably with extent from our office and perhaps from somebody from planning and do that, you know, certainly as quickly as possible in order to bring this item back to the council. Thursday or Friday, depending on what your schedules will permit. And could that same subcommittee also be considered for drafting, say, ballot arguments? Certainly. And also, if word get, I don't if there's some concern about also the ballot language with respect to the two other items. If the council's going to talk about those, that also might be inappropriate. If you're going to, you know, want to. Suggest wordsmithing this ballot question. The other ones may need some wordsmithing too if the council feels that's appropriate. Okay. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Let's. Let's see if we can get through item six C right now. Help us out, Madam Clerk. Well, it sounds like if you wanted to, you could just continue this item with the direction that you two will form the subcommittee and work with staff. So do we need to do anything to formally establish that we do not want to adopt the ordinance, but we want to go forward to the voters? I think it's been expressed. I think that the main thing is to continue to add dates and time specific. So that's that's really where I would focus on is trying to figure out what date and time you want to continue it too. And then, you know with the new revised ballot question coming that meeting to review. But this be a good time to take a little break? Sure. Good. Let's take a little break. Could everyone be back here in 10 minutes? That's 915 sharp. I'm going to start 915. Thank you. Oh. Actual. You can. Trying to just fool around for a minute because nobody or we could get out a minute earlier. Okay. All right. Madam Clerk, um. Do you want to. Sure. I think. Bring us up to speed. Yes. The city attorney and I convinced and basically what we think we would recommend is that the council proceed with adopting the resolution, calling the election on April 9th with direction that the ballot question will be amended and return at a date specific. And we would suggest that date specific be next Thursday the 10th and any time after 531 time, the council designee. And the reason that you would recommend that we adopt the resolution now is because. In in order to set the argument deadlines and you have to call the election now and then that way and we can proceed with, you know, getting out that notice and having those deadlines set and then getting the information to the registrar so they could compile it on the ballot. Okay. How does that sound to everyone? Okay. So did someone want to make that motion or did you have one say to me? Councilmember So we're bringing back. So. 75. I'm sorry, bring back the 75 words and suppose ballot. The argument against the. Proposal now and again we're just on item 68. So I'm looking for a motion to adopt the resolution calling the election and calling it on a date specific April 9th, 2019. And. Um. And also. Continuing the meet what we need to do that my motion. I would include it in the motion just as one. I will wrap it all in and then continuing the meeting to a date to January 10th next week to review the amended language. And that would be of the ballot measure itself and. Well, the ballot. Question and about the ballot question and then we'll get into arguments. Yeah, you can make a separate motion. Okay. I could make that motion. Please. Please do. I do. All right. Second. Sorry, one little minor piece. What time do you want to specify your continuing it to on the 10th. What works for people. It is 530. Work for six would be better. Okay. Because can you just. Up to six. Okay. 6 p.m. would be great. One clarifying question. Councilman Brody. Thank you so. This revised. 25 words. Will that be posted somewhere or there's some deadline on by when which we have to provide that to the public. I think the goal would try to try to get it done by Thursday, which today? Wednesday. What do you think? Monday. I mean, I think we could get it out at any point because technically you could edit that language at the meeting. Even as long as you have the final language adopted at the January 10th meeting, you'll be fine. So. QUESTION I'm wondering, though, from our Mr. Councilman Rhodes. QUESTION perhaps as a revised staff report would come out with that language so our colleagues can also see the proposed language ahead of time. That and that can happen at any time. I could even put out I'll put out a continued agenda tomorrow. And then what we can do is just add that when you have the question formulated, we can add it as an attachment at that point in time. So it'll be public at all at the same point whenever the subcommittee decides. I just want to make sure we're properly noticing things. You're continuing it and you well, you have the ability to edit the question on the spot even. Okay. I think the goal is to have gotten there. I think the goal I think we are going to have it properly noticed. I think the goal is to just give everybody enough time to weigh in. They need to. Okay. Well, I'm not sure about weighing in because we don't want to do serial meetings, but at least. They'll be prepared to weigh in at the meeting. Yes, exactly. Exactly. Okay. So was that motion clear enough for you? Yes. Okay. So Councilmember Ody has moved to do we have a sec? Yes, exactly. So I ask the question now that we have a this motion. I think it would be fair to to because we've already had public comment on this item. If we were to write it right now, there would be no more public comment. Typically, there would be no public comment on that Thursday as well. I think we should be. I just think it would be good to be clear about whether or not this we have public comment is now closed and we are now revising based on the public comment we heard tonight and and whatnot or whether we're planning on having it. Can you just if people are going to come on Thursday. Correct. When you continue an item, the public comment has already been closed and you're just continuing the council. But we can always reopen. You could decide to reopen it. But the typical way is to have the public comment closed in Metamora. Yes. Councilmember Desai, I'm. Just going to quickly say that I will oppose this motion because I believe at $25,000, at a $25,000 cost for the November 2020 election, that decision is far superior than spending roughly $600,000 that city hall just simply doesn't have or an April special election. The second reason is because. While Council members had indicated that that the project proponent is at risk of losing funds if an election was held in November 2020. During the course of his three minute presentation, the project proponent himself never explicitly said he is at risk of losing project funds if the election is held in November 2020 . So no case has actually been made that funds for the project from the sponsors are at at risk. No case has been made from the floor, so I believe that the better decision is to hold off until November 2020. But I respect where all of you come from. Thank you. Mr.. DE So I think the best decision would be if we could get the initiative pulled, but we'll play the hand we're dealt. Okay, so we have a motion. It's been amended slightly and seconded. Councilmember Villa. I did want to raise one point. You know, there are other funds at risk here. And while we aren't necessarily conceding a taking putting, if this were to be adopted, we have other parks that are in jeopardy. And one of the things that several of us, including myself, had asked for when we heard this at the prior meeting was where where would these funds for this new open space park come from? And essentially, would we have to go out and do a park bond? What would the cost of that be? We would you know, where does this prioritize different things? Would this put this ahead? My understanding is this would put this ahead of Jean Sweeney and Estuary Park, two parks that are going to be utilized and are supposed to be used by the entire city of Alameda Estuary park costs, you know, significantly less is already underway, is going to have a number of different uses throughout the city and with our partners. And I think that those are concerns that we had expressed at the at the previous meeting. So I get that six figures, any six figures is a large expenditure for the city, but it behooves us to ask where are these other funds coming from? Because if we don't have enough money to host to do a special election, we certainly don't have enough funds to pay for and reprioritize this park or proposed park over other parks that we have that are already under way, including Gene Sweeney and Estuary. And so I know that it's somewhat difficult to get those numbers together, and we would only have to go off of estimates. But we that was a large concern that was raised at the prior meeting, including by Council member Motor City. And quick clarification. City Clerk The option to on this item also requires a request that the City Council decide interest in drafting ballot arguments and direct the city attorney to prepare the impartial analysis. Right. So I was suggesting, if you want to make the motion separate about the directing direction on the ballot argument and the resolution contains like language directing the attorney to prepare the impression. Okay, that's fine. So then we've got our motion. It's been seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor. I opposed. One oppose. Okay. So the measure passes 4 to 1. Thank you. Okay. And now we move on to item. No. I'd like to. I'd like to make a motion. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yes. And it's there at the mayor's discretion to it to appoint a subcommittee of two members to write the ballot argument for submittal at our January 15th meeting. I say no. Our next. Argument. The argument against not due to the 16th letter. That's just agenda. Is it for the 15th? Okay. So that. So let's hear from the city clerk. Okay. So let's do it this Thursday, isn't it? Yeah, the packet for that goes out tomorrow. I guess if the argument could be completed by next Tuesday, it could be on a special agenda with the seven days of advance notice. It just becomes really difficult too for the timing for the argument authors. I do. So I just wanna say I do feel uncomfortable putting that on a continued meeting when there has been nothing. No, I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying it's difficult to get it on the 15th, even. Is that what the point I was trying to make is? No, no. What I was meaning was we continue this item to the 10th. We have no public comment and we bring forth arguments. The argument for review at that time. Let me ask if the resolutions adopted tonight, when are the arguments for and against due? January 16th, Wednesday. So if they're due then and if the council is going to consider if, for example, if a subcommittee were to write the arguments, but once all the council members or a majority of the council member wants to sign that argument against, for example, when we have to do it on the 15th. Well, the council can just delegate the authority to those two people and make a decision about let them even decide who's going to sign or decide now that the four council members in support are going to sign it. But they would have to sign it without being able to make edits. That's typically the way it's done. Most recently, we had a little extra time because we were consolidating and we could give more time. So we did get one on, but that was the first time we've ever done it that way. And typically it's just deferred to the subcommittee with letting them work it out. And the problem otherwise is that. There really isn't adequate time to draft it and have it on the regular meeting for the 15th. We would have to have a special meeting on the 15th to consider a full council approving that ballot argument against right. And the people would only have until next Tuesday to draft it, which. Doesn't. Always throw my motion. I would be more than comfortable to just add my name actually. Well, depending on who you were about to suggest, I think this subcommittee I the subcommittee I propose, believes that we can have that language done by Tuesday. Okay. Well, I did. I mean, I think, you know, I would be happy to put my name to something that I trust you to write something in on the 16th at my name to that without having an agenda. I don't know how Councilmember Odie feels. Well, I'd like to read it before I sign it, but, I mean, I would trust the subcommittee. Yeah. Right. Yes. That solves the agenda problem. So we don't have to bring it back to the point. You write it and submit it and we can sign our names to it. If I if I could. Out of deference to our colleagues who I think if I was in your shoes, I would certainly want to have an opportunity to read it prior to adding my name to it. I think that we can. I'd be willing to work on it to get it back to the city clerk on Tuesday. Whatever works for you guys and we can just cross that bridge when we get to it on Tuesday. If you guys have it, we'll get it out. We'll make it. Work. Okay. Okay. Okay. So. I don't know if you formally want to move the subcommittee of the two members and. Yeah. And then. It. I withdrew my. Motion. Motion? Or if you're just comfortable with the direction, that's fine. I'm comfortable with the rest of you. All right. Okay. Now can we move on? Thank you. It's the. Adoption resolution submitting to the voters an ordinance entitled Mackay Avenue Open Space Fiscal Responsibility. Measure at the special. Election to be held in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, April nine, 2019, and consider offering a possible rebuttal. An American to ask whether or not we could combine this with 60. I think that the discussion will go back and forth between the two anyway, but facilitate a better conversation.

Recommendation to adopt resolution requesting that the Board of Harbor Commissioners approve the transfer of 5 percent of Fiscal Year 2017 (FY 17) gross operating revenue, from the Harbor Revenue Fund (HR 430) to the Tidelands Operations Fund (TF 401), with a true-up adjustment if necessary, to reflect the final gross revenue amount upon issuance of the Harbor Department’s FY 17 audited financial statements. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07112017_17-0543

Motion carries. Thank you. Item 26 Report from Financial Management. Recommendation to adopt a resolution requesting that the Board of Harbor Commissioners approve the transfer of 5% of fiscal year 2017. GROSS operating revenue from the Harbor Revenue Fund to the Tidelands Operation Fund City Wide. Mr. Wester, any comments on this? An expression by an instructor. John GROSS. This is an incredibly important resolution tonight. John on Roman Council members, thank you. This is an annual event where we are required. If we want to get money from from harbor, if they have surplus funds, we have to request it. This is our annual request compliant with the charter. We expect once we make this request, if you so choose, that they will approve it and we will receive about $18.6 million from the harbor operations which will support our Tidelands Fund and our beach operations. Thank you. Councilman Price. I support this motion and urge my colleagues to do so as well. And consider the comments. Okay to the motion for a second. Any public comment? Mr. Good hear. Obviously we fully support this. But it also goes to remind that if it were not for the Tidelands moneys and the more that flowed to the city for this, we would undoubtedly be. On the road to bankruptcy, period. Jettisoned by the $90 million debacle that we're now standing in, i.e. the new civic center. Keep that in mind. Never forget it. Thank you. Thank you. There's emotion in a second signal. Public comment. Please cast your votes.

Recommendation to conduct a study session to receive and discuss the Fiscal Year 2015 Airport Noise Budget Analysis Report and Supplemental Slot Allocation. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_12082015_15-1272

So now we're back to the airport. I think we're going to go there. So let's do the airport. So again, let me reintroduce the airport. Executive Director Bryant Francis. And let's just start from the top, please. Yes, sir. Once again, good evening, Mayor Garcia, members of council and everyone in attendance this evening. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the airports noise budget performance. This is a critical issue for the airport and for the city. The annual review of our noise performance is required by the noise ordinance. It is something that we do in the fourth quarter of each calendar year. As you are aware, our noise ordinance is one of few in the nation grandfathered under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. It is a balance between airline and community interests. It provides unparalleled protection for our community and its residents. One of the strengths of the ordinance is that it accounts for changes in the industry, such as the use of quieter aircraft while holding the noise levels to maximum limits. Because of the ordinance, we are able to ensure that our noise levels do not increase. The best way to ensure that we are able to keep the ordinance in place is to abide by it. This is something that we at the airport, along with our city attorney and city prosecutor, worked very hard to do. The ordinance requires that we allow a minimum of 41 air carrier flights per day. It also requires that we evaluate the noise levels annually to ensure we are below the noise budget specified by the ordinance and to determine if additional flight slots must be added. There are 18 noise monitors located around Long Beach Airport. The noise levels that we will discuss this evening are based on actual noise data from our airport noise and operations monitoring system or enemies. This is a multimillion dollar noise monitoring and flight tracking system that correlates noise levels with aircraft operations. Noise monitors are associated with each of our three runways. We have six regulatory noise monitors as depicted in orange on the screen. These monitors are the violation monitors. The ordinance establishes maximum noise levels for individual aircraft at each of these monitors. These monitors are important as they serve as the basis for our monetary fines. The noise limits are based on 1989 1990 noise levels and have never been modified. We are not proposing to modify them tonight. Noise levels will be retained at 1989. 90 levels. Noise monitors nine and ten as depicted in red. Are at either end of our primary runway, runway one, two, three zero, and they are our noise budget monitors. In addition to maximum noise levels for each aircraft, the ordinance establishes cumulative noise budgets for these monitors. In addition to monitoring the maximum noise levels, we monitor total noise exposure, which is all noise throughout the year at these locations. The ordinance specifies total noise, exposure limits or noise budgets for five aircraft categories, including air carriers, which is the focus of tonight's discussion. Remote monitoring terminal or empty nine is located north of the airport and is our primary monitor for departure operations. Our M10 is located south of the airport and is our primary monitor for aircraft arrivals each year during the fourth quarter. We evaluate the total annual noise exposure at these locations. The noise ordinance establishes a minimum floor of 41 air carrier flights. As mentioned earlier, under the ordinance, air carriers are encouraged to operate at the lowest possible noise levels. This encouragement is provided by requiring an increase in the number of flight slots. If the air carrier category operates below the established noise budget and there is room in the budget to provide a cushion against exceeding that budget. Following these steps is critical to protecting the budget based on long term noise monitoring data. We know that aircraft have gotten quieter over time. This graph depicts historical aircraft noise levels measured at RS 89, which again is a monitor which measures departing aircraft. Some of these aircraft are no longer operating at the airport. The aircraft in the upper portion of the graph, which are the Boeing 727, the very first aircraft, the DC nine and the MD 80 represent older aircraft and engine technologies. The lower portion of the graph depicts new, quieter engine technologies. These newer aircraft represent the vast majority of today's airline fleet. The reduced noise levels and change in the airline fleet is what has prompted me to take this action tonight. Based on our consultant's analysis of the noise data and projection of future flight activity, their recommendation, along with an independent peer review of the data and conclusions, is that we must add nine slots. This graph depicts the historical annual measured noise levels at RS 89. Since 2003, the highest levels reflect periods when older technology aircraft were operating at the airport, as shown in the graph. With the exception of 2011, when we experienced a period of significant operations of older technology, MD 80 aircraft. The airport has been operating significantly below the established noise budget. This graph depicts similar data for our M10. We do not see the prominent spikes in the data that we saw for our mt9. This is because our m t ten is primarily an arrival noise monitor and a rival. Noise levels are typically quieter and more consistent than departure noise levels. Our noise ordinance includes an incentive for the airlines to operate quietly. This incentive is the requirement for the airport to add air carrier flights if the noise goals are met. These noise goals are based on data obtained from the 1980 990 time period. We believe that we are the only city air airport able to ensure that our noise levels do not increase based on the data and the provisions of the ordinance. We must add flights. Next question is how many flights must be added? As mentioned previously, all 41 area air carrier slots are currently allocated. However, air carriers are operating approximately 31 flights per day on average. We need to account for this unused allocation in the noise budget. Otherwise, we run the risk of exceeding the budget. If the airlines were to begin flying a larger portion of their allocated slots. Currently our carriers are flying 74% of the available slots. That is part of why our noise levels are low. The long term ten year average utilization of slots is 84%. The maximum slot utilization is 93%. And I should note that this occurred one time only for one quarter in the summer of 2005. The maximum utilization in any 12 month period is 90%, which was calendar year 2009. And the maximum utilization in a noise year, which is October through September, was 87%, which was from October 28 through September 2009. In order to determine the number of additional slots that should be added, we need to account for the slots that are not currently utilized to be conservative. Our consultant calculated what the noise levels would be if the air carriers operated 95% of their available slots, which is above the level we have ever experienced at the airport. The noise levels based on 95% utilization of all available slots are shown in yellow for the period 2010 to 2015. As you can see, even if all the current flights flew at 95%, that's across all 41 minimum allocated slots. Because the planes are operating so much quieter, there is still significant capacity in the noise budget. And this is the same data for R.A. ten, which is an a noise monitor. This data serves as the baseline for determining how much room is available in the noise budget. Our consultant used a mix of common aircraft types to determine the noise levels from additional slots. These aircraft for the Boeing 737 700, Boeing 737 800, and the Boeing 757. They assumed four Boeing 737 700 aircraft for Boeing 737 800 aircraft and one Boeing 757 aircraft. These aircraft are conservatively representative of the airlines fleets today, as the slots may be flown by quieter aircraft such as the Airbus 320. As shown in this slide, four are empty. Nine. Even with the additional slots and all slots flown at 95% utilization. The airport would be below the 1989 1990 noise levels. These projections are very conservative, as the consultant used the louder of the representative aircraft flown at utilization rate that is higher than we have ever seen at the airport to ensure we do not exceed our budgets. This is the same data for R.A. ten. The data for R.A. ten is a little tighter than for R.A. nine, which is because, as aircraft have gotten quieter, this noise monitor becomes our limiting noise monitor. Again, the maximum slot utilization over the last 20 years is 93%, which occurred one time in summer of 2005. And this very conservative model of 95% utilization of all 41 minimum slots and 95% utilization of the nine new supplemental slots. We anticipate being near the allowable limit at our empty ten. We will watch this closely as required by the ordinance. The additional slots are valid for a period of one year and if we see the 1989 1990 noise levels that either are empty nine or are empty ten, the available slots will be reduced as the ordinance requires active management. To summarize, this action is required by the noise ordinance. The conclusions and recommendations are based on long term data from aircraft operations at our airport. The F-15 analysis conducted by Landrum and Brown was peer reviewed by Harris, Miller, Miller and Hansen, both highly reputable firms in airport and aircraft noise analysis. The results of the peer review were consistent with the original analysis and support Landrum and Brown's findings. This action is required in an effort to preserve and protect the noise ordinance. The ordinance cannot be adhered to. In part, we must abide by it in full in order to continue to enjoy its benefits. As a result, we must add nine flight slots. As next steps. There's an established procedure for awarding the slots. We will notify all carriers, U.S. based carriers of slot availability. Those carriers interested in additional flying or new flying will submit that interest to the airport. And slots will be awarded based on an established protocol per the allocation resolution. And we have 30 days to allocate the slots at that time. Vince M.E., our long time consultant for noise analysis, is regrettably unable to join us tonight. However, Cristian Valdez is here with a statement to read on Mr. Masters behalf. He's a member of Mr. Mystery's team, and I'd like to invite him to the podium at this time. Good evening. Mayor and council members. My name is Christian Valdez with Landrum Brown Acoustical Consultants to Long Beach Airport. I have a statement prepared by Vince Mastery, the primary acoustical consultant for the airport who couldn't be here tonight. You know, I read the statement to you now. My name is Vince Master. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of California, and I have over 40 years of aviation noise experience. I have an advanced degree in engineering and have authored numerous peer reviewed journal journal articles. I'm sorry I'm on the East Coast at the present time and cannot be here in person. Christian Valdez of my staff is here to represent Landrum and Brown and read this statement. I've been working closely with Long Beach Airport on issues relating to the air and air carrier noise budget since 1999. Based on my analysis and review of noise data for October 1st, 2014 through September 30th, 2015, I have determined that the airport is currently operating below the noise budget for air carriers. The ability, the availability of capacity within the noise budget at the airports at the airport is likely due to a change in aircraft fleet mix. Specifically in the past, two aircraft have tended to dominate the noise budget calculations at the airport because of their high noise levels on departure. These are the Boeing 7 to 7 historically used for cargo flights and the McDonnell Douglas, MD 80. The Boeing 7 to 7 has been decreasing in use and is now essentially gone from the US fleet, although still in use in some charter operations. And the MD 80, while still in some airline fleet, is also decreasing in use by U.S. airlines. The number of additional flights at the airports at the airport must allocate to operate within the established noise budget is dependent on the number of new flights, the aircraft type and the time of day of the operations. Since evening and night operations are heavily penalized in the noise budget, using data that reflects the current operations and fleet mix at the airport. The estimated number of flights that could be added has been presented to you and is the subject of your discussions. While these estimates are valid for the typical operator at Long Beach, any proposed new operations that are requested through the allocation process would have to be reviewed for the aircraft type and type of operations. Time of operation. For example, if a new operator were to reintroduce the MD 80, the number of slots available, available drops dramatically. We are prepared to evaluate any proposed new operations to determine whether the initiation of service utilizing those flights would lead the air carriers, air carriers as a group to maintain compliance with the noise levels established in the baseline noise budget. The noise ordinance at Long Beach Airport carefully balances the environmental interest of the community while providing capacity increases at the airport. Although most airports are limited to their ability to control aircraft under the 1990 Airport Noise Capacity Act and Grandfather Clause permits the airport to continue to limit hours of operation, single event noise and control over noise overall noise through a noise budget provided that the airport complies with Anka and its FAA grant assurances, including increasing the number of flights to the extent possible while maintaining the noise budget at the airport. Essentially, then the airport must allocate flights above the 41 flight limit. If the airport determines that the initiation of those flights would not lead. Two, the air carriers exceeding the noise levels established in the noise budget. We have made our estimates and the additional capacity that is available with these important issues is in mind. That's the end of the statement. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bass. Before I turn this over to begin with questions, I know that our city attorney and just so that people are aware, this process in large part was also led through our city attorney's office in making determinations and working with our city manager. So, Mr. Parkin, if you want, I know you're going to weigh in on a few things. Mayor. Thank you. Mayor Members of City Council. That's correct. Mike Mays and myself and our office have worked closely with the airport on this issue. Mike's been involved with it for 20 years and is very familiar with the ordinance and its requirements. We also requested and staff agreed on the peer review of the initial studies and data, and we stand ready to answer any of your questions. Okay. Great. Thank you for turning this over now to council for four questions. Councilman Mongo. Yes, I appreciate the presentation. And most specifically, I appreciate. Slide ten and Slide 11, which we discussed at our prior briefing, that of how helpful that would be to understand and visualize the noise and what that looks like. Many have heard me say that the process where people get to come forward and speak for 3 minutes, we don't get to engage in a dialog and a lot of times there are questions that don't get to be answered. So I sent out a request of my constituents 12 12,000 emails and received back a multitude of questions which we've consolidated that I'd like to make sure that are answered in the public forum. So if the city staff are available to answer these, I'm the first question was and I can give the percentage of the answer that I know off the top of my head, and then maybe we can work together to answer some of them. How many of the minimum 41 air carrier slots and 25 commuter slots are being used on a regular basis? Who are the slots allocated to and how much are they utilized? Specifically, I know that we've discussed that the current slot allocation is 32 to JetBlue, five to American, two to Delta, one to FedEx and one to UPS. That is correct. Can you answer the the question related to regular basis usage right now? Yes. For the most recent 12 month period, JetBlue was at approximately 70% utilization. Both of the air cargo carriers, FedEx and UPS were right at 70% as well. Delta, with its air carrier slots, was in the low 90% range, as was American slash U.S. Airways. And in the commuter category, there are three of 25 total slots currently allocated all to Delta, and they are utilizing those that are approximately 65%. Thank you. Why is it necessary to increase the number of air carrier slots to 50? If only 30.4 of them are being utilized on an average basis. I can try to answer that question. First of all, even though that the utilization is actually lower than historically or historic averages, that's not what we look at when we look at to add supplemental slots. Basically, we look simply at the noise budget. All of the carriers that Brian mentioned, even though they are flying at different levels, are all flying legally within the terms of our ordinance and its companion flight allocation resolution. So we simply look at the budget themselves. And as the presentation demonstrated, this addition of nine slots was actually modeled by our noise consultants, as if all of the carriers, all 41 of them at the airport or all 41 slots were being flown at a 95% level, which. I think you also said was higher than any year. But 19 or 25. Historically, the 18 year averages 84% among all 41 slots. So we really look at the budget itself and not the. I was going to say underutilization of the slots because they are being utilized in accordance with the ordinance in the resolution. And is this an implied or explicit requirement of the noise ordinance? The requirement to add additional slot? Yes, sir. It is an explicit requirement of the ordinance. And what's the airport director's role? So it's somewhat unique in this particular ordinance, which, as was mentioned in the presentation, was adopted in 1995 after 12 years of litigation in federal court, and basically the consent of the air carriers that were suing the city at the time, together with the federal judge and the FAA. For good. I forgot the question. I'm sorry. The airport directors role versus the city over mayor. The airport directors role is called out in the ordinance as the airport director rather than city council or the city manager. That makes a determination on whether or not additional slots can be added. I'm sorry. No problem. And who can apply for those nine slots? So, as Mr. Francis indicated, any certificated, certificated air carrier could apply for those slots, whether they're an incumbent carrier existing at air airport now or a carrier that's. No, not at our airport. Some of these questions were submitted before the the constituents were able to see the presentation. But I think that it's important that they have the answers so that when they do come up to make their three minute speech in case they missed that part of the presentation. So I appreciate you still answering them. Must a certain number of outside carriers that are not at the airport or any requirement of current tenants apply for the noise ordinance to be preserved? Or is it open to all. The city's obligation? The airport's obligation is to make the flight slots available for allocation. If, hypothetically, no one were to apply for those nine slot supplemental slots, the city would be fully compliant with Anka and its ordinance, and there would be no violation that the FAA would recognize. We just have to make them available. And if the deadline passed and no one had applied, would we need to extend the deadline and leave it open in case someone asked or would be open at a year later? They would be open until the next budget year and we would look at this and go through this exercise again next October, essentially. Will JetBlue be able to apply for any of the new slots, given that they're not utilizing their current allocated slots. As they indicated? JetBlue, as with all of the other carriers, are currently utilizing their slots in accordance with our current regulations are a flight allocation resolution in the ordinance. So the city does not have an ability to discriminate against any particular carrier in the allocation of the supplemental slots. So yes, JetBlue, as with all our other incumbent carriers, could apply for slots. And once those slots are allocated, are there conditions of which those slots could be removed or revoked? Yes. Again, that's within the purview of the airport director. And what would happen if we allocated the nine supplemental slots at the end of one year or 12 months of operation? We would look at the noise budget again and if the noise budget had been exceeded due to the adding of those nine slots, one or more slots would be automatically removed. And the way it works in the ordinance is we would actually eliminate the noisiest slots first until we came below the budget. So not in the order they were awarded, but noisiest first. And are there conditions by which a slot could be revoked mid-year? There's really no provision in the ordinance for a midyear revocation. What if they violated curfew hours at the airport? All of the supplemental slots are subject to all of the other existing airport noise, rule and regulations, so they would have to comply with the curfew, the departure and landing, the departure and landing times just like any other carrier. And if they failed to do that, they would be subject to administrative penalties or criminal prosecution. I know you addressed this, but just to be clear and make it a specific question, when the additional thoughts are added, should JetBlue begin to utilize all of their currently unused slots? What would happen if all the noise exceeds the ordinance limit midyear? So we would still look at it at the end of next fiscal year for revocation. But as I indicated with JetBlue, the way it was modeled it suppose that JetBlue was already flying at 95% of their rate. Even if JetBlue were to fly at 100% of their rate, which I believe historically no air carriers ever done at the airport. There would still be room in the budget. So really, it is more dependent on the fleet mix. If someone were to come in with an outdated MD 80 or 77, that would be the thing that would more likely put it over the budget. And I know you answered that we would not be out of compliance if no one applied. And what effects will the FAA changes to flight paths on Southern California airports under the next gen program have on our noise budget? Yes. We've looked closely at the proposed NextGen procedures for Long Beach Airport. There are no changes to the procedures within our noise monitors, so we anticipate no change at all. Given implementation of the FAA, NextGen. And is the airport director planning to utilize two five right. With more commercial landings in addition to the current general aviation group? I know we are not the primary runaway. Runaway 1230 is utilized for. For all of our air carrier operations, unless it is unavailable for a brief period of time. At that time, runway seven left to five right is the backup runway. I should also point out that runway one, two, three, zero. There are no plans to have any extensive rehabilitation or construction of work going on with that runway over the next several years. So aside from very brief periods, we would not utilize any runway other than the primary for the air carrier operations. Does this study have anything to do with JetBlue's request that Long Beach add federal customs or an FAA facility for international flights? No, it does not is completely unrelated. And I could add on to that. Some of the council members that have been here a while will remember that this scenario of adding additional slots was actually studied in the airport area that dealt with the rehabilitation or the expansion of the airport terminals. So this was well in advance of JetBlue's request for the federal inspection station, and it was also analyzed in the original air, which was passed in 1980 or certified in 1986, and a subsequent negative declaration that studied the addition of supplemental slots, which was done in 1980, 1995. And is this at all related to the ACI and a conference that was held here in Long Beach related to aircrafts this year? No, it is not. And again, I appreciate you answering the questions despite your presentation, making some of these, because these were sent in in advance. Does the city's noise ordinance have any discussion about helicopter noise? No. The the noise ordinance establishes limits at the noise monitors which are associated with our runways. If the helicopters are operating to or from those runways, they are subject to the ordinance. We do not have any noise monitors in our primary helicopter quarters, however. And does the addition of nine new slots in any way impact other aircraft carrier usage categories? I think you talked about that already, and that was an explicit no. And what are the lost revenues from commercial airlines who left the airport and or underutilization over the last two years? What are the lost revenues? In the past. Public passenger flights, fliers. So we've taken a look at this since my arrival, and we've determined that the revenues are off by approximately $2 million in each of the last three fiscal years, and that is due almost exclusively to a reduction in flying, which leads to fewer passengers going through the terminal facility and all of the other revenue generating functions have . It has a ripple effect, in essence. So it's approximately $2 million annually. And have any of the potential, um, interested in any potential of the airlines that are interested in the slots reached out to express their explicit interest or do we have any written correspondence? I have met through the course of attending various industry events this year. I have I've been informed by various carriers that there is interest, general interest. But clearly at that time that was a discussion over which there was there was no slot allocation available, no slots available for allocation. So that would need to be revisited once the period for air carrier interest is is opened. I want to thank the members of the community who consolidated questions with us and made answering these questions possible. I wish I could have gotten back to everyone via phone call or email. As everyone is aware, we have a lot of items on the agenda. I think we took 30 phone calls today, and so I appreciate those of you who submitted in advance. I appreciate those of you who have come to any other community meeting and waited afterward to talk with me without interrupting the the cause of the community watch meeting or other matters that we had at the time. And I look forward to hearing my colleagues and the public before making additional comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Mongo, for asking many of the same questions that they actually have. And they were submitted to my office as well from many members of the public as I communicated to my constituents. I'm not thrilled about this news and potential action of awarding new slots at our airport. And not thrilled is an understatement. But I see this as more of an administrative and legal action as opposed to a policy decision by the by the council. That's that's very clear in the process and the ordinance. I do have several questions still, and I would just ask that the council and the public indulge us so we can get these questions out and answered so that people walk away from here with greater clarity. And so for the benefit from for everyone here, I'm going to ask, I think, an obvious question. Can you please provide an explanation in layman's terms about the differences between last year and this year, where yesterday the noise ordinance or noise study did not warrant additional flights? And this year we are now supposed to add nine new flights. I was reading a an op ed by by an airline executives last year on December of 2014. And he made mention to the fact that we were under well, under the noise allowable noise limit here in Long Beach. And so it was clear we were there that last year. Why different this year? Yes. Councilman Alston, for roughly the last three years there has been room available in the noise budget, in the air carrier noise budget. However, in the period as recently as late 2011 or early 2012, the airport still had activity by an operator that utilized the MD 80 aircraft, which was by far the the noisiest aircraft among the air carrier operations in Long Beach. So when it was determined that there was some room available with the FBI 12 analysis and there was still some room with the next year's analysis, it needed to be determined that there was a trend in place instead of in the very first year that there was a bit of room available . That room was immediately filled with new flying and then the potential would be there for it to go right back over because that operator had vacated the market. But they certainly could have reentered with the new slots that had would have become available had there been new slots allocated in prior years. And so there was a, I think, a real hesitation because of that aircraft type still being very prevalent with various air carriers being actively flown. As the years have passed, that aircraft is being retired at rapid rates, especially by American Airlines, which was formerly the largest operator of the MD 80, with over 400 aircraft in their fleet of the MD 80 type. But also, we have now established a trend. We have seen that there have been several periods where there is room available and the budget and the amount of available room has grown. And so we at a point now where it is time to to act to fill the available noise budget with these nine supplemental slots. So in short, the MDA shows what airline utilized the MDA. That was Allegiant. And is Allegiant still operating at the airport? They're still operating, but not at the airport, not at Long Beach at the present time. Okay. So they they are they are no longer operating. Correct. And one one great change about Allegiant. If they were to submit interest to return to the airport when they operated here in 2011, the only aircraft type they had in their fleet was the MD 80. Today they have a fleet of 25. In addition to the MD 80, they have a fleet of 25 A319 and A320 aircraft. The A320 we're very familiar with as that is what JetBlue flies here exclusively. So Allegiant has an option for an aircraft to put into this market that they did not have in 2011. Thank you, sir. So I'd like to, too, I'm going to jump around here with the additional nine flight slots. Certainly, I don't know much about airport operations. I would defer to you, Mr. Francis, but how does that impact and correlate with the FAA and other stakeholders that that that are necessary for airport operations? The 30 day window is the FAA prepared with air traffic controllers and TSA to handle. Nine more slots. So to speak. And how does that work? Well, I would I. Would say being consulted with in any way. They've not been consulted with. But I do not foresee any problem whatsoever in there being an ability to handle a an increase in the amount of aircraft activity by the FAA through the air traffic control system, nor on the ground with the TSA and the the passenger side of of the operation. Okay. And so your memo indicates that the slots will be awarded awarded in 30 days or within 30 days of becoming available. Can you describe that process and include when that 30 day clock starts to tick? Yes, sir. We'll have Mr. Mays respond to that question. Councilman Austin, the airport has a flight allocation protocol in place in the way it would work is that we would set an application time period of 30 days. Let's say hypothetically, it was January 1st. We would open up an application period. We would literally send a letter to each of our incumbent carriers at the airport indicating that there were nine slots available. We would also, as Mr. Francis indicated, send a letter, similar letters to all carriers that fly in the United States that may not be at our airport indicating that slots are available. At the conclusion of that period, we would see how many applications that we would have, and there could be a number of different scenarios if we had no applications at all because their one year supplemental slots, nothing would be allocated and we just move forward with what we have at the airport. If we had more than nine requests for slots or say two carriers each wanted six slots, we would basically go through a lottery process and it's set up to in essence favor slightly a non incumbents at the airport. So if you had an incumbent at the airport and none incumbent at the airport vying for slots, the non-incumbent would first be allocated to slots as opposed to the one slot that would be allocated to the incumbent at the airport. And so we would go through that allocation lottery process. They would have to submit to the airport what we call slot bonds that would guarantee the fact that they were actually going to utilize the slots. They would then have to demonstrate to us that they would advertise the slots as being ready for use within 90 days. They would actually have to, in order to retain the slot, have them up and running within a six month period. Okay. Thank you. So how does the appeal process impact the 30 day window? So the the appeal period would not allocate would not impact the 30 day window at all. The ordinance is clear that we have to do the allocation. So we would proceed in parallel, in essence. And the appeal period really wasn't discussed much here tonight. But basically the other thing I left out of the allocation protocol, in addition to sending notification to the air carriers, will also advertise in the newspaper the fact that we have slots available and set up a period of time in which people can appeal. It's a three tier appeal process. Basically the they could appeal directly to the airport director or the airport manager that subsequently could be appealed to the city manager of the city manager's designee and ultimately to the city council. But in a situation like this, what I liken to it's not like a C where it would come to the Council with much discretion in order not to allocate the nine slots. Basically someone would have to come forward with information that proved quite clearly that the calculations made by the various acoustical engineers who have presented the studies to the city council and the airport director were somehow incorrect. And that's precisely why we requested that at the beginning there would be peer review of our. Mr. Mestre, who's been there since 1999, his work. So in essence, we would proceed in parallel. So, Mr. Mayes, when was the last time we actually allocated new slots in the airport? So we literally have never allocated new slots under the ordinance that was adopted in 1995. Okay. That was a trick question. Okay. In your next steps, you say we're going to award the slots based on an established protocol and the protocol. How can we have a protocol if we've never done it before? That's what we've been working on. So we have put together we use the ordinance as a framework for developing the protocol. And so for the last couple of weeks, when we knew that this was going to come before the City Council, we have developed the protocol and our office did send each of the council members a copy of the protocol as an off agenda item earlier last week. So we have a very extensive protocol that lays out quite clearly, clearly what the airport air carriers must do if they want to apply. They have to first indicate to us they have the financial wherewithal to provide a slot bond. They have to indicate to us clearly what type of aircraft they intend to bring into the airport if they were allocated slots. They have to demonstrate that they are certificated by the FAA as a air carrier, air carrier and a few other things. So all of that is laid out in the protocol. It's about a five page protocol. Okay. So I think this this will address some of the concerns that I've heard from many of my residents. Currently, the Airport Advisory Commission receives a monthly activity and noise violation reports, and those reports are made available online. However, the findings of the annual noise budget study are not easily accessible as far as I know. And until this year that we have not been made publicly known, I think there's been part of it that's been part of the problem with this announcement about additional flight slots that the public do not have a real context to work from. And in the interest of transparency, can the airport staff make the annual noise study publicly available, such as through a report to the Airport Advisory Commission and posted on the airport website similar to the noise violation and activity reports. I know we are doing a lot of work and trying to and maybe our I-Team is paying attention here, but trying to create open data. And is that something that we can look at doing? Because I think that is part of what we we fell short. Yes, sir. Councilman Ross, we certainly can accomplish that. Okay. I think that was been that's been answered. And this question is for the street, for a city attorney. Is it your legal opinion that the airport noise ordinance requires the city to add these additional flights that slots based on the noise data available? Yes, that is correct. And what could potentially happen if the city did not make these additional slots available. That the failure to comply with the noise ordinance is is obviously the greatest risk to the FAA taking action against the city and either revoking the grandfather status. In addition, failure to allocate and follow the ordinance is going to implicate the grants, the FAA grants that the airport and the grant assurances. So over the years the city has received the FAA, the airport has received grant money. And in it, it requires that we comply with the terms of our anchor and the city's ordinance. And so that could implicate funding opportunities for the city and the city would maybe not be able to obtain those moneys. I think one issue that that concerns many, many people across the city is the fact that potentially our slots, airport slots are being gamed to a degree. And I think it would it would help. The question that I have is, is what what can the council do to prevent slot squadding, whether these are the new slots or the existing slots? Well, I'll ask Mike to jump in here, too. But I think that, as Mr. Maes pointed out, the slot squatting as described is in compliance with the city's slot resolution requirement and determines the rules on how the airlines must use their slots in order not to lose them or to maintain them. And that, as far as I know, that particular section of that resolution has not been changed since adopted in 1995. And Mike, if you want to add. We could look the council could look at potentially altering that. But that would take, I would think, a lot of discussion on the council to do that, because, in essence, if you did alter that resolution, you would in essence, be requiring air carriers to fly more frequently than sometimes they currently do. And so that would be a policy decision for the city council. I don't think you would get any pushback from the Federal Aviation Administration because they, quite frankly, like to see more planes in the air, but that the way it is structured now is based on when the resolution was passed, I think they tried to create a balance between the interests of the public and the preservation of their peace and quiet in their neighborhoods versus the rights of the air carriers to fly. So they came up with that scenario, which allows an air carrier to fly, as you've heard tonight, maybe as low as 64% of their actual slots, or 70% depending on the carrier . So but that is something that on a going forward basis, if the council wanted to look at that or wanted, we certainly could do that. Well, thank you. And I appreciate the the very straightforward answers to the questions. This is a difficult position, particularly for for me and the residents who I represent. This is, for the most part, not been seen as welcome news. But we all each and every one of these council members have pledged to do all we can to to maintain our noise ordinance. Noise ordinance. I'm going to be looking at all the alternatives and options available to ensure that the quality of life film in our neighborhoods is protected. And then we strike that balance because we do have an airport. We and we do have an obligation in that regard as well. I recognize that. I'm looking forward to hearing from the rest of my colleagues in the public. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember I'm sorry, Councilmember Ringo. Thank you. Jesus. The discussion has already taken so long. I lost track of where we're at. But. But bear with me. If. If I. My question is, get a little redundant. Because, like I say, that there's some points of clarification even in some of those that we've already discussed that that I didn't hear. And perhaps I want a little bit better clarification on those. But I have to agree with my colleague, Councilmember Austin, with the in regard to a surprise, especially when it comes down to timing. Timing is everything when it comes to issues like this. Here we are in the midst of a study to look at a customs facility and then we get a report that says we have to add nine additional flights. The timing on that couldn't have been worse or better in that regard because we're looking at the impacts of what a customs facility will do to our airport. At the same time, we're being told that we have to add nine flights because planes are getting quieter. So it doesn't it doesn't really make sense. And there's anything that a local official, especially me, that I don't like, is surprises. And frankly, this came as a surprise to us, and it it really threw us back in regards to what we're going to be dealing with in the next few months as the Customs facility study comes forward. So one of the things that I think that's out there that wasn't very clear and I think that needs a better clarification for the community because there's this misunderstanding or disconnect with the noise ordinance and what that means with the amount and the number of flights. A lot of people confused. The noise ordinance has been one set and the flights being another. In other words, that the 41 flights that we have is the maximum when in reality it's the minimum. So we have to look at and we're talking about as planes are getting quieter, that provides the opportunity for the airport or for us as a city to increase the number of flights. So I think that that needs to be made very clear to those who are most of all engaged in this in this discussion, but those who are affected by it as well. We need to understand that where we're at right now in terms of this mandate, if you will call it a mandate. Apparently, that's what we're at. To airline flights it go up to 50 is something that's a major concern. Having said all that, is there a limit? As planes get quieter, as as we add these nine flights, more planes will be quieter. Is there a maximum? We know the 41 is a minimum. Is there a maximum number of flights that we can realistically add over the next year or two years, whatever, whatever length of time it takes? The ordinance itself doesn't set forth a maximum, it leaves it open ended. But as a practical matter, there would be a maximum because it's still ultimately tied to the noise budget that was established in 1989, 1990. I don't know what the exact number would be as a maximum. As I indicated when we looked at this issue in the airport expansion E.R. in 2006, when the acoustical analysts looked at it, they projected maybe 11, but it could go a little bit higher than that. It just depends really on how quiet the aircraft get. And you know what? Our fleet mix is out of the airport. Now, in the previous questioning, there was a discussion about the the types of planes that are currently coming in or are in use at the Long Beach Airport. What was specifically mentioned about the the MD 80 versus the A320, which is the quieter plane and I'm looking at page four of the of the presentation where the MD 80 and the B737 Dash 400 is a borderline when you start with the 80. With the B737, they started getting quieter and we go all the way down to the A320. Would there be a prerequisite, if you will, a requirement for any airline that would be considering having some flights added to Long Beach as a destination or departure point to use the acquired planes? We can't recall. When can we do it? Can we legally do that? That's a good question there. We can't legally discriminate against any carrier that's certificated by the FAA as being able to carry passengers or cargo. But what we can do, and it was indicated in the presentation, if hypothetically when we advertise for the nine supplemental slots, one carrier came in and said, I want all nine slots. And by the way, I'm going to fly all MD eighties. We would have our acoustical engineer look at that scenario and based on what he has told us thus far, we would be able to ratchet down the number of slots that would be allocated to bring us within the budget. We don't anticipate that happening because there aren't that many MDs out there actually being flown by major air carriers. But we would ratchet down the number if the louder planes applied. Now there was a reference made to Allegiant that did that one time fly a Long Beach and fly in the eighties. Apparently, they still have some in their in their in their inventory of planes. And, of course, that would be welcome back. But if could we tell them. Yeah, but not with your MD 80. So, Councilman, you're wrong. The answer is that we we could not require them to operate the MD 80 or anything other than in the 80 or to prohibit the MD 80 from coming into the market. But as I mentioned. Allegiant now has other aircraft types in their fleets, which one of which we are very familiar with the A320, and they also have several A319 aircraft. They have 25 of those aircraft in their fleet today. They have already executed agreements to purchase an additional 25 of those A319 A320 aircraft, which will join their fleet over the next two years. So they will have approximately 50 A319 and A320 aircraft in the fleet, which will be equal to or greater than the number of MD 80 is that they're operating by the end of 2017. So clearly that's an airline that has evolved, that has taken on an aircraft type that is much more environmentally friendly. And I would fully expect that if Allegiant did state interest in returning to the market, that they would state that service would be operated by one of their Airbus aircraft. But at the present time, we don't exactly know. If we put those nine slots out there, that they will be. That they will be accepted. Do are there. Has there been any interest up to this point expressed by any of the airlines in saying, yeah, we'd like to look into those 9 to 9 or to our core services? When we open up the allocation period, which is a 30 day window, that will be the opportunity for the airlines to submit interest in writing. And at that time, they would have to also indicate what aircraft type they intend to utilize for those slots in the market. And just for purposes of argument, let's say that all nine slots are not are not filled. Are we still how would we be out of compliance? We did not feel all nine flights. All nine slots. No. We would not be out of compliance if there were any slots remaining within those that were made available for allocation, they would remain available for the remainder of the existing 12 month period, which would run through September 30th. And then we would conduct this annual analysis again to determine whether those slots would remain available based upon the cumulative noise levels as a result of the 516 analysis. Okay. One more line of questioning. There was a discussion also about the closing down of some of the runways for maintenance purposes. Is a noise ordinance suspended during that period of time? And is is it generally is a jet part of general information to the airlines that there's a runway? There's got to be no doubt that a runway is closed. There has to be that kangaroo for you can't fly into a runway and. In repair. But. But tell him mostly about the noise ordinance. It is suspended during that period of time. Well, how does that work? Yes, sir. We will have Mr. Ron Reeves, our noise and environmental officer, respond to that question. Yes. Councilman, the the airlines are made aware of runway closures through a procedure called no towns notices to airmen. And our operations department distributes these to the the FAA. And that that does go to to all the airlines. During the period. When we do have runway closures, the requirements or the noise levels associated with the runways are exempt. For example, during the nighttime hours, runway 1230 is the only runway that's in use if it is closed for maintenance. On those rare instances, runway two five right may be used. We do not have noise levels applicable to air carriers for runway 25. Right. However, these these occurrences are very rare. Okay. Now, there was also discussion about the appeal process. Does that start immediately or is there does the appeal start after the ninth slots are announced as being made available? Because when you arrange it, that's part of the airport's allocation protocol. And basically, we would set a time period in which the appeal period would run and it would be initially a 15 day appeal period, and we would make that known to both the air carriers and the public. So if anyone did want to appeal it, if they felt that the noise studies were somehow incorrect, they could definitely bring that to the airport directors attention. Now, that would be for the whole budget of nine, nine flights. We would do it. We would do it at one time. We would make an announcement that there were nine supplemental slots available. And we would also indicate to the public and the air carriers what the time period would be and how to file an appeal. Okay. Well, thank you for your responses. I know it takes a lot of patience. We have a lot of questions and sometimes they get redundant. But yeah, I'm definitely very concerned about the the afternoon surprise, if you will, on this issue. And of course, you know, we are looking at a community that is very concerned about what this additional pattern for the airport, what that would bring to the to the noise ordinance and its compatibility and its ability to stay within within the limits. We understand that it's quieter planes are made available, that there's probably going to be an opportunity to increase flights. But we want to make sure that it's done in a in a strategic and in a very responsible manner for our community so that their quality of life is not that much affected. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I do have a couple of questions that Councilwoman Mongeau brought up earlier regarding helicopter noise. I know that's not directly related to this adding of the new slots, but how does helicopter noise impact the noise bucket and what control, if any, does the city have in regards to that? Helicopter noise when it is associated with our typical flight paths along the runway over the noise monitors is included in our general aviation noise bucket. So that to say that helicopters are excluded is not entirely correct. However, air helicopters typically use our helicopter corridors rather than the runways. Okay. And do you think that additional airplane traffic could impact the request that helicopters fly at a higher altitude, as has been discussed? This request will not impact helicopter altitudes. It will not in any way change our fixed wing traffic patterns or the ability to modify those patterns in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Council members who were not. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. Before I start, just like to acknowledge some of our airport advisory commissioners in the audience tonight. Thank you for being here. My first question is regarding. I'll just follow up on on a point that councilmember you're on a brought up about allegiant and flying an older louder aircraft. My briefing my very first briefing. I think, Mr. Francis, you told me that if there were a violation, we were talking about hypotheticals here. If there were a violator in of that nature, they would be the first to be booted out. Can you explain that a little bit? That is correct. If at the end of the 12 month noise year and the preceding noise analysis was conducted and it determined that we, in fact, had gone above the noise budget limit, then we would take a look at the additional flying that was made available through this allocation of slots . And in essence, the operator with the noisiest aircraft would be the first one that we would contact to reduce the number of slots available. So that is correct, Councilman. Okay. Thank you. Then I have a question about noise monitors. So I think they should probably be directed to Ron Reeves. We list monitors on nine and ten and ten is in the fourth Council District. If there are will, we know there are other monitors that don't function all the time. For instance, there's one in the art craft manor neighborhood on Quincy Avenue between BURNETT and Vernon Mysteries. How does that affect this calculation? The other monitors do not directly affect these calculations other than noise. Data from those other monitors is used to verify the noise levels at nine and ten. Okay. Thank you. Also customary raga. How do we characterize the phone call from the city manager? But it was a Saturday afternoon phone call. Okay. Afternoon. Surprise. Thank you. Upon getting that phone call, I actually requested and got a meeting in less than 18 hours. So Director Francis, Assistant City Attorney Mays and actually city attorney Charles Parkin and I met in city attorney's office on Sunday morning at 10 a.m.. So I was probably the first councilmember to be briefed. I'm not sure if anyone got there earlier than I, but I think that's how it worked out. At that. Time. Mr. Francis, explain to me then exactly what he's saying tonight, that all of the slots were calculated on a on a noise value. That and I'll just ask. Nothing changed in between that point and tonight. No, sir. Okay. So I'd like to ask a question just about the Landrum report and just one sentence. I'm not understanding how this sentence comports with what we're seeing tonight, and that is the first part of the sentence. I am fine with the reason the budget numbers are well below the permitted levels is due to the reduction the number of noisier aircraft. Now, here's the part that I question and the fact that the airport operated well below the permitted number of daily air carrier flights. That seems to be kind of the opposite of what we're saying here. So you figured that out. You had the lander report before we met that very first day. So how does how does this make sense to you? Ask Mr. Reese to respond to that, please. Yes, Councilman. Super not the. I understand from what is indicated in the report that the reason our existing noise levels are as low as they are is because of the fleet mix, the quieter aircraft types, as well as the low number of flights. That's in response to our current noise levels. Our future noise levels, though, were calculated based on a 95% utilization of all slots, which Director Francis has indicated is very conservative. Okay. Then that is the explanation. It's not semantics. It's just that we're talking about two different topics. Is it does that comport with the way you're saying it? The well is not factored into that sentence, is the theoretical calculation if every slot were filled. That's my understanding. Caltech. Okay, great. Thank you. That's all I have. Thanks. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. My comments will be brief. Director Francis, question Does the ordinance prevent you from consulting with the airport convention commission or the city council prior to making this decision? I will ask Mr. Mays to respond to that, please. It certainly wouldn't prevent the airport director from doing a study session such as we're doing tonight or with the Airport Advisory Commission. But the airport ordinance makes it very clear that is the decision of the airport director to make based on consultation with this noise consultants. Right. I would have to just say that, you know something is this major? In the time I've served, in the short time I've served on the council or have worked on the 14th floor, I mean, it's a pretty major decision. And again, to get to have no don't no notice and get a call on a Saturday, it seems. It was a bit shocking for that to happen. I would say if the ordinance doesn't if it does not jeopardize our ordinance to be to air on the side of inclusion or transparency. My guidance here would be we should air on that side. Moving forward, we all have airport commissioners and, you know, I have an airport commissioner that you know, I have an airport commissioner in District nine that's, you know, pretty engaged. And he actually submits a report to the city council after every single meeting. And and I checked with him to say, did you know that this decision was going to come? He said, I've seen the numbers. I'm not surprised. But not even we were notified that we were heading in that direction. So I would just offer and hopefully it's received, I would just offer that we can go. It goes a long way to the community to bring the council along through this process. Thank you. Customer? Richardson If I might, I just wanted to say thank you for those comments, but also to state the fact that this process moved along from the latter part of October through the latter part of November, and not until just literally a couple of days before you were contacted did we have the final information. We brought the city manager into the understanding of the situation, and he very soon thereafter made the mayor and council aware of that. So I just wanted you to know that it was not something that was delayed or that we we did not share with the commissioners or the council with that knowledge well in advance. We actually went through the process just over the last several excuse me, several weeks. Thank thank you. I would say and I'm glad that the city manager did respond and call when he did. I think it would be good that if you knew that this study was going to come back in advance, if the council knew, hey, potentially in December, there will be a study, we will have the final results. We do this every year. And based on those results, we may or may not make a decision that that notification would have gone a long way. But I do appreciate the diligent dilutions matter. Thank you. With that, we're going to turn this over to public comment. So if you have any public comment, please come forward on this item and make sure you introduce yourself and your address, please. Oh. And just as a reminder, this is a study session. This is not in a. There's not an agenda item attached to this. Please begin. Yes. Because of my name's Larry Boland. Address on file. I was a member of the Portland Five-O study 25 years ago. And I'd like to tell you that this item was never, ever discussed. Those of us who were there, it had so many come up and said, you know, down in the future when we finally quiet this airport down and get rid of the noise pollution. If we don't if we get too quiet, we're going to add some pollution back into the equation. It's just ridiculous. Let me tell you. We were not interested in what the noise bucket was. The noise bucket does not wake people up in the morning. The noise bucket doesn't pour noise. Pollution into our schools affect our property values. The noise bucket is simply something that the government came up with. What we feel as human beings is the noise event. And by the way, folks, you kept talking about 41 flights and nobody brought up the fact that a flight is an arrival and a departure. 81 flights, 81 noise events, rather. That's what we listen to. Nobody here tonight even said that nine is not nine flights is nine flights, but it's not 18 noise events. And JetBlue sitting on ten. Well, we had nine. Come on, guys. What's going on here? And nobody would ever have thought that where we have a single event noise level of around 100 DB, which was S.E.A.L. Single event noise of level. That was 25 years ago. That's how old that noise level that we're using today is. It's antiquated. It's obsolete. For us to right now, the JetBlue A320 leaves at about 83 DB. Do you know what that level is it at 100? Every three decibels is 100% increase. The noise levels that we have set now were 600%. That noise level 600% above what the JetBlue does. But at the time, we made it with all the seven 2017 dedication of DC night, it was right at where it was bought, where it was. In other words, it wasn't 600% away. It was right near where the level was. Why haven't we been reducing it so we can enjoy the technological advances that have come from the quieter airplanes? By the way, we also didn't talk about the noise that is not counted at the airport, the thrust reverse noise, the helicopter noise, the engine run up noise. The private. Thank you, sir. Time's up. Okay. I'm sorry. No problem. But I just am flabbergasted at this. This event. And we never heard it. This was never brought before the Portland Five-O study. Thank you, sir. That I recall. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Joe Sopko hushed two neighborhoods. First, Mr. Mayor. City Council members and staff. I. I really appreciate all the questions that the City Council brought up. Thank you for doing that, asking those questions. You know, it's obvious to Mr. Francis that the neighborhoods are sensitive about the number of flights, the noise it makes when they're woken up at night. We're sensitive to that. And to drop this on us, on you at a Saturday afternoon. Reflects. On how Mr. Francis treats us. Now we're you're. You're talking about an appeal process. Is there an appeal process to relieve Mr. Francis of his job? Mr. Francis, since he's come into office, we've all gone up and introduced ourselves and. And it's obvious that he sees US neighborhood representatives as the enemy. And that's what we get from him. I want you to know that. So if he is to represent the airport, represent you, he's doing a very poor job. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Barbara showing. 4120 Locust Avenue. And I was a member of the hash one committee years ago and I was glad that the question of international flights came up. I know it's not on the agenda tonight. It's on the agenda next week. But my question is, would international so these new nine flights could be domestic or they could be international? And what about private international flights that might come in and use the same runway? How would all that additional sound be calculated? So what we're going to do is we're going to make a note of that question and we're going to ask it right after one of the customers will ask that right after the public comment. Okay. And one other one other question, and that is when. And I remember the noise footprints of the very, very noisy planes. So now the Douglas Boeing is not sending any more big planes out. And I presume that they also impacted the noise calculation question mark. Maybe you could answer that as well. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. I'm David Raichlen at 4300 Cerritos Avenue. And Mr. Mayor. Council members. Staff, thank you so much for. Letting us speak. I'm a. Medical doctor. And I. Also work in the entertainment industry. And we mix audio. For motion pictures and for home use. At 85 decibels. So we don't let things. Get louder than. That certain operators might. What that means is that if you look at the noise level of a single event of 95 decibels, it means that you can't hear what we're mixing. And this is for movies and TV shows. That have. Explosions. And loud arguments. Those become inaudible when those events happen. So that gives you a sense of how. Loud it still is, even though there's been progress made. Also, since I work on this, it's not just the inconvenience of having. Things rendered inaudible. It's also. That. I have to stop work. We can't have. Conversations. Each of these events are disruptive. Also, as a physician, I can tell you that stress comes not. From single events unless they're truly extreme, but from the repetition. So the more. Loud events we have, the more stressful it becomes. So adding these slots and keeping it under the noise bucket misses the point. And the Court of Appeals understood this. When they said. That the annoyance factor. Was more important than the total amount of noise. Uh, I'm also really concerned that our standard goes back. So far in time that. It no longer represents the the world that we actually live in. Yes, technology. Has improved, but the purpose of that technology, of having less noise. Isn't to allow us. To have more noise. Things were made quieter. Because that was the goal, to make things quieter. So there's clearly something wrong with a law that says that we have to make the problem. Worse because technology. Has gotten better. This does not. Compute. Okay. Now. One other point that I think it's important to to think about is the way that the noise. Levels are measured is at two points. Statistically, that's not a real good sample. We'd like to get more than that than two. Points to measure. And especially because the way sound travels can. Vary so much with. Temperature. And other. Environmental conditions. So thank you and good evening. Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Laurie Smith. I live in the third district. I'm a new resident of Bluff Park neighborhood. And I started looking at this when I moved in and about two years ago. Today, I guess we're we're discussing the noise budget analysis and the goal of the Long Beach Airport noise ordinance is to ensure that incompatible residential land use in the vicinity of the airport are not exposed to aircraft noise levels greater than 65 C an L and there's no noise monitors located along the main helicopter routes. This means that the noise ordinance is flawed if it's based on cumulative numbers. I posit that the reason our noise levels are so low is because we are not responsibly nor accurately recording all of Long Beach aircraft noise events, specifically helicopter corridors. So I know that you've been talking a lot about daily commercial flights coming in, but I'm talking about what Long Beach residents are experiencing besides major commercial flights. I'm taking a look at an analysis of helicopter operations that were done by the Long Beach Airport. They did a short term study and it involved two two helicopter overflights at 500 feet, which is what we experience on a daily basis. And these were taken at Man Elementary School. The sound exposure level was 82 DBA and 83 DBA. And I think the gentleman just before me was talking about a jet taking off at the airport at 85. So if you guys are okay with having that go over elementary schools on a daily basis, that's great. Also, this is one of the world's busiest airports in terms of general aviation activity, and that includes helicopter operations. We have way too many helicopter training, way too many fixed wing aircraft training going on at this airport. And you adding more flights really concerns me. I'd like for you guys to take a look at the noise monitors along our main helicopter, our main helicopter routes. According to this analysis of helicopter operations that was done by the Long Beach Airport, there's 16,000 flights, over 16,000 flights done. And a third of them, according to this report, were along the Redondo corridor. So I'm not very good at math, but I think that somewhere around 5200, 5400. So if we do that and we're looking at 82 or 83 DBA, I'm kind of wondering what the analysis is on this. So I just like some responsibility done here today and for some more analysis to be done with regards to the cumulative numbers. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. John Slattery, Long Beach Neighborhoods, First Mayor, City Council. Thank for the opportunity to speak in relation to this. I just have a couple of questions that I guess you guys will answer at the end. The first one is clarify the must versus May. As it relates to that, we must add these flights versus May cause as I read the ordinance, it basically says that we must evaluate it. But if the director feels that this may actually increase beyond that, we should not actually add those flights. But listening earlier they made it sound like, no, we still have to add it no matter what. The reason I ask that I just did some quick calculations and I guess, you know, trying to look at the LBE report and the other company that took a look at this trying to understand that's very difficult for a layman . I just took a quick look, though, and Slide five and took a rough average of these newer planes because they're so much quieter. So their rough average is 92.2, a single noise event. So if you calculate that for Monitor nine, that's one of 1.475, just below just below the one or two. I think that the noise ordinance calls for. So when you. Guys calculated. For these additional flights, obviously you're just throwing a number in there. Hey, here's what the single noise was like. So my question is, were those just applied to the 7 to 11 or were they are 7 to 10? Or they also applied some to the ten and beyond because a lot of those are calculated at a higher rate and may change that. So that's kind of stuff I'd like to know. Thank you. Thank you. Makes me complete. Hi. Hi. My name is Good Luck. And Gary from. And I would past president of the Bixby Hill Community Association. And just a private homeowner. At the present moment, I had the pleasure of hosting 58 meetings regarding this airport in my home. In the period of time before the airport was remodeled. Represented from the city representative from the community and various other interested people who attended those meetings. I also served on the committee that designed the airport. And Ken had several meetings there. And I might tell you that you better look at the amount of slots or gates that you have to accommodate these nine additional aircraft, really. 18. And the the problems that they create pollution wise, besides the sound, if you didn't know it back at that time, I don't know what it is now. But Los Altos had the highest red cancer rate in Southern California, according to the Red Cross. Now, these planes are going to add impact more than just sound. They're going to end pack particles going into the air and everything else. So just to merit this increase, just to satisfy the requirements of the of the. Sound thing you're dealing with here is not really what it's all about. Can the airport handle are they all going to be passengers? What's the pollution of people getting to and from the airport? This all mushrooms into a big cloud of malarkey. So I would just like to tell you that there's more to it than just sound. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Ray Gable, eighth District. I had the privilege of representing the eighth District. And during that time, as Mr. Mays referred to earlier, there was a 2006 report that stated that we would be able to allow a maximum of 11 additional flights. And and the report said if there were absolutely no violations, I'd sure like to see a copy of that and make sure I'm quoting it correctly. But they said if there were no noise violations, which is very, very much unheard of. And I'm going to say that because the next thing I'm going to share with you is that in JetBlue, just JetBlue violated the noise ordinance 64 times in 2013, 49 times in 2014 and 12 times in the first quarter of this year. The complaints for September of 2015 totaled 1423, and since May 2015, that number of complaints was never under 1100. So statistically, and I'm just going to say welcome to my world, because you're going to see what happens with the community as all of the airport issues begin to unfold. 1983, when the City of Long Beach was sued by over 30 airlines, and then then it was limited. Our noise ordinance limited it to 32 flights. The airlines said that our noise ordinance was unlawful and it was appealed again in 1990 to the Court of Appeals. And I'm going to read this to you, because a gentleman just referred to it, but it says that limits the number of daily air carriers to 32. As the district court found, the total noise produced by 32 flights could vary significantly depending upon what sort of planes were used. Thus, the District Court concluded that the choice of the number 32 was arbitrary. What the ordinance seeks to accomplish, however, is not simply the limitation of noise for its own sake. Rather, it seeks to limit the annoyance that residents experience as a result of the airport's operation. It is not unreasonable to believe that the number of times the disturbance occurs could be as relevant as the cumulative noise created by the total number of such disturbances. Now there's a legal formula that you formula that you have to follow. And, you know, if if the legal representatives feel that it's important that you do this, I would urge you, if compliance is of concern, that you do it gradually. You don't jump up to fill the bucket to get to the very top of what was allowed previously. And you've heard a couple of other folks refer to why would you do this to impact in a negative way the quality of life for the residents? If you have an opportunity to to balance both sides, it's a slippery slope. I hope that you pay attention and that you make your decisions wisely. Thank you. Thank you. And are thank our final speaker for study session one. My good evening my name is Bill. Get a lottery. I live in the eighth district at 4465 Cerritos Avenue. And I just have another brief follow up question really. And I hope that you will take over that question from me and ask it later. There are a lot of concerns, health concerns, stress, heart disease, pollution for the lungs. And and so we really don't want to take this decision lightly. And so it comes down to. Must. We accept all these negative potential and current negative consequences, or do we have a choice? And I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anything tonight that convinces me that we must. In fact, I have heard phrases such as, I'm just going to look at providing the opportunity to add flights that doesn't sound like must. In fact, you're a noise specialist. The letter that was read doesn't say anything but must either. It says, Let's see. Sorry, the consultants I quote, the flight slots could be added. And in fact, that this is the subject of your discussion. All these all that verbiage indicates to me that there is a choice. So I would appreciate it if one of you. Could ask or maybe Mr. Maes might just volunteer. It. Where is where are the words in the in the in the noise ordinance? Specifically, he says it's explicitly stated maybe he can read it to us or point us to that part. Secondly, we worry about being incompetent or finally, worry about being in compliance with the ordinance. I have another question. We are allowing JetBlue to under under utilize the flights. I would think that that might be a question for compliance, too. Maybe you should ask, do we make ourselves open to any kind of lawsuit here? Because we are allowing I know it's by agreement and it's JetBlue is not breaking the law, but we are the ones who agreed to that to that rule. We are allowing them to under utilize. So therefore, we are not allowing other airlines the maximum opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker will take it back to the council after this. Thank you, Shirley Broussard. Previously, I was a resident of District nine at 6320 Myrtle Avenue. When God called me into service of the homeless. I took up residence in my SUV, and I've traveled just about every district in the city. Having moved in this city to 1990. In 1997. I have worked with the homeless community. And they live outside. Let me apologized to each of you Council men and women. Because you're taking up a special interest here. So I apologize on behalf of us. I was looking to purchase property on Ocean Avenue. As I get ready to move into housing again after being on the mission field for seven years. And this is related to the. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Not one time have I heard any homeless person complain about the noise. Any homeless people here tonight? Have you lived with any have you worked with any? Not one of them have ever complained. Above the noise ordinance. If God allows me, I intend to be somewhere in the in Europe or Canada for Christmas. And I'm going get on that plane and I'm like, even wonder who I'm waking up. How many of you are like me? You're going to be guilty during the holiday. You're going to climb on that plane. And you won't even wonder one minute who is being bothered by you sitting on that plane with all that noise. And, you know, I'm right community. And so we sit here tonight complaining about the noise that we sydnor our condos. Our mansions. Our million dollar pieces of property. The noise. We're complaining about the noise. And not one of the homeless people that I have service in seven years have ever complained about the noise. Then there's the kind of weird family community. That may seem kind of strange to you that you're complaining about the noises. You can't hear you commercials because the planes are blocking out the sound volume on your TVs. Oh, come on, now. Come on. This is Christmas. This is Hanukkah. We feel a little guilty, at least for four weeks. Commission. Airport Commission. I apologize to you, whoever you are. I don't know you. But this is your job. But it's comical. This is where we had a comedy relief tonight. If you think you are just another speaker, come forward. That's okay. Just. Okay. Sorry about not leaving as a finish, but no worries. Unfortunately, I'm going to complain about the noise. You got to give us your name for that. For the. Record. I'm Sterling Reagan. I'm currently residing in the 4300 Cerritos Avenue. Uh, so, um, I just wanted to make a comment about this whole study session. So, um. Uh, Mr. Franklin, you were talking about the noise level. And for 11 years, I've attended school here in the Long Beach District. And for 11 years, these noise events have occurred. And honestly, I don't even know if it has affected me physically. I doubt it has. But, uh, it it just seems like it doesn't make sense to add even more. Now, the events are really bothersome. And to add more because it's more effective doesn't make sense to me. Why? Why, why even need to add more events in the first place? Um, so that's what I wanted to say. And thank very much. Thank you very much. We're going to take this back to the council closed public comment for for the study session. Just a couple of things. And I want to hopefully we can get some of the questions that were answered answered as well. Um, you know, one thing I just want to say and, and, and first, I think it's important to acknowledge for everyone that there's no question that this conversation and this process actually affects people, affects people's quality of life and those that are living, particularly those under the flight path. It's a real issue. And so while it's for for many folks and I know for for staff, we're going through an administrative legal process. I get the fact that I think most people get the fact that for a lot of people, this is a real big issue and a huge quality of life issue for them. So I just want to put that out there. This is an important issue. And for some folks, this is the most important, most important issue that the the noise ordinance was discussed by a few folks. And I just want to say something. You know, it's interesting, the ordinance, while it is this kind of incredible legal document that limits and provides the airport some limits as well. It also has a lot of challenges. And one of the difficulties with our our noise ordinance, while it it literally we are one of a handful, not even a handful of cities that has this type of ordinance in. It has been a point of pride, I think, for our community. It's something that we treasure because we are we have such a built out environment around our airport. It's so important to protect it at the same time in in its construction. One of the major flaws is our ability to then modify the ordinance post adoption. And I see Council Councilman Gavlak shaking her head and here is the challenge. And so when when we talk about, well, you know, why didn't we make changes or should we have change the noise, the noise levels or the allotment? The truth is, is any changes to a grandfathered document could put the noise ordinance in grave jeopardy. And instead, instead of having a conversation about 41 flights or 50 flights, we're talking about 100 flights because we don't have a protective ordinance. And I just want to reconfirm with our city attorney, because you and I have had a lot of conversations a. Changing the ordinance or having making adjustments to it could essentially put our noise ordinance in major risk. And we had done it in the past or in the future. Yes, I mean, that's correct. And that's why I think why the council has never changed or amended this ordinance since 1995. So I just want to mention that the other thing I think is important to note, and I think it's frustrating for a lot of folks, it's frustrating for people up here. They say that as part of the the deal that was put together by JetBlue and as a reminder, listen, when when JetBlue came in, there was a lot of turmoil at the airport. There was a lot of issues about its future. They came in, they built out an operation. They were welcomed by the city, by many folks, not not by by everyone, but by many folks. And as far as the the legal framework that we created for the amount of flights they had to fly, there were some discussions about, well, you know, I think Councilman Austin called it what was that slot squatting? Okay. There was some conversation about about slot squatting. The whether we know whether we like it or not, they are operating in this legal framework that we created for them in the past. And so the issue is that there's concern by a lot of people. Will they why aren't they before we start talking about new flights, they're not even, you know, not even maximizing what they've been allotted. And I think while we a lot of folks would love for them to before we have this discussion, for them to actually fill that slot, they are operating in the legal framework that we provided . And so we're not allowing them to fly or not fly. They are flying what they can within the legal framework we provided. And it's not we can tell them, you know, flier slots all day and all night, but they have the legal right to do that. And so that is, I think, as we move forward. Mr. Mays and I had asked you this before as we develop this next set, I think we have to just be conscious of the lessons learned from the last time we did this and just ensure that we are being kind of thoughtful and progressive in how we do this next set and what the protections are going to look like, you know, moving forward for regardless of who uses these sites. I have a question about also. The. The process of who gets the slots, because I think what I would I hope most folks are hearing is this is and I know, unfortunately for a lot of the residents, an administrative process. And one thing that I asked Mike and Charlie is, is it your, you know, 100% legal opinion that we have to fill the slots or the noise ordinance is in jeopardy? And your response has been consistently. That is correct. I think what you're saying, though, is, Phil, unless we have to make the slots available. Correct. I'm sorry. Make the slots available because they may or may not could fill depending on the demand. My question is, is how? When the slots are. Let's say we go through the process here. X amount of slots at nine slots. And there's interest from current carriers and perhaps new carriers. How do you how do you make the determination of a who has been good neighbors that are maybe currently in already at our airport or B, what the potential is for another carrier to come in and provide a different service? Or is it purely on a lottery random system? And can you can we go into a little bit of that detail? And I think that's important. Merits it's a little bit of a combination of that the way it would work under the allocation process. A new entrant at the airport would have the opportunity to get two slots before an incumbent carrier would be allocated one. And the idea behind that is the thought being that a new entrant would need at least two slots to make a viable presence at the airport. So any new entrant that would apply would be eligible for two. But other than that, it's basically strictly a lottery if and it really depends on how many applications we get. If we get one application and they want four slots and that's it, they would be allocated four slots. If we get five carriers that each want two slots, we would have to do a lottery. And when we've done lotteries before, not for supplemental slots because we've never allocated them, but for our regular slots, we literally draw names out of a hat and progress until the slots are allocated in accordance with what they've submitted in their application. And I thank you for that. However, is there not at some point in that slot allocation, aren't there interests of the city business, business decisions that are made? And what I mean by that is, you know, if it is in the interests of the airport to ensure that we have a diversified. Pool of carriers. And that's obviously a determination that the airport director would would make. Can that not be considered as part of the allocation? The way the allocation rows a resolution is structured? It can't be. It's simply if they qualify legally as an air carrier, they're properly certificated by the federal government, then they're eligible to apply. And it's kind of a catch 22 sometimes with the FAA, because when we allocated the 27 slots that we allocated to JetBlue in 2003, we did not feel that the FAA would have an issue with that because prior to that time, no one was flying at the airport, even though we had a red team trying to get folks to fly at the airport. But the FAA did have an issue with that. And they've since told us that we cannot illegally discriminate among the carriers. So. Based on the input that we have received from them over the years, we are going to do the allocation as a random draw. Making them the offer is fine if we make it available to every other carrier, whether they're an incumbent or not. And so we won't run afoul of any of the FAA regulations if we do that, even if JetBlue or one of our other incumbent carriers actually applies for and gets some slots. Okay. And then I just want to also make sure that I think we know what you're hearing from some of the community. And I've talked and I've had a chance to talk to a lot of folks about this issue, is clearly they're moving forward on this. I think the slot allocation process is really important. It's done incredibly transparent. And I'm looking, you know, Mr. City attorney, you know, and you know, Charlie and we've talked about this is I think that the the community will feel a lot more confident knowing that that process is airtight. It's very clearly spelled out how we're doing it prior to the process. We know exactly, you know, who is what the interest is. And the process is then transferring not just for the community's interest, but I think for the carriers that are interested. I'm hopeful. I'm not sure legally what what, what, what can or cannot be public. I understand there's but I think the more that can be, I think we should push for for that. There's nothing that would prohibit us from being fully transparent and public. As I indicated, we distributed the allocation protocol to the council offline. We can put that on the city attorney's website. We will put an advertisement in the newspaper for all the public to see, probably more than one newspaper indicating when the slots will be allocated and what the process is for appeal. So and if people have questions, they can certainly call our office to ask about that process, if it's unclear when they see what how it's set out. Okay. And just and any information you can add on the or whether or not, you know, judgment can be used by our airport director or city manager on on who is selected or not. I'm just interested in in that piece because, I mean, it seems like, you know, flipping a quarter is not the not the best way to do it. But. You know, the FAA just has very tight rules against discriminating among carriers. The only judgment that could be used is what we indicated is if, let's say hypothetically, one carrier came in and indicated on their application that they were going to fly all MDs. We would immediately consult with our noise experts to find out what that would do to the budget. If it looked like an it would that would break the budget, then we would ratchet down and they were the only carry that applied. We would ratchet down the number of slots that carrier could take. Okay. Well, I mean, and Mr. Mays, I think in in that kind of that observation, I think there are other observations that we could get to in what's currently happening at the airport that we could use to for that process. And we'll explore that a little bit. So. Councilmember Ringa. Yeah. I was directed by you. Just to ask the question for me. For a lady. How lucky. Yeah, sure. I had a question related to these two slots and the potential for a Christmas facility and whether that would have or is it in the discussion. So is airport director Brian indicated there is no relationship between the FISA process and the allocation of these supplemental slots. If an FISA facility ever did come to fruition, whatever flights flew in and out of the airport that used that type of facility would have to fly within our current noise budgets and within the current slot allocation . So if there were 41 slots allocated or 45 slots allocated, an FISA would not increase the number of slots. Okay. Any other Councilman Austin? I do have one quick last question. And based on a question from one of the residents, and I think it was regarding the the methodology of the how noise is measured. I know how long have the has that system been in place and when was it last updated? We'll ask Mr. Reeves to respond to that, please. Yes counts when asked in the current system was installed as I recall in 2000 for 25. Prior to that, there was an older system installed. The system that we currently have is state of the art. We have type one microphones at each of the locations. These are the the most accurate microphones that we can have outside of a laboratory on an annual basis. We calibrate this system traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. So we have a state of the art system. Thank you. So you're confident with the measurements that we are getting from from the existing noise measurement system? Yes, sir. So so the other question was regarding runway 25. Right. And I understood the question or somebody mentioned earlier that we're not measuring noise from from that runway. Is that correct? We do measure noise at all of our runways, including runway 25. Right. However, the noise ordinance does not specify budget limits. 4 to 5, right. Because the runway is used very infrequently. So can you explain to us why that particular runway is used so infrequently? I mean, we have a runway, and as I've studied and looked into to five. Right. It is is longer than John Wayne Airport's one runway and several others large airports across the country. It's a it's a it's a runway that could be utilized that could, I should say, fairly distribute noise from the airport. Why don't we use that runway more often? Yes, Councilman, that's that's an excellent question. The ordinance does not explicitly state. That runway to five, right. Should not be used. However, runway 1230 is designed as our primary air carrier runway. It is the only runway that has noise, budget limits, cumulative noise, budget limits associated with it. The other runways do not have cumulative noise budget. Runway 1230 is also built out to specifications designed for routine air carrier use in terms of pavement, strength, instrumentation, instrument, landing system, etc., the other runways. That's that's not true for they're designed for infrequent use. Runway 25, right. For example. On a standby basis when runway one two, three zero is is not available. So the brand new runway two five. Right. That we have is not equipped to deal with frequent flights. It is not the pavement strengthening instrumentation. The runway was not designed. For routine use. And the noise ordinance essentially designates runway 12330 as the primary air carrier runway. All right. Thank you. We'll revisit that. Thank you. Councilman Mongo. Our Tribal Council member, Austin. Got my questions. Thank you. Councilmember Supernanny. If I could just follow up on one final question. The one that John Dilatory brought up regarding the legal issue of must versus May, I think. I don't think you can answer that unless you try to quantify it in some way. Would staff be able to say, I think the quantification or qualification might be in terms of by not adding these flights? What is the threat to the noise ordinance? And to put that in context, how would that threaten the noise earnings versus building an FAA facility in the threat to noise ordinance? Would you would you have outside legal opinions on that? We do have outside legal opinions as to whether or not the ordinance is mandatory and the outside legal opinion is clearly that it is mandatory, which coincides with the opinion that has been developed over not just the city attorney, but all of the city attorneys that have been dealing with this since 1995. We've tried to put together historical documentation as to this ordinance when this settlement agreement was reached after the. Litigation in 1995, the press release that was put out by then, Beverly O'Neal specifically mentioned that 41 was a minimum and that over time more flights would be added. We have no doubt that this is a mandatory requirement there. As I indicated, I hope I'm answering this question correctly about the fees, but there really is no relationship between adding these slots and the request by JetBlue to consider an office facility. If an FAA facility were ever built. All of the planes that would use that facility would clearly have to comply with our noise ordinance. They would have to comply with the curfew regulations that we currently have in place. We would not increase the number of flights based solely on an office facility or a number of slots based solely on a nearby facility. Oh, and I'm sorry if you're asking, is the FISA mandatory like the ordinance? Was that part of your question? The answer is no. Okay. So you have outside an outside legal opinion that this is mandatory. Correct. There's been conjecture that the FISA facility would be of a threat to I noise ordinance building it potentially. And I realize that's an opinion now. But I'm saying we have an absolute versus an opinion. I think that's I was just trying to frame Mr. General Corey's question a little bit. I think you've answered it. Thank you. Thank you. And just just to conclude, I do. This is a this is a big issue. And I actually just need to thank both our city attorney, Mr. Parkin, Mr. Mays and the airport team, because they've actually worked just in the last month or so on. This issue is really consumed. I know, particularly Mr. Mays, who has been all over the place trying to get this thing together. And so I just want to thank you guys for the professionalism and for the information you've been getting to council. I know you've been responding to a lot of questions from council members and the community. And like Councilman Superhot said, you know, showing up at Sunday morning, early meetings and whatever you can to get everyone informed. So everyone appreciates that. And thank you all for for that. That concludes the study session. As you know, it's not an actionable agenda item. So what we're going to do now is we're going to transition back to the council where we're certainly behind tonight, as probably be expected. So we're transitioning back to the council meeting we have. We moved one item to the head of the agenda earlier, which was the El Nino presentation. So that will happen. And immediately after that, we'll go into the hearing on medical marijuana and that ordinance. And so why don't we go into why don't we do this? Why don't we do? The El Nino hearing was like a short it's just a short recess and then we'll go into the into the hearing. I'm fine with that. It's my item. Because Pat said that he wanted us. This to me, like we're going to rush it. Well. I'm going to defer to you because you really like this app information getting out there. Okay. We can be. Let let me. I know. Hold on 1/2. Mr. West, can you come here for just 1/2? You did? Yeah. We were on TV and everything this morning, so. Oh. Infamous. It is 7 minutes. It's. Okay. We're going to go right into the to this presentation, Madam Clerk, if you can read the item. Communication from Councilmember Supernova Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilwoman Price Council Member Richardson. Recommendation to request the city manager to provide an update on the city's emergency and environmental preparedness for the anticipated upcoming El Nino weather conditions.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft a resolution in support of declaring March 11, 2016 as the 25th Annual Latina History Day and congratulate Hispanas Organized for Political Equality (HOPE), for their service to the Latinas in the City of Long Beach.

LongBeachCC_03082016_16-0233

Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that. We're going to go back into item number 13, which is an item by Councilwoman Gonzales, Madam Clerk. Communication from Councilwoman Gonzalez, Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilmember Suranga recommendation to request the city attorney to draft a resolution in support of declaring March 11th, 2016, as the 25th Annual Latino History Day and congratulate Hispanics organized for political equality for their service to Latinas. Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. First, I'd like to ask our city attorney. I think we the language says resolution, but we would just like to change it to proclamation. That's all. I just wanted to make that clear. And then I first want to, you know, in celebration of of Women's History Day, which is very exciting, it lands today. I'm also very proud to announce the amazing hope a Hispanic organized for political equality. It was I'll tell you a little bit about it. And, of course, what I did and played a role in in that. And then who is here to talk about it? I'm very happy that she's here. Thank you. It was founded in 1989 by dynamic and civically engaged Latinas from across California. Since then, hope, which we love to call it, has been working very hard to provide a critical voice to Latinas to develop their personal growth, prosperity and political knowledge. The core programs include the Hope Leadership Institute, to which I am a graduate in 2013, very proud, along with my chief of Staff, Solicitor Renata Smith, who is in 2003, and Susana Gonzalez, who is the former chief of staff to then Councilmember Robert Garcia. She was in 2011. We're all very proud as we like to call ourselves Hope Sisters. I certainly wouldn't be here running for office and in this seat if it wasn't for the HOPE program. And I certainly mean that from the bottom of my heart and a little bit more. Ally is the first and only statewide leadership program specifically designed for professional Latinas in California. The goal is to train Latinas in vital leadership and advocacy skills, enabling them to create fundamental change within their local neighborhoods and across California. Other programs include Latina Action Day in Sacramento, which also includes a program for high school Latinas and Latina History Day in Los Angeles, which focuses on professional and personal development as this is my second year in office. I'm very glad that we have also organized a group of women from the city to attend Latina History Day this Friday, which will be upcoming here. I'd like to present and I'm honored to present my dear friend, but also one of our leaders in the Hope Institute, Belinda Barragan. She's here to share more about the program and about, of course, everything we do. So thank you, Belinda. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez. And good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Belinda Barragan and I'm the programs and policy director for Hope, which stands for Hispanic. Organized for political. Equality. And it's just such an honor to be here to receive a resolution from Councilmember Gonzalez, because we did see her go through a process and a transformation. It's just been so amazing. But she's had it in her the whole time. But this year marks the 25th year that we celebrate the accomplishments of amazing Latinas. We will be highlighting key contributions that Latinas make to our nation and discussing critical issues in our communities, such as human trafficking and being engaged in the 2016 elections. We all know how important that is, and we want to make sure that our participants from the conference that day take away, you know, what their role is. And that hope has remained dedicated to improving the education, political and economic status of Latinas. At the conference, we conduct workshops around building a personal health plan anywhere to college access. We have a youth program as well, which is the Hope Youth Leadership Program, and that's for 11th graders. And we bring to them the importance of STEM careers and the importance of personal branding for Latinas in general. And as you all see in testimony here with the council members, Latinos are breaking glass ceilings and pioneering into areas where few women once ventured. Latinos are business owners, executives in our country's largest corporations, civil servants, and are appointed to powerful positions. So Latino History Day celebrates contemporary Latinas who are building the foundation for future generations. And I'd like to invite all of you to join us, if you can, on March 11th. That is our Latina History Day. And again, just thank you for this honor. And Councilwoman Gonzalez, it's such an honor. Thank you. Thank you very much for being here, Belinda. And it's really an honor to be a part of the program, and I know that I'm very proud that Long Beach is now recognizing this as a day, and I believe everyone in three here in the state of California, one in three women is Latina. But we still make $0.42 on every dollar that our male counterparts make. So that's certainly a long way to go. But we'll still keep fighting and we'll make sure that we see more women, especially Latino women, in in places that we need to see them. So thank you very much for your work, Belinda. Thank you. I just wanted to add, obviously, I think you all know, I think the world of hope and it's an incredible organization. And I remember when at the time. Neighborhood. Deputy Lena Gonzalez came up to me and asked, I'd like to do this program called Hope. What do you think? And I said, absolutely. And in fact, a hope. Sister graduate Susanna Gonzalez, who was my chief of staff when I was a council member, is also went to the program and encouraged, I think, Councilwoman Gonzales to go through the program. And it's been, I know, a great experience for her and I know it's a great experience for everyone that participates. So just thank you for your great work. Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank Councilmember Gonzalez for allowing me to participate in this resolution. Many years ago, in another life, I was a recruitment officer for the city of Long Beach, and I participated in the in that Hope Day as a recruiter and giving a workshop on employability and job opportunities with the city of Long Beach. And as a result of that, I know that we got a lot of good candidates to apply for city jobs back in the day. Also, my chief of staff, Sylvia Luna, was honored by being on the cover of the program for the hope function back in, oh, about a few years back, I guess. And this year I'm going to be sending my field deputy, Jessica, Jessica, Jessica jets away to the this hope history of annual Latino History Day to get that experience. And I want to thank all the members of Hope and everything they do for mentoring Latinas and getting them ready for the the real world when it comes to participating, not only politically but also in the workforce. I want to thank you for all you do. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Just wanted to chime in and say, I keep hearing so much about this hope organization and the word is spreading. And so now my chief of staff, Shawna Stevens and Marina and our internal lists are all going to this event on on Friday. So I might as well just pay some pay a membership and become an honorary member. I go home to a Latina. My wife is Afro-Latina Puerto Rican. My daughter is quarter Rican. So I just wanted to congratulate. Thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? Sure. Good evening. I'm Mayor Garcia and council members. My name is Alex Moroz and I'm a resident of the Bluff Park neighborhood here in Long Beach and a new team member to hope. It's such an honor to have Councilwoman Gonzalez and my councilman Susie Price and the city of Long Beach recognized this great organization. In my short time with Hope. I've seen the great work that the organization does for the California Latino community, and I'm excited to celebrate Latino History Day on March 11. This proclamation is a kickoff to our conference, and we'll be featuring some amazing speakers, including Virginia Espino, a historian at the UCLA Center for Oral History Research. Carmela Lopez, actress, filmmaker and activist and president of Heroic Films. And Elizabeth Vazquez, CEO of We Connect International, a corporate led nonprofit that helps empower empower women business owners to succeed in global markets. Thank you again for your support of the Latino community across Long Beach and across California. Thank you very much. Next week. When I started this. Honorable Mayor, Council Members and audience my name is Hilda Hiroto and I am a second year at Cal State Long Beach. I am a sixth District constituent. I am also a legislative intern for Councilwoman Lina Gonzalez. So I am extremely proud to call myself a Latina and very happy to be working for one as well. On February 26th, I got the opportunity to attend the 15th Annual Latina Conference at Cal State Long Beach. So as I was sitting there with the roomful of women that identified themselves as a Latina as well, I felt so empowered, so motivated in my educational goals through the connection and the mentorship with other Latinas at Kelsey Long Beach. So this was such a safe place for me and all the other Latinas that. Got together to share experiences. And and we each promoted self-development opportunities. So I can definitely say that this. Conference impacted every single individual that was in the room, because not only were there Latinas in there, but there were different races who attended this conference as well. So with me saying this, I would like to personally thank Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez for bringing this item to the council. It brings me great joy that I am a Latina to see this going on and recognizing all Latinas on March 11th. It is such an honor to be here as well on such a historical day. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, everyone. I'm solicitor Rudy Arthur Smith, the proud chief of staff for my awesome councilwoman. I am a hope graduate, as she said of 2003. And when I first took the program, I thought, Oh, I know everything. But I didn't know everything. And that's the power of the Hope network that we have throughout the state is that we learn that we don't know everything and we've got to dig deeper, ask the questions for the benefit and the empowerment of our community as Latinos across the state and frankly, across the nation. That program helped me to come out of my shell in many ways and to question different policies throughout the state when it comes to women and women of color. So that program really changed my life. I am thrilled that my council woman had the opportunity to do the program and we're going to continue to be inclusive of all of our Latinas in the city who would like to do that program as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? Mr. Goodhue, please come forward. You don't comment on everything. Very good do. Clark has the address. I'm always not always the brightest bulb around. I may share this story before. Up until about two years ago, I didn't know what a Latina was. And that came, but was brought to my attention when I was writing down on the Blue Line. There was some woman at the far end of one car that seemed to think that the 300 some people in those two cars were interested in Saga of her life, that she was broadcasting live over the phone and making it worse. That the ringtone was best described as the worst chick that Rodney Dangerfield would ever have. As we approached and got off the Fifth Street Station, somebody riding who was apparently next to her said, you know, there's a cell phone store over there. They can teach you how to get maybe a more less obnoxious cell phone ringtone and also how to tone down the volume. And somebody said, well, you can't say that to her. The guy said, Why not? Well, she's a Latino. She's a Latino. I think a better and I think we should not have one day to celebrate. And I think this goes for all groups, no matter what they are black, white, green polecat, good looking, but ugly or whatever. What we do is give them not one day, but a three day weekend starting, and we'll have it in the middle of the summer and the longest day of the year. And then every group black, white, Hispanic, next, whatever can spend the day there, spend that weekend pandering up and marching up and down over a hill over dale around the corner, up one street, down the other, doing whatever they want for the three days. And then that's it. The only people we should recognize. In a special way. Are those? In the military, first responders and those that are kid orientated and so forth, youth orientated. Everybody else's longest day of the year, we'll call it Pandering Day. And then get that out of the system. And we will save time. The people won't have to troop down here to the city council. We can move forward with the business of state. That way it gives them more time. Almost 72 hour, a little short of 72 hours to parade around, march around, and every political hack in town can go down and try to line up votes. Thank you. Thank you. Actually, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes? I just want to invite all of the Hope sisters that are here to join the mayor and myself as we present you with the proclamation and the two leaders that are in my office. I want to thank you every day for your hard work. Hilda is running for student senate at Cal State Long Beach. I'm very proud of her. And Celeste is just amazing every single day. So thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. We've concluded public comment. So no other council comment. Please go and cast your votes on the motion for the resolution. Mayor. This would just be receiving files and she'd use. It to a proclamation. Yeah. Receiving file, please. Councilwoman Pryce. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move a couple of items up. We'll be doing the two items on the recycling issue here. Before we do that, why don't we do it through 24? Briefly, which is the ballot designation.

AN ORDINANCE vacating a portion of Armory Way as condemned by Ordinance 67125, lying between Western Avenue and Elliott Avenue and vacated Pine Street and Virginia Street, adjacent to the PC-1 North Site within the Pike Place Market Historical District, on the petition of the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority (Clerk File 313716).

SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119610

Agenda item 32 Constable 1196 ten vacating portion of the armory waiting as condemned by ordinance 67125. The committee recommends the bill pass this member. O'Brien. Thank you. This is a sliver of land that is just west of the Pike Place Market. It appears to be almost under, though, I believe I haven't been down there in a few days. Maybe council members are the former Alaskan Way Viaduct that was standing there. It was discovered partway through the process that it was actually still in right away and was not Pike Place Market Land. So they have this is the street vacation to transfer that land to the market. They've done the installations of other benefit, public benefits that were required as part of this conceptual plan. O'BRIEN Any other comments or questions? If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Herbold, Suarez, Macheda O'Brien. Pacheco, Swan Lake. John Gonzalez. President Harrell. High. Eight in favor and unopposed. Bill passed Chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item. Agenda item 34 Resolution 31903 relating to the procurement and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, affirming city sales commitment to avoid procuring goods and services from corporations that purchase leases or edible oil fields in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plan.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager to execute a Second Amendment to Contract No. 30976 with Innovative Interfaces Incorporated, to provide continued Library Management System services and staff training in the amount of $513,342, plus a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $77,001 for a total amount not to exceed $590,343 for a period of three years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods at $189,411 for year four and $198,882 for year five, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0027

Item 11. Item 11. Report from Library Services and Technology and Innovation. Recommendation to Adopt Resolution to execute Second Amendment. To contract with innovative interfaces. To provide continued library management, service system services and staff training for a total amount not to exceed 590,000 citywide. City manager. Our library director, Glenn Glenn Williams. There you go. Good evening, Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Members City Council. This is a Second Amendment to continue library management services for our library system. It takes care of all of our patron records, the acquisition funds, the materials purchases. It's the gateway for our online databases, our archives, our downloadable. In addition, it also works with other services we provide to the public, including wireless, the computer time management system that we're getting ready to. Implement and self-checkout. So all these things have to work together with the library management system. This is the Second Amendment and we ask that you approve this tonight. Thank you. Councilmember. Your Urunga. I brought one of these issues up before in the past in terms of being a sole source type of contract. So this company was to go under. Are we prepared to provide the services or go out with someone else? There's only one other major vendor who will provide the services that we need, and we've actually had that vendor before. If we were to move to another vendor, it would be we'd have to actually pay for the system itself and the maintenance. Tonight, what is before you is just the maintenance costs and we just don't have the funding to to do that. I just want to make sure that we're not at the. Mercy of a of a sole source agency where if for some reason or another they are not able to perform the services or meet the contract that we are securing, but we are able to provide. Yes. Yes, sir. There's been a motion by Councilmember Richardson and a second by Councilman Andrews. Councilwoman Mongo, yes. Would you be able to tell us. On the average if most libraries in the region. Utilize this system? Yes. Very many libraries in this region utilize innovative in embraces. Great. So there's some economies of scale that are available to us. I appreciate that. Thank you. Absolutely. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 11? Seeing nonmembers, please cast your vote. Motion carries seven zero. Item 12.

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

SeattleCityCouncil_02012022_CB 120259

Economic Development Technology Institute Committee Agenda Item two Constable 120 259 relating to the satellite department authorizing directing the general manager and chief executive officer of satellite to execute an ensure local agreement with the Kalispell tribe. Of Indians. The committee recommends the bill passed. Councilmember Nelson, it looks like this is coming out of your committee. You want to walk us through this? Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This legislation renews an interlocal agreement between the city of Seattle and the Kalispell tribe and is the funding mechanism for ongoing development of a skilled workforce and cultural diversity in the communities surrounding the boundary. Hydroelectric Project First Entered into in 2016. This Interlocal agreement commits the city of Seattle to $215,000 over the course of five years and during the lat. So that's the nuts and bolts of it. And just to give you a sense of what this funding does, and we do partner with other entities to support the training center. But during the last five years, the Kalispell Career Training Center had 28 people pass through the apprenticeship program with 15 of those individuals working full time. The one year check in and some of the graduates have gone into full certification in journey level trades such as plumbing, carpentry, residential electricity, welding and fabrication and others. So this will go on for five more years. And the committee unanimously recommended that the bill pass. Thank you. Are there any questions for Councilmember Nelson regarding this? Okay. Not seen any. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. Peterson? Yes. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Sara Nelson. I council president Morris. I favored unopposed. IQ. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to this legislation on my behalf. Move it into item three. Will the clerk please read the item into the record?

Public Hearing to Consider an Application for Design Review Approval for a New Enclosure on the Rooftop of an Apartment Building to House 12 New Panel Antennae and Other Associated Equipment for an AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Facility. The project is located within an R-3-PD (Garden Residential Planned Development) zoning district. PLN14-0731 - 1777 Shoreline Drive; and Public Hearing to Consider an Application for Design Review Approval for a New Enclosure on the Rooftop of an Apartment Building to House Nine New Panel Antennae and Other Associated Equipment for an AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Facility. The proposed facility will be collocated with an existing T-Mobile facility. The project is located within an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. PLN14-0729 - 1538 Saint Charles Street. (Community Development 481001)

AlamedaCC_05192015_2015-1640

The proposed facility will be co-located with an existing T-Mobile facility. The project is located within our four neighborhood residential zoning district and adoption of related resolution. The location is 1538 St James Street. Think Charles St James. Charles Franco. She plays Monopoly too much. Here's St. Andrew again. There's not much to add after that. Yeah. Right, Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Mayor Spencer. Vice Mayor Matt Tracy, members of the council. My name's Andrew Thomas. I'm your city planner. Tonight we're here or you're here acting as your in your role as land use regulator. We have two applications before you tonight, two separate applications. These are design review applications. One, as the clerk so ably described as on Shoreline Drive. The other is on Saint Charles Street. These are two totally separate applications, but we're going to handle them together because the issues are all very similar. These are antennas by wireless telecommunication facilities for essentially cell phones and data transmission here in Alameda. These projects, these two individual projects, both came to the city at around the same time. City staff reviewed the applications. And through our role as essentially a surrogate for the planning board, we approved design review applications for small projects around the city US. These wireless communications facilities are examples of the kinds of things that are approved at the staff level fairly regularly. We approve approximately 2 to 3 design reviews every week downstairs in the planning department. These all occur with though with public notice, the neighbors who have an opportunity to comment on the applications before we take action . And then what we do is we report our actions to the planning board at their next meeting. Both of these applications generated a number of comments from the neighbors. We went ahead and approved them anyway and then with conditions. And then the planning board, because of concerns raised by the neighbors, called it for review. So the planning board held a public hearing in April, at which time they considered the merits of these two applications, and after their public hearing, they went ahead and re-approved them also with conditions. Then the City Council, you exercised your right to call that decision for review. So this is the third time we'll be looking at these these items. Both of these applications are the result of a decision by the Alameda Unified School District to discontinue cell towers and cell facilities on school facilities on the school district as a property owner made the decision that they did not want to have these types of facilities on their on their buildings. So they have to be shut down and they have to be moved by these cell tower operators. And in this case, we're talking about AT&T as the applicant and owner of both facilities. So on the left, you have the word middle school. You can see where the playing fields are and the where the existing location of the antenna. So that antenna needs to be removed. And you can see where they're proposing to move. It is nearby at 1777 Shoreline Drive. And this as the slide shows, there's already another wireless facility on the adjacent building. So we have these facilities are scattered all around around the city. And then on your right, you see the existing myelin elementary school. So that facility has to be closed down. And the proposal is to put the replacement facility at 1538 St Charles Street, approximately four blocks away. Maya Lin School. As you can see, these are coverage maps. These are provided by AT&T. And what this basically these two maps show you is that today, this whole central area of Alameda, there's cell phone service. So people are using their cell phones in these neighborhoods. Many households have actually eliminated their landlines. So they just live with cell phones. And as you can see, it's the areas fairly well covered. When you remove the facility from the mail in school, the map looks like the map on the right. And what you're seeing there is a large swath of the interior portions of of Alameda where self cell phone service is going to end and it's going to end in September of this year. That is for us, you know, down in the planning department. That was a major factor here. We wanted to get these projects approved and get them approved quickly because we didn't want to start getting the phone calls from the residents in that central part of Alameda saying, what happened to my cell service ? So that's a really a major concern for us. Here's what the would. Schools are before you move on when you're getting your information as to what it will look like without those without coverage information. Can can you clarify that? We did not the city did not independently gather this information? You're absolutely right. These maps are provided to us by AT&T. Thank you. So next map. Oh, this is the next map. Okay, good. So, same. Same basic storyline. All the people living along Shoreline today have cell service. You can see little spots of light where it's cell service a little shaky. Once the facility shuts down in September at would school, the gaps you can see on the slide on the right, they're going to they're going to be big. So what we do downstairs and what the planning board did in April is they had to make a decision about whether the project should be approved, whether these facilities should be approved, and the and the land use regulation that is at play here is our design review ordinance, but we are also governed by federal regulations dealing with these types of facilities. And what the federal regulations basically say is that in our review of these applications, we cannot base our decisions on issues related to the potential health effects of RF emissions, essentially that we cannot discriminate between divider providers. So if there's, you know, Sprint has a facility on the roof for the building, we can't say, oh, AT&T, you can't have one that we cannot use our regulations to essentially prohibit services to certain areas, certain neighborhoods, if a coverage gap exists. And then particularly this last issue and this really plays into Saint Charles Street, where there's already a cell phone antenna on the roof of Saint Charles for another provider, and that's called co-location, where it's where the provider says, oh, look, I want to just go on the same roof as the other provider. We have almost no discretion to say to say no. Under federal law. Federal law also establishes what they call the shot clock. It's a basically a time limit for cities to take action. It's shorter for co-location facilities. So ST, the St Charles facility has 90 days to take action. We are because of the all the calls for review, we are very quickly hitting the end of our 90 day period. We have a little bit more time on Shoreline. But frankly, from staff's perspective, the issue here is not so much these federal deadlines for action. It's that September deadline when those neighborhoods go dark. Maybe if I move. If you could go back the 150 days on the shoreline property, you know what that day is. Yeah, that takes us to about mid-June. Thank you. You know, the issue there is if we hold our decision until mid-June, then they still need to build the new facilities. So we question is, depending on where the new facility ends up being, will they have time to build a new facility and get it online in time to . Before the September deadline for getting the old facility shut down. You. So what federal law does say is essentially you can use your design review process when looking at the city of Alameda. You can focus your discretion on the appearance of the structures and the physical placement of the facility. So that's essentially what we do in design review. We use the design review ordinance for everything from the review of these wireless facilities to second story additions to, you know, the new Walgreens on Park Street. That's all the same regulatory structure. And these are the findings for two approved design reviews that the design is consistent with the general plan zoning and design review manual, that the project is compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the surrounding area, and that the proposed design of the structure and existing materials are visually compatible with the surrounding development. So those are the basic findings. If the answer is yes to everything, then presumably the answer is yes to the application of the answer is no to any one of those questions, and presumably the answer is no. So here's some examples we have. As I said, we have these facilities all over town. They've been through various design review. Applications over the years. These are three examples of facilities on the roofs of existing residential buildings. You can see they are we pointed them out with the arrows. In some cases we tried to. In many cases we tried to screen them, you know, hide them. Like you can see that the big building on the left with the fake little arches. It was really designed. I mean, that's essentially that structure is for one purpose. It's screening a set of antennas. And then you see these other are some of the other ones less ornate on the right. We also have some like the corner of Santa Clara and Park over here, the big tall building that's called the Oddfellows Building. Is that the name of it on the corner? If you look up there, we've there the the the antennas are unscreened. And in that case, it felt like putting a box on top of a boxy building. It just looked bad. So in that case, the decision was to to keep them without the screening. So the one on the left, the shoreline property or. No, no, no. So these are just examples around town, right? This is shoreline. So existing photo, if you go out there today and stand in the parking lot on the left, existing elevator housing, you see a little arrow pointing down. There is an elevator in that building and it creates this little box on the roof. So what AT&T is proposing is, well, let's just make that box a little bit bigger. So you see the drawing on the right. That's a simulation of what it will look like in the future. So that the idea was, let's just make that box a little bigger and it'll house the elevator housing and the antennas. So that is the design review application. We determined that it was consistent with the zoning and general plan, that it was compatible with the design and architecture of the building and that it should be approved. So we approved that design review application and the planning board concurred and also approved it with some additional conditions. The height, the same is wider. What's the difference? It's a it's a bill. It's a little higher. Um. I can give you the exact date on that. The screening structure will extend 11 feet from the top of the roof to a height of 38 feet and six inches. What is it currently? I that I do not have. May I ask? Probably the typical elevator thing is probably around 9 to 10 feet. So, Mr. Thomas, with the proposed extension in height and length, would that still be within the city's height limit for this particular area? The city's height limit actually provides a very large exception for antennas. Yeah. So you can actually go 25 feet above the height limit for the antennas. Thank you. And it's not 25 feet, obviously. No. No. So what is the and if if we didn't extend the box, do you know how what the antenna would look like? Is it possible to do it without extending the box? Just having the antenna. I mean, just have the antennas adjacent. AT&T would like can follow, would like to follow was also present some of this and maybe they can oh some ideas with their slides what what these antennas look like they're not in a box. Let's just go to the next I've got two more quick slides and then I can sit down and let AT&T answer some of these questions. So here's Saint Charles. Apartment building on the left and what it looks like today with the existing roofline. You can see there's already a little you can barely see it there with the lights on. But there's a there's already a screening, an antenna on the roof. So this is the co-location one. So you see some things sticking up on the roof there. So that's another provider with a screened in antenna. And then the AT&T facility would be set further back on the roof. And you can see the arrow. You can barely see the little box sticking up over the edge of the parapet there. So once again, this is the other reason why we felt the design review application could be approved. We approved it. In the end, the planning board upheld that decision. So our recommendation is that you uphold the Planning Board's approval of both of these applications at both Shoreline Drive and St Charles Street. We also just one more slide. We also this whole experience over the last three meetings has really made us talk sort of internally and with the neighbors and with the providers that we need. Well, we have very little control. We have very little discretion over these, but we need to have a better process. This has not been a very satisfactory process or experience for anyone. It's been frustrating for the neighbors. It's been frustrating for the planning board. They sat through a big, long hearing and then felt like, well, there's nothing they really could do about it, and that the real issues were being, you know, just weren't available to be discussed. So some of the quick ideas that we have been talking about doing and that we've been talking about this for a while, actually is trying to work with not only the city, the new city council, but the other agencies around the city who own property. You know, the park district, the the the Navy, the, you know, even the school district might have some sites like Thompson Field and create a citywide list of preferred sites so that when we were that and for those agencies who want to put properties on the list, it's an opportunity for revenue, of course, as well. But if they if the providers want to use their their land for these facilities. So the idea would be create a list of preferred sites and that would be the first choice. So providers, when they said, hey, we're trying to fill a gap, we would say, well, we want you to go to one of our preferred sites. It may be a city site, it might be a school district site, it might be a park district site. Who knows? But basically, it would be our way as working as a community to identify where we would prefer these things to go. And then we would establish sort of standard procedures, conditions for that for those sites. We could work with the various agencies on that. And hopefully essentially also the third piece would be creating some sort of an expedited process for the approval of those on those sites. Now, if, of course, this does not make these other applications necessarily go away in the future, a provider might look at those lists and say, it just doesn't fill our gap. It doesn't work, in which case then we'll have to entertain other sites because under federal law, we have to allow them to fill a gap. But the idea of this process would be two things. One, if we as a community can identify preferred sites, that would be great because as many of these future facilities that we can direct to those sites, so much the better. The other piece is the sort of the expedited review. What was very frustrating about this is we send out notices to neighbors like our typical notice, hey, we're we got an application we're considering. It sort of implies that you can have some input and shape the project on these situations with all the FCC regulations. What's happening is we're sending out notices and then we're basically telling people, Yeah, but you actually have no say in this process at all because the FCC says this and this and this and this and this , and there's very little discretion. So I think part of our idea on this is that we really do need to think about if we can get providers to go to preferred sites, it would be nice to have an expedited process where we get those approved rather than sending out notices telling people you can have input and then really not give them a whole lot of input. So that's just something we've been thinking about. If the council wants to direct us sort of down that path, that's certainly something we would support. And with that, I am available to answer questions for Ashcraft. Thank you. I have one. Do you want to tell us a little bit about a meeting that was held last week with them? Absolutely. We met briefly with a representative of Congresswoman. Barbara Lee. Barbara Lee's office, who is here meeting with constituents. And we invited a couple of the residents who have been active, Ms.. Jessica Reed, who I think is yes, I know she's here tonight and will be speaking. And another neighbor, unfortunately, was on fairly short notice. So there wasn't a lot of time. But it was helpful to be able to talk through these issues with both the OH and AT&T team as well. So it was it was helpful to talk through not only this idea, but just some of the pros and cons and frustrations that we all have with the sort of the situation. On one hand, we're all using cell phones, so we all kind of get it. We need cell phones, but we'd like to have a little bit more control over where these things go and how we place them. And so it was it was helpful to talk that through with the with both the residents and AT&T. AT&T was very encouraging to us about this kind of process. If we as a community can can pull together and do that because they think not just AT&T, but the other providers as all as well, would be very interested in. Working through this kind of process with us. They are doing it with other communities. You know, we're not the only community struggling with these kinds of issues. So they offered their help and encouragement to sort of proceed along these lines. Remember, they suck. While the equipment that we're discussing tonight is AT&T. Is it correct to say that cell phone users generally will benefit not just people who have phones that are AT&T? You know, I'm not an expert on that. But can I hold can we hold that question for the experts? AT&T, you actually would like to continue this presentation with some of their information. This is a field that it's a little technical, and I'm not. Frankly, for other member questions at this point. Any more questions for me? I'll be available to answer any. More later on in regards to. So we had received a correspondence suggesting that we consider not not allowing, I think, the box so that the skyline would not be disrupted. Is that something that counsel can say that we don't want. Absolute. Box out of? Absolutely. You know, it's an interesting question. We've debated that for a number of different sites and projects around the city over the years. There's sort of an ongoing debate just downstairs among the planners, like, you know. What looks worse, the actual antenna, which is an antenna or the box that we're putting around it. In some cases on historic buildings, we've always pushed for the box and we've tried to put a lot of ornamentation on it. In other cases, we've sort of leaned away from that. Obviously what we're talking about tonight are facilities sitting on roofs on existing buildings. We also approve, you know, the freestanding poles. We have some would allow me to point there's one going in a yacht club. Typically, we don't try to screen those, although there is one recently going in that was approved by the planning board. We'll have our first fake tree in town. It's going to be at the Alien Yacht Club. It's basically a cell phone tower. It's a council tonight. Says we don't want the the a box. Just put the antennas. That's certainly within your discretion. And we say is the one property and not estate, or do they both have boxes or only one of them? We are proposing boxes on both. You could do both. None. One. You know, it's that's they do have some discretion. Okay. And also at the planning board, I think that when when one of these projects is approved, they this one of them, they said they wanted notices given to residents. Yeah. Let me if you'd like. I just the planning board added a couple conditions to our conditions. One was that the because this permit is going to AT&T and the owner of the property, the permit actually goes with the property, as with all of our design review. But when you sell your property, the city approval stays with the property. You don't take it with you. They said, look, the one requirement, the property owner and AT&T must notify everybody in the building about what's going on the roof. Just basic disclosure. If somebody doesn't want to live in a building with those things on the roof, they should at least know what's up there. The other thing was that there are limitations in terms of for workmen and people like that up on the roof around this facility that do it, certain types of maintenance, the facility should be turned off. So there was just some basic safety information that they they imposed, which we think we're going to use now as standard conditions on all such facilities. All right. Two points. The idea about noticing the residents, I think is a good idea. Perhaps we should make that a regular policy or a city across. The second issue is so there's already one next door. So why why on on the Shoreline Avenue? So if there's already one on the roof of next door, why aren't they co-locating there and pointing at it in whatever direction? If it's okay with you? I mean, I. Push that question to the to AT&T. They do a what they call alternative site selection so that they can talk a little bit about what worked and what didn't work for those facilities in high school. If that's okay with you. So if it's all right with the council, can I invite AT&T to sort of finish the presentation? Good evening, Mr. Spencer and members of Council appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this evening. My name is Ken Mintz. I'm the area manager of external affairs here in the East Bay for eternity. I have some prepared remarks. I'm going to go through them quickly. I don't want to repeat too much of what staff has already brought forward, but I want to put in some context about the process that we go through to help your understanding. And finally, I'd like to then invite up a third party engineer that we utilize for our emissions studies, which I think is also central to a lot of questions have been coming to us from the community as stated by staff, the applications before the Council or due to the loss of long term leases at two school sites within the city. Normally applications are brought forward as gaps in wireless coverage are identified. In the case of these applications, however, we are under extreme pressure to fill gaps that will exist once AT&T can no longer depend upon the existing antennas at the mile in Inwood schools. The school board has terminated our leases these sites and identified late September as the termination date for both leases. As the Council is well aware, that demand for wireless services has been growing in an extraordinary pace. The school sites have been in place for more than ten years each. During that time, many people have come to depend on services in their homes as they've discontinued the use of landline phones and now expect the same level of reliability when needing to communicate through wireless devices. This is especially true for many lower income households who gave up landlines to increase their disposable income, as well as millennials who never had landlines in the first place. You may know some 20 year olds like that also across the United States. Approximately 44% of households have given up traditional landline service and now depend entirely on wireless service. Any loss of service for even a short period of time could affect public safety, as well as all the other ways that households now utilize our network, including children's education, home businesses, entertainment, etc.. Let me take a moment to explain how we identified the locations for the internment applications. When we identify a gap in coverage, our engineers identify a search area within which they look for potential candidate sites. These must meet certain requirements. First, they must be able to fill the identified gap. This is dependent on the topography of the sites and by topography, it's not just hills. We don't have a whole lot of that here on the island. However, foliage can have an impact. Size of buildings around the antenna sites can have an impact. The number of antennas underneath and also the height of the antennas are another couple of requirements that we need to look at. Second, the site must be constructed all and have sufficient space not only for the intended structure, but the associated equipment that needs to be placed in the same general vicinity by construct ability. There are a number of sites that we looked at that have heavily sloped roofs, for instance, very hard to place equipment on those type of facilities. Third, we also need a willing landlord. The two school sites met all of these criteria for many years until the school district decided it not wanted antennas on their properties and thereby no longer being liveaboard. Our search of the two neighborhoods resulted in examining quite a number of possible locations. Ultimately, we were looking for the least intrusive means for filling the coverage gap, and that is something that's directed to us by the FCC, at least intrusive means for filling a significant gap in coverage. We also consider properties that already contain one or more cell providers in order to co-locate at the same location where another wireless carrier already has facilities. Keep in mind, however, that a site may that may work for one provider does not necessarily work for another, given where each provider's other antennas are that say they create honeycombs and each honeycomb is different for each of the providers. You go to that next slide. This shows the area around our proposed site on St Charles Street. The yellow pushpins are a number of the alternative sites that we looked at. If you notice all of those, there are commercial sites. When we talk about the preference list that we currently go through, we look for there are things like public properties, city owned properties, school district churches, that type of thing. We also look for commercial sites and co-location of existing antennas that we could also utilize. So sites. A number of sites were rejected due to the lack of suitable space since many of the surrounding locations, particularly around 1530 in Charles, were too low to meet the coverage gap. We particularly looked at a mastic senior center which sits adjacent to the 1538 property. To build on that site would have required erecting an antenna over 60 feet in height, as well as taking up at least three parking spaces for the ground based equipment. If we switch to the next slide, I think you've seen this one. This is the roof of 1538 St Charles. On the other hand, three storey apartment building that already houses T-Mobile antennas and has sufficient space for the ground equipment as well, actually in the garage unit. Our plan calls for stealth in our antennas. There's some discussion of that with the staff to minimize the visual impact. Again, to create the least intrusive means, go quickly to the next one. You've seen these. Things. You move on when you look at the stealth and yeah, do you know how much higher or wider this box will be than what's currently there? Yes, let me pull it up. I can. Okay. So the existing height of the top of the penthouse is 47 feet ten inches, and the top of the antenna enclosure would be 50 feet, three inches. So about less than three additional feet. So it's currently 47 feet high. 47, 47 feet ten inches high. Right. And it would be expanded to 50 feet, three inches. So two and three inches, two and a half feet higher, wider than the existing, because we would be placing the antennas inside that enclosure, enclosing it of making it the same color and feel of the building itself. So it would blend in. And do you know how much wider it will be with the current with this? In terms of. Width of the enclosure. That was in the report. Is not an exhibit 315 feet by 14 feet, six inches by ten feet tall. Is that the current? That's this. From what I understand, not speaking as an expert, that's the approved. Yeah. Right now there is no box on top. No box at all. Right. So I'm sorry. I'm thinking of the other side. Appreciate that. On this one, there is another structure which is the team mobile antenna site closer to the front of the building. When you look at that picture, you can actually see and that one T mobile did not enclosed area tenants they sit around the box and you can actually see their antennas hanging off the side of box. Our enclosure would have the antennas inside and then they would be surrounded by by that enclosure. All right. So do you have pictures of what it currently is that shows what the antenna looks like and what the proposed will look like if we don't have a box? And can I just interject that I know that this this item was brought to our attention by some of our residents, and I believe at least one of them is going to speak maybe more. I'm also under the impression that the Saint Charles location actually is not the controversial one because it's not in proximity to the school in the park. So I just for the sake of time, because I know, Mayor, you want to move this along because of the length of the agenda. I just thought I'd point that out. Thank you. It sits about three blocks away from the Maitland School. But there's currently not a box near proposing adding a. Box, adding a box to a co-location site, which under the FCC is. Almost a done deal type of situation. Thank you. I just. You've seen the propagation maps or flipped through those. The application for 1777 Shoreline Drive will replace the antennas currently situated at Woods School. How we cover the gap in service that will exist with the loss of the Woods site is very important in that leaving gaps in coverage will mean a loss of service area residents in reviewing potential sites and buildings in the neighborhood. We found several that would be much more visible and thus more intrusive, such as if we were to erect a freestanding pole at Riddler Park, for instance, on the other side of the school. This is a view of, again, the alternative site analysis that we did. You'll note that we looked as far to the east as the shopping center, as far to the north, I'm sorry, west their shoreline court. These sites, unfortunately, do not provide that level of coverage within the needed area, which means that residents with no longer have service who have it today. If we were to construct that those sites. As you get closer to the school site, that's where we start looking at other factors. So for instance, there were three well, there are other three story buildings in the vicinity. The placement of certain roofs creates what's known as a shadowing effect, which means that a higher antenna would be needed to get the same level of coverage. So if we were to move to one of the other buildings that sit and place it closer to Shoreline Drive, for instance, it would have to be a much larger intended to get that same level of coverage and not lose service for some of your residents. This is also an area that's very land constrained, as much of the available open ground space is devoted to parking, which makes placement of our ground equipment very difficult. We don't have underground garages in this area. If we were to look at several of them, we did look at a number of the other apartment buildings in that vicinity. And unfortunately, there just isn't the amount of space that would be required. That's two, three, four parking spaces, very difficult for these apartment buildings to give up and even a question of city code given requirements of what they need to maintain. There was a question asked early, and I have the answer here in terms of we did consider the building adjacent to 1777 shoreline, which is 1801. That's the site that currently houses the T-Mobile. Again, parking became an issue on the 1777 Shoreline Drive site. We're actually looking to put the ground equipment into an enclosure that's kind of like a patio on the side of the building. So we're not taking up parking spaces at 1801. T-Mobile's ground equipment is in a like enclosure. So for us to go onto that facility would require us placing it someplace else on the property. And the landlord was not interested in us doing that. So it was on their suggestion. We move to what is another one of his buildings. However, it's a separate parcel and that's why it didn't qualify as a location, even though the adjacent parcel has an antenna. So many. So the question that I have still the other question that I have is so do people who are non AT&T cell phone users, do they benefit by from this new AT&T tower equipment that you're putting on? Not directly, because each its cellular provider has their own service. Now, there is a certain amount of of what's known as roaming where other providers might lease our service to provide their customers service within a certain area. If you're if you're a T-Mobile customer and you live in the area. I don't know what the numbers, but near Shoreline Court. Right. Your service is integrated? No. No. But if you consider how large each of these companies are, the number of folks that, you know, have our services, you can imagine there's quite a number of folks that, you know, would be our customers in this area. The other thing about the shoreline site is because it is the beach right there. That whole beach area is covered by by these. So intent is to and while there should still be coverage outdoor. It's a question of reliability of the service at that point too. So particularly the summer months, you have a lot of extra traffic all over that island. You know, it's not just the residents who are affected. It's everyone who's passing through the area as well. So in closing on my remarks, we believe that the rooftops at 1538 St Charles and 1777 Shoreline Drive provide the best possible and least intrusive means to cover the significant gaps that we are expecting to see in coverage. And your planning staff and planning board have recognized that as well. With me today, five representatives from AT&T, from our engineering team, as well as our site acquisition team. So between us, we can answer any questions you might have. Well, what I'd like to do now is invite up to the podium Mr. Bill Hammett. He's an independent third party professional engineer from the firm of Hammett Anderson to discuss radio frequency emissions. Since this has been a major topic of interest in turning our existing license. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council members. My name is Bill Hammett. I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of California. I manage a firm of 20, relocated up in Sonoma, and a regular part of our practice is the calculation or the measurement of radio frequency exposure conditions. We do this work for for AT&T, for AT&T competitors, for cities, for landlords. As engineers, our job is really straightforward. What are the exposure levels, either by measurement or by calculation? How do they compare to the standards? In this case, we've done that analysis. My reports are a matter of record for these two applications, and I can state with assurance that these facilities will meet the federal safety standards. That's the threshold condition, as you've heard earlier, to take that issue off the table. I did want to make one comment about the siting of these on apartment houses. The carriers have to site their facilities within the area that they're trying to serve. They can't go outside and leap into a place. They have to be in an area where they serve in San Francisco. San Francisco, as an example. They're on apartment houses all over. And so they have a rule that anybody who lives within 25 feet has to be offered measurements. So we were in and out of apartments quite a bit in San Francisco, and I put the meter together, I hand it to the resident, let them go wherever they want, and they're always surprised at how low the levels actually are, even if they're directly below. This is a high roof, but even directly below the facilities, as some people would be in this case, the levels are very low for a couple of reasons. One is that the antennas are not. They have a physical dimension. If they were a point source, like the microphone or like a light bulb, the energy would go equally out in all directions. But they're not there, oh, probably eight or ten inches wide, which allows them to put them in groups focused in one general direction. And this proposal, if you've seen it inside, they have antennas in three different directions to serve all the way around. It's more efficient just to reuse those frequencies. But what's interesting is the antennas stand four feet tall and that allows the energy to be focused down and pushed out toward the horizon is a thousand times less energy that goes down and goes out. So that's why directly underneath the facilities, the levels are very low. The other factor is that the energy doesn't like to go through something you can't see through. And if you'd like in a moment or two, I can show you what the whole spectrum looks like the electromagnetic spectrum, all the different frequencies and their positions. But what that means is that there's a thousand times less going down and what little goes down can't get through the roof. So the service provided is actually bounced off other buildings, comes back in through the windows. And that's a very easy thing to demonstrate. And as I always like to do that for the people in the in the apartments is in great assurance that indeed it's really not an issue for them. The spectrum that I mentioned goes from 60 hertz. That's power line frequencies. So coming out of the plug over here, plus, minus, plus, minus plus, -60 times a second, that's 60 hertz is extremely low frequency. And that's where the power lines run on a wavelength. There is 5000 kilometers here in New York, very low frequency. Above that, there's a big chunk of frequencies that are called radio frequencies used for radio and TV and taxicab paging and police and fire aeronautical frequencies is packed with different users in in that band above radio frequencies is infrared that we use to control our TV's or I have one in my shower I stand under it when I get out above that is a tiny sliver of the spectrum we call it light is our eyes are sensitive to it. This is all one big continuous electromagnetic spectrum. Above light is ultraviolet. And what is ultraviolet do? If your sunburn. The waves are so short, they can get into a molecule and break off an electron. That's called ionization. Above above ultraviolet is x rays. When you go to the dentist and get an x ray, what do they do? They put LED shield on you. And where does the operator stand when the times cut and they stand behind another shield? Because these are acknowledged as ionizing frequencies. They're the wavelength is so short, will get in and break off electronic causes. There's a little bit of damage over time. But what AT&T is doing is not x rays, it's not ultraviolet, it's not light, it's not infrared. It's down in this big chunk in the middle called radio frequencies. So there's nothing inherently dangerous about radio frequencies. They don't cause ionization. It's just a question of magnitude. And in this case, the magnitudes are tiny as a result. So I wanted to share those two concepts with you. I'm happy to talk about any aspect of the science or the standards that might be of interest to you. But I thought those are would be useful points to raise. And so comments. All right. Thank you very. Thank you. And I'm going to go ahead and call our speakers. And you each get 3 minutes. Jessica Reed breaks a bond. Sarah Cruz. Oh, yes. And on the slip. It's on in Charlotte. Are there any other students? And. Yeah, so. Thank you. Hi, I'm Anita Hughes. And I just want to say that evil didn't move down the list because because that they wanted really good cell phone reception, but they wanted to move down there because they have because it's a safe environment for the for the families. And also, I think that cell towers look really ugly on top of buildings, because if they're just hiding them, I don't think it's really good for other people because people might not know about the cell towers. And if they move into somewhere that they don't know the cell towers and they can get affected by it. And that's just all I want to say. Thank you. Thank you. On the slip. It also has Charlotte. Um, she's not here. All right. Thank you. Jessica Reed. Honorable Member and council, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Jessica Reed and I am a resident of Alameda and have two sons. One currently attends violin school and another who will do so in little over a year, and both of whom who participate in Little League at Riddler Park. And the title of my comments is Location, Location, Location. Thank you for considering the appeal of the installation of an AT&T cell antenna atop 1777 Shoreline Drive. This is not an FTC tower, as some have stated. This is a private commercial moneymaking enterprise. While the FCC says that we must assume emissions levels are safe and are not a basis for your decision, that's that's it. This is a private development over which you can determine its appropriateness to the location. Please note that I am not against cell antennas or cell phones. I'm against bad locations for cell antennas. Please also note that any reference to the need for the antenna for emergency services, calls or safety is a red herring. All cell phone carriers are obligated to transmit emergency calls regardless of the caller specific carrier. For them. This is about keeping customers and making more money, not about anything else. And no, I don't believe that is unwarranted criticism. Cynicism. Director Thomas has questioned how can he deny the antenna when he has approved others that he showed examples of? I again say not all locations are the same. A cell antenna in the business areas of the city is still ugly, but it is different than one in the direct line of sight from a very popular and well used park. Even one building over is different and less visible from the park and less disruptive of the skyline from that park. This will double the size of that elevator shaft, double it in width and in height. To my knowledge, they have not provided renderings from the park, and I think this is because they know what it will look like and it won't be good. While they have added alternatives since the Planning Board decision, most of these alternatives are not meaningful. They know the schools are not options and they use those. And nor is the beach. And now they have added three alternatives that would not fulfill their needs because they either already have antennas there or it is at the end of their stated service gap. I ask you to question the statement excuse me that the antenna cannot be co-located even one building over on 1801 shoreline. I have heard various conflicting reasons. AT&T said that it can't be there because there is no room for the ground equipment, and now it's because the property owner doesn't want it there. It just. It's just not clear to me. AT&T was told that they needed to come here tonight and tell you why none of the other buildings further south worked, including ones like Kitty Hawk and Franciscan Way. They haven't done that. Alameda Municipal Code states that the provisions of the zoning plan shall be held to the minimum are the minimum requirements for the promotion and protection of public safety, health and general welfare. This means that you can go beyond what the Planning Department decided. You can decide that our enjoyment of our open spaces and skylines is part of what adds to our general welfare. You have the authority and discretion to say that based upon the testimony, your own investigation, and upon weighing all the evidence. This is a bad location for the residents of Alameda and other visitors to Riddler Park. Please consider the wishes of the community and use your authority to say that this is a bad location. Thank you. Thank you. Craig's on. And then Sarah Cruz. And Kerry. Sure. Oh. All right. There are crews. And then carry share it. And then Lester Cabral. You mean Mayor Spencer and council members? Okay, that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for hearing us tonight. And thank you for postponing your decision until you can get more input. We appreciate we appreciate that. Just a brief history of our experience with AT&T and cell phone towers. I work at myelin. Many of our families here are from myelin. When we found out that AT&T had a cell phone phone tower on myelin, we were concerned. We did some fact finding. Even my students did inquiry because of their concerns. I figured this was a good teachable opportunity to teach navigating technology and inquiry based learning. And the concerns grew not just from our students, but from our parents. We met months and months and months with the school board meeting over a year. It started about a year and a half ago and together we worked with the school board to create this plan. And so I'm I'm asking you that you honor this man that we worked so hard to create based on the concerns of our neighborhood citizens. I question the trustworthiness of AT&T because of our experience with them. They tried saying that our school district was legally binded to them in a contract for 20 to 25 years, when legally the contract could last five years and it was expired. So we had legal precedent to end that contract. I'm concerned about their maps. They seem pretty drastic about a gap in coverage. I wonder if there could be maybe a map from a neutral party to present some fact finding information to you about a gap in coverage. And I could be wrong, but my understanding is that legally they have to prove that this will be a gap in coverage first. But I could be wrong about that. Again, like Jessica said, legally, it's not an issue of public safety. If people need to make a911 call than any other company can put that 911 call through. So all in all, I'm asking you to just respect and honor our students feelings and concerns. I'm not asking you to deny AT&T s proposal, but deny their proposal for 1777 shoreline. It's really a slap in the face to if you're moving it right around the corner from where you're supposed to be taking it off. I feel like that's disrespectful and insulting. The fact that the alternative site analysis was on U.S. schools, too, it's just really disrespectful to me. So I encourage you to encourage them to find someplace further away from schools. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is. Elizabeth Kerry, shared by Kerry. Good evening, Mayor Spencer and council members. I don't have too much to add to what Jessica Reed and Sarah Cruz had to say, but I do want to just be here because I currently can. I'm not restricted in my speech by federal, state or local law in being here to say I'm opposed to the proposed installation at 1777 Shoreline. I do appreciate the planning board directors reminders on the restrictions that we have on our speech regarding these types of installations and issues. And I do want to say I appreciate all of the detail that he went into regarding all of the efforts that the planning board has gone through so far in what is something that they do all the time. But just because we do something all the time doesn't mean that it's a good idea. I agree with Jessica in saying location. The location for this is wrong. I agree with Sarah in saying that it's disrespectful to say, Oh, I can't have it in your yard. Well, how about over here? I'll stand right here. It's a not a reasonable way to engage the community. I understand that Awasthi is part of the county and part of the state, not part of the city governance. If the city departments can all work together, please do take into consideration what Awasthi and the county have also come to a conclusion about after input from the community in which we all exist. So I thank you for your time. You. Lester Carroll. And then Andy Barr leaving. And then Dennis Wong. Good evening, Mayor. Council Members. Lester Cabral, resident of Alameda, 1538 St Charles. I own the property to the side and to the rear of that particular 80 year old apartment building. Now, there are residents in that building there and I assume some of them there. It has been in the past anyway. Are you through the Housing Authority or section eight program of some type? They live on the third floor up there. Now, T-Mobile has already put in a unit up there. Of course, they didn't notify anybody. They said we don't have to. I guess so. Well, I never heard anything anyway. And on the back side of the building, if you want, if you look at the back side, you'll notice that there's a big chute that runs down the side of the building. And I assume that's the encasement for all the electrical wires. They're running down the building into the basement. Now. I believe we have a real safety issue here. You know, there's an old structure there. You know, there are people that are living there. You know, I know the. FCC says, hey, trust. Me, you know, we're going to do a good job here for you. Yeah, right. At the same time saying, look. We're only going to shoot radio frequency signals. Well, maybe today, but maybe next week, they may say, hey, now we have to use this type of signal in order to get an even broader base out there. I think we need to have some conditions put here, mainly on the property owner. You're not going to tell AT&T what to do. You know, they're going to do what they're going to do. But the property owner, I believe, you know, he has a business license here in EL. I mean, he just like I do, I rent apartments. He rents apartments. And, you know, I mean, I can't put a a Hoosier in on top of one of my buildings there. Why should he be able to put a. You know, a this type of antenna set up on his. You know, I think I think he has a limit and. And a liability to what should be going on there. We shouldn't just allow these guys to pop all around and say, hey, look, you know, we'll give you so many dollars and let us put this up on your roof. No, we need to control it. And the way I see it is through the business license saying, hey, you know, if you rent out apartments in their apartments, they're not for this other use. Anyway, I'm against this. Hopefully we can. Come up with something here. It'll benefit everybody. Thank you. Thank you. And about 11. And then Dennis Wong. Good evening again. I'm now just speaking on my own behalf and Bartoli Bien. I'm a resident here in Alameda, and I actually attended many, many, many, many of the meetings that went on with our school board related to this same topic. And along the way, I learned a few things and and I didn't speak up at the time because I I've always sort of felt that, you know, when parents are involved with their children, there's a certain level of of. I don't know if respects or sensitivity that I wanted to propose, but I think for one thing that I happened to learn along the way is what many folks don't understand is that the the activity that we have in our own home, our own homes right now, actually exceeds many of what we're at least this is what I've heard. I'm not an expert on. The wireless systems we have in our home is giving off the same thing. And you're much closer and much stronger. One letter that I read that was written by a resident that is an engineer then I thought was fascinating. So that's one way of looking at this, is these antennas have been up for at least the last past ten years. Plus the level of use of of cell phones has increased dramatically in that time and also the type of use with more of the streaming and whatnot. So not only do we have more actual cell phones out there, but the use of them has increased that much of the concern here is related to cancer. And they that if you go back throughout anywhere, there's there's no correlation of an increased rate of cancer. And I know we want to be careful, but there's also a point of wanting to look at the facts. I think the gentleman that spoke previously that is an expert and talked about these things that, again, I try to understand, made it pretty clear that that it really is quite a limited level. Now, should there be a way to find a better place on Shoreline then? I certainly would support that. But I also have noticed a very large change in lifestyle, said many people don't have home phones anymore, they just have their cell phones and that's what they use for their day to day life, day in and day out . So by eliminating an entire area for a specific carrier, you're then putting our local residents in a situation that would be quite difficult. They may not be able to use their phones at all. They may or may not be able to make a change. It may be a costly change to them. So I'll put myself out on the limb and say if there is no other solution with the homework being done that I would support the presentation made. Thank you. You Dennis Wong. Then that's the last speakership I have on this item. Good evening, Mayor Council. I actually came here to you to just visit. I'm from out of state. I'm a proud alumni of what? School and also a proud wildcat. The young lady you spoke earlier kind of inspired me as well as AT&T. And I just have a number of questions that I think may be helpful for counsel and for also the citizens. One is there was a comment about discretion. Mr. Thomas made a comment that there is a little bit of discretion. Where where is that discretion? And and again, I I'm I'm coming into this kind of dry, but I don't know if your city attorney actually reserves the federal and also state guidelines to see if you actually have some discretion. I would think that if 18 to G tells you that you need a certain area, you're not required. To go ahead and ratify a specific location. There must be some type of a arrange. And I don't understand why we're spending so much time talking about this if indeed you have no discretion. And I don't understand why they would have a consultant from Sonoma at 830 in the evening and three or four other employees here, if you had no discretion. And I have I also don't understand why. We'll see. Will, what school and the other school would pull their lease and possibly subject themselves to litigation if you had no discretion and there was not a safety issue and I was in Ms.. Ramsey's, I think it was rooms three, three, 16, math, and I can't imagine a parent sending a child to Room 316. It was we'll see what school with a tower right above there. And again, given the number and the volume of cell phone use, and it's going to be increasingly in that magnitude. So what I would suggest is that counsel and the city attorney actually look to see where you have discretion. And I would try to draft actually legislation to kind of put an end to this and say, hey, look, similar to to 90 registrations for sexual offenders, not near children or schools or high density areas, something like that. And find out exactly what that parameter is that allows you to maybe put it in a in a more palatable place. So thank you. Thank you. He was our last speaker on this issue. Council members. I'm ready. Madam Mayor, I just want to quickly begin by saying, you know, I. I called for review the matter of the 1777 Shoreline Drive item. Not for any particular reason, but because, you know, a member of the rest of the community misread, I believe it was asked for it to be reviewed so that we can get more information and to give them an opportunity. So and also, you know, I think it it saved like $300 or so. So I'm glad that we're having this discussion tonight and the incredible amount of information that we had to go through as part of the reviewing the planning board's analysis. The package alone, I don't know if you saw is like 350 pages. There's more pages on on this thing than what we're dealing with on site. Tonight, it was incredibly large and it's so complex in terms of the science, federal laws and the and the limited space that local governments have on matters like this. And. You know, it's a process has been put in place by the federal government and and the information was put through. And, you know, I think this is a good discussion that we're having tonight. Want to leave it at that for now. Any other member. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. Mary Spencer and I also communicated by email with the residents and the teacher, Ms.. Cruz, who communicated with me. And I also arranged the meeting with Joseph Camacho, who is the director of constituent services for our congresswoman Barbara Lee, in her Oakland district office. And he came last week to our library and met with Mr. Thomas and AT&T staff and some of the concerned residents. And I do appreciate everyone's concerns, but I also appreciate the law and the law that applies and the difference just to distinguish for them, for the gentleman, the word school is with regard to, say, sex offenders and not being able to locate near a school or a playground. That's state law. But when we're talking about the Federal Communications Commissions, that's federal, which is another reason that I set up the the meeting with the gentleman from the congresswoman's office, because that deals with federal law. And if laws are to be changed in this type of law, it's going to come from the federal government. But what we're doing is we're considering the appeal of a design review approval from the planning board. And I do not see the criteria from anything we've heard tonight to to overturn what the planning board, I think, very thoroughly considered and also did have their own conditions, which were sound like very reasonable ones. I was told that and I was out of town last week when this meeting occurred, so I didn't get to attend. But I understand from speaking to Mr. Thomas, who was there, that AT&T was to consider a possible alternative location on Shoreline Drive if if both the the site looked feasible in terms of filling that, addressing the coverage gap and also if you had a willing landlord, because those are the criteria that have to be met. And I, I understand that no attempt or no an attempt was made, but the building owner wasn't reached. But yes, I think the mayor would allow. You to begin the mike. I'm sorry. She's asking you. Thank you. Out of the meeting that we had last Thursday, we Verizon's question came up about this is Reed brought up a question of a an apartment complex on Kitty Hawk, about 700 feet to the east of of our proposed site. We've done some evaluation of that site. We were not able to connect with the landlord. So that was one aspect we weren't able to connect with. However, on the analysis, we found that that site would provide 16% less coverage. So a gap of residents who would not be able to get service if we were to locate on that particular site. The other issue that we found and I made quickly in my remarks about the the lack of of space for ground equipment, which could take up, as I mentioned, about three or even four parking spaces. That particular site is very constrained. Just about every inch outside of their their buildings and their inner courtyard is taken up with parking spaces right at the edge of the property. So that's why we with that one. All right. Well, thank you for that clarification. Okay. So I think we take that one off the table. It doesn't sound feasible. But I also want to go back to what Mr. Thomas mentioned in the beginning, or I guess it's in one of his slides that the. The city is also recommending or staff is recommending for all carriers who wish to locate a cell phone equipment. Sites in our city, that is our city wide site of preferred locations be established because some will surely be less controversial than others and establish standard design and disclosure conditions for wireless facilities. Develop an expedited administrative approval procedure for while wireless facilities on preferred sites, you know, once they've been located. And then I was struck by something that came out of the meeting with Congresswoman Lee's staff. Was that and it was it was reiterated here today from, I think, the teacher, Miss Cruz, and misread that they felt that it was an affront that here they had worked so hard in this committee with the school district to get these antennae off of school roofs, and then they turn around and find it just on an adjacent property. Apparently, there's been a change in the personnel who are working on this issue when it came before the school board, as I understand. But I do think we could use better communication between our school board, among, I will say, for the English teachers in the room among the city, AT&T and the school board. So we should I mean, I would assume that we know where the schools are, but, you know, maybe some other sites where children go, parks or whatever. But it should be in all this city we could in the future, you know, find some some sites that could have some mutual agreement on them. So I know we have a standing committee, right. And a representative of the council. Seated of. This council. Okay. Well, at some point, we when we do, I think this is just an issue that could be an issue for discussion at some point. So that said, I appreciate everyone's input. I think we learn every time we have public input like this. I cannot find a reason to overturn the planning board decision. Thank you, Mayor. Q Any other member already? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll try to be brief. So in the staff report, there was kind of an explanation about the difference between the city in our regulatory role and the school board as a landlord. So that the decision that the school board made was not a regulatory decision. It was a decision they made as a landlord and as a property owner. And my understanding is, if there was an application to put a similar tower on city property, that we'd have similar discretion as a landlord and a property owners would do that as well. So I concur with both Councilmember De Saag and thank him and the mayor for bringing this to the council, because I understand there's been a lot of discussion going on. And I think it's important that those that who were opposed to this had an opportunity to have a public hearing. And I think they appreciate not having to, you know, put up the $300 each. So I thank them for that. And I also want to pretty much echo what my my colleague, Councilmember Ashcroft, said. You know, we look at the design review findings and, you know, one, the proposed design is consistent with the general plan zoning ordinance and our design review manual. And I haven't seen anything in the presentation to show me otherwise. You know, two of the project is compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the surrounding area. You know, one of them is an apartment complex, apartment building in a complex that has these type of of boxes on it, you know, one for the elevator, another building for another tower. And then the St Charles one, you know, there's already a similar structure or box enclosure for antenna, you know, I mean, we could debate whether it should be inside an enclosure or outside. But, you know, I'm not quite sure. You know, I guess it's, you know, whether you think one is more attractive or one is more appealing. And, you know, personally, you know, I don't really want to see a cell tower. I think looking at them is kind of unappealing and I'd rather have them hidden, but that's kind of my thought. And then the third one, the proposed design of the structure and exterior materials are visually compatible with the surrounding development and design elements have been incorporated to ensure the compatibility that goes on and on. And, you know, the fact that it's, you know, it's concealed and it kind of looks like the building, you know, I don't see anything that I've heard today that would make me want to overturn the planning board's decision. Everyday stuff. Oh, actually, I think I. Council member. Vice Mayor. Yes. I think the most valuable thing we can do out of that of this discussion is exactly what the planning director suggested is to take a strategic look at where. There would be acceptable locations for cell towers because it is a fact of life. And until we all give up our cell phones, regardless of who are carrier is. We can't complain about cell phone towers and cell phone coverage and drop calls at the at the same time or even participate in carrying this little radio device with us. And I agree with council member Otis assessment, having been on the planning board or sitting in a judicial or regulatory role right now and. I don't see the criteria for overturning the Planning Board's decision based on the three conditions that are laid out. And that is because this is a very narrow topic that we're deliberating on tonight. We have to meet those conditions and it is a permit taken by private individuals within the law, regardless of what happened outside, if they followed the law and met the city's criteria. Oh. We don't have discretion, I believe, to deny. Member data. Madam Mayor. In terms of my opinion on either of the towers, I think, you know, reading the materials, the 350 pages or so of materials, you know, the thing that crosses my mind is simply that the 1777 Shoreline Drive does not has not prepared a complete application, as a staff report says. The FCC mandates that wireless facility providers conduct radiofrequency electromagnetic RF modeling for each site to ensure compliance with FCC exposure limits. That's in our Starfleet F report. The Planning Board Materials does not have an RF study for 1777 Shoreline Drive. Um, three. Andrew Do you want to respond to that? Or maybe somebody from AT&T? It's not. I'm unclear about what was in your packet, but it was submitted to the city. Not in the planning work on the website. He. Was submitted to the city. I don't know why it wasn't in your packet. And someone look at the package. What is on the pub or what is on the website is you could be is an RC study or 1801 Shoreline Drive. There is not another study or 1777 shoreline. I'm not arguing with you. I know we received it. Why? It's not on the website. I don't. Know. It's not a complete application. Well, I think there's a difference between a complete application and what was on the agenda. So I think what we're hearing is that it was a complete application, but that it may not have made it into the packet. Not on what matters. The the material was submitted to the city of Alameda. What I don't know is what actually went in your packet or what was what is currently posted on the website? I'm not. And Mr. Thomas, you're saying that that that study was done for 1777, not just eight, you know, one for. Both. Of us. Right. So I'd like to ask, does one of the speakers referred to, does the provider have to prove that there is a gap in coverage in order to add an antenna? They have to prove a gap in coverage. And can we require that that be and if so, can we require that be an independent analysis? We could, we could hire a third party to evaluate that, I presume? Yes. Is it something, though, that they have that has to be approved by the cellphone provider in order to have an antenna? No, they're a step. I believe that we could question a gap analysis and hire a third party to analyze that analysis. In this case, we did not passionate nor hire the third party to evaluate it. But it was provided. Oh, it was provided absolutely. By the. By. A third party, though an independent analysis in the city require that the provider provide an independent analysis. We certainly. Would in the future require. The issue. I mean, for future applications, if if we want a if the council says, look, in the future, we want to have the. A third party verify, basically go through and verify each submittal because they are technical. That's certainly something we could do. It we do as part of either approving either of these applications. The issue that I'm seeing is just a one of timing. I mean, you can't if you approve it. I guess I guess what I'm trying to get my brain around is if you're saying you don't want to approve it because you want to do the third party analysis, I think what we're going to run into is a time problem both with the shot clock and 13, 1538. But more importantly, I'm thinking about the September deadline because we would have to delay the approval. Then you let's assume that the analysis comes back and verifies the gap. Then we approve it. They need to get the thing up and constructed. They have to submit for building permits. We have to issue the building permits, have to build the thing. And that all has to happen before September. And that's on the shoreline property. It's a cause that votes on both, but one of them has a longer date. Yeah, that's I guess what there is on the shoreline property. You have a little bit more time. We all have a little bit more time under the federal regulation deadline. But the real deadline that's on our mind is not the federal regulation deadline, but. The deadline effectively to get these things approved and then built before the September shut down of the existing facilities. We're just concerned about the the the users of these cell phones who are going to lose service in September. I don't know the exact number. So that's what I'm concerned about. What about requiring a business license to have these antennas because they are making money off of them? Yeah, the. I'm sorry. I'm thinking it. I'm thinking maybe it would qualify as a business out of someone's home. It's actually a significant amount of money or off their property. I think it is a it's an interesting. Well, the interesting it's an interesting business license. The apartment complexes already have a business license. They have business license. Here's the issue. Federal regulations don't allow us to adopt land use regulations that effectively prevent. The providers from covering the gaps. So let's say we you know, city planner Andrew recommends we say no antennas in residential neighborhoods. Well, if the providers can show. Right. But that's what I'm asking. I'm asking, can the city charge a fee as as a business license to have a cell phone antenna. And just. A no fee. A fee as a business license if you're going to have a cell phone antenna on your private building, because, I mean, they are making money. That's like another third. Or another unit. It's actually a significant amount of money. I don't believe that it's in our current business license tax list of fees. We could certainly look at that and potentially amend bring forward an amendment to do that. But at this point in time, I don't believe it's in there. Okay. So I understand. So can you tell me how much the property owner what's the monthly amount of money being paid to the property owners on these properties as part of this arrangement? So I, I just is are we getting I'm just concerned a little bit about the Brown Act and Sunshine and all this good things because I believe it's the design review and those specific criteria that Mr. Thomas listed about the appearance. And so I think, you know, you're raising some valid points, Mary Spencer, but I'm wondering whether that needs to come back to us for, for instance, for consideration of amending our business tax license. But I do think we're getting far afield of the matter before us. I'm sorry. Sorry. It's not appropriate for you to speak at this time because we already had our public comments. However, I would think that so. So I appreciate that. And I'm not sure if I. That's what I would like to know. If it's something we could do. We can come back and look at that. You want staff to do that? Okay. Another issue that was raised is this. On the St Charles building, there's safety with the existing electronic electrical wires and the impact of having adding this antenna to an old building. Does city staff investigate and ensure that it would not interfere with the existing old wires or old building? Of these. I'm sorry I keep interrupting you that all these facilities go through the building permit, electrical permit process. So, yes. So as part of the process of adding the antenna, does that get inspected if it impacts the wires? Yes, it does. It requires an electrical. Permit for someone goes up there and sees how it impacted. Okay. Any other questions, comments, and we have two separate resolutions. So we for motion if your if someone wants to move to accept these if we get up two separate motions, one for resolution. We should do two should. Okay. So I will. Start with Charlotte, with Saint Charles. I will move a resolution upholding the Planning Board Resolution PB 15.03 Approving Design Review Application to install telecommunications facilities at 1538 St Charles Street. Madam Chair, I will second the motion because that application is complete. All right. Any comments, questions on that one? All those in favor. I. I oppose abstention motion passed unanimously on the St Charles. Second one. Do you have a motion? I'll make a motion to uphold the Planning Board's decision on 1777 Shoreline Drive. And as part of that motion to have staff come back to us with an analysis of. Preferred cell phone, location sites and other criteria based on the community input and the input that was put forward by the council and the mayor tonight on how we manage that inventory of acceptable locations. All right. So I'll second that one. Or any discussion on that one. My quick comment is that application is not complete because it lacks a 17 RS report for 1777 Shoreline Drive. There was an RF report for 1801 Shoreline Drive if you bother to read the 350 page report. But that is not the topic at hand. And I have a question in regards to the motion. I'd prefer I prefer if we separated out the things we're going to be directing staff to do separate from approve the resolution. So that the results of the motion in regards to approving the resolution speaks to this property and that the additional things be separate. Correction. Are you making a substitute motion? Yes, Madam Mayor. And this is a major one. Too long as the wording doesn't change. I'm right. I think it makes it clearer. And then we can have two separate votes and address. Sounds good. All right. So are you making an amended motion? Yes. I'll amend the motion to split the motion into upholding the planning board decision as one motion. And then I'll wait for the second most. All right, I'll. Still second that. All right. And discussion. And on that one member day. So I could have made some comments in regards to the RF. Model. Your call report. All right, all those in favor. I, I. Oppose. I oppose motion passes. 3 to 2. And then the. Third motion motion to, as I stated before, to direct staff to come back to us with an inventory of acceptable and preferred cell phone location sites with consideration of the input from the members of the community and the input given at this Council tonight. As their second. I'll second that one. All those in favor. I know that motion carries unanimously. Thank you. The backstory her. All right. Next agenda item is very. We moved a. 66.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City emergency purchases of goods and services; emergency consultant contracts; and emergency public works contracting; amending Section 10.02.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code to align with current practices and the procedures in subsections 3.39.020.M and 20.50.090.A and Section 20.60.114.

SeattleCityCouncil_09162019_CB 119642

Agenda Item 17 Council Bill 119 642 Relating to city emergency purchases of goods and services. The committee recommends the bill pass. Because of my objection. Thank you. And had a last minute meeting. Barb Graff came our excellent emergency manager. And I want to first of all say thank you to her. She's going to be with us for another four months, has done stellar work. And it's her recommendation that this ordinance align emergent emergency management code with the purchasing and contracting code in the event of emergencies. And the example that she used at the table was last last February when we had snow, that nobody expected that late in February and we ran out of salt and she was able to obtain that . But based upon low bid, using the regular process that requires competitive solicitations, we will still do that whenever possible. But if there is something that is as an emergency needs, such as that, this legislation would allow her office to move forward, get what we need, and have us in line with federal FEMA requirements. So that's what this bill does. And we recommend passage. Very good. Any questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill HERBOLD Whereas. Mr. O'Brien. I. Pacheco. I. Want. I beg Sean. Gonzalez, President Harrell. High. Eight in favor and unopposed. Go fast and show sign it please read the next agenda item. Agenda Item 18 Council Bill 119 629 Relating to appropriations for the Human Services Department in many ordinance 125 724, which adopt the 2019 Budget, the committee recommends the bill pass.

A proclamation honoring Dr. Charles “Chuck” Brantigan as he retires as Chair of the Healthcare District Design Forum.

DenverCityCouncil_02252019_19-0166

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Councilman Lopez, thank you for bringing this forward. All right. We're going to move on to our second proclamation of the evening. Councilman Brooks, will you read Proclamation 166? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I am honored to read Proclamation 166 honoring Dr. Charles Chuck Brannigan as he retires as chair of the Health District Design Forum. Whereas Dr. Charles Brannigan has recently announced that he is retiring as the chair of the Uptown Health Care District Design Forum after more than 27 years of volunteer service, of working tirelessly and selflessly on behalf of residents, businesses and health care institutions of the Uptown Neighborhood. And. Whereas, he and other neighborhood leaders branded, banded together and collaborated with several Uptown hospitals and other health care institutions in 1993 to persuade City Council to establish a specific hospital zone district and to prevent hospitals from creeping into the destabilizing, destabilizing residential neighborhoods. Under Dr. Branigan's leadership for 27 years, the forum has fostered friendly communications between registered neighborhood organizations and health care organizations. In Uptown worked with Denver Planning Office to develop an Uptown Health Care Design District and helped shape the expansion of the Presbyterian St Luke's Hospital, the redevelopment of the former St Luke's Hospital into a mixed use area, the acquisition of the Saint Joseph's Hospital and the Children's Hospital campus, and the construction of the new Saint Joseph's Hospital. He's met with many developers to comment on the improve various new projects in the neighborhood and and fought crime and other problems within the neighborhood. Whereas Chuck has conducted a successful medical practice from the La Langley Restored Gilbert mansion, he has also affiliated with many Denver hospitals and gone to Egypt. Yes, he's been in Egypt for two weeks for the past 17 years to train Egyptian military surgeons. He served as the chief of surgery at Presbyterian St Luke's Medical Center and is currently serving in a volunteer capacity at the University of Colorado Medical Center, Department of Vascular Surgery. And. Whereas, he and his wife Kathy have restored several Victorian homes and worked to have their block designated as the Lafayette Street Historic District in the Find District nine. Their current historic passion is the restoration of the narrow gouge roundhouse in Carmel, Colorado, to a working roundhouse and a museum complete with historic steam engine restored the railcars from the original South Park and Pacific Line. Chuck has received numerous awards for his efforts and historic preservation. He also founded the William Lang Society and has done much research and education about Denver's premier early architects. And. Whereas, Checking Kathy are also the founders of one of Denver's finest cultural organizations, the Denver brass, a 14 member. Brass musical ensemble that performs many concerts every year. And. Whereas, in all of his service to the Uptown community, Denver, Dr. Branigan has earned the respect and loyalty and admiration of those who have worked with those he's worked with, including residents and neighborhood organizations, health care institutions, developers and city council members. We all appreciate and celebrate his past and continuing services to the Uptown neighborhood and to all of Denver. Now therefore be a proclaim that the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, the Council of the City County Denver, hereby expresses its sincere appreciation to Dr. Charles, who we call Chuck Brannigan for his dedicated work and tireless efforts on behalf of the residents, businesses and health care institutions of the Uptown neighborhood. And that the city and the Council for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, hereby officially proclaims February 25th, 2019 be known as Chuck Branigan Day. Section two that the Clerk of the county, the city and county of Denver shall attest and fix a seal of the city in County Denver and this proclamation be transmitted to Dr. Branigan. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, your motion to adopt. Yes, I move that proclamation. 166 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Brooks. So this is I mean, this proclamation said it all. But this dear leader in our community who I've never called Chuck. By the way, Dr. Branigan is he's an institution for northeast Denver. Many folks do not remember the days, and I don't remember the days because I wasn't here. But when the hospitals were running wild in the neighborhoods of City Park West and Uptown, there was a leader. There was someone who, you know, who who said, you know, I'm a I'm going to go outside of my normal duties as the doctor of this area and start to be a caring neighborhood leader and see if I can start to coalesce and bring some collaborations to make sure that these hospitals understand that they are in a neighborhood and they're in our neighborhood. And so Dr. Brennan gets a lot of credit for that. But as you see, he's one of the most talented individuals you've ever met before. Not only is he fixing hearts, which would be enough in life, he's playing instruments. He's saving historic buildings. He's leading in communities. And he's been doing it for many, many years. And I just got to say, as a young city councilperson, newly elected, who didn't know a lot about the history of Dr. Branigan in 2011, he really took me under his wing and said, this is how we do neighborhood revitalization. This is what historic preservation looks like. Here's our history. And. I invite you to be a part of this? He wasn't judgmental, which he could have been like. You know, young city council person. I won't tell you a thing or two about what this neighborhood is all about. He was loving. He was kind, but always educating. And so it is an art is what a great honor and privilege that we get a chance to recognize Dr. Brannigan today. And there are many just to show you his influence. You know, when I tell people all the time, first of all, we got a packed house because there's a couple of issues going on neighborhoods. But I tell people all the time, if you pay for parking, come through security and sit in these benches, it's because you really love the city and it means something. So if you are here for Dr. Brennan, I just want you to stand up right now. You mean something, Dr. Brannigan, to all these people. So thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, knock. Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second. We saw that Duvall is going to be reading facts. Hold on. Hold on just a second. We still have a few things to get through, including voting. Real quick. So if you just hang tight for just a second. You can just you can have a seat right there. There you go. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add some accolades as well to Dr. Branigan's years of service to not only the neighborhood community, but to the health care community for your many years of service, the work you have done, not just in Denver, Colorado, but across the globe. One of the titles I would give you is an R.A. activist title, because you really did play that role. I can remember many meetings and many times when you would meet with members of city council to talk about so many of the changes that were happening in the uptown neighborhood. And you were that catalyst that would pull the community together and and help make sure that we as a body city council were listening to the voice of community as those changes were coming forward. So I just want to thank you and your wife Cathy, for your years of service to the Denver community and for making the Uptown community a better place for everybody, including the hospital complexes that still exist there. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. Let's make this official, Madam Secretary, roll call. BROOKS Oh, yeah. Black All right. Flynn. I. Herndon. All right. Cashman. I can eat. I. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I just knew. Right. Mr. President. I. I'm. I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes. Proclamation 166 has been adopted. Councilman Brooks, is there anyone you would like to call up to accept this proclamation? Well, I tell you what, we're just excited to talk about Dr. Brannigan tonight. So we have two people tonight. We have Mr. Jim Wiseman, who's been in the neighborhood for a long time. And then we also have Dr. Branigan. So if you guys can make your way up, Mr. Weisman, you can go first. Thank you. You'll have to excuse me. I'm. I have a profound hearing loss, and they all over here poked me, and I thought, oh, that's my cue. So. And I've got a terrible head cold. So I'm really profoundly hard of hearing tonight, but I'm gonna have a few notes here I'm going to read from primarily because I'm so emotionally invested in this whole thing that I don't trust myself to do otherwise. But ladies and gentlemen of the Council, I'd like to thank you. Councilman Burke, thank you very much for this opportunity. I'd like to thank community members, particularly Mike Henry and Marty Jones, who were instrumental in helping move this event forward. I'd like to bring special attention to Kathy Brannigan, Chuck's wife, who has been his most important coconspirator and supporting cast member in so many of these things. Kathy raised her hand there, and most importantly, the man we are all here to honor tonight, which is Dr. Charles Brannigan. He's back here. So where are you, Charlie? Oh, hey. Snuck up on me anyway. My name's Tim Weissmann, and having had the pleasure of working with Chuck for many, many years, I am honored and humbled to be able to have this opportunity to speak tonight. There are too many things to address here tonight in terms of this man's contributions, the co-founding of the Denver Browns with Cathy restoring the Roundhouse and rail facility at the historic Como, Colorado, and other historic work volunteer surgical training in Egypt. And much more than that, the profound event that precipitated this recognition tonight with Chuck's retirement, as we all know at this point from the AMP Town Design Forum, a little historic context I'd like to pass on. About 30 years ago, there were 44 residential property owners in an area we we came to call the island, which was a group of homes that were sandwiched between a number of the hospitals in the uptown area over here. They were being negatively and unjustly impacted by the hospital encroachment with no legal options. This was two blocks from the Branigan's historic home and the historic district that they had established with his empathy and compassion for these neighbors and his position in the health care community. He was uniquely positioned to help. Chuck jumped in with all four feet and was involved and instrumental in working with all the parties to create a process and the resulting redress an equitable buyout for all of the properties in the island area. It was huge for any of you that we might remember a great councilman named Hiawatha Davis. He was also intensely involved with us in that process, in developing that policy out of this two year process. We did come up with that new and all important hospital zoning, H one and H two, which present which we have today , which is instituted through city wide. I'll just be another 30, 40 seconds here. But at any rate, at that point, the Uptown Hospital District Urban Design Forum was established with Dr. Branigan being considered the founder, and that was a carryover from what we had developed over that two year period. And it was so successful and Chuck did such a great job with it. We're going, Chuck, you got to keep this thing rolling. So he raised his hand and he he volunteered to chair and he's been there for 27 years. That's crazy. His unique skill set and on the balance, moderating has kept all of the parties, the hospital community, the city and the affected neighborhood groups willingly participating and highly effective for almost three decades. And one of the reasons this is so crazy is because in in any normal situation, these people would all be adversaries. But here they've all come together over all this time to be so effective. So, Chuck, I just want to thank you from the bottom of all of our hearts for the selfless and dedicated work you have done for our community all of these years. Thank you so much. I don't know what to say. It sounds like my head's getting bigger and bigger. The more I hear people talk about me here. City council. I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the honor that you've bestowed on me. I'd like to mention a couple of things that are I think are important. Of all of the things that I've done, the Hospital District Urban Design Forum, I think has been the most important. That was created as an inspiration of two city planners, Leslie Lipp. Stein And. That's the trouble. I just lost my thought. I can see his face. In any case, they're the ones that inspired. Inspired us and had the vision to create an urban design plan. City Council then joined in and approved it, and that gave us some official standing for the Urban Design Forum, which has persisted to the present. It's true that when we started, it required some real skill to keep the meeting together. We had hospitals that were in mortal competition with each other. We had hospitals that were in competition with neighborhoods. We had people, real estate developers, who were in conflict with everybody else. And we got to the final point where. It was clear that everybody really wanted the same thing. The hospitals wanted a safe, stable neighborhood for their customers. The people who lived here wanted a safe, comfortable space to live in. And once we got everybody on the same page, it was possible to begin to bring all these diverse organizations together. And the remarkable thing is that over the years, we've seldom had to vote on any issue. We've managed to build the consensus between the people that have conflicting interests. Sometimes we've been in favor of people and sometimes through organizations of have met our disapproval. But overall, the group has functioned by consensus, and that's been the key. I'm. I have mixed feelings about stepping down as the chairman of the forum. It seems like that's been part of my life for most of it. I'm not going to disappear by any means, but it's time for me to turn the gavel over to somebody else. So, again, thank you very much for the honor that you've bestowed on on me. And there's this other city planner that I mentioned was Dennis Swain, Dennis Swain and Leslie Lipski and had the idea of putting together an urban design plan which would be passed by city council. And that's been what's been the glue that held the organization together and the support from the various issues we've brought before. City Council has been great and the support that Albert Brooks has provided us has been wonderful as well. So I will begin by saying that if you wish to live in the inner city, you must be proactive. And that's the way I began my career in downtown Denver and in inner city Denver. And I believe that piece of wisdom to those who follow. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. That concludes our proclamations for this evening. That brings us to the bills for introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for Introduction.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Branagh Land, Inc., a California Corporation, for a Net Sales Price of $1,000,000 for the 0.82 Acre Vacant Parcel at 2350 Fifth Street. (Community Development 207)

AlamedaCC_01212020_2020-7578

Great. We have item to D merit as the Ashcraft. Would you prefer a staff report or do you have some questions and comments you'd like to raise? Um, actually, whichever way you'd like to proceed. I have, um. I have spoken to Mr. Potter about this. Yeah. Um. Um, do you want me to the case? Sure. Sure. If you. If you want to read. That would be great. If you want to raise your issues. And then I, Steph Potter, can come up and address the any issues that come up. Okay. Thank you. So, um, my concern with this transaction is that I do understand that this is, um, we're making this decision and when you have the successor agency to the, um, the former redevelopment agency, both from the commission and so the recently amended from that doesn't apply. Um, there's an exception, but I still am concerned with the fact that in our city, in the Bay Area, in the state, we have a housing crisis. And I feel that we need to be working as hard as we can to of our Board of Housing. Um, I am actually Councilmember Abella and I will be in Sacramento on Friday for our Statewide Policy Committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development to really help identify the housing and homelessness is among their top four priorities to focus on this year. So I've talked with, um, my partner and my concerns are that if we get some of this, um, it's well within our right then um, is intending to build townhomes. I understand it. We'll hear more on the staff report. The city will get revenue of $300,000 to come back to the general fund and we can all go home. But I would like to see if this council might be able to come up with, um, maybe some more creative resolution that recognizes and addresses the need to add more affordable housing, either in this project or perhaps elsewhere on the island to save the point, if we don't just do a straight transaction pandering to the general fund to do whatever with um, but perhaps and I haven't had a chance to interact with any other colleagues to know how everyone else feels. And I'm sure we should support them. And my concern is they just can't in good conscience say, Yeah, let's just do this and make sure that the tax and agency, which is we all want the taxpayer to be paying our money. But I want to see because if we're if the plans were subject to the plans that you've given them, apart from me and, you know, one of the things you offered to other agencies, how did you go through that doesn't apply here. But I still think that the spirit of that was a good one to keep in mind. So those are my concerns. Thank you. Thank you. It sounded like there was an interest in hearing some feedback here, but I know that there might be some questions to my right. Do you have questions? Member Odie or would you? Maybe I'll wait to Ms.. Potter makes her brief presentation, then add my comments or questions. Thanks. Thank you very much. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. And the mayor has, I think, done a good job of characterizing that item before you this evening. This is a remnant parcel. It is about 4.8 acres. And actually the developable footprint of the parcels, even smaller. It's more like two thirds of an acre just because of its irregular shape. It is a remnant piece. It was a redevelopment agency owned under state law. When redevelopment agencies were dissolved in 2012, we had a mandate. Successor agencies have a very narrow mandate, and that mandate is to pay for enforceable obligations that are listed on the recognized obligation payment schedule. Another item you just approved this evening and to dispose of. Property that was previously owned by the redevelopment agency. When we dispose of property, we do it consistent with a long range property management plan. That long range property management plan, like everything else that is done by a successor agency, must be approved by the state of California. The State Department of Finance is the agency that oversees all of the successor agency related activities. We have an approved long range property management plan that was approved in 2015 by D, o, f. And our disposition strategy for this piece of property is to put it on the open market. And we have a mandate under state law to sell it as quickly as possible for as much money as we can get, as quickly as we can. And then the way the proceeds work from the land sales, from successor agency property is that they are dispersed among all the taxing entities on a pro-rata share based on the share of property taxes for all the taxing entities. So the city gets as a taxing entity, we receive about 30% of any land sale proceeds we have. And that and I believe the Surplus Lands Act was also talked about. That's a new law that went into effect January 1st and the law explicitly provides that land to be disposed of by the successor agency. Successor agencies have until December 31st of 2020 to enter into legally binding sales agreements. And if you enter into your legally binding sales agreement before December 31st, 2020, and you dispose of the property by December 31st of 2022, then the Surplus Lands Act does not apply to the successor agency. And I believe that was intentional on the part of the state legislature because there is a maybe you could call it a competing state mandate to dispose of surplus property in a different manner that property owned by successor agencies. So what's before the council this evening is a purchase and sale agreement by Brand, a development company to purchase the property for $1,000,000. The 300,000 that would come to the city is the 30% of the million dollars to build residential a residential project. And on two thirds of an acre at this time, I believe Brown is thinking that they could get 20 to 22 units on that on that that property. The property is not served by any backbone infrastructure. So the developer has to have the expertize to bring the backbone infrastructure to the property. As you know, the city of Alameda has an inclusionary housing ordinance, so we have a 15% inclusionary requirement for all residential development in excess of nine units. And this project would require an exemption from the measure, a requirement so it would have to provide apply for a density bonus ordinance. And if you apply for a density bonus ordinance, you were then obligated to provide more affordable units above the mandated 15%. So if this project goes forward, if the project secures its residential entitlements, there will be an affordable component to the project and it will be a minimum of 15%. And then depending on the purchasers application, there will you know, that the additional could range from, you know, 1% more if you provide another very low income, you know , 1% more, very low to several percentage more affordable units if you do more moderate income units. So that's a kind of a high level overview of how this would work if a residential project were to move forward and then the land sale proceeds as a taxing entity. The land sale proceeds do go into the city's general fund. Those proceeds are are there for the council to make a policy decision about how it might want to expend those land sale proceeds. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Design. Quick question. Thank you very much for your presentation. A quick question is, does the housing overlay that was adopted in 2012, I believe, is this included within that or is it outside of it? No, this is not there's not an MF overlay on this piece of property. This piece of property, because it was a remnant parcel as part of the Bay Port Alameda Landing project. It actually doesn't have any underlying zoning. And that's why we would the prospective purchaser would go through the entitlement process. And part of what would happen with the entitlement process is there would be a zoning amendment and that zoning amendment. Make its way to city council for its final approval. I'm with the successor agency tonight. A successor agency would be acting in your proprietary capacity as the property owner. And then later any zoning amendment would come before the city council and with its regulatory hat on. But I think that staff, as well as the prospective purchaser, is going to think, okay, if there is a willingness to sell for the for the project, describe that ultimately that entitlement process will then will then happen. So one more quick question if it's okay. So you you used a phrase, an exception from Measure A, the I, I mean, outside of the multifamily overlay, which was adopted and so which has been in practical effect. I'm not aware of some kind of exception that well. The city has had its density. The density bonus rates. Which is why they would go for a concession waiver and then they in exchange for that concession or waiver, they then are obligated to do more affordable housing. So that's the the trade off for the exchange. Okay. Public benefit. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember City. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Potter, for the presentation. Just as a first comment, I agree with everything the mayor said. I had the same concerns. I think we had this discussion, I don't know, six or eight months ago and there was an office building proposed and a lot of us said we'd rather have housing. So it's not zoned. You a. Thank you, but. So I guess my one question is, if it's not zoned anything now, I mean, could they look at this and say a year from now we don't think we can put housing on there and then change it? Well, the purchase and sale agreement specifies a residential use. Okay. And then trying to do the math, I can do 15% of 20, but I can't do 1% to some other numbers. So, I mean, what are we looking at realistically? Is it three? Is it five? I mean. Affordable housing at 15%, a 20 unit project would have a 3% inclusionary. A 22 unit project would have a 3.3. And I believe we round down if it's less than point five and round up if it's more than point five and at 25%, at 25%, inclusionary for example, would be five units on a 20 unit project and six units on a 22 unit project. So we're talking because it's a very small project. It's a very small lot. It's 27, just under 28,000 square feet, the lot itself. So it's the difference of, you know, maybe two or three units. Okay. That's the range between 15 and 25%. Okay. And I just want to echo the mayor's point also. I mean, I appreciate you bringing us a residential project. And even though this is exempt from surplus lands, I think our guiding policy should be the guiding policy behind the surplus lands, which is to provide more affordable housing wherever we can. So I'm just going to use my time to say that. Okay. Any further questions? We have no speakers. Um, I think you answered the question. I suppose you came and asked us to support an office building a year ago, right? Well, it was. I think it was January 2nd of last year. Yes, it was. Right. So a long time ago. And we and we asked that that deal obviously fell apart because we actually said that we would prefer to be housing, but approve that. So here we are back again moving this forward. Is there a way for us to use this money that's coming into the city as a part of it? I certainly support Councilmember Ody and mayor is Ashcroft's interest in providing more affordable housing and would there be a way for us to at least consider as part of a cycle or whatever else, you know, how we could use these funds, as I think the mayor said at Alameda Point or something like that in support of providing further homes. Is there a way in this process? I since we're acting as the successor commission committee, I'm not sure if we can actually. I guess I'm looking at the city attorney, but let me look at you first. Is there a way for us to kind of enact some guidance that doesn't necessarily today commit something? So, um, a mr. Vice Mayor, I believe the Council can give brief direction that the proceeds ought to be considered for affordable housing, but the details should be left for an agenda as future meeting. Okay. And and to the comments about affordable housing, did anybody talk with the housing authority or because the city saw the guidance as achieving the highest price possible? No, that wasn't a part of that conversation. The housing authority as an entity could have offered to purchase the property when it was listed for sale. It was you know, we we retained our commercial broker to list the property and to then, you know, review and analyze offers. The housing authority did did not indicate an interest in the property. That's not to say if a project goes forward, they may not have an interest in working on the the affordable component of if it's for, say, the units, if it's a for sale project product, they may be interested potentially in purchasing those and renting them or that kind of, you know, they're we've done that's what that's a model that was used for the Mulberry, right. Where the housing authority purchased those affordable units. Okay. But I guess my question was, do you know if we proactively talked to them about the fact that this was going to market for their consideration? A broker did walk in. And I'm just going to ask. So, Andrew, I don't. And actually we are so fortunate to have the director of development for the Housing Authority here. Kathleen, did you guys look at that at this parcel? I personally did not get it okay for the last year. I didn't hear what the response said. The response from the Housing Authority staff was that they do not know. They do not remember looking at the property. Okay. Okay. When you're done, I'd like to have a look. Please feel free. I'm done. Yeah. Okay. Um, so what? I'm wondering. I understand that there are representative from Brianna and all the things just down to the city. To me, some town council might actually to some direction to staff. But what is the, um, the thing that they would rather be willing to do a higher percentage of affordable units and there's some way that could happen. And out in Alameda Point, there are also projects that could probably some assistance. So some maybe that's as specific as we can get without making the city attorney nervous on what to do with the property. And those are the kinds of things about the city council. With Councilmember Abella. Madame Mayor, just to try to understand what you're asking, you're asking either that we advise that or give direction that we would like the proceeds to perhaps be spent on affordable housing in some way or in the alternative to have staff go back and negotiate that in in lieu of the proceeds, there be additional affordable housing included in this proposed project. I don't know what it is in lieu of the trophy that is bringing her to do the project. And, you know, maybe it would involve a different purchase price. I'm not negotiating this one, but I could put more affordable units there because again, harkening back to what Councilmember Owens, thank you for being my friend, but it is the spirit of Mr. Platforms. After I would like to see if keep in mind and so there are cities and towns in the rebellion and I sit on the same housing policies. We know that around the state, the city that is still open to affordable housing developers, which just make the process of it more affordable to build because of the high cost of land in California. But again, I do understand that this is an it may be land in our city, but it's not a from the property of the maybe there is an opportunity to keep on the land that I haven't really consider what exactly I want to see for what I think that I don't want to see that are going to go from the land transaction to go back in time. So I can I can entertain a lot of creative solutions that we are at the moment, but I would like to accomplish, which is more affordable housing and whether that's for sale or for something, I can decide. Okay. Councilmember de SAC. Yeah. Thank you. Two strands of thought. The first my first strand of thought is the mayor seems enthusiastic about this parcel for good reason, because there are so few, you know, parcels that we can actually that are available that we own. We own it. Right. That's our agency. We are. This is. A success. Just to clarify, one thing is that the successor agency cannot donate this land that's outside of the legal constraints under which successor agencies have to share property. So I think the enthusiasm that the mayor is expressing, along with the support of Councilmember Ody. So my first strand of thought is just to take the time to maybe create a subcommittee where they can put their ideas to work with staff and to see where where things can align with what Brian Branagh is seeking or not . Maybe one in line, but but I think maybe we should take the time to vet those ideas that either Councilmember Odie or or Mayor Ashcraft has about this parcel site. I don't see any reason to rush. I'm granted I know that there is the December 2020 timeline that you said. So that's the first round of thought that that would be my druthers. The second strand of thought is. I thought that the density bonus only kicks in within the context of the housing overlay. So that's what I thought. So. So I do have some concerns about not being consistent with Measure A, our 1973 charter. But I think realistically that's an issue that's down the line that ought not to hold up any kind of decisions that we make tonight. But I do want to at least put that out there. So those are my two thoughts. Councilmember Odie, thank you. I guess my comment and the on the proceeds, I mean, we could just say when will we actually get them? Because I think it's a 15 month escrow and it probably will take 15 months. Right. So that staff comes back to us when we get that, doesn't spend it until we have a hearing on and what we want to do with it. That way we're not earmarking it today, but at least we're saying don't spend it. So and I do wonder if there's more because like three really isn't enough for me. So, I mean, I know it's kind of fuzzy, but. Right. Well, part of the challenge is that it's a very it's 28,000 square. It's a very small parcel. So it's not it's not as if you can do, you know, 40, 50 units on that on that parcel. Right. But we could have five or eight or something. I mean, it's just. Yeah. I mean if it's 25%, that could be five. That's correct. And yes. And if it's a 22 unit, it could be six. That's. That's right. Versus the three. So those are the trade offs. Is it is it I guess some of the trade offs may be is it more sort of more effective if the project goes forward as as sort of a market rate project with a 15% inclusionary plus whatever additional inclusionary is a function of the density bonus. And then the earmarked dollars can go to something like Reshape or another project that may need a little bit of a catalyst to move forward. And that's a 100%, 267 unit project. So. Or do you want to spend that time looking at exacting, you know, three or four more units? I mean, that I guess that's that's one way of looking at it potentially. Well, I have a chance to speak whenever possible. But. Yeah, go ahead. I'm not done with. Sorry. I mean, I can say I am done with my. Thank you. Okay, Mayor, as you Ashcraft. For now. I'm sorry. They want to. Know you didn't. Want to figure out the size of the property. It is 35,730 square feet. It would have been if the property fell onto the strip of land with an exception of size. But that was because of what I've seen so far 45000 to 56000 square feet, even a small amount, you know, a couple dozen housing units is bearing in mind. One thing is, if we're really well positioned to make a decision on the sale tonight, if it might make sense to have a subcommittee, I know you're over on the part of the staff of what some of the possibilities are to preserve the baby in the sale, something on and on. And come back to you with for any decision on how that money is to be spent. Maybe that's going to need to be fine. But I wonder whether we wouldn't mind a little more information on which to base an informed decision before home? That would be an enormous overlay because I think there's a range of possible options, both on an infinite number of. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Vella. I was just going to ask what a delay in this would mean. And in terms of the timeline, we have a housing shortage I'm all for. I would like to get as much affordable housing as possible, and I think that that's been an articulated goal of this council. I'm also, I guess, wondering what you know, is it possible to delay this? And if we do what? At what cost? So does it does it delay the project? Does it delay us getting these units? Does it delay us getting those three affordable units? Can you speak on that at all? Yes, it would be a delay because. The way the purchase and sale agreement is set up. It's a 90 day due diligence period. So, I mean, one way to approach this, if the Council is interested in moving forward, you will know within three months whether or not the brand elects to move forward with the entitlement process. So there's the possibility of moving forward knowing that. And I also should say that Lisa Howard, who's the VP of development from Brianna, is here tonight and she had an opportunity to chat with her. Can you just raise your hand? And she has indicated that they are open to explore. You know, they're willing to evaluate and look at, you know, a range of proposals. They always evaluate properties for both for sale and for rental and then make their decision. They're leaning towards for sale on the at this property. Mm hmm. But they have a 90 day due diligence period. At the end of 90 days, they'll know whether they're electing to go forward. So there's an opportunity potentially to come back in 90 days based on discussions with, you know, to include looking at the affordable housing issue as part of the due diligence period. And and then come back before, you know, whether or not they elect to move forward is one way of going. The other way is to just indicate that the council is not prepared to go forward this evening and, you know, not go forward. Can we hear also from our city attorney? So the due diligence period that the community development director is correct, the developer has a 90 day period to engage in due diligence. But if the city does not, so if the council approves the agreement tonight, it will be at the developer's. Discretion. Discretion to proceed or not proceed at that time, at the end of the 90 day period. However, if the Council gave direction to revise the purchase and sale agreement and Brianna was. Agreeable or agreeable. Sure. That we could do. Yeah. Sure. The Council could direct that we modify so that the diligence period is a 90 day cancelation for both sides and instead of just the developer. Yeah. I guess my question would be. Sorry. Our city manager is a good one. I was just going to say, if the developer. That sounds like something that would meet everybody's needs. If the developer was amenable to that. I don't know if there. Hey there. Excuse me. I'm Lisa Villa with Brianna Land. I am not. I am, fortunately. Would have to have that. Run by our owners. So I'm not able to say that. I will say during that 90 day due diligence, we do a pretty in-depth due diligence. So not just looking at, you know, we're going to look at all the utilities, which there are none. So I have to figure out how we're getting them. We look at, you know, the environmental everything down to architecture and land planning. And at that point, we really are deciding what, you know, what level of affordability. So whether it's moderate, very low, low, and we're weighing the options in terms of how many units for each of those really fits best in the project. Same with density level of density type of project. So townhome versus, you know, apartments, all of. That sort of thing. So during that 90 days, we are really dialed in and focused and we're also happy to meet with any council members, planners, all of that. During that time, we'd probably be hoping to do at least a pre-application with the city's planning department during that time as well. Thank you. So my comments really quick and then you know where you're from. The last time we talked about this property, I think that there is this myth in our in our community that you just say, oh, let's build some housing. And somebody comes in and says, we'll build housing and it gets built. We've gone around for a year now on West Midway for some of the most important affordable housing. I think, you know, projects we have and we can't seem to figure out how to make that happen. So I'm a little nervous if we have somebody who seems to know what they're doing and is interested in moving forward and can build, you know, and albeit 3 to 5 to six units, I think with with some sort of encouragement, although I know we can't like try to make commitments tonight, you know, with the encouragement to , to get those affordable numbers up as high. I think personally I would be ready to move forward on this. I if we were for me, if it was a much bigger project or we could, you know, we were talking about the ability to build 100 units or something like that. I think I would be more willing to to hold back. I feel like, you know, we already have a housing authority that's trying to find money for the north housing projects that we can't find. And I'm not clear on how we're going to get from a market based affordable and affordable units that are built by the market . How are we going to get from something that's more subsidized without funding that we're then going to be competing against possibly two other if not three other major projects in the city? And so I worry that we're I'm very on board with with Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmember Otis, you know, interest in trying to do this. But I worry that that if we delay again, we're just putting off something that's I don't see what the way forward is. So if I might just. Okay. And to Councilmember Vela's point, it is true that this project could happen most likely much more quickly than an affordable housing project because of the, you know, many different funds that you need to cobble together and the rounds that you need to be part of. And the whole idea, I think, is valid about competing against ourselves in our jurisdiction for multiple affordable housing projects. And I think that the scale of this is an important piece, the scale and the constraints that we have as the successor agency in terms of how we dispose of property. And we have a very sort of narrow path forward for disposing of property as the successor agency that perhaps it's not the most ideal site because you don't it just is not going to yield a lot of units. I, I believe Councilmember ody. I guess I was going to suggest something that kind of melded the two ideas together. I don't know if this is even possible, but, you know, if they could get their due diligence done in 60 days but not start it for 30 days and not pay their deposit for 30 days, then maybe we can use that 30 days to do what the mayor was talking about in her comments. I don't know, just an idea that way doesn't delay it, but I don't know. I mean, look looked at the city manager. I said I'd. Recommend the council go one or two directions. Either you just delay this decision probably for 30 days to 60. Yeah, maybe 60 days. That's fine to either February or March. And then we can explore the different ideas have come up or two. You could go with the idea that Debby approve approached and that is you approve the project or you approve the agreement. And then with the intent that you'll set aside the money for affordable housing, whether it be for another project or. Or you could use it to incentivize them to do more units, and that could be done later on in the negotiation. I would recommend you do one of those two options. I agree. Councilmember de. SAC. Since the options were laid out as such, I would encourage delaying the project and in the intervening days allow a subcommittee headed perhaps by the mayor and council member Ody to vet different approaches and getting the professional responses to their ideas from staff or from the developer. And if it doesn't work, then, then, then I think those council members are rational enough to say, okay, we, we had some great ideas and maybe they don't work, but maybe they do work. Some of the ideas that they have do work, but they require some kind of tradeoffs, which then they will have to mull among themselves and report back to the city council. So, for example, maybe the trade offs is instead of that $300,000 that we're supposed to get, maybe we're getting something less than that as a result of of wanting a different scenario than was being contemplated here. But at least by having that delay and having a committee subcommittee in place, it allows this process to be council driven. And let me make sure to say, though, that if we are to delay that we would have to work within the context of the players who we have right now. In other words, we're not going to delay and open up an RFP process or an RFP process because that's not going to work. With regards to the December 2020 timeline, I suspect, but if we're going to delay, you know, it's possible that we can work. And, you know, at the end of the day, it seems to me the the project would be that much more better and everyone will be so much more enthused about it. If if we had, you know, you know, obviously, the mayor, as he Ashcraft, along with Councilmember Melia, they've been very involved in housing issues. And we see many other mayors across the East Bay in the San Francisco Bay area taking taking critical responses to the crisis that we have now. And maybe this is an opportunity for our mayor to showcase an interesting project that she's pursuing. So I think we should just go ahead and delay and work it out. You know, the old saying, measure twice, cut once. So it's. So that would be my encouragement to delay for 30 days at the end point of which we will have a report back from the subcommittee working with staff and and and the the party who's interested in in the property and and we'll make a decision in 30 days. But between now and the 30 days we will have, they will all the party interested party will have vetted the issues and concerns and and see what is reasonable. And so that. Is that a motion. That's a motion. Can I go in to hear the mayor's thoughts on that before I. Want to say then we can if somebody would like to speak on the motion, we can discuss the motion or else it dies for lack of a second. I'll. Okay. Councilmember Vela. So I. I just I think that we also have a lot of people who are unhoused right now and we have a lot of people facing housing insecurity right now. And I would hate for us to delay in order to, you know, delay on this project, which potentially could mean 22 units, potentially means three affordable units of of housing. And I would I think all of us have a finite amount of time so to staff. And I think that there is a bigger conversation that perhaps we need to have looking at the list of all of our properties that are potentially at play for some of these, you know, in terms of addressing a council perspective or process that we want to have to get more affordable housing and to kind of address the the impact of the Surplus Lands Act and and also any other parcels that we have that could potentially be used to get affordable housing. I just I want to be cautious of kind of over politicking. And on this small parcel where there is a finite number of units essentially that really can feasibly be built without having like a ten storey tower of you want two units next to each other or something like that. That's an exaggeration. It's not going to happen. But but essentially, I and I also want to acknowledge the fact that getting $300,000 is not going to even account for us constructing one affordable housing unit. We all know that the cost of affordable housing in terms of building it, even if the land is free, is much higher than that, especially when we have to do all of the utilities and everything else. So I if we are going to have a subcommittee, I would almost rather have it be about the broader issue in the broader conversation or even having another staff report coming back about. And I know staff is working on it, the impact of the surplus housing land and then doing an inventory of the parcels that we do have and what we can do to add to our affordable housing stock. So that would be my inclination would be to go with the city managers. I think it was a second option, but but having a more robust conversation, looking forward at these other parcels that we have because there have been other parcels that we sold in previous years that now looking back and looking at the conversations that are happening both at the state and local level and could have potentially been developed into affordable housing projects. And now that opportunity has passed. So I don't want to lose those opportunities, but I'm kind of a little worried about potentially to the vice mayor's point undermining this specific project when we could get these units. I know it's not a lot. I know it's I know even six units of affordable housing isn't a lot and isn't going to solve our problems. But if it means that we could actually get those units sooner rather than later, I think that that makes a difference. Okay. Yeah, hold on. I just want to ask the city attorney one question in terms of direction that we were to give to staff would if we were to move forward with not the motion, but the other motion to move forward. This could we also appoint a subcommittee to work with the developer during the 90 days to outline kind of to to kind of help shape that? Or would that be getting into the design review side of things, which is in a part of this body? It would be unclear to me what the subcommittee would be doing in those 90 days if the council approves this project and the project essentially goes forward with the developer doing due diligence and the city has no real further diligence to do so, it's not clear that what that committee subcommittee where they will be coming back for zoning, that we will not be required to approve. And so therefore part of the due diligence might be understanding whether or not they what the city is looking for in terms of the use of the project, so that when they come back for the zoning, they at least know that there's been two members of the council they've worked with to kind of ensure that it meets what I hear, at least a good majority of the voices here saying they'd like to see our project because the zoning decision is a quasi judicial decision. I would advise the Council to not act outside of its regular process of having the full council hear the process, judicial action in front of the council with public comment. That's good. Thank you. Okay. Mayor Mary's Ashcraft. Okay. I like Tony's proposal, and I think I can also address Councilmember Bell. Continue on, but then have people to. I don't think that a 30 day delay is going to be that significant in the grand scheme of things. But I think it does give us time to look at the various options, which could also be looking at the process to get more affordable housing. But I think it's a reasonable approach to take at this time because I don't think I hear the majority of us saying, Yeah, we want it just fine. I'll just say Go for it and we'll figure out what to do with the 300,000. I think we can look at all of the things that were raised tonight and do it in 30 days and work with that. And also, as far as the voting has presented, I think they can get the residential zoning. So I don't feel they were holding that over their head. At the end of the day, I do think a 30 day hiatus in which time a subcommittee I'd be happy to be a part of, works diligently with staff, with the developers and comes back to the council. Okay, thank you. I Councilmember Odie had some comments. I'm just going to your time. Got just hit zero. So you were perfectly timed. Um, Councilman Brody, I. Think she can have a minute of mine or two. I still have, what, 7 minutes? And since she said everything I was going to say, I should get take half of her time. So this is a three vote or four vote. Three three vote, the successor agency and not the city. Interesting. And then the so that the proposed delay, if we adopt this motion is 60 days 38. What what are we talking here? Say it's going if. I could recommend 60 days. Because yeah the stop just for staff to do it staff report in on times is a minimum of 60 days. I mean I really want more than three. But. We hear you and I just ran. A representative is here this evening, too. All right. I'm just through the chair. Please. I'm sorry. No, no. You were speaking. Here I am thinking and speaking at the same time, which is always dangerous. But, you know, I don't know if I want to wait two months. Can I ask you a question? Sure of you. So so I guess my question is, I'm not it's unclear to me what we are going to beyond the let's get together and talk generally try to figure out how to get more. It is unclear to me what the path to more affordable housing is short of going to the housing authority and saying, hey, will you help us find money to to take on this project at a time when they're trying to take on multiple other projects to fund? So that if I thought there was a path there, I'd be very excited about this. But delaying 60 or possibly more. But let's go with 60 days. It's unclear to me what's going to come out of those those that discussion. And it would make me. The happiest audience and the only developer. I understand that. I mean, some I mean, to me, I would say more clarity on, you know, how many units are going to be and how many are going to be affordable. But, I mean, are we willing to kill this if it's just 20 in three? I mean, that's the question. And if we're not, then. Councilmember Daza. Just quickly to me, I think I really don't think a 60 day delay is required. I think the reason why I think 30 days is required is because out of the conversation, what I'm really looking for is mayor as he Ashcraft and council member Ody to sit down, talk with staff and talk with Branagh to figure out , okay, this is my idea rather than three, I want six affordable units. What is required to make that happen? Do we have the resources? What would be the trade offs? I don't. You know, I think if within the 30 days, I think council members and staff could come back with they don't have to have a specific contract , but they can come back with some kind of plan that says, okay, we. Get it completely agree that staff could have that conversation with the subcommittee. But at the end of those 30 days, we have to produce a staff report and get on the OIC to come back to council, and that is at least another 30 days, if not more, because the staff report has to be written. And then we have an internal process to get before you again. Get it put in perspective. I think the February 18th agenda reports are due. Are that this week, Laura. Yeah. So they're already due for a February 18th, which is 30 days out. Right. All right. So I'm sorry. And then council member Odie. Well. Council member Odie. Okay. So if we do that, just hypothetically, we go through this exercise and then they say there's no way we can feasibly do more than our 15% or for whatever it turns out to be, you know, then are we prepared to say we're going to walk? I mean, that's the thing. If we're not prepared to say we're going to walk, then. I don't understand the point of delaying. Right. Councilmember Bello. Yeah. I'm not prepared to walk from this if I can't get more than three. I want more than three, but I will take three. Yeah, I. I think my that's that's my concern. And then we're adding potentially not just the delay, but adding additional costs or whatever, if they have to if we have to redo anything in order to get there. I. I think again, what I would like to see is I think that this whole council needs to review kind of the impact of the Surplus Lands Act. This whole council needs to see what lands there is, and perhaps that's where we have the broader discussion about how we go about getting more affordable housing. I think it's been stated very clearly stated goal of this council to get more affordable housing. And I don't know that this is the parcel where and this is the project where a 60 day delay is going to help us really chip away at that goal in a meaningful way. And I do think that it's a council conversation that needs to be had. Talking about the impact, looking at all of the parcels and seeing if there is perhaps another opportunity that we could partner with somebody. Maybe it's not the housing authority, maybe it's somebody else to get additional affordable housing units. But I would like us to spend our resources in that capacity as well as staff's resources, because I think that that will allow us to get more of the solution that we're trying to to find. Okay? Yeah. So I would agree. But we have a motion and a second on the table. I have to admit with it's not Robert's rules. It's do we do we do substitute motions? Yes. So the council has to. Currently, there are no substitute motions on on the table. So the council could call the question on the main motion, no hearing, no subsidy motions. I will call a vote on the main question. Roll call. Yes. I think the motion actually specifies 30 days, but out of deference to what the city manager said. 60 days. Okay. And is that okay with you, Madam Chair? It is. Okay. So roll call votes. Councilmember De Sang. Oh. No. No. Not Slate. No Mayor as the. Yes. That fails 2 to 3. Okay. Councilmember I make my guess not. It's not a substitute because there's nothing pending but approve the item. But with the idea that Councilmember Vela raised to have this other subcommittee created to talk about an overall affordable housing plan. And, you know, I prefer the mayor and her, to be honest, since they're on the League of Cities, but I don't really care who's on it because I trust any one of you guys to come up with a, um, effective report. Okay. Would your motion include direction to look to use the proceeds? Well, I'd prefer just not to bring the the distribution of the proceeds back to the council when we get them and then decide then I mean, I don't really know if we can decide now how to spend money we don't have. I know, but that would your motion would be to basically have staff, bring the identify the proceeds and bring it back to council at that point. Right. And not. Yeah. Sure. Yes. Yes. Yes. You could. Have 2 minutes of mine. Vote because you're. Suspending her. I move to get the mayor more time. Can I second that motion? That's Councilmember Vela's second motion. The motion made by Councilmember o.T. I like the move to give the mayor another 3 minutes. Okay. And Councilmember Desai, we're doing. A vote. Roll call vote. Yes, yes, yes. So I support more minutes. Yes, yes. Yes. There is a. Lot going on. 15 minutes. Okay. Carries my bye bye. Well, that's what I'm thinking of. But it would make me feel sad about. But we didn't indicate case. We intend to use the policy to go back into the general or attitude toward achieving this kind of removal. Remove unstated or low areas. So I think we have the spirit of policy that's included. I can support it. Okay. And I'm just going to confirm, I believe that was a part of Councilmember Otis motion. If we could be that specific, I'm happy to agree to those changes. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Yes, sir. I believe you already did. Okay. Okay. So it's a part of that. Okay, then assuming that we. We all know what we're voting on. Yeah, sorry. It was. It was a little sausage making here in below the phone can be difficult. So are we still going to have a subcommittee that's going to talk about the more global issues of what to do with them? That was pretty good. Mm hmm. Well, I mean, it's not too distantly removed from what I originally said, so I think I can support that, but I could support it. But I just want to make sure it also emphasized now because, you know, I am still concerned about the measure at issue. So I'll leave it at that. And just for the folks in the audience, that's a state dinner city bonus. We have no say. If they do it, we have no right to deny it as long as they make the case. Okay, just fair. So I'm going to call unless you want clarification. Then we'll just defer to the mayor to appoint a subcommittee. Yes. Okay. Although I would be happy to serve on it with the mayor. Um, and I would be happy to have you back. Wondering if you think I'm going to the subcommittee. Well, I. You have. It's your prerogative when you choose to do so. Yeah. Just report back who it is. I need to be back in a way that I get what you want to do with my. Doing. So, Madam Mayor, because that item is not really agenda is, I think, giving this indication of uh. Right. But I think that the mayor could announce that when the mayor returns. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. With that, we have a motion and a second on the floor. A roll call vote, please. They said nice. Yes. Yes, that's right. Yes. Is he Ashcraft? Yes. That carries with my body. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. With that item, I will adjourn the meeting of the successor committee and move on to tonight's regular city council meeting. Roll call, please. Been noted. Five present. Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have any agenda changes? Hearing none. We will read our first proclamation.

A bill for an ordinance designating the East Seventh Avenue Historic District-Steele Street Extension as a district for preservation. Approves the designation of the East Seventh Avenue Historic District-Steele Street Extension as a district for preservation, which includes 19 primary structures on the east side of the 600 and 700 blocks of North Steele Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-30-21.

DenverCityCouncil_12132021_21-1365

We have two public hearings, hearings tonight for those participating in person. When called upon, please come to the podium on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down for those participating virtually when called upon. Please wait until our meeting. Host promotes you to speaker. When you're promoted, your screen will flash to say reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and you'll need to turn on your camera. If you have one and your microphone you will see the time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you have finished speaking, you'll change back to participant mode and see your screen flash one more time. All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their name and city of residence, and if you feel comfortable doing so, your home address. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you're available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Member Hines, will you please put Council Bill 1365 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 20 1-1365 be placed upon final consideration and to pass. It has been moved. Can we have a second? It has been seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1365 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, council. I'm Jenny Guttenberg, senior city planner, community planning and Development. I'm also here with my colleague Becca Dyer Show, who is learning the ropes of our historic designation process and whom you'll be seeing more of in the future. She may assist me tonight with any design review questions that you might have for this historic district proposal. We are considering 19 properties on the east side of the 607 hundred blocks of North Steel Street in the Congress Park neighborhood. This is a new historic district proposal, not an amendment to the existing East Seventh Avenue historic district. The designation process is community driven and applications can be submitted by a variety of persons that you see listed on the screen. This application was submitted by three property owners who live within the boundaries of the proposed district. They spent the last two years developing the application and reaching out to other property owners to inform, educate and solicit their support for the proposal. The owners. Applicants of this district designation are Ken Fuller, Jane Pretzel and Tom Heath. The district is located within the Congress Park neighborhood and includes 19 primary structures 18 that are contributing. This is within Council District ten and blueprints under the areas within the urban neighborhood context and low residential area. Future place type. Current zoning is USAC. This is a dis contiguous historic district in two separate sections and was done in this way to avoid overlapping with the existing East Seventh Avenue historic district boundary. You can see by this map that a major justification for creating this new historic district is to include both the east and west sides of the 607 100 block of North Steele Street. The east side was left out of the 1993 East Seventh Avenue Historic District designation. This proposed district stands on its own with a period of significance from 1912 to 1990, while the existing East Seventh Avenue historic district has a period of significance prior to and including 1943. The proposed district meets all landmarks preservation ordinance designation criteria. It maintains its integrity. It is more than 30 years old. It meets three of the ten significance criteria. And it provides a historic context for consideration by the Landmark Preservation Commission. I want to mention the design review requirement for designated properties. Over the past several months, Landmark Preservation Staff engage property owners within the proposed district to clearly explain the design guidelines and design review process, including two community meetings, one in August 2021 and another in October 2021, as well as email communications with individuals. One of the major responsibilities of property owner who owns a historically designated property is to maintain its historic character. When a property is designated, it is designated as is and requires no improvements by the city. Maintaining a property's historic character is achieved through Landmark Preservation Design Review for any exterior alterations that require a zoning or building permit . Landmark preservation has no purview over interior alterations of designated property. Exterior alterations are guided by the design guidelines for Denver landmarks, structures and districts, a set of flexible principles that provide predictable regulations for owners, applicants and staff. Any zoning or building permits submitted prior to the effective date of designation and that does not require any changes by the applicant or CPD after the effective date does not require landmark preservation design review. Total demolition of designated structures is highly discouraged and difficult to achieve, requiring a review by the Landmark Preservation Commission. I'd like to note that landmark designation does not impact zoning of a property or properties that falls under the Denver Zoning Code. For example, 22 of the city's 57 historic districts are currently zoned for ADU use. The landmark preservation design guidelines have been successfully applied to many new constructions within those historic districts. In respect to significance criteria, the proposed district meets three, meets A, B and C. The proposed deal should extension has a direct association with the historical development of the City of Denver for its close association with the City Beautiful Movement and the development of the East Seventh Avenue Parkway, which runs between the two blocks of the proposed district. The City Beautiful Movement was the philosophy of urban planning and design that emphasized grand public buildings, curated public spaces, and the incorporation of greenspace throughout the city with the goal of instilling civic pride and encouraging moral. Virtue among. All citizens. It began in Denver in 1904 with the election of Mayor Robert Speer and extends through the 1920s. Mayor Speer's vision included developing an extensive park and parkway system modeled on the city beautiful movement in Europe. This included beautifying Cherry Creek, constructing civic center and establishing the network of parks connected by boulevards and greenways. The houses in the proposed district were constructed between 1912 and 1924, when the City Beautiful Movement was in full swing in Denver. This movement included the creation of pastoral parks and parkways throughout Denver, including the East Seventh Avenue Park. With the shift in the parkways designed as it meets the proposed district at Steele Street, is notable making a 607 hundred blocks significant as a marker between the older formal part of the East Seventh Avenue Parkway and the newer section where bungalows and other more modest housing styles flourished. The proposed district is also significant for its direct and substantial association with Judge Raymond D. Jones, who owned and lived at 17 or Steel Street for over 40 years, and who is actually here with us this evening. Judge Jones was a well-known personality on Steel Street who played an active role in the civil rights movement. And Denver was a notable attorney and judge and was the first African-American to serve on the appellate court in Colorado. Born in Pueblo, Colorado, Jones studied political science at Colorado College, one of only five African-American students in attendance in 1964. After graduating from Colorado College, Jones went on to earn a law degree from Harvard University in 1971. He then worked in New York City on Wall Street, but returned to Denver to clerk for the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, Justice Edward Pringle. He was appointed as a trial judge for the Denver County Court, where he served for two years before serving for nine years on a Denver district court and two years as the chief justice of the Aurora Municipal Court. In 1988, he was appointed an associate judge of the Colorado Court of Appeals. The first African-American judge to hold such a position. He remained in this post for 15 years. Later in his life, Judge Jones taught at Colorado College and Metro State University. He helped spawn the Sanctuary Association of Black Attorneys and Cleo Parker Robinson Dance Theater. Finally, the proposed district is significant as it embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of the Craftsman style. 1619 structures exhibit the distinguishing characteristics of the style. Defining features include low pitched gabled or hipped roofs wide overhanging eaves, often with exposed rafter tails, ridge beams or knee braces in full or partial with porches with substantial square or tapered columns supporting the porch roof. The bungalows in the proposed district were constructed between 1914 and 1924 at the height of the Styles popularity in Denver. The only structures not built in the Craftsman Spot Craftsman style include one four square and one central passage double pile. But these two homes were built within the period of significance and are representative of their era of construction. There's also one structure originally built in the crescent style that has been significantly altered and lost the defining features of this architectural style due to a fire in the 1980s. The District retains its integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, setting, feeling and association. There have been some alterations to primary structures in the district, including window replacement and the construction of retaining walls. However, these changes do not negatively impact the historic character or integrity of the historic district. Pictured on the screen in the lower right is a structure damaged by fire 716 North Steele Street. It required extensive repair and the original design was altered, including the addition of an attached garage, additional dormers and a closure of the front porch. These alterations impact the integrity of the original structure. Therefore, is not contributing to the proposed district. The 1912 to 1990 period of significance reflects the district's many areas of significance, starting with its construction during the late city beautiful movement and extending through its association with Judge Raymond Jones, who lived in the district during his active life. The district reflects the city beautiful air development of properties in central Denver along streetcar lines and adjacent to parks and parkways. It also represents the evolution and changing demographics of the Congress Park neighborhood from its early 1900s residential expansion to the city's urban renaissance in the 1970s and 1990. And November 2nd, the Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously approved the designation application and forwarding it to City Council for consideration as it meets all designation criteria. The Landmark Preservation Ordinance also provides an opportunity for planning boards. Make a recommendation to City Council regarding designation of historic districts. Planning Board may review proposed district designation with respect to its relationship to the Denver Comprehensive Plan. The effect of the designation on the surrounding neighborhood and such other planning considerations as may be relevant to the proposed designation. A quick reminder that the proposed historic district is located with the U.S. Zone District. That's urban single unit, which designates a minimum zone that size of 5500 square feet. And the blacks typically have a consistent pattern of 50 foot wide lots. Currently, editors are not allowed in the zone district. The proposed district reinforces the vision of comprehensive plan 2040 through the preservation of important architectural and historical assets in the Congress Park neighborhood, primarily through the vision element of strong and authentic neighborhoods. And within that vision goals one, two, three and six. The proposed district will preserve the city's authentic, historic character, enhance design excellence, and contribute to a strong sense of community identity. Designation of the proposed district advances these attributes of quality design through design, review of new infill and alterations by using a set of predictable design standards. The proposed district is within the urban neighborhood context, a low residential future place type. This context and type includes predominantly single and two properties with accessory dwelling units and duplexes being appropriate when they can be thoughtfully integrated. Buildings are lower in scale and closer to the street, typically with alley access, which is the case in this neighborhood. Blueprint Denver also notes that public parks such as the Seventh Avenue Parkway are vital components of the quality of life infrastructure. And these cities and spaces are planned to remain parks. This proposed historic designation maintains these neighborhood attributes. The district would allow for alterations and growth or infill that is compatible with existing neighborhood character through Landmark Design Review, aligning with multiple recommendations within Blueprint Denver. Overall, the application is consistent with Blueprint Denver recommendations and reinforces the plan's policies. It also helps advance the blueprint under metric related to increasing the sense of the city subject to design focused standards like the design guidelines for Denver landmarks, structures and districts. Lastly, this designation resulted in part from the Black's inclusion in the Congress Park Neighborhood Survey via the City Citywide Building Survey. Discover Denver, a public private partnership between the city and historic Denver, and thus also contributes to measuring the success of that program. The proposed district is also guided by the East Central Area plan. The plan identifies the proposed district as an area of historic significance, which is defined as a collection of structures and features identified by the Citywide Building Survey. Discover Denver that is significant for its history, architecture and culture and is potentially eligible for local historic designation and application of other tools that will maintain its character. The proposed district also aligns with multiple recommendations within the East Central Area plan, including Policy L nine, six and C one, each of which strives to maintain the character of buildings and neighborhoods through historic preservation and designation. Historic designation would help preserve the character defining features of the district. There would be no direct effect on the surrounding neighborhood, as the designation would only impact the two blocks in question, and there would be no zoning changes to accompany the district designation. And as mentioned, the designation would not change the blueprint down to a future place type or neighborhood context. The intent of the designation is to recognize this unique district, the buildings that define it, and their contribution to the historic fabric of the Congress, park, neighborhood and city of Denver as a whole. On November 17th, the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed district designation as City Council based on these criteria. Since the date of your staff brief, CPD received comment from 28 individuals, two registered neighborhood organizations and one interested party historic Denver regarding the proposed historic district. Public comment includes responses to the city hosted online survey. Emails submitted to LPC staff and verbal comment provided at the LPC Public Hearing and Planning Board meeting. Some respondents provide a comment multiple times through the various communication channels, and of those some shifted their support throughout the process. Currently of the property owners within the proposed district boundary who have provided comment 12 are in. Support to. Or neutral and one is in opposition. Since the START group was submitted, one additional Denver resident submitted comment and support to the proposed district, which was forwarded to you before today's meeting for your consideration. Based on landmark preservation ordinance designation criteria, the findings of the Landmark Preservation Commission that the application meets the criteria for designation of a district and the recommendation of approval by the Denver Planning Board staff recommends approval of this application. Thank you. And I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. And we have a 19 individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first few speakers that are participating in person. And after those speakers, we will call the next few that are participating virtually. If you're here in person after your name is called, please make your way up to the front bench. And we will start with Caroline Caselli. Hi. My name is Caroline Casali. I'm the owner at 610 Steele Street. Thanks for having me here today. I'm here in opposition of the historic district. My understanding is that this is already sort of a done deal that you guys are going to vote for the historic district. And my understanding is also that this is a progressive city council and that you care about racial and social justice and that the number one priority of the city council is to focus on affordable housing. So I'm not totally certain how it's possible to then go forward to then add additional regulatory burden on top of existing homeowners when, you know, when the number one goal is affordable housing. I personally, you know, when I've spoken with my neighbors, my understanding is that this the genesis for this application came out of the fact that there was a fear that Judge Raymond Jones large lot was going to be divided and developed. So instead of, you know, focusing just on that particular lot and having that focus be just about having his lot preserved as the neighborhood with the neighborhood character, they decided to go for the entire the entire block. You know, this this has kind of a couple of different effects. Like I'm a CEO of a company called Haven Connect. We streamline affordable housing applications. So I've seen a lot of this kind of NIMBYism before. And, you know, I'm personally I'm also affected, right. Because I have single pane windows. Oh, by the way, not great for climate change. And, you know, my utility bills are over $200 a month because of my single pane windows that are not energy efficient. While I am frantically getting bids to try and get my windows ordered by Friday as per the deadline. I'm also having to pull like an emergency loan essentially because of this designation. And so I know there's other homeowners who don't feel comfortable speaking out because of fear of retribution from some of the neighbors who are also trying to remodel their homes. And so this doesn't you know, this impacts me personally and also it seems to me to be a major affordable housing issue, especially considering the fear that Raymond Jones, you know, Judge Raymond Jones lot is going to be developed rather than just focusing, you know, kind of more specifically on that particular anxiety, essentially. So I would urge you to reconsider and thank you for your time. Thank you. David Hill in Chambers. After David, we'll have Kendra Fuller. Kendall Fuller. Hello. My name is David Hill. My wife and I live at 740 Steel Street. We strongly support the application for historic landmark designation. We moved to our house about five years ago after living in a similar bungalow in Platt Park, and at the time the. Historic character of Platt. Park was starting to change as more and more houses were being torn down. That trend has only worsened as it has throughout the city. We were drawn to Congress Park in part because of the neighborhood's well-preserved historic houses, including those across the street from us, which are part of the Seventh. Avenue Historic District. Oddly, the houses on our side of the block were not included in the district when it was created in 1892. That made no sense to us as. The houses were built at the same time and share the same architectural history and character. This new extension will correct that oversight. Historic designations are one of the few tools residents have to preserve the city's cultural and architectural treasures. Historic preservation is, in fact, one. Of the stated goals of Denver's comprehensive plan 2040, and that goal is even more explicit. In Blueprint. Denver, where historic designation is encouraged as a tool to promote design quality and to preserve the character of an individual structure or district, or where there is historic architectural, cultural and or geographic significance. I believe the application for historic landmark designation of SEAL Street is consistent with both of those planning documents, and I urge you to vote . Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Kendall Fuller. I'm kind of fuller. I'm one of the applicants. I live at 756 Steele Street. Thank you, Jenny and Becca, for the excellent representation of our application. And thank you for allowing us to be here today. As I said in my dining room last week, listening to Judge Raymond Jones and his son Raymond Jr give an interview to Colorado Public Radio. I knew we made the right choice to honor Judge Jones's legacy in our application. They consistently used the word wonderful to describe their life on our block. The retelling of the story of his trip to Selma, Alabama, that Judge Jones made as a 17 year old student reflected his life mission to fight injustice. His passion was revealed as he described how his time on the bench was influenced by the words and deeds of Thurgood Marshall. We honor his presence here. In the early 1900s. City leaders chose then to create open space parkways, sidewalks and streetcars to create the best neighborhoods they could imagine as the city expanded. Denver was experiencing rapid growth in the 1920s as it is now. The Bungalows and Foursquare designs influenced the builders at that time. This is evidenced by the line up of the homes on the 607 hundred blocks of Steel Street, which are incredibly consistent in nature despite being built by different builders. All the houses provide generous porches to welcome us home. You have heard from us. We have done our homework and comprehensive outreach to every neighbor. We have renewed friendships and we have made new ones. We know what we're asking for and can see directly from the neighbors across the street. What designation means? These houses can both look back at their origins and forward to becoming the neighborhood of the future. When change arrives, we want someone responsible to oversee the transition from yesterday to tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, David Wise. And next one after David will have an uphill. I'm David Wise. I'm a licensed architect with an advanced degree in urban design. I've lived and I have sorry. I've lived in Denver for 40 years. I've lived on Steele Street for 25 years. Historic designation will provide clear guidelines and common sense design review for any work on houses in the neighborhood. It will use well-established standards and procedures. Everybody will be playing by the same rules. With regard to density and affordability. Designation will not prevent adding dwelling units. Marionettes are allowed, but without sacrificing the historic. Character and. Design integrity that made the neighborhood modest, livable, diverse and desirable in the first place. Design review will ensure human scale and compatible design with all new work. State tax incentives will help make that work more affordable. I believe designation will further Denver's stated planning goals, including retaining our unique character, supporting our active pedestrian environment, preserving front porches , encouraging the retention of smaller houses, and allowing for the missing metal housing by accommodating basement 80 use. As well as detached it is. I know many of my neighbors well, and we believe in the inclusiveness of the city. This is not an effort to exclude anyone from our neighborhood. This part of Congress park is the opposite of a gated community. We welcome a mix of owners and renters, many of whom have gone on to buy their own homes. Many of us started out in small apartments in the higher density areas of Capitol Hill. We know how critical housing affordability has become for us and for our children. I'm no stranger to. Urban. Living and the challenges of paying for housing. My 40 year career as an architect includes the conversion of warehouses and the housing. Integrating high rise housing in the urban core and the innovative live work housing for artists and others. Historic preservation is not the enemy of affordable housing. As a board member of the Lower Downtown District, we created the design approach that made loft apartments possible. And in those days, affordable? No longer. In 1989, I instigated the Walkable City Symposium for the Urban Design Forum. And for seven years, I wrote a column. To heighten citizen awareness around land use policy to give them tools to navigate. Their own experience in urban living for life on Capitol Hill. It's true that large spec houses feel inflation. And that will be tempered. Their character will be tempered by designation. Spec houses are destabilizing. It's certainly a concern of our neighbors, but it's certainly not the only concern. Mr. Wise, that's your time. Thank you very much, Emma Hill. Hi. My name is on a hill and I live at 740. Steel Street in Denver. My husband and I bought our first bungalow in Platt Park in 1995. It was small. In the 875. Square foot starter home, but. We loved the wood. Floors and green tiled. Kitchen and we became attached. 20 years later, we moved to a larger bungalow at 740 Steel Street. Even before we moved in, we were invited to the block's. Annual holiday party. Our new. Neighbors were an engaging group of. Teachers, health care workers, artists. Salespeople and civil servants, many of whom have lived on the block since the eighties nineties. We had a lot in common, including a. Passion for historic homes. Conversation would turn to radiators, living room would work, how to find a refrigerator for a small. Kitchen. Or how to stay. Organized despite our. Closets. A few years later, at the 2019 potluck, we learned something new. We learned that the home of Judge Ray Jones had been purchased. There were rumors. About what would happen to the property. And we were concerned. So we made inquiries about historic designation. Turns out we are a perfect fit. As part of the process, I visited neighbors on both sides of the 700 block of Steele Street, asking whether they supported the historic designation. Each and every neighbor said yes. I was not surprised. I know our neighbors and like me and my husband, they have put time, energy and love. Into their historic homes and have become attached. Steele Street is unified in their desire. To become part of the East seven historic district he supported. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. We'll go online for Kevin MATTHEWS. Good evening. Can you hear. Me? How do you mean? Can you hear me? Yes, we can go first. Thank you. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS. I'm a member of Denver. We sent a letter opposing this district earlier today. I live at 1020 Madison Street, just a few blocks from this proposed district. The first time I heard about this proposed district was last February. When a neighbor of mine. Sent me a video of my local R.A. meeting discussing this proposed district. And the comment was made that landmarking trumps zoning. Just in case there. Is any doubt. About the. Pretext for tonight's. Vote. Yes, we've all heard. It doesn't technically prevent rezoning. Additional units or the addition of it to use. But we should all know by now that if a building has a very high cost to. Redesign. Those costs are no different than zoning implementations that stop additional units. I only know the little I've read about Judge Jones. He sounds like a remarkable person, and I'm not here to judge his fitness for amendments or recognition. But let's not pretend that this is any. More than a pretext for. Tonight's vote. Maybe his former home deserves recognition and preservation due to his deeds, and I'm not qualified to judge that. But an entire district. I used to live a few blocks from the Molly Brown house, and I would take out-of-towners there. On rainy days. It's a museum. It's not a home. She didn't get a whole district. My sister actually owns one of the most historic homes in the country, and some of them Massachusetts. But the Adams Magoon house that she bought for $170,000 in 1995. At the time, it was an historic home. He was the cousin of John Adams, our second president, and his wife was Sarah Tufts, who whose family started Tufts University. They didn't get an entire district. A few months ago, this council unanimously voted down the landmarking of the Channel seven building that was also passed through the supposedly. Rigorous. Landmarking criteria that we have today. It was easy to see what was that that was about. And at that hearing I heard this council recognize the problem that current landmarking presents, which is why you're. Currently reviewing the process. It's not clear why you're moving. Ahead with this landmarking. Until that. Process is complete. Historic designations. Have been associated with a rise in housing costs and prohibiting affordable housing from being built and their heirs. In their areas. They are shown to be negatively correlated with racial integration and displacement, and they raise. Property values and rents in neighboring, adjacent. Neighboring neighborhoods adjacent to those districts. According to the East Central Area Plan. 65% of east central households, including 72% of renter households, live in. Areas that are. Considered to be vulnerable. Displacement. We ask that you review this process before you move ahead with this district. Thank you. Thank you. We will move to Stephen Kick, who's also online. Good evening, Madam President and Council. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak this evening. My name is Steve Kirk and I live at 640 Steel Street. My husband and I have lived here. For 22 years and we strongly support the designation of our side of steel as historic. All of you are familiar with these architectural elements that were described that promote community. These small, closely packed bungalows with front porches, detached garages and sidewalks. All of these things support community. It was specifically these qualities that attracted us to this neighborhood. The history of these homes is very compelling. Our home was first occupied by a Jewish family at the turn of the last century who were philanthropists in the Jewish community. Decades later, Jewish families were not allowed to live in certain neighborhoods of Denver. So this illustrates the power of history. These homes and neighborhoods belong to the city of Denver. We don't own them. We are simply stewards of these homes for a period of time. And so we feel an obligation to preserve these jewels. The thought of these homes ending up in a landfill is just unconscionable. As a physician in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic. We're seeing the effects that all of us can have on the health of a community. So to with. Preservation is the combined efforts of all of us to help honor these homes. And neighborhoods. So I'm asking that you. Please give Denver a holiday gift this year by. Respecting the history and beauty of these homes through historic designation. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is also online, Steven Benishek. Hello. Yes, go ahead. Okay. Good evening, counsel. My name is Steve Chicken. I live in District six and I'm speaking to an opposition to this. I would like to offer some considerations before a city council votes on this. I have serious concerns about this designation, specifically around its inequitable implications. Page 29 of Blueprint Denver explains the goal of creating a city where, and I quote, growth and development contribute to more equitable and inclusive places rather than increasing disparities and amplifying gaps in how Denver must leverage public and private sector investments to avoid becoming a city where some areas show increasing affluence and privilege while others are being displaced, not able to enjoy Denver's great quality of life. Unfortunately, this designation runs completely contrary to these goals. The average House price in Congress passed 800 to 840000, making it one of the wealthier neighborhoods in Denver. This designation, which in the staff reports alluded, states an explicit intention to preserve single and two unit zoning will create a significant barrier to smart, and so it will lead to an already wealthy neighborhood becoming more and more privileged while fostering displacement in other parts of the city. When the city extends special privileges, the already privilege exempts neighborhoods like Congress part from their fair share of meeting our housing needs. We will see displacement in neighborhoods like five points because those are the only places where people are allowed to build. Furthermore, such use of the circle preservation process can give negative effects on public opinion, make legitimate preservation efforts like lower out of heights, which is due to come up later tonight. Harder in the future. I urge you to consider these. At three the goals of Blueprint Denver and vote no until such questions to be answered. Thank you. Thank you being to our next speaker online. Bruce Corgi. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the Council. My name is Bruce Koy and I'm a board member of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods and also the co-chair of the History Matters Committee. I live in Denver at 1394 Vine Street, and interestingly, I live as part of the Wyman Historic District, but I live in a three year old infill project right in the middle of the historic district. My home is living proof that historic districts are not static. And I think some of the arguments about yes or no don't take into account the nuance of this application. I believe that city council members have read the letter of support. We voted as a board to support this new historic district adjacent to the Seventh Avenue historic district. I'm just going to point out a couple of points from that letter. One is that and you've heard this, but it really is important to note that the current Seventh Avenue historic district cuts right across are a cohesive street, feel street and one side of the street, the east side is not included in the same district that the West Side is. And this is kind of an unusual thing for a third district, not the end of the alley. And to have this one end in the middle of the street and if you walk the streets as I have, you'll note that the that the the both sides of the street exhibited the same historic characteristics, and they should be eligible for the same kinds of protection. John believes the Denver Landmarks Preservation Commission is on the right track by recommending approval of this just. Importantly, and you've heard a little bit about Judge Raymond Jones, but nominated his poem to be included in Denver. 50 Actions for 50 places campaign and thought Denver on a project and it was selected for that in part because of its representation of just an amazing pioneer story for Colorado. And this home is right on our blog and will encompass a part of this historic district. We understand there are complications to renaming this the judge, Raymond Jones historic district, but we believe he is worthy of this honor if that could possibly happen. We take a very thorough and thoughtful approach to endorsing this proposed historic, historic district as a neighborhood organization. And we believe that these homes represent historic and for the area, more modest homes there remain opportunities for further development for the alley and the garage buildings are not part of the protected aspect of this historic, historic district. Thank you. Thank you. We have one more speaker in this grouping online test already. Hi. City Council. My name's Tess Sturdy. I live in District nine, and I just wanted to. Talk about how it's kind of weird because, you know, every single Monday I've been at every Monday night city council meeting for over a year. Every single one. And while you all read the landing, I was right in the beginning. Every week we continue to act like this land even belongs to what is now called Denver in the first place. We're here preserving historic districts for white residents. While a little over a year ago when dozens of residents from a black and brown neighborhood. Came here and testified until after midnight, gave public comment begging you. In one way to develop it. You just you just ignored them. So, you know, I just I don't really ever hear about like, I think, you know, I'm just curious how the historic designation kind of works if we're not even willing to it to acknowledge that we're on stolen land and that this land doesn't belong to Denver in the first place. And I also just wanted to point out, because it's kind of interesting to hear the side of history that's being told from the city planning or historic designation department. Because if you look on the Denver history, the Denver Library, they talk about how in in the 19 early 1920, leading up to the 1920s, that, you know, 90% of black residents lived in five points. So I'm just kind of curious about that 1914 date. It doesn't really seem, you know, like that we're preserving something. You know, I just I'm just kind of confused about that history there. And and, you know, I love I love bungalows. I grew up in a bungalow. I think they're great houses. I would just question why why they're allowed this, you know, parcel or this like district is allowed to kind of cherry pick and and you know, preserve their historic district when five points what I thought that that was a historic district what how is that what's happened there? Why don't they? Why is everything been torn down and built into high rises? I'm just kind of confused because it sounds like all the residents that are proposing this believe that it's their bungalows and the architecture is going to be preserved. So even though that y'all are saying it's not going to affect zoning like it seems like the residents are certainly under that impression. So I'm just kind of confused there. And, you know, I just I just really don't think there's much equity in this process. It's pretty gross and it just continues to happen over and over again. I mean, I just don't understand. Like, you're not hear us, you know, what are what do you why do you think this is? Okay. It's just so blatant. So blatant. It's ridiculous. I mean, I just I don't even know why we're even doing any of these until this review is done. So to review your racism and and just blatant redlining. Okay, thank you. Next. Speakers and chambers. Andy Levinsky. Good evening, Council. I'm Annie Levinsky, the executive director of Historic Denver. We're located at 1420 Ogden Street, and I'm here to offer our support to the Steele Street extension. Our organization conducted survey work in the Congress Park neighborhood in 2019 as part of the Discover Denver Partnership with the City of Denver . And the survey identified several blocks in Congress Park as potential areas of significance, including the six and 700 block of Steel Street, which shares a close association with the City Beautiful Movement and the National Register listed Seventh Avenue Parkway, which also has its own distinctive attributes, including the highly intact bungalow forms and the Association of People of Interest in our city. Most notably, Judge Raymond Jones. The Jones home, as has been mentioned, was also identified as part of Discover, Denver and Capitol Hill. United Neighborhoods nominated it to our 50 Actions for 50 Places campaign last spring, which is a campaign designed to help catalyze preservation action that reflects the full depth, breadth and diversity of our city story. I want to thank Judge Jones for being here this evening with his son, Ray, who I believe you'll hear from in a little bit. The home was selected to be a finalist in our final 50 sites, and as such, historic Denver provided additional guidance and support to the Steel Street effort, which is an opportunity to recognize this story. And express and honor a judge's Jones life. And I've had the distinct honor of getting to do an oral history with him and spend some time with him. And it's truly a compelling story about making change in our state. We took on additional research to put that into the context of what was happening in the neighborhood and the block during those years, as well as his particular accomplishments. And I know he has great affection for his longtime home at 780 Steel Street, and he selected Congress Park in the 1970s very intentionally. I do want to correct a couple of things that have come up. Notably, the Molly Brown House Museum does have its own historic districts called the Pennsylvania Street Historic District, and it was created to help protect the museum in an era in which individual landmarks were not protected as they are today. I also want to note that the designation is consistent with city plans, including the Blueprint Denver and the recently adopted East Area Plan. I think it's important to again state clearly that the recommendations of that plan, if they're implemented, such as encouraging accessory dwelling units, would be consistent with the historic district and compatible so that could move forward. Furthermore, the preservation of these homes supports sustainability goals by ensuring that lasting materials are not sent to landfills but actively used by future generations. Because owners in the district will be eligible for tax credits for rehabilitation work, including any efforts to increase energy efficiency. And because the question I know came up when this hit committee, I want to emphasize the policy recommendations regarding Windows in historic districts is consistent with the city's goal on climate action. There's extensive studies that have been done, including by the National Trust, that demonstrate that saving and retrofitting older windows is a more cost effective way to achieve energy savings and to lower the home's footprint than full replacement. So on behalf of historic Denver, I encourage you to support this designation and help us tell a story that our city should know. Thank you. And our next in chambers, speaker, is Reed Jones the second. Good evening. My name is Raymond Dean Jones, the second affectionately named after my father. I currently live at 2400 Sable Boulevard. I was raised in 780 Still Street. I am a son of Denver. I went to Denver East. I played soccer at Congress Park. I grew up at the East YMCA, which is no longer. I grew up playing sports and living my life at Saint Charles Recreation, Saint Charles Rec. Which is no longer really what it used to be. And that's why I think it's so important that we do what we're talking about doing here today. Because living in Denver my entire life. It is not the same city. That it once was. And we all know that who have been here. The area we're speaking about 780 still. Area changing. The district. It's very important that people understand. My father was a trailblazer. Not only and his law career. But also and being one of the first people of color excuse me, the first person. Of color in. That neighborhood. So to say. That my father or. Myself would allow his name to be used for discrimination. Or racism is absurd. Well, it makes a very strong. Talking point in. And aggressively can speak to the times. It is simply absurd. We would never allow such a thing. That dedicated 30 plus years of service to this city, to Denver. Sacrificing. Some of the relationships he. Should have had. With his children, with his family for Denver. So when we talk about. Designating something. A district to my father, I want us to understand that we're talking about someone. Who is given back who could have taken his Harvard Law degree and doing other things that. Would have done better for his family. But because of the type of man that he. Is, he did not. I also want to say thank you to the Council for listening to me today and to my. Neighbors who have seen me grow up. It's very weird to see people who have seen you since you were little and now you're old. So I want to say thank you for being a part of this process. And I really do want to. Say thank you to those who have. Spoken out against. And that's our democratic process. But also understand that this. Is not a situation of the rich getting richer. This is a situation of giving pride of that community, which is very special, which is very different than any other neighborhood. And retaining what makes Denver so special. Thank you for your time. Q And last set of speakers or online. We'll go to David Hahn. Hey, on next. I'm guessing that's me. David Hagan. I think I think I need to type it in the wrong. I was in a hurry. But I think. It was need to me tonight. Historic preservation is I completely understand where it's necessary and where it is egregious, egregiously used to keep people out of the neighborhood. I think that the judge's home should definitely be historic or made that way. But in general. Historic preservation is absolutely a cause of gentrification. Whether or not people think about it in their own neighborhood, it causes there's an effect outside the neighborhood that is not helpful to keeping people in their homes or bringing people back and bringing people to a neighborhood that it's historically been in that neighborhood. It is. I mean, just when, when, when. The judge's trip to Selma was used in the same sentence as the historic preservation was discussing. What that man did was beautiful and powerful, and it is somewhat saying that he's done a lot of good things in this community and throughout the country. But to put the entire neighborhood under the same sentence that that minimized what that man did, what he dedicated his life to, that was so disheartening. All right. In the 1960s, Denver decided to replace this community with Aurora campus. And here's what it lost. A community, including a restaurant that became a multicultural hub and a magnet for guests. Magnet for gas. Let's see here. Descendant or. Sorry, I'm just trying to read something off the computer really quickly. Descendants look back at what was lost and what what they were compensated. Decades later, the memory of fences and bulldozers still haunts Giorgio. He was 11 years old when the Urban Renewal Project forced his grandmother and hundreds of other of her neighbors out of central Denver. He remembers as well as well the tears, illness, illnesses and other signs of stress among the adults whom he counted on. His mother spent the best of her years, the best years of her life trying to save this place, he said. Most of the neighbors, brick and wood homes and businesses were raised beginning in 1969 to be replaced with modern concrete. So that right there is kind of the opposite of what's going on. So you don't want that to happen. But it's different neighborhood right when it when it's in five points. We're all for getting rid of it when it's in a white neighborhood. We're all for keeping it and keeping it that way. It's just it doesn't make sense, you know, she said dozens and dozens I think it was probably close to 100 people spoke out about an hour ago and what the effect was going to have on that community of black and brown people. And you all voted for it anyways. So and then and then tonight you're going to vote for this if you don't listen to the people when when they're in front of you. David, thank you. Your time is up. We'll move on to Susan Hester, also online. Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Sue Hester. I live at 765 Steel Street and my husband and I have lived in our home for more than 43 years. So you can say we're pretty much the seniors on the block. We live on the west side of the 700 block of steel building. And I strongly support the neighbors application to extend the historic district to the other side of the street. When this historic district was established in 1993, our side of the street was designated in the historic district, while our neighbors across the street were not. It didn't make sense to have that line down the middle of our our block then. And it doesn't make sense now. Now, in response to some of the comments about being in the historic district and the potential problems, we have found workarounds. Let me give you a couple of examples. A few years ago, we had custom wood storm windows, which are, by the way, double paint constructed for all windows in our home . And this was a fraction of the cost of replacing all windows. Second, instead of building a retaining wall for our high Congress, Park Hill, we had it landscaped. The advantages of which are no more mowing the grass and less water usage. These solutions were much more economical and conform totally with historic district requirements. In summary, the proposal to extend the seventh seventh Avenue Historic District this tiny in the spectrum of the decision. You City Council members will make today and then the future as it only affects one side of two blocks of steel street and covers only 19 homes, most of which are about 100 years old. I think I can speak for my friends and neighbors that we understand and support the need for more affordable housing. But what we don't want is what has happened in other older neighborhoods, such as Park Hill and just across Sixth Avenue and the Cherry Creek area where McMansions have been built. We want to save our beautiful bungalows. So we urge your support for the extension of the Seventh Avenue Historic District, which will maintain the integrity and beauty of our small island bungalow history. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak to my. Thank you. Next speaker online is Carol Coffman. Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chair. And members of the City Council. My name is Carol Coffman. My family and I have lived at 770 Steel Street for some 20 years. I am here to voice my strong support for the ordinance designating East Seventh Avenue. Historic. District Steel Street. Extension as a district for preservation. First, we want to thank the many neighbors we have had the pleasure of meeting and getting to know. We're getting to know even better as we. Work. Through the steps towards designation. Over the past two years, we, I think, have become a closer and more involved neighborhood. Like so many on our street. Our family loves this neighborhood because of its history, its sense of community, and the architectural appeal of arts and crafts bungalows and Denver squares of this area. We've heard a lot about that tonight for about 15 years. We also have the honor of living next door to Judge Raymond Jones. And we've heard a lot about his life and his many contributions as well. He spoke often of the pride of this home and being part of this beautiful community, a part of our community, his life in his home. Here is just. One example, though, of how the history of homes on our blog is more than a built history spanning over hundreds of years, 100 years. It's a lived history of everyday community. We feel it is. Urgently critical to. Safeguard this gift of the city architectural and social history. With the. Historic district. Designation, we have the opportunity to do that, and I urge you to vote yes on this. In sum, I strongly support this designation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Next speaker, Steve Turner. Hello. This is Steve Turner. I am sorry. Let me just check out another video. Sorry about that. Hi there. I'm Steve Turner. I'm a resident on Steel Street at 640 Steel Street. I've been here for about 20 years, and I appreciate the council giving me this opportunity to speak with you. I'm here to speak in support of this proposal. I will say that shouldn't come as a surprise in that I clearly are going to have a particular perspective on this, because I've spent the last eight years serving as the state historic preservation officer, appointed by Governor Hickenlooper, and then Governor Polis. And I just retired from that position and currently the professor of Historic Preservation at the University of Colorado. I spend a lot of time talking to students about preservation, opposition to preservation, the buzzwords that are used to diffuse preservation, everything from it's not environmentally sustainable, which architects and I am an architect by training will tell you that there's a there's a phrase that says the greenest building is the building that's already built. Things can be made environmentally sustainable. And also the sort of go to point seems to be around vital windows. And we know why no windows over the last 20 to 20 to 30 years. The old designer window industry will tell you that. And so we don't. Historic preservation has its inherent sustainability embedded in its very DNA. People will talk about affordability, but again, you can look at what's actually happening around the city and see that we're not historic. Home is great. It's not replaced with a more affordable unit. It is always a unit that is 3 to 4 times the cost of the original unit. People will talk about having a 100% consensus. Well, when LoDo was designated, over 70% of the owners were opposed to that designation. In fact, it only passed council by one vote, so 7 to 6. So I know that I am about to run out of time. So I want to leave you with the thought that I'm reading a book that Jane Goodall. It's entitled The Book of Hope. And it's about really living in the times that we live in now and the need for hope. And Jane Goodall says the hallmark the hallmark of wisdom is asking what affects will the decision that I make today have on future generations? And as one of our speakers has already previously said, this land does not really belong to us. But I would argue not only does it, it belongs to future generations. And this is one way to ensure that the future will get to enjoy and benefit from these beautiful historic structures. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kevin Kelly. Oh, thank you. And greetings, Denver City Council, and thank you for your leadership and commitment to keeping Denver one of the most desirable and dynamic cities in the country. My name is Kevin Kelly and I live an East Jesmond Park at 12th and Vine. I have served on the board of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods for five years and co-chair our History Matters Committee. Tonight, we are here to speak about designating the East Seventh Avenue historic district, the Steel Strait extension as a district for preservation. John moved to support the Steel Strait Extension as a district for preservation on December 17th of 2020, as stated and forwarded in a letter of support to Community Planning and Development and Denver City Council. One additional topic for support of the establishment of a historic district involves affordability. Historic districts can and do support affordable housing. A street side of modestly sized 1910 and 1920. Bungalows are more affordable than newly built two storey homes that often extend through the back of the lot to the alleys. One only needs to consider the plight of smaller, historic homes north of Sixth Avenue to witness the size of homes and scope of our new neighborhoods. No room for affordability. We encouraged city council to approve this new historic district. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jane Fritzl. Do we have, Janeane? Oh. Jesse Paris. Okay. Sorry. Your next speaker is Jesse Paris. Yes. Good evening. My name is just Allison Pearson. I'm representing four black stars and more for self defense. Positive, actually. Come in for social change. These Denver Residents Council, the Unity Party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I'll be the next mayor timber in 2023. I'm in favor of this preservation to my. Despite all the opposition against it. We need to preserve our historical districts, our historic neighborhoods in the city. Now, I am a native of 5.4. I was a native of five points. And I've seen the damage that occurred from having a preservation in five points. Five points became unaffordable and. Unlivable for people of black African descent. And I would hate to see that happen. With the Seventh Avenue Historic District. Um, I don't need we don't need any more unintended consequences of voting and preservation. Um. We are on stolen land. This is stolen land we are on and does not own this land. And we have to acknowledge that and. I would hate to see this neighborhood become unaffordable as a result of this preservation. So I'm kind of torn on. Really torn on how I want to proceed with this because. On one end, it seems like it's a good idea. It meets all the criteria. But then, on the other hand, what are the unintended consequences that are going to occur from this? I hear from the neighbors and the judge, his son. I'm going to have to be a reluctant. Yes. On this puzzle based on tonight's. We need to maintain the character of this neighborhood of Congress part. And the judge's house. He was the first black judge to reside in this neighborhood, and that needs to be preserved. I'm just concerned that there's going to be unintended consequences from having such a preservation. So I'm really on the fence about this because for the simple fact I've seen what happened with five police. In other historical districts, the hand store could designation give it to them in the aftermath of what that looked like. So I'm going off on a whim on a leap of faith that this will not happen with the Seventh Street historic district. Even though. There's plenty of examples of it happening with other historical districts. So I want to know if there's a guarantee that there's going to be affordability in this neighborhood. And now no more people will be displaced as a result of such a preservation. So if somebody could please answer that question. Those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. Thank you. And our last speaker is Jane Fritzl. Hello. Hi, Jane. Go ahead. Oh, sorry. I'm having a little problem with the computer here. Really, I. I'm grateful to be supporting this opportunity of joining the West Side. With with historical designation and. I know that our bungalows are. Significant of a change. In attitude in the 1920s and before the late 1800s. Leading up. Just about what housing should be, especially for the middle class. So. The first. Bungalows were really appearing in Philadelphia. But then. On out in. California. And coming our way. They're in all the major cities. And it was a great. They're. Great housing for the middle class. So they are actually. The most significant. Form of architecture in. The. This is said in the arts and crafts movement. So it was. A it was really fun. It was. It was a response to move away from the Victorian era and and really have a different type of architecture. And I strongly support that our side of the street is. Is is able to join. The historic district. On the west side. So thank you so much and I hope you support our application. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1365. I see no one in the queue. Oh, here we go, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Pro Chairman. Taking a while for the item to respond. Jennifer, could you. I'm curious about. And Judge Jones, it's nice to see you here. It's been a long time since I've seen at least the upper half of your face. Regarding 7080 still that the judge no longer lives there was sold and it's all owned by a real estate investment firm is there are. I just want to know if you have heard of any plans to do anything with that property and would it be consistent with the designation? In other words, there's nothing pending that exempts it from any of the, uh, the safeguards and the rules and regulations. No, we, I'm not aware of any permits. Or. Proposals put forward to CPD for any changes to that property. So we have seen nothing and have heard nothing at this point either. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Sawyer. Thanks, Senate President. Thank you. I just had a quick clarification. So of the 19 homes that are included in this, do all 19. It does not seem like all 19 owner support. So how many owners support and are there owners that who actively are not supportive of this plan? So yes, I don't have it on the slide actually. So there were 15 owners who provided comments of the 19 so far did not. Of those 15, 12 are and support. Two are neutral and one opposes. Got it. Okay. Thank you and thanks for the clarification. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Uh, thank you, President Pro Tem. May I have Mr. Weiss come to the microphone, please? I want to thank you for meeting with me. I think it was last week we in our conversation, we talked about. Windows. And we talked about how to make, you know, ways to make a home more energy efficient, more. You talk about some of the we touch on not asking you to relay everything that you said, but will you touch upon some of the efficiency methods for increasing climate efficiency? Certainly I won't read my two page single spaced memo that I was referring to in our meeting. The. The outline that we started prepared as a group that of course I did. A lot of the research really begins with. Taking advantage of Xcel Energies program to do an energy audit of your home. Which gives any of us, professional or otherwise, an overview of where our energy and our money is going. And I think that comprehensive look. Uh, at a house and how you use the house and how you live in it is really a great starting point. But then to fast forward. But one of the essential points is that windows are just one piece of that overall consideration for any homeowner and and how they spend their money on energy. And to focus in on that a bit more. Obviously, the most sustainable thing you can do with an historic building and what the Department of Interior has worked very hard to outline technically for decades, and they're very clear bulletins on how to do these things. The most efficient thing you can do is restore and repair your existing windows. Even looking at commercial projects, the new center is building a 16th of the ad, Brooke Lofts, 15th and one to the Airedale building on 20th Street. All of those use wood windows and some of those have been redeveloped now for decades and have have served quite well and maybe are ready for for another round of repairs. But the wood windows, when handled carefully by a craftsman and and done appropriately, last decades. Even in our climate, there are at least two very good local companies that restore windows and historic houses. I've had them give. Proposals for work. In historic districts in Denver, and those costs are roughly equivalent to medium quality, I guess you'd say replacement window, and they're very good at it. They've been doing it for many, many years and the windows are beautiful and they hold up very well. There are such things as the possibility of replacing the glass and a traditional wood window that can add higher performance. With tempered glass, it can reduce the noise factor from the exterior into the house with modern sealants and weather stripping. You can essentially match the infiltration performance of a new window, and with certain window blinds you can match the code required performance of a brand new window. I mean, there are plenty of ways. To adapt existing windows to an historic house. And then if you do the other really long menu of things that Xcel Energy will help you with, just save even more energy. So I think what I, what I heard from you is that Xcel, the audit the Department of Interior says replacing windows is maybe the, um, the most energy efficient single replacement, but that the Xcel audit could identify a laundry list of replacements and it would be specific for that property. Not, um. That's correct. And really, what I said was keeping the windows is the most sustainable strategy. When you take the embodied energy, the waste of throwing them away and all of that, the carbon footprint into account is the most sustainable. I didn't say it's the most energy efficient. What I am saying is you can easily match the energy performance of a new code compliant window with an historic window with the right strategies. Okay. Thank you. May I ask Mrs. Caselli to come up as well? I think it's only fair if I ask Mr. Wise to, uh, to talk about Windows that I ask you as well. And it's, it's my understanding that you and he had a meeting as well. Is that right? Yeah. Okay. Have you. Have you considered an Excel audit or have you had one? So, no, I haven't. All I know is that I have broken single pane glass windows that have very drafty. And, you know, there's lots of options that David and I talked about. And the reality is, is I don't want storm windows. I'm a single person in my house. I have 35 windows. I have zero interest in bringing those up and down. I don't. I just want. Normal double pane windows like any, you know, modern person. So I'm not I'm going I already have gotten the clothes. I'm ordering windows by Friday. Like there's sort of like I'm not doing any of the the like other options. Okay. Fair. And of course, it's your home. So, um, do you have, uh, do you have other concerns about historic designation? I mean, certainly when we spoke Windows was where the, the the crux, the dominant part of our conversation. Yeah, I do. I have. So my brother won't come over to my house because he has small children and my stairs are so steep that he's afraid that his kids will fall down them. In order for the stairs to be brought up to code, the landing has to move, which means the exterior door has to move. I've been working with an architect for six months, trying to figure out the right layout for my house, trying to figure out what we needed to do there for me to, you know, live in a house that I was excited about and. You know. So I think that, you know, there's that issue. There's also the issue of I have bunch of windows in my bedroom. And so you can't have like a, you know, a headboard. Right. Without it covering up the windows, I want to change the windows there. So I've already put in my permits. I've already done all the things. So, you know, I, I think it'll be fine. But, you know, the reality is, is like, I'm personally opposed to this because it messes up with my messes up my remodel. But more broadly, you know, this is just a you know, for me, I'm an affordable housing advocate. I've spent I've changed several state policies. I literally run a platform that connects low income applicants and affordable housing property managers. And any time you add regulatory oversight on top of, you know, housing, it's going to get more expensive. And I think that yeah, it's well, I totally agree with designating the, you know, Judge Raymond Jones home as. A as. Historic thing. I mean, you know, I think he was on the board for AARP. My company was just the you know, we we almost won the innovation challenge around affordable housing. So I love the work that you have done in your life. And also I'm opposed to the designation. Um, thank you. And yeah, thank you. No further questions. Thank you so much, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Pro Tem. I thank you, Councilman Hines, for raising the issue of Windows because that brings to mind an item in the application, although done in the staff report. Jennifer, could you address this? It says in the application that was filed by the the residents on the block that minor alterations, including replaced windows have occurred. Do we have an inventory? Do we know how many of these 19 houses have had windows replaced and were they replaced with. With original type windows, or were they replaced with a double pane windows? There is an inventory of buildings that went along with the. Application I saw and I saw the inventory. There's no mention of the replaced windows. They're there. Some of them do note if there were altered windows or not as appropriate. However, it does not go into such detail as what material? I'm sorry to say that again. It does not work. It does not go into such detail as the materials used are the replacement of those windows. So we don't have that information inventoried. But historic buildings clearly can still be contributing to historic district with replacement windows. Landmark preservation does not prohibit replacement of Windows, but we do ask that people consider repairing them first for the variety of reasons that were shared this evening, including energy efficiency, sustainability and also maintaining the original character. The best way to preserve a an older building, a landmark building, is to make it able to withstand and to handle the current demands of living, including energy efficiency. So are we in voting on this today? Would we be accepting any of these 19 houses that have windows that if they had already been designated, would not be allowed? I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you say that again? The woman here at on Steele Street. I'm sorry, Caselli. Okay. She wants to replace her windows with windows that she is concerned would not meet the landmark commission's review. Do any of the existing houses have windows that if they had already, if those houses have been designated prior to the window replacement would not be allowed to have the windows that they now have? It's hard for me to say because I don't know what the windows were that were replaced, but I am not sure that I can answer that question at this time. Ultimately, I'm curious if we're going to landmark structures that have windows that we wouldn't allow had they already been landmarked. It seems very inconsistent. I'm wondering, Mr. Casale, you have your Henrys. You want to come up and because you can't speak from there, do you understand? I think I. Do. And I mean, Caroline, replacing her windows is not going to preclude her home from being part of this designation. Certainly an act just like it isn't for the other buildings that are contributing, that have had replacement windows already. Certainly. Okay. Yeah. I've also gone around my neighborhood. There's lots of houses that have already had their windows replaced with vinyl windows, which would be prohibited under the current landmark rules. Jennifer our vinyl window replacement windows prohibited in a landmark structure. They are for most historic districts, with the exception of the all new Lincoln Park that you guys just. I'm sorry. I'm having trouble with the muffled. Yeah, sorry. I'll get hold of Mike down a little bit. So it's directed at. Yeah. For most historic district C us. The exception is with a Lincoln Park that does allow vinyl windows because that has become material that is used been used quite a bit over time that has become a character of that neighborhood. Landmark Preservation does not approve vinyl windows generally, although in some cases we do for those that are not as visible, perhaps for an egress window, for example. Do I have that correct? I guess I don't have that correct. We do not approve. I don't think it was at all, in part because they are not a durable material and they end up being needing to be replaced more often. And also, it's difficult to match the character of a historic window with a vinyl window as well. Okay. It seems to me that. Because Windows and replacement of Windows is a recurring objection that we have. And I think that's an area that CPD ought to look at and see whether we could be a little more open to preserving our landmark structures in ways that. That homeowners can actually afford and keep them at least looking consistent with their character, even if it's vinyl. And I would encourage CPD to do that. Sure. And we are actually updating the design guidelines right now. So Windows are a piece of that. And again, just to empathize. I saw that, right? Yeah. And just emphasize vinyl window replacement is not always the cheapest option for a historic property. So, you know, you could do retrofitting of historic windows that might actually be more economically efficient than vinyl replacement. Certainly. And I'm not arguing that we should take the cheapest route. I'm arguing that we should be flexible. Mm hmm. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I wanted to ask Jennifer and Annie Levinsky if you can address whether or not historic Denver Landmark Commission actually has a list of suppliers and contractors that work on historic properties that are affordable so that as people are trying to do upgrades on their homes, they're they're not they know they're working with somebody that has a history of working with historic properties. But. Just because their historic properties aren't necessarily gouging folks, you know, as some people perceive that, you know, they charge more because it's a historic property. Sure. And I'll just say we do if people ask the question of, you know, do you what sort of window suppliers, you know, have been used and other historic districts, we can provide a list that we know of, but we cannot recommend. You know, and there's. You know, also just I think having a list for people to look at is really important. I was going to say Annie is able to do a little bit more in that way so she can respond to that. Great. Thanks. So, yeah, we do remain sorry. Annie Lipinski, historic number. We do maintain a contractor resource list, a variety of different kinds of contractors. You know, I don't always get feedback from the owners on on prices. We don't see every bid that comes through. But we do take into account if we get, you know, complaints about someone, we'll take that into account, certainly, and not continue to to share their name. We also provide how to videos on our website, including a how to Rehab Your Historic Windows. So if somebody wants to do that on their own and working with partners around the country to think about how we can train more craftspeople to do that kind of work. Because I think the hardest part in Denver is just finding contractors of any kind for any type of property. So we're always trying to match people up and we try to answer those questions as well. We just had the carpenters union in here tonight. The construction trades should be one of those considerations that folks should be looking at as well. I just wanted to ask one last question to Jennifer and. I think some people perceive that because you're in a historic district, you now have to do certain upgrades to be sort of in compliance. Will you just clarify that there isn't a requirement you have to do upgrades. It's when you do upgrades that the guidelines kick in. That's correct. As I mentioned in the earlier in the presentation, I think one of the first or second slides when properties are designated, they are designated as is, and the city requires no improvements through the designation process. Great. Thanks so much. I have no further questions. Great. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by many members of Council on Council Bill 1365. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I want to thank. I'm still getting used to these glasses. I want to thank CPD for the presentation. I want to thank the applicants for their hard work. I want to thank the neighbors both in and out of this designation area. I want to thank historic Denver for your guidance through the process and the Planning Board for hearing and unanimously supporting the designation. As we know, with the one, two, three year conversation, that doesn't always mean that council will vote the same way. I also want to thank Ms.. Caselli and GMB Denver for their advocacy. Our Democracy stronger when we all participate. I'm going to share a little bit about where I grew up in town, where I graduated from high school, which is called the oldest town in Texas. It also has human evidence of human activity data dating back 10,000 years. I moved around quite a bit when I was growing up, but when I graduated from high school, Mom and I lived in a home that was built in the 1920s. Yet Mom could still replace the roof for paint, the house refinished the floors and more. Mom still lives there today. Sure. Her home doesn't sit inside this proposed historic district, but I mention it. I mention it anyway to point out that it is possible to accommodate our future generations while still honoring our past. Congress Park is an older neighborhood. 54% of homes in Congress Park fall into the oldest designation. Homes built before 1940. There's no older designation. That is just before 1940. The southern side of Congress Park is predominantly single family homes. And so in this area, zoning was meant for gentle density. And I'll just put this out here now. While I recognize as as was presented in the report that this district doesn't currently allow for, it used to pop the microphone. Sorry, I see this as a place that would be a great location for general gentle density such as areas the missing middle can and should an owner want it be placed here. During my campaign, there was a mailer designed to place me in a negative light. It took something I said out of context and suggested that I wanted to place 80 plus story buildings in every area of District ten, including this area of Congress Park. The reality is that we don't need 80 plus story buildings everywhere. What we do need is extra density everywhere. But that density should be in context with the neighborhood. Mr. MATTHEWS, who I respect quite a lot, talked about Channel seven. There is a difference between the Channel seven building and this location. Channel seven with a structure that frankly does not pass the same level of scrutiny that all other historic buildings and districts have in Denver and have passed. Channel seven was built in 1969, and every one of these homes in this proposed historic designation were built before 1924. Even the architectural style of 1 to 3 Speer was called into question as Brutalism. Brutalism has examples here in Denver that far better represent the architectural style like Clyfford still is building the Denver Denver Federal Reserve, Denver Water and others. I recognize the applicant, one of the applicants for one, 2 to 3 Speer is one of the people who live in in this proposed designation. Still, I oppose the Channel seven seven designation because it didn't meet the the standard, the bar that we set for historic designation here in Denver, we must ensure our historic designation buildings pass all levels of scrutiny to preserve the sanctity of the program so that it is beyond reproach. We are in a housing crisis. Yes, I believe in in this mission. We need density everywhere. Denver is not for you must also be intentional about where we place density. And I disagree that we must have 80 plus story buildings everywhere. Not that that's what you should be saying. I'm just saying that density means different things in different areas of Denver. That's why Blueprint calls out density and in different ways. In different areas. Stronger density should be in other areas of District ten, like Colfax to the North Cherry Creek to the South and Capitol, Golden Triangle and uptown to the west and south and northwest. All of those are in District ten. We heard testimony tonight that not designating something as historic leads to scripts that cost 3 to 4 times as much as this great tome. We also heard testimony tonight that historic designation locks those homes in place and makes those homes unaffordable. Sounds like we're doomed either way, assuming our only criteria for judging is whether historic designation increase home increases home prices. We've also heard that historic designation makes repairs and renovation more expensive. Yet we also know that any repairs in a historically designated location currently qualify for 25% tax credits. Andy, I hear you. And we move to create additional density in the entire neighborhood of Golden Triangle. We blocked historic designation in 1 to 3 sphere. I personally attended multiple meetings regarding Tom's Diner and other historic designation conversations. I'm sorry, another historic designation conversation in District ten. The historic designation of 1272 Columbine. Also in Congress Park on our watch. This class of council passed through council without any controversy. Put another way, historic designation should be used where context makes sense. In this case, it makes sense. So, colleagues, I will be voting in favor of this proposed historic designation, and I hope you do as well. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Seeing no other members in queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1365. Cashman. Cruz. Ortega. Sandoval. Soya. I black. I see tobacco. I like. Flynn. I. Herndon, I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. Tonight. Are we showing any? I apologize. It's actually an absence. Okay. Okay. Ten Eyes Counsel Bill 21, Dash 1365 has passed. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 1479 on the floor for final passage?

AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the surveillance impact report for the Seattle Fire Department’s use of Computer Aided Dispatch.

SeattleCityCouncil_03222021_CB 120003

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Item six Will the clerk please read item six into the record? Agenda item 6120003 Relating to surveillance technology implementation, optimizing approval of uses and accepting the Surveillance Impact Report for the Seattle Fire Department's Use of Computer Aided Dispatch. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Thank you so much. Customer repeater, so many. And this one back to you. Thank you. Council president and colleagues, as I mentioned before, this is Council Bill 120003, which is for the fire department. Their technology specifically, they're 911 computer aided dispatch and thanks. Thank you to Councilmember Herbold, who I think will be speaking to her amendment shortly. It's a friendly amendment. It was based on Q&A during our committee with the fire department. And this technology is is pretty basic. And it's something they already use and it's just something that falls within the definition of potential surveillance. But it's again, it's just their name on computer aided dispatch. So happy to answer questions and support Councilmember Herbert's amendment. Great. Thank you so much. I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Herbold to make her motion for consideration and discussion of Amendment One. Thank you. I move to amend Council Bill 12 0003 as presented on Amendment. One on the agenda. Is there a second? Second. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment One. Councilmember Herbold, I'm going to hand it back over to you to walk us through the amendment. Thank you. Chair Peterson did a nice job of. Explaining. What this amendment. Would do in a way. That's a heck of a lot more simple than I did this morning. It is really just that simple is simple. As Chair Peterson described it, it would. Ask. The fire department to look into whether or not an additional layer of security could be included as as part of access being granted to an account to, you know, again, to enhance the. Security and prevent somebody. From logging in, even if they have access to a password. So I don't I don't need to go into all the minutia about two factor authentication or token based authentication unless people want me to. But thank you. I think we're I think we're good on the lesson for today. But I appreciate your offer. Are there any additional comments on Amendment One? Now's your time to ask that two factor authentication or whatever it is. All right. Looks like nobody's taking taken the bait. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One? Morales. Yes, Mr. Peterson. All right. So what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Yes. Suarez, I. Lewis. Yes. President Gonzalez. I favor an unopposed. Motion carries the amendment is adopted and we now have an amended bill before the Council. Are there any additional comments on the bill as amended? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the amended Bill Morales. I. Mosqueda, I. Peterson Hi. So what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. I. Lewis. Yes. President Gonzalez I nine in favor. None oppose. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business. Is there any further business to come before the council? Hearing than colleagues. This does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, March 29th, 2021 at 2:00 PM. I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon. Did you have something to say or were you waving Councilmember Hesburgh? Whereas I was just waiting. Okay, we're adjourned.

A RESOLUTION affirming The City of Seattle’s support of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students’ demand for gun reform in the wake of the February 14, 2018, Parkland, Florida, massacre that resulted in the death of 17 children and teachers.

SeattleCityCouncil_03122018_Res 31803

Bill Pass and Chair of Senate. Please read the new agenda item number one, which is actually an item number 13 as of the record. From the amended agenda. Agenda item 13 Resolution 31803 Affirming the City of Seattle Support for Marjorie Stone. Stoneman Douglas High School Students Demand for gun reform in the wake of the February 14, 2018 Parkland, Florida, massacre that resulted in the death of 17 children and teachers. Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you. Resolution 31803 does a few things. One, it recognizes some of the work that we have done at the city of Seattle level to to address gun violence issues that we're here to discuss today. And I just want to talk a little bit about those, because we hear we heard a lot in public testimony about the frustration of our elected leaders ability to or willingness to act. And the reality is, is that there are things that we can do as local cities like the city of Seattle to to at least support some of the efforts that we're hearing about here and to address some of these significant public safety and public health concerns. And it's important for cities to fill that space with policies that are going to make a difference. But we know that what we really need are our congressional and state representatives to be bold in this area, to allow us to be able to do more at the city, to support and support folks who are impacted by gun violence and hopefully be able to prevent ongoing police violence. So here in the city, we've passed a law that imposes a tax on the retail sale of guns and ammunition in order to raise money for the city so that we can use that to provide broad based public benefits for residents of Seattle related to gun violence by funding programs that promote public safety, prevent gun violence, and address, in part, the cost of gun violence in the city. We've also passed previously a resolution related to responsible and progressive protocols for police gun procurement, including the destruction of service firearms that are no longer needed by the Seattle Police Department rather than selling those guns to the market. We've also passed a resolution related to supporting the creation of a statewide Extreme Risk Protection Order program, which allows family members and law enforcement to ask a court to take away the firearms of an individual who is presenting to be a serious danger to themselves or others. In the 2017 and 2018 city budget. The Council and Mayor. Dedicated funding to create and implement a Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Surrender program comprised of the City Attorney's Office, the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, the Seattle Police Department, and the King County Sheriff's Office to enforce the requirement for persons served with domestic violence or extreme risk protection orders to surrender their firearms and track and prosecute persons violating those orders. That's a first of its kind unit in the country, and I'm proud to say that we have been receiving a lot of inquiries by neighboring law enforcement agencies wanting to know how it is. We were able to implement this kind of a program and really looking forward to that, that taking a hold in other parts across our state and across our country as a clear way of removing guns out of a situation that that that is really ripe with and does see a lot of deaths resulted to gun usage. So those are the the different ways that we have already played a role in this particular space. This resolution does a few things. One, it encourages the Seattle Public Schools to support its students rights to assemble and participate in the national school walkout on March 14th, 2018 at 10 a.m.. We see that here at the City Council as just a fundamental constitutional right of our students to be able to. A petition government, the city council and the mayor. This resolution also provides that the city council, the mayor will supports the efforts of our public school educators and administrators to also show their solidarity for the students rights to remain safe from gun violence in schools. And and again, students rights to assemble and to continue allowing those teachers and administrators to help students learn how to organize peaceful walkouts and protests to create positive and lasting change in our community. We also take some positions in this resolution as it relates to as it relates to enacting stricter and common sense gun reform laws, including creating tighter background checks, banning the purchase of bump stocks, reasonably restricting automatic assault rifles and semi-automatic weapon purchases, fully funding mental health, and a call to pass crisis prevention legislation such as what we recently saw proposed in our own house. So these are just a few things that this resolution does, and I will have some closing remarks. But I wanted to just describe the basics of the resolution before I made my closing remarks, and now would be also be an appropriate time for me to recognize the staff in my office who have really helped to draft this piece of legislation and helped get so many of you organized in here in in this room today. And so I want to thank Stephanie Landecker from my office, who is interning in my office this year, and Roxana Gomez, who is one of my legislative aides. So thank you to those two wonderful ladies for all the work that they've done to present this resolution for full council's consideration today. Thanks, Councilwoman Gonzales. Any further comments from my colleagues? Councilmember O'Brien. I just want to thank all the young leaders who are here today throughout the community, throughout across this country that are doing the organizing work. I'm really sorry that despite obvious actions that we could have taken for years, the adults in our country have not stepped up and made that happen. And that is falling upon you to fix something that so needs fixing. But I'm grateful when I see young people coming together to lead on this issue that's so critical to them. And I'm optimistic that despite failed attempts in the past, that things will actually change because of your actions today. So thank you so much. Thank you. Cuts from Bryan Councilmember Slot. Thank you, President Harrell. I will certainly be supporting this resolution, needless to say. And I also wanted to say to all the students here, both as an elected representative, but also as a teacher myself and as a teachers union member. I really applaud the leadership you're showing and also the incredible, just historic leadership shown by young people and students throughout the nation, starting, of course, for the leadership of the courageous students in Florida and the incredible courage in calling out something that has, you know, something that everybody knows about but really wasn't being called out in the way that young people have done, which is the gun lobby and corporate lobbying in general and the influence that they have in politics. It was incredibly empowering to me personally to see the video in which Marco Rubio was challenged by some of the students saying, will you will you stop taking money from the gun lobby? And he is flummoxed because he's not even he's not even at a point where he's willing to say yes after this horrendous tragedy and tragedy after tragedy. I will stand with ordinary people. I will stand with young people and I will stand against gun violence in schools. So I really support everything you're doing. I will be there with you on the 14th and the 24th. And let's make sure that we demand schools free of gun violence and also schools that are fully funded by taxing the same big business so that we have we make sure that affordable, high quality education is accessible to all students. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Swint, Councilman Herbold. Thank you. My colleague to my left here, Councilmember Johnson, also often speaks from the perspective of somebody who has school age children. I don't have school age children in public schools. I do have school age grandchildren. And, you know, what I've been hearing since these most recent shootings is something very different than the public outrage and outcry after other public shootings in schools. And it's not. Only what I'm hearing is courageous community organizing and coming together and making your voices heard. But what I'm hearing that pains me tremendously as I'm hearing children say that the adults aren't taking care of them. And I think that's what's really going to make the difference this time around and is going to compel us to do to do more to take care of our children. Thank you. Thank you. Comes from Herbold. Katherine Johnson. And and to that point, I think a request for action. I mean, what we're hearing time and time again is a demand from not just the parents, but more importantly, those children that we want to see action. I am fortunate enough to have a friend who graduated from Parkland and saw her shortly after the shooting, and she was so proud of those students and not only standing up for themselves in those moments of grief, but standing up for other students all around the country. Thank you. What I'd like to say is, first of all, I'm very moved and inspired by the voice of the youth. Believe it or not, I was I was young once and and I would question sort of the the idiocy of senior leaders in our country. And I'm reminded by a martin Luther King quote where he said, there can be no deep disappointment, where there's no deep love. Very moved by our this young man serving our country and serving his country and then still questioning, as he should, the lack of wisdom and gun responsibility. How many more lives do we have to lose before our whole country wakes up and realize we have bad policies in place in our state, in our state, long under. I think it's very. CW 9.41.290, which is just bad policy. It's just a bad law. Just preempts cities like ours from actually taking bold measures to enact reasonable, safe laws. The ability to just take a gun away from someone who's intoxicated as an example, just things that would just seem to make sense that we are prohibited by law from doing. And so we have some very bad laws in place. But I am inspired by the voice of the youth that. I think we'll have a culture change here through this kind of inspiration that we see. And so, yes, it starts with a walk out in 17 minutes and we turn 17 minutes into 17 laws that can change this, the city, the state in this country. So thank you for your testimony. I think, Councilmember Gonzalez, for pushing this and in drafting this and your staff for bringing this to the city's attention. No one less. Hey, you said no one else bring and back. So thank. You. Thank you. All this has been something that I greatly appreciate and all of, you know, not just the tragedy that we felt here in Florida, but the numbers that we have seen in this country. From Orlando up to Las Vegas, there were over 500 separate incidents of mass shootings. And what shocked me is that it took Florida. I thought that at Sandy Hook that was it, that when a gunman took after babies, I thought, this is it. It is going to be the last straw. Five years later, it took Florida and it's taken you. And I want to say thank you very much from my heart, because I think finally this country is coming together in ways that we have not. Moms rising, if you're still here, thank you for the work you're doing. The Grandmothers Against Gun Violence locally, it matters because it's not just our young people, but it is our seniors who are saying it is really time. It's really time for us to stop this nonsense and look at what we can actually do. And at the state, I want to say thank you to our attorney general. You know, last year he presented legislation that would have banned assault rifles are king county prosecuting attorney has done a tremendous amount to say we are going to do things differently and just in in our own city attorney's office, recognizing the gun surrender laws that we have done. And as Councilmember Gonzales said, we funded this last year. We got money up to do it. We are doing things with our courts that are going to make a difference. It's not even beginning to be enough. But thanks to the people that are here today, the students thank you for what your visions are. We can do these things locally. We don't have to wait for Congress. God knows will wait forever if we have to wait for them. But fully funding mental health here in the state is going to be something I think that we can accomplish getting our the assault assault weapons banned in Washington state next year, making sure we have our mental health laws such that we can pass prevention legislation and do that next year. But the fact that you're standing up is making a big difference. I want you to know that. Thank you. Casper and Back Shore cancer czar for years. Thank you. So I want to thank first and foremost all of the student leaders who are here with us this afternoon. I really hope that you hear from me and that you've already heard from my colleagues how much we acknowledge and respect the work that you all have been doing to to fill a very necessary role in advocating for for your own safety. And and I'm really sorry that we as adults have left you in a position where you have no other choice but to do that. But now it's time for us to support your efforts here at home and across the country, to demand that our state and congressional representatives enact sensible gun safety laws that are going to make a difference every day. So today, the Seattle City Council stands with all of those impacted by gun violence here at home and across our nation. This resolution is a response to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, where we know that 17 students and teachers were fatally gunned down and 15 others were injured. But it is also our commitment to these students, to their teachers and to the administrators of the Seattle Public Schools that we continue to that you all can continue to count on us as the city of Seattle to stand with you in your fight for your safety. Students should not have to feel worried about walking into their classrooms and whether or not that will be the last time they have an opportunity to do so. Parents should not feel scared about the possibility of never seeing their child again for the simple act of sending their child to school. Teachers should not be deputized to be both educators and law enforcement. This tragedy should not have happened, and it probably would not have happened had there been common sense gun safety laws in place paired with the mental health services and system that we know we need shooting after shooting, there is public outcry for our state and congressional representatives to take action on this. Issue, but no such action has occurred. It is a failure to turn a blind eye to these public safety and public health crises. And as history shows, we must often look to our future generation to show us the way when we as adults, lack the courage to lead. And in tragedies, sometimes we struggle to find hope. Today. I'm hopeful because our youth are showing us what it looks like to stand as one to say, enough is enough. We should all be inspired by our youth, who, in response to the Marjory Douglas shooting, have organized to loudly call for action and have refused to stand down and be intimidated by adults who claim to know better. We must recognize that our youth at home and across the nation are change agents pushing to create healthier communities and higher quality lives, both in and out of school. Unfettered access to machines that kill threaten us all. Standing with empowering and following the lead of our youth as they organize for their lives is what every adult should be prioritizing and supporting, whether you're an elected leader or not. I want to thank all young people for demanding action and refusing to accept NO as a policy solution to gun violence. So this Wednesday, March 14th, at 10 a.m., young students from Nathan Hale, Roosevelts and Ingram High Schools will be marching together from Roosevelt High School to the University of Washington to protest Congress's inaction for common sense gun safety laws. There'll be similar walkouts across the country, across the city. But this particular walkout, they will be gathering on Red Square at 11:30 a.m. for a rally. And I hope that everybody who is here and all those who are listening at home will make time to show up for our students and to support their efforts as as they continue to fight for what we all know is the right thing to do. Your reluctance to back down in this moment? And your reluctance to conform to the status quo is something we should all admire, celebrate and encourage. And of course, you also heard that there's going to be the march march for our lives here in Seattle on March 24th. That's going to begin at 10 a.m. at Calendar's in Park, and it's going to end with a rally at Key Arena. So I hope that you all hear us that this is a first step for us in supporting you all. We want to continue to hear from you. We want to continue to understand how we as a city with some of the legal limitations that we have on us, how we can really show up for you and and support all of the efforts that you are calling for in terms of legislative action at the congressional level and at the state level. So thank you so much for being with us. And I'm really proud to call to ask for the council president to call this resolution for vote. Very good. Thank you. Come spring, it's all those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Thank you again, Councilman Gonzalez, and thank you for your testimony, all of whom are out there. Please read the reports of the planning, land use and Zoning Committee. I would go one through for. The report of the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee Agenda items one through four appointments 929 through 932 Appointment to re appointments to Justin Clerk Benjamin William Deputies Laura Haddad and Mark Johnson as member Seattle Design Commission for Term two February 29, 2020.

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget, including the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120040

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 budget control levels and from various funds in the budget and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts or by three quarter vote of the City Council. Kinney The committee recommends the City Council pass the council bill with Councilmembers Macheda Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Lewis Morales and Strauss in favor and Councilmember Peterson abstaining. A few. Madam Clerk, are there any additional comments on the bill? Any additional comments last time? Any additional comments on the bill? Carry none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Sergeant. Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Whereas I. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. ROSQUETA, i. Paterson, I. Council. President Gonzalez. I mean, in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the quick please read the title of item five into the record? Item five Resolution 32026 Resolution requesting King County and the State of Washington to increase services to address behavioral health conditions.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2018 Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise Levy; amending the levy implementation and evaluation plan adopted by Ordinance 125807 to grant the Department of Education and Early Learning temporary authority to modify the implementation and evaluation plan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_12142020_CB 119967

Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Committee reports the report of the Governance and Education Committee will please read the short title of item seven into the Record Report of the Governance and Education Committee Agenda. Item seven Constable. 119967. Relating to the. 2018. Families, Education, Preschool and Permits. Levy and Medical Levy Implementation and Evaluation Plan adopted by Ordinance 20 5807. The Committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. As chair of the committee, I will provide the committee report and then open the floor to comments. Colleagues, we did have an opportunity. I did have an opportunity to explain and describe this legislation to the full council during this morning's council briefing. This is legislation that is designed to temporarily modify the FEP Levy Implementation and evaluation plan that has been previously adopted and approved by the City Council. These modifications will allow the Department of Education and Early Learning some additional flexibility as they continue to modify their programing and services in the context of COVID 19. We did have a robust presentation by the Department of Education and Early Learning in my committee last week where they described how the flexibility will roll out in context of early learning K through 12 and the Seattle Promise. Lots of good stuff there on the Seattle Promise. For example, there will be flexibility allowed for students who are part of the cohort for Seattle promise to to continue to attend part time as opposed to requiring full time attendance. That's one of the changes there. And the K-through-12 space will be additional ongoing flexibility in light of and in response to the fact that children are remote learning as opposed to learning on site and for early learning, there will be additional flexibility, particularly as it relates to tuition related to those who are looking for child care services in the early learning space. So that those are some highlights. There's other additional details included in in the ordinance and really appreciate deals attractiveness in terms of seeking this now so that they can begin to modify how they're going to roll out the operational plan for these funds in the 2021 2022 academic year they're planning starts in earnest here very shortly. So looking for swift approval of this gives them a long ramp to be able to prepare and to engage stakeholders to to get this right. So the committee did consider this and unanimously voted to recommend that the city council pass this council bill. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the Court please call the will on the passage of the bill? A want? Yes. Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mr.. Yes. Peterson. Yes. Council President Gonzales. Yes. Nine in favor. Nine oppose. The bill passes. Metro will sign it. Will the clerk please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Hey, colleagues. Item eight. Well, the clerk please read item eight into the record. Agenda item.

A bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties as needed for the Federal Boulevard Reconstruction Project between West 7th Avenue and West Holden Place. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Grants the authority to acquire all or any portion of property interest in forty three (43) properties, including temporary and permanent easements, for the widening of Federal Boulevard from 7th Avenue to West Holden Place in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-22-14.

DenverCityCouncil_12012014_14-0847

Council Bill 847 is bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use in acquisition through negotiations related to the properties needed for the Federal Boulevard Reconstruction Project. And it's between West Seventh Avenue and West Holden. And I just wanted to pull this out because I understand that this Federal Boulevard Reconstruction Reconstruction Project has been in discussion for about 20 years. Yet it was important to me that those properties most impacted by this project were informed. So I asked the City Attorney's Office and Public Works to go back and contact the property owners again, to give them ample information about the project so that the property owners could know what to expect and what would happen in the next couple of years. General public meetings and notifications were done. But again, I said that extra steps, extra steps be taken to include outreach directly to the properties in my district to make sure that people were aware of the project and its potential impacts, and also to engage them in offering comments about the environmental assessment that was being done. It was important to me that this happened. And so my aide, Amanda Sandoval, contacted the potential 11 partial takes in eight full takes and talked with them directly to see that they were informed. Public works also did any necessary follow up. And now I feel that we've done all of the communication that we can since the city attorney's office even came back to committee after I asked for it to be held and on television was able to talk to people about their rights as property owners at this stage. And so property owners will get a letter of intent in early 2015 that will begin the negotiations with them. One of the concerns that was also heard in the neighborhood was the condition of the federal crossing at Holden Place. And we now have a commitment from public works to have the Holden Place intersection included in the final design construction of the project. The project will now include replacing the existing asphalt at Federal in Holden with concrete paving, including the addition of colored crosswalks. The other thing that's important in terms of the business owners and property owners in Sun Valley is that the environmental assessment process is also a part of this picture. The comment period was recently closed for Federal Boulevard and the comments have been submitted. I want to thank Denver Public Works for putting it on their website and also for the Federal Boulevard Partnership, the Sun Valley Community Coalition, which commented about the need for more landscaping and increased pedestrian safety, and also earthlings who requested an audible pedestrian crossing signal which public works has already committed to have at Holden Place. And so I will be supporting this bill. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Monteiro. In the other comments on 847. Seeing none, those were all the bills that were called out. So we are now ready for the Bloc votes. All of the bills are introductions are ordered published. Councilwoman Sussman, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block?

AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; delaying the effective date of the heating oil tax on heating oil service providers under Chapter 5.47 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and delaying the date of the Office of Sustainability and Environment’s first annual heating oil tax program status report.

SeattleCityCouncil_03012022_CB 120270

We have seven items in front of us today. Will the clerk please read the first one into the record? Agenda Item one Council Bill one 2270 relating to taxation delaying the effective date of the heating oil tax on heating oil service providers under Chapter 5.47 of the Sound Fiscal Code and delaying the date of the Office of Sustainability and Environment First Annual Heating Oil Tax Status Report. Apologize for that on camera. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass Council Bill 1201278. Thank you. So, second. Thank you. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Councilmember Morales. It's all your. I'll you. All you. Thank you. Council President, colleagues, we received a very helpful memo from our central staff member, Yolanda Ho. But just in summary, we have twice now delayed the heating oil tax. So I want to we have at least one new colleague. So just want to give a little bit of background. And we did have a heating oil tax proposed. We delayed it twice. The idea here is that revenue from this heating oil tax would be used to support transition to heat pumps away from from oil, particularly supporting low income families and making that transition revenue would also provide important job training programs for workers who would be adversely impacted by a shift away from fossil fuels and would also provide public education on reducing reliance on fossil fuels. I do want to thank the staff at the Office for Sustainability and Environment. They've been doing a lot of hard work on these programs and on trying to help understand the best way for the city to move forward. And I don't want I want to make sure folks understand that I'm very supportive of the programs themselves. But I have heard from families in my district, at least, who are very concerned about the expense of a heating oil conversion, worried that it would be cost prohibitive for them even with the support that would be offered by this program. I know that the Office of Sustainability and Environment folks see this as a tax on oil dealers and on just the notion of dirty oil. But the reality is that this would very likely get passed on to families. And so the proposed delay would put a pause on some of the activities mentioned. But we do have a jumpstart fund funds. The Jumpstart spending plan allocates 9% of tax proceeds for investments to advance Green New Deal initiatives. The Green New Deal Advisory Board was recently seated and is beginning its work. So when I spoke with O.C. and with the board advisor, the staff specifically, as we indicated, that the board, you know, this could be something that they include in their discussion and in their recommendations for the 2023 budget process. So again, I want to be clear, I'm not objecting to the program itself. I think it's important that we move Seattleites away from a reliance on fossil fuel to more efficient, sustainable heating and cooling. But I am asking for a pause on implementation of this tax because it is a regressive tax and we need an opportunity to find a different revenue source. So I'm happy to take questions if there are any questions. But but I do think that we need to make sure we have state and local systems set up to help those who can't afford this conversion and can't afford to pay the tax. And we aren't quite there yet. So I'm hoping for basically maintaining status quo while we give the Green New Deal Oversight Board an opportunity to study this and bring some recommendations to us. Thank you, Casper Morales. Are there any questions for Councilmember Morales? All right. Not seeing any. Will the clerk please call the roll? Also member Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember must get off I. Councilmember Nelson. Hi. Councilmember Pierson. Hi. Councilmember Strouse. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. And Council President Suarez. I eight in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The motion carries, the bill passes and the chair will sign. It will Leclerc, please. To fix my signature to the legislation. So let's move on to item number two. Councilmember Herbold but in a minute. Clerk Can you please read that into the record? Agenda item to the Council Bill one 2272 Relating to staffing shortages in the Community Safety Communication Center and the Seattle Police Department retroactively authorizing a one month Irene bonus incentive program for Harry 911 dispatchers and police officers and ratifying confirming certain prior acts.

A proclamation celebrating the Denver Art Museum and their special exhibit - Star Wars™ and the Power of Costume.

DenverCityCouncil_02132017_17-0149

None, Mr. President. Communications. Do we have any communications? None. Mr. President. We have one proclamation this evening. You might have heard it for the last five, 10 minutes. Councilman Lopez, will you please read Proclamation 149? Do we have a proclamation? I think we do have Republican nation, so absolutely. I mean, make sure that the screens are queued. All right. Proclamation 17 149 celebrating the Denver Art Museum and their special exhibit, Star Wars and the Power of Costumes. Nicely done and nicely recognizes the value of inspiring creativity and critical thinking in children and all residents. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Art Museum shares and embodies its value by serving the Denver region year round, but family programing, performance opportunities and school tourism on its collections as well as special exhibitions. And. Whereas, Star Wars and the Power of Costume, an exhibition created by the Smithsonian Institute Traveling Exhibition Mission Service. A new Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in consultation with Lucas films, limited highlights and celebrates the creativity, artistry and craftsmanship that goes into every costume and the creation of every character. And. Whereas, The Denver Art Museum is the sole venue in the Rocky Mountain region for Star Wars and the the power of costume, a unique journey onto the into the Star Wars universe, bringing the iconic characters to life through a dramatic presentation of more than 70 original costumes from the films from Princess Leia, his famous white robe , the queen armor, dollars, elaborately detailed gowns, chewbacca's giant feet to Darth Vader's imposing black armor. It's all fun and games until somebody gets forced choked over there. Whereas the Denver Art Museum has taken this traveling costume exhibition and added additional costumes and more material to create an immersive experience. Exclusive to this Denver showing including Emperor Palpatine's fingernails. Costume sketches and studio spaces to provide more context to the process of creating Star Wars costumes. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Art Museum and its partners, including the Mountain Garrison of the 501st Legion. The Mandalorian Mercs Costume Club and the Rebel Rebel Legion Mountain Base are staying on target to engage the public with costumes and creativity, whereas the possibility of successfully navigating the entire exhibit is approximately 50 to 80 to one. We have a good feeling about this now. Therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one of the Council hereby proclaims February 13th as Star Wars costumes day in the city and county of Denver. Looking at you arriving Section two, the council urges all families to now witness the power of these fully operational, city sponsored cultural institutions by attending this exhibit and participating and participating in festivities which run through April 2nd, 2017. Section three that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver saw test and affects to see seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that copies be transmitted to the Denver Art Museum, the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition and Service. Lucas Museum of Narrative Arts. Lucasfilm Ltd. The Mountain Garrison of the 51st 501st Legion, The Mandalorian Mercs Costume Club and the Rebel Legion Mountain Base. And may the force be with you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 149 series of 2017 be adopted. It has been moved. And second, it comments by members of Council Councilman Lopez. Yeah, I am very proud, actually, in all seriousness, of when we can't be serious about this right there. It seems pretty serious to me. I am very excited about this costumes. This has been going on since November and it's been at the Denver Art Museum and it is one heck of an exhibition. If you get the opportunity to do this from now until April 2nd, go see this exhibition. This is the original Star Wars costumes here in Denver. A lot of them are original sketches. And it is it is a great it's a great show. It's it's awesome that it's here in Denver. And, you know, I had the opportunity of seeing this twice already, and I wouldn't mind a third time. And really, you can spend a whole afternoon, you know, just listening to the different exhibits and just seeing them. And those of us who grew up in the seventies and eighties and I can we can even say up to now, right, with the new movies that have been out, it's a multigenerational experience. You could take the kids, you know, those of us who are big kids can go over there and check it out. But it's I'm very excited. That's here in Denver. And sadly, I got to say this. We we actually were I took my daughter to see it the day that Carrie Fisher had passed away. And it just had it just had what a coincidence that that same day we had tickets for she had passed. And so it was pretty incredible to see, to walk in and actually see her white gown and to see her costumes and to see a little tribute to her after it. But this is definitely quite an experience. I urge my colleagues to go check it out. The folks in the in the room, in the council chambers to go check it out. This is very rare that it's here. And I just wanted to make sure that we are celebrating it, honoring it, welcoming it to Denver so that, you know, in hopes it can come again. So. Mr. President, I. I fully support this proclamation and I hope my council colleagues do, too. You will support this initiative? We all do. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just wanted to say that. Yeah, it's an impressive it's an impressive collection of actual costumes and wardrobe. But coupled with there's a lot of information there about the making of the costumes and there's an impressive display of textiles and sort of the the science and engineering and everything, the creativity that goes into the actual making of the costumes. So there is a lot a lot of information there. And I strongly encourage fans and non-fans and whatever degree of interest that you have in the franchise that is Star Wars to go check it out because it is it is quite educational on top of being very familiar. And actually it'll add layers to the to the story making that you probably didn't even you never would have been aware of. But there's a lot of thought that goes into into what's going what's going on, on set and in creating these characters and it comes through in this presentation. So I just really do stress that no matter what your interest is, do check it out because it's quite an impressive curated piece. Thanks. Thank you. Catherine Espinosa and sitting in for Councilwoman can each layer. Mr. President. You know, Councilman Lopez, I imagine, has been dreaming about this day, his entire council career, and no one will be surprised that he's a fan. But I might not have been known as a fan. This is not the first time I'm in this way. I could just tell you, but I actually had the pleasure of attending the opening event where Kristoff and many others spoke. And one of the things that I think was really great to learn about is that this is a traveling exhibit in terms of the costumes, but no other museum to date has done the curation of the additional artifacts about the sketches and all of that. And so Denver was unique. And that's that's how this museum has operated with so many of its shows, is it takes art that may be very familiar to you because you learned about it in a class or in this case, you saw it in a movie. But it goes deeper. And and you know what Councilman Espinosa said about going around and into the creative process. And I think that that's really important because one of the things that I think that show does is it shows you the way that art is around you and is every day and hopefully inspires right kids to think about that. Art isn't just a painting or it isn't just a sculpture, but that there are many ways to express yourself and many ways to bring something to fruition from your vision. And that to me is, is where art is bringing the daily into, you know, the lives of the folks seeing the show. So and then, you know, I just want to say, you know, since it is, you know, the year that we lost Carrie Fisher for for an entire generation, I think, of young girls and young women. I think to see an action hero, right. As a as a female. And I think that that's one of the things that that I love and that many of the women of my generation love about that series. And so so for me, that was my chance to give her a little tribute today. So but but I just want to commend the staff and the folks who did the research and putting all of it together because it was very intricate and, you know, may not hit the art world in the same way as, you know, a monet exhibit. But my guess is the technical knowledge and the sorting of those things probably took as much, if not more research and work than our traditional art shows that we think about. So kudos to all your team. Thank you. Councilman, can each. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know anybody who is not a Star Wars fan. I also had an opportunity to go to the opening night and have a bunch of pictures on my phone that I was able to take of the exhibit. The economic opportunity that I think it created for our city to encourage not only people who live in Denver, but throughout the metro area to come and see the exhibit and to really feel that close to something that they saw on television for, you know, at least a couple of decades is is pretty exciting. And so I am, first of all, wanting to ask that my name be added to the proclamation. I don't think I had a chance to reply. And I just want to say that a friend of mine that actually went with me to the exhibit, I haven't seen every single one of the series and she's got them all . So we're going to do some binge watching so that I can get caught up to make sure that I am up to speed on all of these. And I just want to say to Darth Vader in the back, may the force be with you as well. All right. Councilman earned it. Thrilled. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. No. There. There are few things that last a test of time. And so I was checking the day May 25th, 1977, is when Star Wars debuted. And to think. All this ten years later, how it still just. Captivated generations for. That. And it's just truly a remarkable thing. And it would just if we could have had our. Students from DFA play some Star. Wars music, that just would have been even more. Fitting for that. And so I. I'm a huge fan and I would. Just like to say I'm excited to see this and take my son. And this is not the. First time we've had a stormtrooper in chambers. I wanted to make sure we all remember that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Thank you. I I'm so pleased to have such a wonderful art museum in District ten and just a nationally read National Resource. And to have this exhibit, like Robin said, is so unique. This is so unique to Denver in the United States. So I'm so proud that Christoph and his staff are just providing such unique shows. And an educational event for kids is the only issue I had with the exhibit. Everybody had a wonderful time. The only issue is I enjoy the exhibit, but I enjoyed it without my wife, so I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing it again very soon with her. I was told this for sure was going to happen. So anyway, thank you so much for bringing this to Denver and congratulations. Thank you. Councilman knew Councilman Lopez back up. Yes, I am. And thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to make sure that I gave a big thank you to Christoph and his team, Frederick and Jeremiah. I think it's really, really great work on your behalf. And I think, you know, when we look at the art museum, we go look at a lot of a lot of the. Usually easel art and a lot of different things that are out there, you know, very typically well atypically do we have an exhibit like this? And this brings so many different people to the art museum. And while they're at the art museum, if they come and see this, they're still able to see the other exhibits in the art museum. And that's one of the important things is when you get it, when you come and see this exhibit, you're also able to check out the rest of the floor is the art museum in the Frederick C Hamilton building. All that. It's such an amazing institution. And I also wanted to give a shout out to to Rodolfo and Councilwoman and each his office who probably late at night did this little scroll here unbeknownst to us. And it was quite a surprise and a welcome surprised and and thank you to Darth Vader and the stormtroopers. Right thank you. Thank you for coming out to Denver. CC and know. Of hope you enjoy some of the finer things. See no other comments. Madam Secretary Rocha. Lopez. I. Knew Ortega Susman by Black Eye. Clark I Espinosa. Vote I do. Flynn I. Gilmore, I. Herndon High Cashman. Kenny. Mr. President. I please call voting and as a results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Proclamation 149 has passed. Councilman Lopez, if might there be someone you want to bring up to a few people? So why don't I at this point invite our director of the art museum, Krista Christoph Hedrick, and then we can have Darth Vader and stormtroopers if you want to come up to the podium as well. Yes. Green Bay, members of the city council. Thank you very much. That's truly a great honor. And I speak for all of us here at the Denver Art Museum who are very honored to be recognized today. We brought some of our friends with us some less some more heavily breathing. And it should be noted that the individuals join us from the Mountain Garrison, from the Rebel Legion and the Mandalorian costuming groups here in our area. So it's talent from the region. I'm getting actually always a little scared if I have these guys next to me because I know that I'm if I'm not in handcuffs, I'm part of the dark side. I think I'm not. I'm a proud director of a wonderful museum. And you already said it all. I feel I don't have anything to add to this, but it was a wonderful journey for us, a wonderful endeavor, really, to dove deep into the treasures of Skywalker Ranch and to find more than 300 additional drawings, maquettes, scribbles, notes to highlight the creative process behind the costumes, but as well, really behind creating characters that still resonate with us in a tremendous way. I want to say at this point as well, a very heartfelt thanks to you, members of the Denver city councils, but as well to the voters of the metro area and worldwide, community leaders support this community. Cultural scene will continue to flourish thanks to the renewal of the Scientific and Cultural Facility District last November, which of course makes all the difference and makes helps us to bring. Nationally and internationally acclaimed programs, world class programs to the community. I'd like to thank Councilman Lopez for his keen interest in Star Wars and the power of costumes at the Denver Art Museum. But as well, many thanks to the other members of the Council for supporting us and come back with your kids, with your grandkids. It is definitely a three, at least if not for generation pleasure. In the meantime, after so many years and with the new film just coming out, our just came out a few weeks ago, I think it really shows how much in the story is and how wonderful this is the purpose of our time. I would like to make a very brief note and thanks to our own District ten Councilman No. For his continuous support of the Golden Triangle cultural community and with this exhibition. Exactly. As Councilwoman Keech said, we are continuing this exploration, this dove deep into human creation, trying to find out and lay out what it is that makes us special and what art is and how many layers, how many costumes, no pun intended, we actually can find for art and what it happens when we look a little deeper and when we look. How do these amazing characters get created? Thank you very much. Thank you for having our team here today, but thank you as well for the great support that we always get from the city and county of Denver. Thank you. Thank you. That that one right there is he's a little bit too in character. I mean, he just kept staring at that. We welcome you guys. Everything okay? Okay. I just want to make sure we're good. You're lucky to still be alive. All right, I did it. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing that forward. And Chris of Denver Art Museum, we're lucky to have this treasured asset in our community resolution. Madame Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.

A RESOLUTION relating to Seattle Public Utilities; establishing a Customer Review Panel to provide input to the 2018-2023 Strategic Business Plan Update.

SeattleCityCouncil_08152016_Res 31694

Thank you for the comments. All those in favor of confirming the appointment vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. Adoption of other resolutions. Number 12. Please. Agenda item number 12, Resolution 31694 relating to Seattle Public Utilities, establishing a customer review panel to provide input to the 28 2018 through 2023 Strategic Business Plan Update. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. Ordinarily, we would send this resolution to my my utilities committee for discussion, but we are working on a quick turnaround. The Seattle Public Utilities has a desire to get this review panel up and running. So we're sending it directly to full council without committee review. Just some quick background. Seattle Public Utilities has a six year strategic business plan. It's updated every three years. SPU expects to submit a new 2018 2023 proposed plan to council by mid-May 2017. When SPU developed its last plan, the Council directed SPU to create a customer review panel to provide input into that plan. And at the time, the panel was composed of nine members, five appointed by the mayor and four appointed by the council. The panel dissolved once the council adopted the 2015 2020 plan. This is an effort to reconstitute that committee. In addition to this panel, the utility also has three additional ongoing customer advisory committees, one for each water, solid waste, drainage and wastewater. Thank you for the comments about this resolution. I move to adopt resolution 3169. For those in favor of adopting the resolution, vote I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it next. Agenda Item.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Historic Districts; adding a new Chapter 25.30 to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); creating the Sand Point Naval Air Station Landmark District; specifying the district’s boundaries; adopting criteria for designating the district; establishing a procedure for preserving significant physical elements within the district; establishing the Sand Point Naval Air Station Landmark District Application Review Committee; providing for administration and enforcement of this Ordinance; and amending Section 22.900C.010 and Table C-1 for Section 22.900C.010 of the SMC to provide for the collection of fees for interpretation of Historic District regulations by the Department of Neighborhoods.

SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118438

The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 35 Council Bill 118438 Relating to historic districts. Adding a new chapter to 5.30 to the Seattle Municipal Code, creating the Sandpoint Naval Air Station Landmark District, specifying the District's boundaries. Abutting criteria for designating the district. Establishing a procedure for preserving significant physical elements within the District. Establishing the Sandpoint Naval Air Station Landmark District Application Review Committee. Providing for administration and enforcement of this ordinance and amending Sections two 2.900 C .1010. And Table C, dash one for section 2.900 C .010 of the Seattle Municipal Code to provide for the collection of fees for interpretation of historic district regulations regulations by the Department of Neighborhoods. The committee recommends a council bill pass as amended. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw. Thank you, and thank you for reading that so nicely. This bill designates an area within Magnuson Park as the Sandpoint Naval Air Station Landmark District, and it adopts a procedure for preserving various physical elements within the park. And I specifically want to say thank you to Lynne Ferguson. You mentioned our two met to people mentioned earlier today during public testimony, Randy Williams and Jordan Bader. The great work that Lyn Ferguson in particular has done. And I do want to personally recognize her and others. The Sandpoint Naval Air Station Landmark District recognizes the importance of this historic Sandpoint Naval Air Station, and it was designated as a national historic district in 2010 and designated a local historic district by our Landmarks Board in 2011. And by us adopting this newest landmark district, we are taking the final step in creating the district. And I do again want to recognize so many people who are involved in this, including Councilmember Gordon. Thank you for coming to the committee and talking about it and the number of people from the Friends of Sandpoint, Magnuson Park historic district that have done so much work. And we encourage passage of this legislation which was unanimously recommended out of our committee. Thank you. Questions or comments? Councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you. This was one of the first issues I worked on when I became a legislative assistant. Many decades. Ago now. And the designation of. The district is really historic. It's been sought after by the neighbors in the community for many, many years. The neighborhood is really active, the particularly the various neighborhood of out of the east and strongly advocated for the historic preservation of the Sandpoint Naval Base. And what is remarkable today is that the community supports this. Designation and all the incentives and. Controls. Particularly given its contentious and. At times very. Protracted controversies that have arisen between the city and the neighborhood. Rusty Williams It was great to see him here appropriately mentioned. Lynne Ferguson But also I do think we have to remember. The work that former City Councilmember Jeannette Williams did. It was one of the key. Issues that she worked on during her time on the city council, preserving. The Sandpoint Naval Air Base, the magnificent park. And then her neighbor, who often isn't mentioned, but she was really an active partner with Jeannette on this. Was was Dorothy McCormick who McCormick who. Became an assistant to former Mayor. Royer. So it's my hope that this designation will spur restoration. And renovation and re-use of some of the other buildings on the. Site, including the fire station Building 18, which is in very poor condition right now. Thank you. Councilmember Gordon I just want to say that I'm certainly appreciative of all the work, all the hard work that's gone into this has taken many years to get this far. And we certainly do need to thank Lynne Ferguson, folks in her committee. We need to think a lot of the neighbors around the area and I might say that just as a little historical footnote, it was the first place that my father was stationed at when I came to the city and which brought me here. So it means a great deal to me personally as well. And I want to thank everyone who worked so hard on it. It's really great to see it finally coming to fruition. Thank you. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Harrell I look at it. Right. O'Brien Hi, Okamoto. Rasmussen All right. So want back show? Hi, Gordon. Hi. Now, President Burgess. Nine in favor, nine opposed. Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 36. Agenda Item 36 Council Bill 118468. Relating to the Landmark Preservation Board amending section 25.12.270 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change the qualifications for members of the board and making technical corrections. The committee recommends a council bill pass.

A MOTION confirming the appointment of Alina Santillan to the King County cultural development authority (4Culture) board.

KingCountyCC_02022022_2021-0469

And me to do so. Thank you very much for your time. You. Okay. Our next agenda item is the appointment of a Lena Santillan to the Fort Culture Board for a three year term representing Council District four. I made the appointment and the staff report begins on page six. We are happy will brief us. We do have E Kennedy, the appointee with us and we also have Claire Michel from the fourth culture coming who is support culture, government and Community Relations Manager. So go right ahead, Leah, and you can talk to us outside the fireplace right afterwards. Thank you. Thank you. Council members. Good morning. My name is Leah Crackles. I'll be council staff. This item before you, as the chair said, is a motion to confirm the appointment of Elina Sundin to the Fort Culture Board of Directors for a three year term expired, expiring on December 31st, 2024. And I'll provide some brief background and introduce Mr. some at the end and then turn it over to the chair for any questions the council members may wish to ask the appointee. And as a reminder for culture, is King County's cultural development authority responsible for administering King County's arts and heritage programs and for culture is governed by a 15 member board of directors who are to have a are required to have a demonstrated commitment to and knowledge of cultural resources, the active and experienced in community and civic issues and concerns, and have the ability to evaluate the needs of cultural constituencies in the region. Board Position number four, which you are considering today, is to be appointed by the Council member representing Council District four, which of course is Chair Caldwell's. As she said, Mr. Santiago resides in Council District four and his professional experience includes works for Seattle Arts and Culture, for Anti-Racism and for Katie XP. And his current community experience includes serving on the city at Seattle Community Police Commission and the King County Equity Cabinet. And the Racism is a Public Health Crisis Committee and the Seattle Works Board. The appointment of Mr. Sunshine to the Board Culture Board appears to be consistent with the policies and process governing for culture appointments. And that concludes my staff report. Thank you very much, Leon, and greetings and welcome, Mr. Santillan. And do you prefer being referred to the Senate or as Mr. Santillan? ALEX Fine. Councilmember Thank you. And I've had the opportunity to meet Aruna and commend this nomination. Confirmation, rather, appointment confirmation to the committee of the whole. I'm very excited about joining the Fort Culture Board. And I think, Alina, you were at this month's meeting. Is this your first one? Is that correct? Yes, ma'am, that's correct. So we welcome you and we'd love to hear from you about your wanting to be appointed. Why are you why you chose to be on the board? Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to talk with you. I hope that my permanent. Top dog. Will be quiet while I share a little bit about why I've been excited to join the culture board. I've been in the arts and culture nonprofit sector for more than a decade now. And, you know, I'm sure over the past couple of years, we've seen a lot of change and conversation around how we're making all of our spaces, government, our built environment, arts and culture, health care. How are you bringing an anti-racism lens to that work? How are we talking. About equity and intersectional way? That is not just for some people, but is actually for every single person, especially those that have been historically and presently under invited into our spaces. And I think that my kind of passion in wanting to join the. Culture. Board is, is bringing my perspective, bringing the skills that I've built over time around. How do we make culture change that is lasting? How can we make, you know, when we are giving messages of solidarity with communities that have been harmed, how do we make that solidarity actionable? How do we live out our values, especially with the intersection of funding? Right. We've had a lot of conversation well, I've heard a lot of conversation today about the experiences of our community members, Jackson County, whether that is like struggling to pay rent, but then they're struggling to say, hey, I'm doing my best and I found a job, but I can't I don't have access to. Housing. And and where I'm bringing hopefully skillset. And passion. And perspective is bringing those conversations that we're having today. Largely. Throughout. The culture board. Obviously within that. Race and culture sector. But really about our work. How do we make this work last? So we make sure we are bringing our our. Lived perspectives. At the table, that those who don't have a seat at the table like these. Have a lot of. Privilege in being able to be here today. Are we make sure that we're elevating the voices of those that don't. So I'm excited to and honored to be nominated and to to be serving in this role. And I just thank you all for the opportunity. I look forward to working with everyone. Thank you, Ilene. A very much and uncertain. My colleagues on the committee can see why I was so enthusiastic about making this appointment. I had three recommendations and I did not hesitate with making the decision to select two coming. Are there any questions that. Come to more of a comment than a question. I'm very happy to support this nomination, and I really thank you for your perspective and for listening to us and working that into how you think about our. And my comment is, I feel like in the arts and culture and, and heritage space, there is such an opportunity to bridge the historical and present gaps that we see between and among people. That leads to the kind of inequitable outcomes we see. And that can seem really intractable in a political space. Like we're not trying to convince people of something. We're trying to share our experiences in a really, really immediate way that gets past the mental processing. And so I just have a lot of hope when I hear people who want to help build our public art space further in these ways, because I think that is a huge part of how we move forward from where we are today. My comment my second comment, Madam Chair, is I just want to take this moment to make a bit of a pitch to you, my colleagues. We have three ex-officio seats on the floor. Culture Board Council member Coles is in one of them. Council Member Perry will be a new member in another one. We had two members who were on the board last year who will have termed out there are there is a three year term limit, although you can cycle back on after a break. And so I just want to make sure that members are aware we do have one seat that we could still fill as an ex-officio member. And if you're interested in it, please do contact me. Thank you. I imagine. Thank you. And I appreciate your you're making that effort. Are there any other questions that. We do have with this Claire Michaud from Fort Culture. Claire, do you wish to make any comments? No, I. I think Alina said it all. Thank you very much. I think it's very obvious how much Alan is going to be contributing to the Fort Culture Board. Very excited to be working with Galena and of course, the current board. Okay, good, good. I spent hours watching the proposed motion. 2020 1069 travel. I've never done this to a council member than as vice chair. Oh, thank you. My vice chair of this fantastic committee this year. It's so good to know. Oh. Oh, good. I'm glad to have some leadership responsibilities. I'd be happy to move the motion out of that sneak bias in the word feature. Email Council Member Don. Feature. Email and the agenda where you're listed at the top tier and I'm here you are. You did a really good job though. Vice-Chair as well. Thank you. Thank you all. And our commission has been made. Any discussion? Okay. Could you please support the bill? Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Ritchie, I. As a member of the. High. Council member done. By. Anthony McDermott. I. I'm in a very I. As a member of the group. I. As a member and I by way. I. As a member, sir. Hello. Hi. Madam Chair. But is my. iPhone also no. Excuse? Thank you. With our vote, we have approved the motion 2020 10469 and scheduling of send this motion with the deep recommendation to be placed on the consent calendar at the February 15, 2022 Council meeting. And congratulations to Lina, since we will be taking this up on the consent calendar. You do not have to be in attendance. Of course we welcome you to be there, but there won't be any discussion at that time. Thank you for your service. Next, coming up, do you want to say anything? Just gratitude. I'm so excited to work with all of you and excited to get to work. Thank you so much. Okay. And we're I'm very excited to work with you. Okay. With that, we will go on to our last agenda item number seven, which is a proposed motion 2020 10467 requesting the executive to establish an equitable development initiative or

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3122 Marion Street in Whittier. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3122 Marion Street from U-SU-B1 to U-SU-A1 (3,000 sf minimum lot size to 4,500 sf minimum lot size) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-6-18.

DenverCityCouncil_04162018_18-0169

On the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 169 on the floor? Yes. Council Bill 2018 0169 be placed upon final consideration. Andrew passed. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 169 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. I'm Sarah White with CPD here to present the staff report for the rezoning request at 3122 Marion Street. The request is to rezone from USC to B1 to USA A1. The subject property is in District nine in the Whittier neighborhood. As you can see here, it is in the far northwest portion of the Whittier neighborhood. It is on Marion Street between Martin Luther King Boulevard and 31st Avenue. It is one block east of Downing Street. The property is a little over 7300 square feet total and there is a single unit structure on the property and the request is to allow the development of a second single unit house here. So the current zoned district you as you B1 has a minimum zone lot size of 4500 square feet and the request is to rezone to Youssou A-1, which is a single unit district that has a minimum zone that size of 3000 square feet, which would allow the applicant to create two zone lots out of the existing lot here. The surrounding zoning is all U.S. sub one. And further to the north you can see there's some grow three zoning, which is a residential office district, some USA one to the northeast. And then as you would expect along the Downing Street corridor, there is some main street zoning. And I included this slide. This is a slide that shows the previous old code zoning here because it's a little interesting to show kind of the context of how this zoning came into place. So you can see that this a couple block and a half in the northwest portion of Whittier here actually was are for zoning, which was a very high density residential zoned district. And then the rest of the surrounding residential was are two, which allowed for multi-unit. So the translation here from the higher intensity residential, particularly in this two blocks, two and a half blocks that was kind of uniformly brought into U.S. US sub one. It's a little just a little interesting context here. So the site is currently a single family home. The surrounding block is a mix of single unit two unit and multifamily structures. And this is really a reflection of that previous zoning that allowed multi-unit development. And then, as you would expect along the west, to the west, along the Downing Street corridor, there is a mix of residential and retail. Here we have some photos that are just images of the surrounding context. The top image, there is an image of the subject property and you can see it has that large side yard there that would be split off, which would be allowed to be split off with the proposed zoning. The picture to the bottom is an example of the large single family lot across Marion Street. And then these are images of the character, generally of the multi-unit structures that you see in this area. So there's quite a few there, generally low scale kind of garden court or low scale real house type of structures. So what's interesting about this rezoning? Some of you may remember last year as part of last year's text amendment bundle, there was a portion of that bundle that removed the minimum area requirement for rezonings. So previously rezonings like this, you would have had to have had a minimum area to even request the rezoning, whether it was an entire block or an acre. And what we did as part of that bundle was remove that minimum area requirement because we were seeing requests that made sense and were supportable by plans and all of that sort of thing. But applicants couldn't request them because of the minimum area requirements. So this request is really the first one of these kinds of requests that has come through since we removed that provision. So just keep that in mind where we're learning how to evaluate these along with you guys. So this map here is a estimation map of parcel sizes. So, you know, that development in the city of Denver is based on zone lots. And as you as the request is, the the minimum zone lot size is what is part of the zone lot. So USDA has a minimum zone lot size of 3000. U.S. B is a minimum zone, lot size of 4500. However, we don't have zone lots mapped. Denver has this weird thing where we've got zone lots and we've got assessor parcels and a lot of times they are the same, but they don't have to be. And because we don't have zone lots mapped, but we do have assessor parcels mapped. We can use the assessor parcel mapping as a general estimation of what the zone, what's in the area might be. So keep that in mind while while I talk through these examples, they are our best estimate of what the zone sizes in these areas are. So you can see here I've got it's colored based on the minimum zone lot as equivalent zone district. So the green you see here are the zone lots that are upwards of 6000 square feet. So greater than even the current zoning would require. And then these are also the lots that would have enough square footage to split if they were to go to a smaller zone, lot size. The Yellow Zone. Lot sizes are really the the zone lots that are most consistent with the current zoning in place. So the UCB one with the meeting that zone minimum between 4500 square feet and 6000 and then the orange here are the zone lots that would be more consistent with the requested zoning. So the U.S., A-1, the 3000 square foot minimum and then the red lots are zone lots that are substandard that basically wouldn't meet any zoning requirements. And so this is where that kind of complication of the Celsius parcels versus the zone that's comes into play. So you can see, for example, the lot that is just a couple south of the subject property. You can see that looks like row houses, those are split and they're showing up as red because it's the ownership parcel. So, you know, with a row house and with a condo, they split up the ownership of the land. And so it's showing up as very, very, very small ownership parcels, whereas the zone that in that case would be comprising all of those ownership parcels. So that's just an example of where this analysis needs to be taken with a grain of salt when you're comparing it with the zone. What? So the process so far, we saw this matter at planning board on February 7th with a unanimous recommendation of approval. It moved forward through Luti committee on March 6th. All of the appropriate notification has been done. Signs posted. An aunt was notified and one letter of opposition was received from a neighborhood resident. And that's been included in your packet. Aren't you the five criteria? We do have several plans to evaluate here. We have plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver, which are the city wide plans as well as two neighborhood plans, the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan from 2011 and the Whittier Neighborhood Plan from 2000. This. This request is consistent generally with several goals in comprehensive plan 2000, mostly related to promoting infill development, promoting development where services are already in place, and promoting infill development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Blueprint Denver calls this area a single family residential area of stability. So the proposed zone district is a single unit zone district, which is generally consistent with the intent of a single family residential area to be a area with a single family residential predominant residential type, and then it being an area of stability. We know that that means promoting some reinvestment, but generally conserving the character of an area. And as I'll explain in in a bit, we do find this request is consistent with the character of the area and is consistent with the purposes and intent of the area of areas of stability. The Northeast downtown neighborhood plan from 2011 also calls this area a single family residential and generally has recommendations for low intensity development in these residential areas to maintain the current mix of low skill building forms such as urban house, duplex and row house, and allow new development to replicate existing development patterns, including small lots, shallow setbacks and high building coverage with parking access in the rear of the alley. So again, we do find this request consistent with the goals of this plan as it is still a single unit zone district. And we do think that it allows the existing pattern to be replicated. Finally, the Whittier Neighborhood Plan from 2000 does not have specific land use recommendations for certain areas, but it does identify that the maintenance of a strong, diverse, low density residential neighborhood is the central goal raised by residents. And it also acknowledges that the neighborhood is almost fully developed as is, and that as change occurs, additions to the neighborhood should complement the existing character. And again, because the proposal would allow a zone district that would allow the replication of an existing pattern, we do find it consistent with these goals. The request would result in the uniform application of the USA to a one zone district, and the proposed MAP Amendment furthers the public health, safety and welfare of the city through the implementation of adopted plans. Additionally, it would allow the development of additional housing near downtown, which places people in close proximity to employment and services, which also furthers the public health, safety and welfare. The identified justifying circumstances is that the lander, its surrounding environs has changed or is changing. There is development happening very close nearby, in downtown, as well as at the light rail station and 30 at 30th and Downing. And all of these are catalysts to reset multifamily development. And as such, the proposed rezoning will allow the development of small single family houses, which will help to maintain housing diversity near downtown. And then finally consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. So this is where we take another look at generally the lot pattern in the area. So this map is a little different than the one that was shown earlier. The one that I had earlier on the slide was just all of the lot sizes in the area. What this map is showing is the lot sizes for the single family development only. So basically this is removed, all of those multifamily low scale parcels so that we really can compare like for like we're looking at generally what size zone lots do single unit houses have in this area. And so you can see here there's a significant amount in the surrounding area that is actually more consistent with the proposed usou , a one zone district as well as some additional surrounding that are consistent with the block size. And given that this pattern is in existence here of small, single family zoned lots, we do find that a rezoning request to usou a one is consistent with the neighborhood context in the zone district purpose and intent. So given that all five criteria have been met, would you recommend approval? Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'll call you up and you've come up to the podium for your time. First up, we have Matt Morgan Sky. Matt Moore, Jen Psaki, Denver, Colorado. And three. One, two, two. Marion. I'm available for questions if needed. Great. Thanks. Next up, Jesse Parish. Good evening. Members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm a member of Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense and Denver Homeless out loud. I am against this proposal. This is becoming a recurrent theme. You change the zoning of this hood, historically black and brown communities, so you can continue to gentrify these areas. This is not acceptable and we are not going to stand for this anymore. These properties in question. Who is this really going to benefit? He said I should working for an inclusive Denver, but it's really an exclusive Denver. The so-called affordable housing you guys keep talking about is not going to be for those that were in these neighborhoods for generations. This is for these transplants that are moving in because of. The legalization of marijuana and other factors in the past few years. This is not going to benefit those that have lived in these neighborhoods for generations. I myself am one of those people. So I'm definitely against this. It can keep changing the zoning all you guys want. But the fact still remains this is gentrification and there's no way around that. This is not going to benefit people of color, specifically black people and brown people. This is going to gentrify this benefit, gentrification, white folks that are moving into these neighborhoods. So I am once again against this access. You do a further study of these properties in question because. At the end of the day. Got to follow the community. The community is not okay with this. Those that have been in these neighborhoods for generations are not okay with this. You are in the back caucus of these business developers. I understand it has become apparently clear. So I would ask that members of this council look further into this study, these properties and actually come up with. A sensible. The season. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker is Chairman Sekou. But even council. My name is Chairman Sekou, representing the National Action Movement for Self-defense. Client base of Homeless Youth. Senior citizens. Poor. Working class folks. And the folks that are voiceless, scared to come down here. Because it's intimidating and I have no experience with this. And so we kind of minimize that by coming down and being the voice so that this can be simply explained. So that they are encouraged to know that you guys are human beings. And then you open minded to hear things. And even if the council doesn't agree, at least they can consider poor folks who are voters in this town and tax payers about their concerns about how we do what we do down here. That's it. Anybody mad? Nobody. And we can work it out now. I'm for this. And as you can see, even inside our organization, there are various opinions on this thing. So we don't squash the opinion, we share it and then let you know how we feel. And the constitution of the organization that we represent, because we are down for freedom of speech. So we're down for this. And I'll tell you why. First of all, it fits all the criteria which folks are the considerable work and research and thinking about how are we going to do this thing called residents and how they do and empowered with the land that they pay for to development according to human necessities and needs. Now, my man, he's a preacher. He has a moral standing in the community. He is not the enemy of corporations that come in here and do this. This is a little guy has come to church. He's not a corporation. He's not the enemy. He is not down to just justification. And he needs to have the right to have the flexibility so that he can expand on his property and create the housing that poor people need. Now, of course, this criteria that we do with the LWD dude plans and this and that and other is down board has been voted on it in place. That's it. Now the question becomes your moral obligation us to do the right thing for the right reason. I'm trusting you. And I'm with you. Could you please take secure comments towards council? Oh, I'm sorry. You know, sounds good. So I'm holding him to his code of conduct. You know, I'm sad that somewhere along the way we got to begin to trust one another that you do what you say you're going to do. Now, if he don't do it, I'll be the first one up there in his church asking him what happened. So the pressure is on us to make them do what they say they're going to do. And it's only through the organization or the masses of the people will be able to do this. Is too much work for the few? We need many to get involved. Thank you very much. Time's up. All right. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. The public hearing for Council bill 169 is closed. Comments from members of Council. All right. No questions. No comments. Um, takes us then, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Black Clark. All right. Sorry, Flynn. No. Gillmor Herndon High Cashman can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega. By. Sussman. I Mr. President. All right, Madam Secretary, please close voting, announced results. Sorry, but I'm going to make sure everyone is in ten eyes. One nay. Ten eyes, one nay accountable. 169 has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 171 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 2018 0171 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary agreements, and any subsequent amendments, between the City of Long Beach and The California Endowment to accept funding in the amount of $200,000, for the period of March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2018, for the Long Beach Health Equity Framework Plan; and Increase appropriations in the Health Fund (SR 130) in the Health and Human Services Department (HE) by $200,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03012016_16-0194

Yeah. A report from Health and Human Services recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute all necessary agreements with the California Endowment to accept funding in the amount of $200,000 for the Long Beach Health Equity Framework Plan. City wide. Sort of staff report. Yes, vice mayor, council members. We simply would like to change the date on this. So we want the terms of the agreement. We'll go from February 1st 16th to two January 31st, 2018, not March 1st, 16 to February 22nd, 18. So again, just changing the agreement to start on February 1st 16, that will last until January 31st 18. And this is a wonderful opportunity for us to accept money from the California Endowment for this program. Thank you is Councilman Gonzales. I'm okay. All right. Councilmember Richardson. So any member of the public that wishes to address Council on consent calendar item number seven. Seeing None members cast your vote. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Master Purchase Order between the City and County of Denver and AM Signal, Inc., for City-wide traffic signal controllers. (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves a two-year $2 million master purchase order with AM Signal for fully operating traffic signal controllers citywide (0264A0114). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-27-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 9-25-14.

DenverCityCouncil_10062014_14-0781

No resolutions bills for introduction 692 Councilwoman Ortega 781 Councilwoman Shepherd, 712 Council Shepherd and Ortega and then bills for final 786 Councilwoman Monteiro I think I got them all right now committee have the first one bills for introduction 781 Councilwoman Shepherd, what would you like for us to do with this? I just have questions. Go right ahead. So just so the public knows, the last two weeks we've been in public hearings for the budget. So a lot of the items that might have been discussed in committee were put immediately on the consent agenda. And we haven't had a chance to ask questions on some of these issues. So on 781, it says a bill for an ordinance approving a proposed master purchase order between the city and county of Denver for city wide traffic signal controllers. And then in the in the text that we have, it says for fully operating traffic signal controllers citywide, which sort of sends off alarm bells to me does that it makes it sound like either a we have some but they're not fully operational or B, we don't even have them. So I don't even understand what this means. Exactly. So I want you to clarify for me, if you will please introduce yourself. My name is Megan DeGroot. I work in purchasing. I actually facilitated the bid process for this purchase. So this purchase is for the basically the silver traffic control boxes that you see at every intersection. The reason I said fully operating is because the boxes have to come to us with full wires transfers, power. If there's power failure, it has to have the police. Which is so the police can open the boxes and control the traffic signals if need be. So that's why it said fully operating. So it leads me to wonder, do we have some that don't have these at all or are we have do we have some that are just half functional? No, they're fully functional. It's just. It's just the way it's worded. Yeah. And maybe I misuse fully operating is what I was going for. So the cabinets have to come to us fully assembled together, basically ready to put out everything that's out on the street. Controlling the intersections is working as it should be. It was because there's so many different parts and pieces. That's why it said the cabinets have to be delivered fully. Okay. So, okay, so are these replacing some? Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Basically, any time there's an accident that hits a traffic controller box, anything like that, we need to replace an update if if anything goes down or anything like that. I don't I don't think anyone's here from the traffic department, but they're the experts on what all these traffic signal controllers do. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Do you have any other questions come from several? Not on that, Bill. All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, can we tee up the next one, which I believe was set? 692 Councilwoman Ortega, what would you like for us to do with that? I just have a question.

A MOTION supporting the expansion of the Social Security and Medicare programs and benefits and the elimination of the cap on earnings that are subject to the Social Security payroll tax, and directing the council clerk to distribute this motion to Washington's congressional delegation.

KingCountyCC_09212016_2016-0439

Okay. All right, then. We won't start with you then. All right. Always interesting. Okay, then I guess we will have to start. And no, they don't have their panel here at all, so. Okay. So what we will do then is we will have to start then with item number five and that will be proposed motion 2016 0439 . And this is a briefing today on a motion supporting the expansion of Social Security and Medicaid programs and benefits. And so, Mr. Nicholson, if you'd like to begin the briefing, that would be great. Thank you, Madam Chair. And members of the council. First time presenting in front of you. So looking forward to it. Excellent. We won't be painful as possible. I appreciate. That. I mean, pain. Life, not pain. You didn't catch that either way. Thank you. So the proposed motion in 2016, dash 0439 would add four items related. To Social. Security and Medicare programs to King County's 2017 federal legislative agenda. Specifically would add to the agenda that Social Security benefits should be expanded to address the financial insecurity among among present and future recipients, and that this expansion of benefits should be paid for by eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That cap right now is at $118,500. Employers and employees each. Pay. 6.2% of their salary up to that cap. The motion proposed motion would also state that the Medicare program eligibility should be expanded to include younger people, and that benefits should be expanded to include comprehensive dental vision and hearing coverage, and that this expansion should be funded by raising the Medicare payroll tax. That tax rate is currently 1.4 or 5% of all covered wages, and it's paid by the employee and the employer. And that's really what this proposed motion does. I know there's a panel here to further discuss the issue and answer questions. Remind me again. So it's 1.4 or five. Is that matched or is that split? The employer each pays it. So the employee pays 1.4 or 5% and as does the employer. Okay, great. All right. That sounds like a given. You survived and did a nice job. So welcome to presenting. Okay. If the panel would like to come up. I know we have several people. The president of the Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action, Mr. Ravi Stern, policy director, Economic Opportunity Institute, Dr. Marilyn Watkins, and somebody from the Washington Community Action Network. And I'll let you pronounce your name when you speak. That would be great. All right. Would you like to begin? Yes, I will. Thank you very much for hearing us this morning. My name is Marilyn Watkins. I'm the policy director of the Economic Opportunity Institute. And this is Social Security is one of the issues that I've worked on in that capacity for the last 17 years now. So, first of all, the Social Security and Medicare programs are vitally important to everyone here in our country and including here in King County. 22% of Kane County households receive Social Security income, according to the most recent American Community Survey data. And that income that people receive, it totals nearly $5 billion a year that comes into King County's economy because of Social Security benefits. We typically think of Social Security as a retirement program, but I want to share actually my own story to illustrate that this is something that's really important to people of all ages. Nearly 20 years ago now, when my children were nine and 11 years old, my husband dropped out one day of a heart attack. I was working part time, as many women do at that time, and so we were, even though we were a middle class family, financially secure in many ways, we were very much dependent on my husband's income. And from the very beginning, within a couple of weeks, Social Security benefits where survivor's benefits were flowing into my checking account. And every single month until my younger son turned 18, we received a Social Security check every month from the government. That was just hugely important to maintaining economic security, allowing me to keep our house, keep a functioning car, keep two growing boys and sneakers without holes and pants that weren't too short for them. It just made a huge difference for us, even as a middle class family. And it's something that that really impacts everybody. Every day, 15,000 children here in King County receive Social Security benefits directly. And the estimate is that twice that number of kids are actually benefiting from Social Security because they live in a household with somebody who's receiving Social Security benefits. So this is something that really spans the lifespan in terms of its importance to our economy. But as good as Social Security is, as important as it is to everybody's economic security, we could make it so much better. Almost every you know, every few years until the last couple of decades, we've actually tweaked and improved and expanded Social Security. And it's time to do that again for our changing economy to make life more secure for people thanks to Social Security and Medicare. Seniors as a group have the lowest levels of poverty of any major demographic group in our community. But very many live right above that poverty level. The percentage of people living between poverty and 150% or 200% of poverty really still struggling to meet the basics is really high. And of course, many people's medical bills and other expenses actually go up as they get older. So it's time to scrap that cap on the Social Security payroll premium, let everyone pay equitably into the system. And that would really provide us with the with the resources to expand the program, to expand benefits, especially for women of all races and men of color who historically and still today make less money for all sorts of reasons than than do white men. And we see the highest levels of poverty and near poverty among very elderly women who are widowed or single in other ways, who really, really struggle to cover the basics. And we could make life a lot better for them by expanding benefits. And I'll turn it over to my colleague. So she now. Hi, my name is Sochi Markovich, and I'm an organizer with Washington Community Action Network. I know my name's a hard one to say. So thank you. So we're a grassroots organization and we have 40,000 members throughout the state. And we strongly support expanding and strengthening Social Security because we view it as a racial, economic and gender justice issue. So for women, I think I'll talk about women first. So women not only are paid less than their male counterparts, they are often the caregivers for their family members. And I'll just talk about my mom as an example. So I have an older brother who has special needs and my because of the expense of like finding specialty care, my mom has stayed at home with him and has like maybe two years of work history, which is not enough to qualify for Social Security. And so she will not get any Social Security whenever she gets older. And she has to rely on my father for for that economic security. And having that dynamic is really problematic because, one, I think that leads to many women staying in unsafe. And luckily, my parents are not in this category, but there are women out there who stay in unsafe relationships because for that economic security, especially when you're older and if we had something like a caregiver credit, which would recognize the work that women do as caregivers and and count that time towards Social Security so that they could get Social Security, that is a will help. So so so many women in our not only our country, but in our state. And then I think as far as racial justice goes, Marilyn was touching on this. People of color are disproportionately impacted by poverty, lower wages and not having pensions. And so they are disproportionately reliant on Social Security. But the average payment you get a month is about, I think, 1300 dollars. And if talking about King County in particular, when you look at things like rent it, it doesn't match up with the actual costs that people face. So the last study I started is from Zillow. Rent in the Seattle is about $2,000 a month on average. And if your Social Security payment is 3000 dollars, there's no way you can really. Find a place to pay that rent with just your Social Security. And I know that a lot of people have this idea that renters are just young folks. But if you look at the communities of color within King County, 70% of African-Americans are renters. And so there are many, many seniors, as well as people on disability who are renters and are, you know, at the whim of the ridiculous housing cost in the city. And Social Security is not keeping up with those costs. And health care is also getting more expensive, especially for people as they get older. And so it's really important to make sure Social Security actually keeps up with the cost that people face. And so if we scrap the cap and people are equitably paying into the Social Security fund, then we're going to be able to expand Social Security to help fill these gaps that women and people of color face. Thank you. My name is Ravi Sternum, president of Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action. We're an organization of some 1200 members. We're multigenerational. We take as our primary role trying to make it possible for everyone in our society when they reach the years that they are, should be able to have a decent retirement, that they're able to have retirement with dignity, respect and some economic security. Just in the last two days, it was rather incredible yesterday. And then again this morning, I got emails from news services, one from Bloomberg and the other from one called Just Bread that talked about what we are facing in terms of the retirement crisis. It's estimated that our retirement deficit is $7.7 trillion. That, as most of us remember, when we were coming up, we were told that being able to have retirement was a three legged stool and the three legs were Social Security, a pension and savings. And the reality is at this point that we have a one legged stool or a defined benefit. Pensions have become smaller. The percentage of people that have it now are smaller and smaller. We have a growing population that depends on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. So what does that mean? Well, there's something going on called the age wave where you have this huge population that's moving from being baby boomers. And I think that's probably where most of you are into their retirement years. And what we have is we have this huge deficit and we have a Social Security system that's going to become more and more critical for our ability to be able to have retirement with dignity, respect and Medicare, which is also absolutely essential for seniors and people with disability to be able to live with dignity and respect. Medicare fails to fund vision, dental and hearing. There are emergencies that can be funded through Medicare, but basically for anything that is basic, dealing with your your teeth, your hearing or your eyes, you have to come out of pocket. Social Security, the average benefit is 1300 dollars a year. So we're looking at a situation where senior poverty is going to become more and more a reality in our lives, and we have to deal with it. We're coming to you with this resolution because you are influential and what you say matters. And if you say, listen, we recognize in the county that we have jurisdiction over, we have a crisis that's creeping up on us and one only needs to go outside. I got the statistics from the downtown emergency center in Seattle. And over the last nine years, the age of the people that they're serving over the last nine years has gone up by ten years. The age that the face of poverty is growing older and older, the face of poverty is more and more women and people of color. And we have to have a response to that. And you can help influence that with this resolution. What we're asking you to do in this resolution, as Mack said, is we're asking you to say that King County is in favor of expanding these programs with Social Security. It's just an equity issue. As as was said, the cap is $118,500. What that means is that someone who's earning $1,000,000, whereas we are paying 6.2% or we're paying 6.2%. Someone who's earning $1,000,000 is paying point 1/10 of 1%. They're done paying into Social Security after the first couple of weeks of the year. It's crazy. We need to have an equitable system that, in fact, provides the kind of Social Security system that we're going to need. What it does do, according to the chief actuary of the Social Security trust fund, is it means that Social Security will be able to pay full benefits for the next 57 years. 57 years is an actuarial lifetime. So we need we need to take that step with Medicare. We need to make sure that it covers the essential services that seniors need, including dental vision and hearing. We can do that by raising the social I mean the Medicare payroll tax from 1.4 or 5% to 2%, which would raise $90 billion annually, which would cover the cost of vision, dental and hearing. That would be the equivalent of $0.08 an hour for someone earning $15 an hour. So we're asking you to pass on to the full council this motion that will provide for the council going on record supporting the expansion of these two vital programs and having your federal legislative agenda reflect that, and letting our congressional delegation know that you're on board with this movement that is happening across the country at this point . And we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. And I just also want to say, I realize I forgot to mention this, is that as a young person who was in college during the recession, we don't have a whole lot of faith in IRAs and borrowing case to really be there for us in 40 years. And I don't really know anyone my age who has a pension. And so for people in my age group, we know that Social Security is like the only thing we can really depend on in retirement. Just how old are you? So I'm 26. Example, Robbie. Someone might ask you the same question if you want to. That's great. I do hope, though, that people your age will start looking at what are some of the funding mechanisms that they can have, because as I said, it is a three legged stool. So hopefully saving a little bit. And I know even with my grandchildren, I decided to put a little bit away every month and a 529 account for their education when they first start. This is so little, it's not going to make any difference. And now, five years later, I'm looking at them somehow going, Oh, my gosh, this pays for your college. And it was painless for me because it was such a little amount. So it was it was good to be able to do that. Councilmember Coble. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, Rob is eloquent as ever. That was very, very moving. And also Sochi and Maryland, just really compelling testimony. Thank you for bringing this to us. I, I don't know if you're aware of another mechanism. That we have in the current year. We may have yesterday in the Health, Housing and Human Services Committee, we gave a do pass recommendation and this will be going to the full council pertaining to the Veterans Human Services Levy, which is currently operating and which likely will go on the ballot next August or November. And in a motion that we passed out of the committee yesterday, we directed the executive, the county executive to come back with the report in January with an assessment of how well this Levy's been doing and what might be some areas to expand it, including older adults. This would be services for older adults. So you might want to become engaged in this effort as well. There'll be community conversations going on later. That's starting next week and into October. So it's just a suggestion. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember at the Grove. Thank you, Madam Chair. A comment and a question and I have no comment. So she made about young people trying to say something that resonates with the experience I've seen with even college educated folks coming out of school now trying to get employment that covers one the cost of their student debt, plus being able to afford to live. I know a lot of folks who even tucking that little bit away, they're already making choices between being able to afford their bus fare or food or medicine. And so it heck, we make Bankers County Council. I'm having trouble putting money away, but but I have no excuse. But I just want young people in particular now. And I think student debt is a factor in that to having to make choices among basic needs and not having that ability to put something into savings. That was one of the things I like is, you know, it's the classic line for the movie you had me at. Hello. But one of the things I enjoy is hearing effective spokespeople articulate issues, and it helps me be a better advocate. And along those lines, I'm wondering if you can help me answer. One of the most common questions or the pushback comes from, you know, increase in the payroll tax or Medicare. Yikes. You're piling on working people. So what what do I say to someone who who says that that creates an economic burden on people who may be stretched already making lower wages? Well, you know, I think we have a lot of evidence of all kinds that social insurance, including Social Security and Medicare, has been one of the most effective things we've ever done together as a country. And it actually, as our economy continues to change and evolve and as people actually, you know, unlike when Social Security was founded , people don't get out of high school and get a job and stay in that job for their whole career. People move around a lot. When I get resumes of young people applying for jobs, they often have changed every year or two. And and that's just increasingly common. But I mean, employers aren't don't have loyalty to their employees. And employees really do need to move around a lot as well. And actually, a social insurance program like Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security follows people around. So you actually continue to be able to have those benefits as you move from job to job to job. That's that's a really important thing. These amounts that we're putting into these programs are very low. And one of the keys to our to this proposal is actually making the system a whole lot more equitable by we years ago scrapped the cap on Medicare, but we still have that cap on Medicaid and as we've seen inequality and increase in our increase in our society. And it's really particularly evident here in King County that the growing income inequality where you have the top one and 10% actually doing really, really well on everyone else is not even keeping pace with inflation in terms of their income. This is one of the things that we can do that is really going to help everybody survive and thrive together because our whole economy does better when when individuals have the economic resources at every level in order to just go out and spend for those basics that are going to really keep themselves and their families healthy. I just would want to add, I mean, clearly, your question relates to the payroll tax on Medicare, not on Social Security, because we're not taxing anyone who can't afford it. So we we we were asked that question before. And as I said, it's $0.08 an hour or it comes down to three. $3.20 for a $15 wage. $3.20 a week, or what comes to around $14 a month. So it is a weighing question because people are I know I'm not going to say that it's not it's a weighing question. And so it is a question of how do you weigh off those same young people not being able to access that, not being able to take care of themselves, their hearing, their vision, their their dental work when they get older against what will be a small amount, but nevertheless an amount that they would pay out. And I just think that it's a matter of values there. That's right. Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it. And for allowing. Us to make the president. I have a report that we've prepared on Social Security. I'd like to. Create five for you. Thank you. Okay. And with that, we're going to move down to number eight. Our briefing 2006, briefing 155. This is the maritime and recreational boat industry impact. And if you would like to come on up, we will go straight to your presentation.

A RESOLUTION relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing applications for grant funding assistance to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office for Youth Athletics Facilities projects as provided in WAC 286 and subsequent legislative action.

SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_Res 31610

Item 26 Agenda Item 26 Resolution 31610 relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing applications for grant funding assistance to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office for Youth Athletic Facilities projects as provided in the WAC 286 and subsequent legislative action. Thank you. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Thank you, Councilmember Gordon. This is a resolution authorizing application for grant funding assistance to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. The grant would be used for youth athletic facilities, projects, and we certainly do endorse approval. Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of adopting resolution 31610 vote I. I oppose Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted. The report of the Planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee. Please read Item 27. The Report of the Planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee Agenda Item 27 Resolution 31602 Adopting revised rules for City Council quasi judicial proceedings and repealing the previous rules that were adopted by Resolution 31375. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, Fire Department, Health Department and all other appropriate departments to work together and report back in 120 days on the potential costs, benefits and challenges in forming a Long Beach Community Paramedicine Program. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_03192019_19-0259

Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. That concludes public comment. We are moving on to item 24, please. Communication from Councilwoman Mango, Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Super nor Councilmember Richardson recommendation to authorize the City Manager, Fire Department, Health Department and all other appropriate departments report back in 120 days on the potential costs, benefits and challenges in forming a Long Beach community paramedic and program District five. Thank you. So for those of you who are not familiar with the community paramedics model, there are many of them that are in pilot phases across the country. It's a model that's based on a health care system designed to provide more effective and efficient services to our residents community. Paramedics in often allows ambulances to drop off at urgent care centers versus the hospital. It also allows them to drop off at sobering centers and other facilities that are appropriate to be allowed to do that. The paramedics kind of it allows them to function outside their traditional role and utilize their specialized training to work in a model that can take it from a place where our ambulances are called to holding the wall, which is standing, waiting for admission into our ERs to actually being able to drop patients at the appropriate care facilities. In 2015, the California Emergency Medical Services Authority, the M. S.A., worked in partnership with the California Health Care Foundation and conducted 13 community paramedics and pilot programs in a dozen different locations. And under the pilot, the community peer medicines provided short term follow up care after hospital discharges for people with chronic conditions. You may remember that our innovation team did a study of the number of individuals who are connected to multiple departments within the city. And sometimes the data related to these individuals is that they're taking the wrong medicines and they are consistent callers to 911 because the issues aren't being resolved, whether it's long lines or wait lists for their health care provider or they don't go to the doctor, they only use the nine on one system. And those short term follow up visits have seen significant improvements in the L.A. County model. Case management services to those frequent users of the EMS system also help allow those resources to be freed up for our very important residents that are calling in on one and then directly residents and or visitors directly observed therapy for people with tuberculosis. Other collaborations include collaborations with hospice nurses to reduce unwanted transport of hospice patients. I recently did a ride along with an agency and we were often visiting hospice facilities and the caretakers at the facilities weren't sure if a transport was necessary. But to be on the quote unquote safe side, then the individuals were being transported, which then in resulted in holding the wall, waiting for admission. So then that unit couldn't get back out into the field. Transportation for people with mental health needs to mental health crisis centers, transportation for people who are acutely intoxicated to sobering centers and patients with low acute medical conditions to urgent care centers. The Health Force Center at UC San Francisco conducted an evaluation of the pilot projects and found that community paramedics are collaborating successfully with physicians, nurses, behavioral health professionals and social workers to fill in the gaps in our health and social services safety net. So the evaluation yielded consistent findings that programs have improved patients well-being and have yielded savings for both the taxpayer and the health care systems. And since Long Beach has its own health department, our own paramedic services and several hospitals, hopefully another one coming back online soon and numerous clinics. Which we also need to talk about the lack of urgent care centers in some parts of our city. We have health care deserts that I know some of my colleagues have discussed extensively. This would help us potentially create a new model for community health care for Long Beach residents with a more effective and efficient method of serving high quality health care needs, high quality health care to the needs of our participants. So we really appreciate staff taking the time to look into what might be possible and how that could best serve the residents of Long Beach. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Councilmember. So, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. Councilmember. So. So I've learned a little bit about this this presentation. Thank you, Councilwoman Mo Mango Mobile. And I spoke with our local firefighters. 1/2, Councilman. Can is there a second on this motion? Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that point of order. So there's you know, so I spoke with our local firefighters about the problem. And it makes sense to me if we see that there's pressure on our local emergency rooms. We've had a lot of conversation about what happens if an emergency room I mean, if you lose, let's say a paramedic , it puts pressure on the entire system. Or if you you know, if in a trauma center, emergency room shuts down how it impacts the entire system. And so these pilots, one of the it seems like not many of the pilots are going to have an opportunity to advance, except for this one, which is really focused on identifying urgent care centers as a space to sort of add into the component. What I think is interesting about that is. It allows, you know, more relief to the system in areas where you may not have very many resources in terms of paramedic rescues or access to emergency rooms, you can deploy to an urgent care center. So that makes sense. But it's also been raised to me the issues concerning, you know, the triage process. So in an emergency room, there's training about triage. And these are ins that conduct, that training. And so they're trained about assessing and understanding, hey, is this a stroke? Is this a certain type of emergency? And this is how it's treated. And so, you know, the big issue at hand here is figuring out whether, you know, there are things or, you know, people who are trained or if our emergency rooms are for firefighters, if we're hiring Marines to make sure that triage, if it's happening at a separate point, is happening at the at the E.R. instead of the emergency room stages happening at the paramedic stage. How do we make sure that the way is designed? You know, it's informed by our trains and nurses and make sure that, you know, we're not somehow creating a bigger issue. And so in general in general, I'm supportive of this conversation, exploring it. But I want to I think that we need to make sure that we engage with our nurses, our CNA, our nurses association, WINGARD Engage with our firefighters, the fire department, local hospitals. And so as we evaluate this, I think all those people need to be at the table to figure out, like, what are we what are we doing? Is this possible or is this a good thing or are we creating issues for ourself? And that's really what we need to figure out. The second thing I would say is we're having a conversation and this conversation has really kicked up and it's really come out of the community hospital conversation about, you know, where where are the areas in town that lack urgent care centers in general. I know that, let's say in my district on the east portion of my district, we're adjacent to Lakewood Regional, which is an emergency room and typically urgent care centers locate near emergency rooms. And so on one side of the district is walking distance access to an emergency room and urgent care centers on the other side of the district, which, you know, which is interesting. It's, you know, is geographically, economically, racially, very different. And on that side of the district, you know, there isn't you know, there's one paramedic rescue and there's no urgent care center, you know, no emergency room. And so the response time in that area of area town is completely different. So we'll be having a conversation about economic development in a conversation at council about how we can identify these sort of urgent care deserts in our city, because we've noticed that they exist on the West Side, they exhaustion exist in North, and they actually exist in the fifth District as well, East Long Beach. How can we leverage our economic development opportunities to to figure out how to, you know, bring in these urgent care centers into these other areas of town? And how do we incentivize them to actually stay open in evening hours when people are home from work? The idea is how do we make sure if people know that they have these facilities in their community, have the access them to take pressure off the emergency rooms? So I think so. There's a lot here to dig in. I'm okay with exploring it, but we all need to make sure that we, you know, engage with our nurses, engage with our firefighters, make sure that, you know, we're very aware of what we're doing as we move forward. Thanks. Thank you for that. Yes. So I'd like to recognize our council member, Urunga. Okay. I'm sorry. Councilmember Supernova. Thank you. I just want to and maybe we get clarification from the city manager. So this is not the report coming back. This is an item that I seconded for you to explore whether or not we can do a report and incur those costs. Is that kind of accurate or how would you frame it? We're coming back with a report that outlines what the what this is, how much it costs, the benefits, pros and cons and things like that. So there would be a follow up report to that report. So this would be an interim step we're approving tonight. The council tonight is requesting us to come back with a report to see if this type of a program is feasible. Not yet. Okay. Well, that's differs from the understanding I had yesterday. So I just wanted to say that the fire is listed here. And I agree with Councilman Richardson that we learned so much from the community hospital experience. I never knew there were that many agencies. I learned a lot more acronyms of county and state agencies overseeing this. So. Let me ask staff again. Are there any costs associated to you bringing what you are bringing back at this time? Just the time and energy to research this and come back within the time period necessary. Okay. So will that be delineated in some form either tonight or at an interim step before you come back? No, we're going to come back. I think it's within 120 days. We'll probably give you an update if we're having difficulty coming back in that time period. But we're going to go ahead and just I believe our public safety team is somewhat familiar with this program. So they'll just outline that and talk about the. Pros and cons and the costs and a recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Come on. Councilmember. You want to. Add. Thank you. Interim vice mayor acting out by acting. You're one of the. Concerns that I had when I first became a council member here was we came in with like slinging guns and we wanted studies on this studies and then we were studying everything and it was costing staff a lot of time for not only doing those studies, but also in terms of the resources that were needed to go into it, especially in studies that were not fully vetted in terms of where we were presenting that study. And I'm not very sure that I'm ready for this study yet. I haven't heard anything from nurses. I have not heard anything from firefighters or police officers because it involves all our our first responders when it comes to these types of issues. And our first responders are not here tonight that I can ask them whether it's something we should pursue. With all due respect to the to the my councilmember in the fifth, you know, I think that we need more information before we can continue on into a study like a pre study type of thing. Because it's it's one of those things where I'm not very clear as to what this is and what its end game is going to be. The endgame, I'm guessing, is eventually create some kind of prayer and medicine response team, if you will, and what is that going to entail and how much of a cost it's going to come to the city? How much more staff time it's going to take to put someone in a ambulance or in a police car? What what the what the dynamics are going to be of such a such program? It's the first time I've heard about it. I don't have any information on it that would be present to me tonight. And so I'm not I'm not ready just yet to to pursue this, but I'm willing to listen to my colleagues. Councilmember Pierce. Thank you. I want to say I applaud the goals and the intent of this item. Obviously, I think we all kind of had our our run at trying to assist in making sure our response times are better and making sure people have access to health care. You know, I guess I have a couple of questions in regards both to that I haven't heard from either nurses or fire, but also questions on any legal concerns. Would we be at risk for any lawsuits? And so when this comes back, if you could outline any legal concerns and then I have a question on our heart teams and how would this overlap or would it complement, since we've already, as a city invested in hard teams, we've expanded our heart teams. Is there opportunities there to utilize that and maybe build on that as well? So those are some of my my general questions. My my staff gave me about five pages of notes of pros and cons and, you know, sort of respectfully seeing that it's a report to come back. I look forward to those next steps. So I will weigh in at this point. I had a couple of things that I liked, the way we are going with this. Councilmember Mungo I think this is a very insightful item and in the conversation should be had about how we can be more strategic in and and utilizing our resources. I thought some of the comments from my colleagues. Were, were. On point and and I think developed deserves some some attention and and exploration. And so, you know, I'm not sure that that all of this is going to be. The study can be done in a six month period. I'd like to just offer a friendly amendment or a friendly to you, too, to include in this within that 120 days. A forum during the Public Safety Committee. To allow the stakeholders to weigh in on the process. And and that will that will help us as a council kind of shape where this is going. I appreciate the option. I think that one of the reasons I'm asking for the item is there's so much diversity in the way that these are being rolled out. So you have some agencies that want to have like a nurse at dispatch. You have some agencies like L.A., FDA, that put a nurse on the ambulance. You have some agencies who have a doctor. L.A. County has a doctor that gets into the ambulance and does the follow up, and they're using them all as pilot. So I don't really know what. All the options that are even out there. So I absolutely would love to have it go back to public safety. I just was hoping for a quick gloss over of. What's out there in the area that's moving to the next step? What has items looked at and would any of them be even possible in Long Beach and or not? And so I wasn't looking for an in-depth study. I was only giving 120 days because I was being generous. Not that it would actually take stuff, any kind of significant staff time there is a fiscal outline at the bottom and I ran it by financial services in advance of the item in accordance with the fiscal policy, and I'm completely open to sending it to committee for a report back. If it's easier on the staff to do a verbal report than a written report, I'm open to all of that. I just know that the dialogs are going on out there and I didn't want those dialogs not to have Long Beach. I want us to be informed so we can decide if we want to engage in those conversations. And I think the point of me and thank you for accepting the recommendation to opt to send this to public safety committee. And in part of my my rationale for for suggesting that is just to give me the opportunity to for other colleagues to have an opportunity to. Absolutely. Review this and understand what this is. And and this is actually kind of new to me. But again, I'm I'm wide open. I think this is a this is headed in the right direction. I just want to make sure that we are processes, our arms are are tight, intact, but also that we're offering opportunities for for stakeholder involvement. More public comment? Absolutely. I think this goes to the point of our long council meetings. It's tipping on 9:00 at night. And the population that's most impacted by this are poor communities that have children at home that need to be in bed, and our senior communities that often don't want to drive after nighttime, much less commute across downtown because similar to Councilmember Richardson, we have the farthest drive to the hospital from a paramedic unit. And so those are the constituencies that probably want to be involved in the conversation. But as we know this but this body has quite a lot to hear at the dias. And so these conversations get late. I have had several conversations with our Fire Fighters Association over the last two years about the potential interest. He also brought some points to light that need to be discussed before we would be there. But I also recognize that as those summer months come and the agendas get even heavier, I mentioned that I'd like to at least get it on on the radar of city staff, and not that it would take 120 days, but just a few hours of staff time to pull that all together so that we at least would have the options to know and understand what's being discussed. And even if we do not choose to go this direction, I think it's still informed that other agencies know our opinions and for us to be able to voice those strongly. So thank you for the recommendation. Absolutely. Great. So we will now go to Council Supernova. Oh. Was that your. You were cued up again. Oh, great. Thank you. Councilmember Silvano. Okay. So the friendly on the floor is to send it to the Public Safety Committee. I sit on that committee, and I just have to say that for the next 90 days, my focus will be the community hospital and getting that facility open. That's a primary concern that I can't have any distractions from. So. That being said I welcome to support that friendly. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez. Yes. Thank you to my colleagues for bringing this forward. I think the spirit of the item absolutely gets to the heart of the issue, which is ensuring that we're being expedient and efficient with our public safety resources as much as possible. I, too, want to just say that I would like us to incorporate the discussion around the triage issue respective to the scope of practice that nurses provide. And I think that's really an important discussion we should have. And Public Safety Committee as well as the who would be who had been conducting these pilot programs, because we know that some of them may have been for profit ambulances and we want to make sure that it's done with the right intent for our city so that it it gets to the heart of the issue, as we discussed. But I really like this and I know working with firefighters and and everyone at the table, we will get to a good place. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Mongo. I want to appreciate Councilman Gonzalez for bringing up that point. I think that that is not being said a lot in the public forum in some of these other cities. And so I think that's one of the reasons that it's so important that we discuss it in a city as big as ours that has the complexities. Ours does. Some of these cities don't even have hospitals within their boundaries. Some of these cities don't do bills or transport. And so it's just a very different dialog that is going on around us. And I feel like since we are surrounded by other cities, serviced by other agencies, some of which have started down this path, we at least need to know what that means. And so I'm excited to hear what that means. Thank you. Members. I think that is there. So have we done public comment on this? Is there any public comment? The notion that. Good evening. Tiffany Davis speaking. I just wanted to say that I support this. Item and I look forward. To. Also possibly hearing input from. SEIU. I know that there's a large contingency. As someone who has been a caregiver for the past decade for chronic kidney disease patient. That this would probably alleviate the situation that I. Deal with in emergency rooms quite often. Thank you. Zero. Further public comment. Harry Nunn members, please cast your vote. And let me just clarify the motion. It was to to support this item and send it to public safety. That's correct. Right. And just from a staff perspective, so we think we're being asked to have the discussion on public safety, bring what what information we can readily bring, and then receive additional direction of public safety, if that's correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. So moved. Please cast your votes.

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 8 8.5 and 8 1.2 to Authorize the Public Works Director to Improve Safety and Visibility at Alameda Intersections. (Planning, Building and Transportation 4227287)

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-7057

Final passage of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section eight, dash 8.5 and eight. Dash 1.2 to authorize the Public Works Director to improve safety and visibility at Alameda Intersections. And we do have one speaker on this item. Okay. Is it was that why we why it was pulled? Not for the council. Okay. Okay. So let's have that. Why don't we have a public speaker and then we'll see if we need to have, I guess, our city engineer. Hello? And is this our public speaker? Yes, yes. Yes. Hi there. Good evening, Mayors Council. All mains hidden within agenda item five. Eleanor. I have no problem with the improving safety and visibility at at intersections but 885b the public works director is hereby authorized prohibit parking within 20 feet of intersections curbing within Alameda within 30 feet of the near side of Signalized intersection. Fine. The director may authorize the placement of street furniture or bicycle parking facilities within 20 feet of an intersection, crosswalk or curb return is within that discussion at it's not part of the synopsis of what the agenda item is. How can the granting of access to public land be so hidden within a consent calendar item? Instead of having a fully agenda ised agenda item with full public input and disclosure and supporting documents and examples. What sort of street furniture? What sort of bike parking facilities? There were no supporting documents to item five on the 20 linear feet with an MM probably worth ten K and around the whole island it's probably $125 million worth of public giveaway access. A consent calendar item is not how city governments should conduct this type of business. I should not have to need to read the fine print to find their ad. You're going to be allowing bike parking and street furniture, you know, throughout the island. I ask you to strike the wording of this of that wording for street furniture and bicycle parking, because it's not identified. No examples given to the public. If the city were to be fair to its citizens, this agenda item should have had that mention in its synopsis. And that's my question. Thank you, Mr. Street. I am going to in just a moment, call upon our city attorney, even Shawn, for an explanation. But I will just note quickly that this is the final passage. The second reading, the final passage of an ordinance which requires a second reading at our last council meeting was the last one. Over a month ago, the last council meeting, we had an excellent presentation by our city attorney, Scott Wickstrom, in a engineering city. Yes. What did I say? Oh, did I? What did I say? Anyway, our city engineer, Scott Wickstrom, an excellent staff report and a report that went along with it. But I am going to ask my city attorney. He is the city attorney, Eben Chan, to please give a brief explanation of what we're doing here tonight. Mayor and Council. You're absolutely right. This item is here for final passage. Therefore, there is no staff report attached. But it is my understanding and memory serves right that the public works department. And gave the Council a full presentation on this topic, including the street furniture, and therefore I believe the Council can vote on this item. Thank you, Mr. Shaw. And thank you, Mr. Strelow. All right. We have heard public comment, and that was all the public comment, correct? Closing public comment, any council discussion? Or do we just move to a motion council for approval of a motion? I have a second. All in favor. I opposed any abstentions. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Next up is for the. Final passage of ordinance concerning the establishment of an annual general adjustment, a rent registry, banking, and a petition process for an upward and downward adjustment of rents. And we do have five speakers on this item. All right. So any council clarifying questions? Okay, with CNN, let's just get started on our public speakers and up to 3 minutes apiece, right?

Resolution Recognizing November 20-December 20, 2022 as National Survivors of Homicide Awareness Month. On motion of Councilors Mejia, Lara and Arroyo, the rules were suspended; the resolution was adopted.

BostonCC_05042022_2022-0592

I can have a059 to counsel as me here. Laura in Arroyo offered the following resolution, recognizing November 20th through December 20th, 2022, as National Survivors of Homicide Awareness Month. Thank you. The chair recognizes counsel. Counsel me here. Counsel me here. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And before I even read this, I just wanted to acknowledge counsel, morale and counsel of Baker for bringing the Lucy Brown Peace Institute here a few weeks ago. So I really do appreciate your support for Tina and her team. So thank you for bringing them into the space. And I would also like to thank my co-sponsors, council, Elida and Arroyo. I know this resolution will be recognizing and Awareness Month all the way in November, but we frankly need to be recognizing survivors of homicide 365 days a year. We use the word, quote unquote, resilient in a lot of political spaces, perhaps sometimes too much. But it's hard to think of another word to describe the families and loved ones of those who have survived homicide. That kind of loss, this pain that sticks to you like no other. And as we have recently seen in recent events that have happened with the graves of our young loved ones in our cemetery in Roslindale, that pain and trauma can renew itself over and over again. And I think that too often we lose a loved one to homicide. That's that's the initial wave of support. People send you meals, reach out words of encouragement, refer you to trauma services. But what happens after that? What happens during that first birthday or holiday season without them? Who is there for the families in that time of need? And I think that's why we need a time like Survivors of Homicide Awareness Month, because there isn't a moment in time when the grieving stops, when you finally move on, especially when you have lost someone to homicide, as I have. This Sunday, I will be walking in the 26th annual Mothers Day Walk for Peace as a city councilor, but more importantly, as a mom, I need to be there not only to show my support, but because I know that we can't just keep having the same conversations around violence in our community. Something has to give. So that by this time next year, the 27th Annual Mothers Day's Walk for Peace can be a place where we can celebrate the fact that we realized our potential as a city and make major systemic changes to how we address the violence in our communities. I really hope that we can get to this point. And before I move to suspend the rules and ask my colleagues to speak, you know, I met so Tina was my neighbor. And when I started my career in the nonprofit sector, her son Louis was gunned down on Geneva not too far from where I live. And that was 20 something years ago. And we keep having the same conversation around violence. And I think that what we have lost touch is, is with the folks who have to continue to carry on. My niece. Lost the the father of her son to violence. In my first year here as a city councilor. And his tomb was one of the ones that were. Uh, one of the ones that were messed with. And it was my daughter. Who told me about it. And I think that when we think about survivors and we think about the pain and the trauma, all of those things need to be taken into consideration. If we're really serious about this work here in the city of Boston, I just feel like everything here is so political and it just gets tiring and people are tired of it. And I think that. You know, we all are responsible and we all have to be held accountable to what we're going to do if we're really serious about restoring the harm that so many are experiencing here in the city of Boston. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Here. The chair recognizes council borough council ora. You have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn, and thank you to Councilor for asking me to co-sponsor this resolution for including me in this resolution. And Councilor Arroyo, our other co-sponsor. I became a homicide survivor for the first time when I was 11, when my oldest brother, who was 25 at the time, was murdered. I didn't know at the time that I would become a survivor another dozen times over in in my life, all of my colleagues, if not most of the folks here have are either survivors themselves or know and love survivors and their families who they either work with or are in their communities. And so I feel like this resolution is an ode to that strength and that resilience and the commitment to keep going from homicide survivors. And for me, it's really a commitment to the ongoing fight against gun violence. As a member of the trauma response team. I spend most of my time responding to victims and survivors of penetrating wounds in my neighborhood. I then became a street worker and did violence prevention and intervention work in Mattapan first and then in Lower Roxbury in the South End? And so to say that I have spent most of my adult and professional life. In the midst and trying to manage and fight for and advocate for not just our young people who are victims, but their their friends and families in our communities would be an understatement. There are things happening in my district currently that, you know, the folks in our community are really feeling the weight of, including this issue that we've been seeing at the cemeteries, one of which is a constituent of ours. And our office has been working really closely to support. And so, you know, when I think about survivors of homicide, I like to think about my mom who lost her, you know, lost her first child and how she dedicated her life maybe for the possible next ten years to finding my brother's murderer who wasn't arrested when my brother was shot. And that is the kind of tenacity that I see in all of our people, in all of our pain, all the pieces of the people and the constituents of the city of Boston. Who have to carry the weight of surviving homicide. So I'm really excited and happy to support this resolution, and I hope that we can continue to honor honoring survivors by making the policy decisions that are ultimately going to create safe communities for all of us. Thank you, Counselor. Laura. The chair recognizes Counselor Arroyo. Council of Arroyo. You have the floor. Thank you. President Flynn. I think counselor here and Counselor Laura for raising this with me. I had a murder hit very close to my home. Michelle Nova, the pizza delivery man who was murdered in High Park. I was the father at the time with my partner, and so I was there for the direct impact of that. And for the years after that, that's actually how I became very aware of the services that the city offers and where they're good and where they're poor. I got to meet Courtney Gray at that time. I have to give him some praise in this moment as somebody who is excellent at dealing with trauma. And the reality is they only have the resources at that point for folks who don't know. Rochelle Nova was a pizza delivery man who had taken a shift and that night was murdered over essentially $50 and. When that happens, there's obviously a lot of trauma, residual trauma, a lot of lifelong obvious pain and harm. And what the city was able to offer, which I think is certainly better than nothing, was a week essentially of Courtney Gray and sort of the trauma response team services. They got a week of that, and it was incumbent upon myself and people close to this family to basically ask them as many questions as we could to figure out how do you guide somebody through? Unspeakable loss and trauma, just the deepest, worst destabilizing thing that can happen to someone. And with his guidance and his ability to be somebody I can check in with regularly. There was healing there and there were things that were in play. But there's still that loss. There's still that trauma. There is still residual. Every holiday is very different. Every birthday is very different. Every moment that would bring joy. Generally, whether it's a graduation or a marriage proposal or however that is going, there is harm and loss and missing. And so to think about the families in Boston and in the state and in the country experience that I think Homicide Awareness Month is or is is the least of what we can do. I think focusing resources towards dealing with that trauma that families are feeling in those moments. And I would just also note that this was a case where they were able to arrest the folks who did this and bring them through a judicial process. But we know that in Boston, especially, many families have never had that closure. Many families have had to experience the feeling of not knowing who did this to their loved one. And so as we do this, you know, I just want to highlight that there are services that we have offered that I can testify, frankly, work really well, and we need to expand that action and that practice and make that more accessible. The other thing I will just mention here, too, is that people don't often think about this, but when people are die unexpectedly about to do murder or homicide, there is a cost that a family must now carry that is unexpected, and often times it is devastating to have someone who has just lost someone. And their first request is for money or for help securing money because they are stressed and worried about how they are going to properly honor their their loved one because they don't have the resources to do so in this time of trauma need. And I know that the city does do some very small allocations in the budget to help with those things. But I think that is something that I would like to see focused on in the budget as well, because it is heartbreaking to see families that do not have the resources to make it day to day, have to all of a sudden figure out how to get into debt or how to borrow money from other people so that they can honor their loved one while also going through such trauma. And so these are the kinds of wrap around things that I think we really have to focus on as a city and figure out how to address, because homicide is awful and terrible and there are all these sort of butterfly effects and ways in which we can be helpful and I can speak to that personally. And so thank you for lifting this up. I see all of those who have suffered this harm, and my thoughts and prayers, frankly, are with you all of the time, but especially now. So thank you, President Flynn and the council. Thank you, Counselor Arroyo. The chair recognizes counsel for Charity Council, Florida U of the Fall. Thank you, Mr. President. Please add my name. And as the lead sponsor, it stated It really is a year round. A year round diet for four families. I lost my cousin back in 1994. 28 years has gone by. We think about it. The whole family thinks about them all the time. And one of the things we do think about is if the Boston of today, the Boston that supports strongly supports, arduously, supports our LGBTQ community, if that was the situation in 1994, we probably wouldn't have not have lost our cousin. And so that's constantly reminding me of of his passing, but also for those that are in this chamber or those that have lost a loved one, that I understand that and that we do think about our loved ones every day and wish that we could have that moment every day like something he had just alluded to. So please add my name and encourage others to join as well. Thank you, counsel. Clarity. Those wishing to add the name, please raise your hand. Mr. Kirk, please add Counselor Arroyo. Counselor Board Counselor and Counselor Fernandez Anderson. Counselor Baker, Counselor. Clarity. Counselor. Illusion. Counselor Murphy, counsel. We're all employees. That the chair. Councilors. Consoles me here. Laura and Arroyo. Now seeking suspension of rules and adoption of Docket 0592. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I oppose any. The ayes have it. The docket has passed. Mr. Clerk, please read docket. 05930593. Counsel of Flynn offer the following resolution Recognizing the contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders during Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in May.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.96, establishing the "Healthcare Workers Minimum Wage Ordinance", read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08092022_22-0946

Thank you very much. We will. We're going to go and do. Audience 27 And then the aquarium bond items. AUDIENCE The 27 is the first reading of the ordinance, please. Item 27 is report from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.96 establishing the Health Care Workers Minimum Wage Ordinance. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading City. Thank you. I think we all have the the document in front of us is your public comment on this before we take a vote. If there any members of the public that would like to speak on item. Ordinance number 27 in person. Please sign up at the podium and zoom. Please use the raise hand feature or dial store and I now. We have one person in person. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I want to thank you all for taking a look at this and your support for this measure. This is going to help a lot of people in the community of Long Beach and hopefully the community as a whole. We do know that the. It just shows from the report out from your own city workers. Understaffing is a chronic issue among all the folks that take care of our city. Health care is just one of many of many examples. We all work long hours, short staffed, and we're taking care of our most vulnerable citizens. And that's why, again, I'd like to thank you for bringing up this matter. And I would definitely hope that you will vote in the affirmative to support a $25 minimum wage for health care workers. And hopefully this will have effects on other workers here in the city and statewide. Thank you. A speaker, please. Hello. My name is Alberto in critical care, taking this U.S. Marine Medical Center and I have been working there for 15 years. I lived in Long Beach all my life. I just want to know that everybody gonna think different. Hear me yell. Um. I'm sorry. I congratulate you. Thank you. For how much? This means a lot to us for getting this wage going up for us, because a lot of people struggle in general just in their life and with their lives and having with the rent crisis situation and inflation. We also care and help people in need patients in the hospital because it's really short stuff at the moment. We don't have them there, so we short the nurses every single day. Staffing in general. And. Thank you for your support and hopefully you can pass a bill to give more aid and and especially in hospitals throughout the community because we are really short staffed as or she's a very overcrowded and we can't even take care of the people that come for help. So and dinner and stuff and other people are leaving also because again. Just wait the wages. There is not enough for them. So I appreciate you guys. I continue to take the field consideration. Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker. And then we'll go to online here. Hi. Good, good. My good night. Yes. And I thank you for be here for all. Thank you. For. Stay all. Thank you, you guys, congratulations. Because it's very important for the CDC to see you and I'm working and say merry. My name. Is Chris Larson and thank you for support for. The minimum wage. 25. Thank you so much for the great job. And and I. Hear all cases love peace can be great if you you guys. Police Department. Fire and the citizen have more communication for be more beautiful on beat because truly ne but the only way to stay all together. And make good party for everybody. Can be happy. And thank you. So much for everything you do. I know it's very late for everybody. Thank you so much for I love you. Thank you. Is there any. That concludes public comment. That can be sort a comment. We have a motion in a second. I think we all have the ordinance presented by the city attorney. A roll call vote, please. Councilwoman Cindy has I. Councilwoman Allen. I. Councilwoman Pryce, I. Councilman Sabino I. Councilwoman Mongo I. Councilwoman Sarah I. Councilmember Ranga. I. Councilman Austin. I Vice Mayor Richardson. I. The motion is carried and nine zero. Great. Thank you. And, you know, we do have I believe we'll have we took one more vote on this issue for final reading next week. Correct? Okay, great. Thank you all. We're going to move on to item 22 and I believe it's 30, Mr. Modica, which are the two concurrent aquarium items?

Recommendation to request that City Council receive and file a presentation on the Century Villages at Cabrillo 2019 Social Impact Report.

LongBeachCC_10012019_19-0941

Thank you. I have a time certain that I know his past because the hearings went went long. I want to bring up item 25, which had the first time certain here. You can please have that item up. Item 25 Communication from Council Member Muranga Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on the Century Villages at Cabrillo 2019 Social Impact Report. Councilmember Ringo. Tonight, I am pleased to have representatives from the Villages at Cabrillo, at the Council tonight to provide their 2019 social impact report. The villages at Cabrillo provide a multitude of services to our residents and serve as a model to other cities and agencies for services related to our continuum of care. I'd like to invite Ms.. Kimberly Wie, vice president of Resident Services, to present an update on their 2019 social impact report. And I see that Mr. Renee Castro has already lined up to present Southport to the Council. Renee. Thank you, Councilman. Mayor. Members of the Council. Thank you so much for having us. My name is Renee Carlstrom, director for Community Engagement. I am not. Can we but I'm going to I'm going to tee it up for Kim to give our report. We just wanted to thank the councilmen, the mayor and council for the opportunity to present our 2019 Social Impact report. We're very proud of the work that's been done in this. Tonight, we actually wanted to start with a brief video, just a three minute video to share a little bit about the villages and the work that we do there. Of course, as all of you know, we provide housing, bridge housing and permanent supportive housing for on any given night, 1500 formerly homeless people are veterans, families, children. So we're very excited about this work. And we just really wanted we like every year to come and present to the council because and thank you for your partnership. We really could not do this work without the work of all the councilmembers. Of course, our council member in the seventh, Roberta Aranda staff. But in particular, we really want to thank the city department, its development services, everything Parks and Rec, Health and Human Services, the police department. It's really is a partnership to make this work. So again, I we're going to be sharing a brief video. And then after that, we will have our chair, Dora Soldo, who is the chair for villages at Cabrillo, speak briefly, and then we will have our vice president for resident services. Kim, we will present the data. Thank you so much. If we could cue up the video, please. Okay. There is no video. Okay, so I'm going to do it with hand puppets. All right. So I'm going to ask our chair, Dora Hassell, to please. Good evening and thank you for having us. My name is Dora Herzfeld, and I have the honor of serving as the chair. Of the The Villages of Cabrillo Collaborative Marzo Executive Director of Comprehensive Child Development. And we are one of the many partners that make up the villages of Cabrillo Collaborative, and I'm joined by a number of our wonderful partners. And I think Renee was talking about really partnership and our support of the city for everything that has been offered to us in order to bring this neighborhood alive for people who formerly were experiencing homelessness. And for us, the heart really of the neighborhood is the people and the people who have worked so hard to create an environment where well-being and and healing can occur for us as the beautiful buildings go up. We're working on a parallel track to make sure that the experience of the residents is equally thought of and careful in terms of the experience we're providing. And I think for us, as the Villages of Cabrillo Collaborative, we say to you that as we get support for these wonderful buildings in this wonderful community, we owe you a service that any resident, any Long Beach resident would be proud to receive. And so we're here again to thank you, to let you know that we're certainly meeting our commitment to make sure that every single resident is cared for and is supported in a way that's going to make their quality of life better. And we have plans, just as we do have plans for the facility. We have plans for a residence which includes this year a real focus on improving outcomes for children zero five who call the villages at Cabrillo their neighborhood. And also to look at the organizational culture of the community to make sure that it's responsive to the needs of the residents in that community. So we thank you again, and we're here to let you know that we are honoring our commitment with our social impact report to you for your investment in our neighborhood. And I'll pass it over to Kim. Thank you, Dora. And thank you all for The Village. It's a real collaborative standing behind me. I love having a posse. Thank you. Again, my name is Kim WI. I'm the vice president of residential services at Century Villages at Cabrillo. And it is my pleasure to present to you our Social Impact Report. Each year I come before you in and tell you how we're doing and this is how we codify our results. This is what all of the all the hard work in the dollars goes into. And we present this report each year so that we can show what, you know, all the great work that we're doing. It is a it is a labor of love. It is a ten month project that really brings together all of the data of our partners, both on and off site. It includes stories of our residents, great photos and data. It is truly a collaborative process in conjunction with the City Health and Human Services HMAS Team. We definitely could not do it without that. A lot of the data comes. From the HMAS. System. We also get data from our 14 partner agencies and all of that is put together by Dr. Beth Magee, who is our outside evaluator for the project. I'd also like to, again, as Rene said, thank the city for their ongoing supportive efforts of not only the villages of Cabrillo, but also the process of putting together the Social Impact Report, and especially Kelly Collopy, Alison King, Theresa Chandler, Shannon Parker and Ailsa Ramos. We definitely could not do it without them. Each year we look back at our progress and each year, as you've seen the Social Impact Report, you will see that there is a theme this year. Our theme is whatever it takes. And those of you that are familiar with the intensive case management or the Measure H funding, you've probably seen whatever it takes in all of the documents throughout the county documents. And so we wanted to put a story behind it and put some real life behind what that really means. And so if you read our centerpiece this year, that is all about what our service providers do, what our case managers do to help keep people housed. It is truly a whatever it takes model. We work in partnership with all of our service providers on and off site. We work with the residents hand in hand to help move them from homelessness to being housed. That takes a lot. And what that really means of moving from homelessness to housing is to becoming a good tenant, a good resident, paying the rent and being a good neighbor. And while trying to manage all of the daily tasks of having your own apartment while trying to overcome all the barriers that got them on the street in the first place PTSD, mental health, substance abuse and poverty and a long life of trauma. And so that is that is definitely a challenge that. We have met. In 28. 2018, 2291 residents were housed at the villages. Of those 1291 ward permanent supportive housing. And of that, 1200 30% of them entered permanent housing after. Experiencing chronic homelessness. At Harbor Interface building that opened this year, for example, there are 13 adults with a combined homeless experience of 38 cumulative years, 138 cumulative years. And so despite these challenges, our collaborative and our service providers and our wonderful team, county and city partners, our property management team, and of course, the residents themselves did whatever it takes to stay house and succeed. And you can see that in the numbers. Did I hit the wrong button? I'll leave that. At. 98% of our residents retained housing for six. Months. And 95% remained. How's after a year? And just for I know that the timers not appear, but we've got about three, three and a half minutes left for the presentation. Thank you. And beyond remaining housed, which is a huge chore as the own. We wanted to echo what Dora was saying in that there are lives improved in many ways as well. They increased their incomes. They saved in the rents. They were happier. They felt safe in their own home. They're healthier. And most of all, they're. They're living a life of a housed individual now. And so again, thank you so much for exploring our social impact report data. And I hope you have an opportunity to read our centerpiece, which really explains to you the concept of whatever it takes. Thank you. Thank you. Not somebody, ringa. Councilwoman Price. Q I want to thank Councilman Ranga for bringing this presentation forward tonight. I had the pleasure to take a tour with my staff not too long ago, and it's just very impressive the work that's being done there and the community that you've created that so many people call home, and all the different touches that you've put into making it feel like home for communities of people who may be in transition and needing the support of not just their neighbors, but also of the folks who oversee and safeguard the operations there to ensure that everyone is comfortable and included. So I want to thank you for everything that you do. It's a really fantastic operation that we have right here in the city of Long Beach. I wish more people knew about it, actually. And our our office has been trying to spread the word. I think we did our news newsletter article about the villages of Korea in our newsletter a few months ago. And we really appreciate you giving us an opportunity and giving the residents an opportunity to see all about your facilities. Thank you, Councilor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Councilman Ranga. You have a true jewel in your backyard and on the West Side, this social impact report. I look forward to it every year. Rene, I'll tell you, we actually, Jack and we do a social impact. We do an impact report in our district modeled after your report. It's clear, it's transparent, it's easy to read. It takes a lot of complex things and boils down to what's all about making an impact. So congratulations to you on that. Villages Cambria is only so you know, there are so many things that we could all say, but truly it's a model. It's a model that is recognized nationally. You know, I served on SAG for a long time. I'm first vice president. This is the you're the only organization successfully navigated the cap and trade process. Received two awards in the first two years of the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities Program. And we look forward to future applicants awarding additional projects as we move forward. You know, in our last year, I've been there many times in our last tour. I have to tell you, it was just great to see kids playing outside. You don't even see that very often. Just in regular neighborhoods. The kids were outside playing in the way that you've overlapped so many services, you know, you see children's clinic, so many services all working together and you've brought the train and mean brought the bus into the site. It's amazing. In fact, it's the model for the vision for the the bridge housing facility we're developing in uptown. This is the model to have to point out something in our backyard to be able to take residents, tour it and say this is where we could be. It does so much to really build the goodwill and the confidence to turn around that not in my backyard conversation because yes, villages Cabrillo is an amazing space. It has bridge, housing and shelter and all of those things make stand. And we need to we to make sure that our residents fully understand what's what's possible in this conversation. So, again, thank you. I really love this report. I'm a big fan of villages, Cabrillo and best wishes. We look forward to many more great years with you. Thank you. And got some reports. On some member of Richardson stole my talking points. I'm done. No, I'm kidding. I it's really hard not to say echo up here. As a council member, I want to echo their comments saying that you guys are a model. I don't know that that comes across as real as it really is to be able to lead not only organizations like yourselves, but to lead the city in this conversation. I think that our city, night and day, where we were ten years ago with how we talk about and and try to problem solve homelessness, mental health addiction . And that is really because you guys have led the way and demonstrated to us that you can do it in a safe, clean environment that's supportive and that you've got real outcomes. I do not think for a second that the City of Long Beach would have invested as much as we have in homelessness if it was not for your leadership. And I want you guys to really know that that's it's not just giving accolades because you guys are a partner that comes and presents to us every year. But I really feel that with my heart that you as individuals have led this organization to be a gem for the nation. And so I know that you guys are also looking to purchase properties. My team is working with economic development right now to identify some properties in the Second District that that might be up for sale right now. And so I look forward to those partnership opportunities and just thank you guys so much for putting your heart into it. We know that this work takes a lot out of you and your families as well. And so applauding you for that effort. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have one public comments and I can only please come forward. CNN. We're going to go ahead and receive and file a report from your anger. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank the staff at the Board of the Villages for being here this evening and present presenting this report. I look forward to it every year as well, because it just shows the progress that you're doing here. And you are a gem of the West Palm Beach area and you provide so much, so many very need, much needed services. And just to give a brief description of some of the the assistance that you get from Catholic Charities, U.S. vets, the children's clinic, and the. Oh, my God. All right, now we're here and a Project Return Peer Support Network. I mean, those are just agencies that provide a whole other slew of services that you provide there at the at the villages of. You're also expanding. I think you have another project coming in with another, what, 89 beds or so? Something like that. 163. 61. I was way off double that. And so, I mean, you continue to expand and you continue to provide great services. And if you don't make. And we take a photo. Wonderful City Council. You're welcome to join me down there if you want. Please go and cast your votes in the receiving file, please. Thank you. And if I may, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to just introduce a couple more partners. Jessie D'Agostino for the VA critical partner for us, of course, mentioned U.S. vets. Kerry Liggins Thompson, our acting director from the children's clinic, Gina Lee Lawlor. Of course, Jaylene Westfall, our. Resident services supervisor, and of. Course, star herself. So can we just give them a quick hand to mention my boss, our executive director, Steve Coleman? All right, please, members, please go to cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. I'll send it to you right now. Thank you. Yeah. You know, I'm like this. All right. Get a little bit closer. If you can. One, two. But I want to add. Thank you.

Resolution Supporting H.1339/S.829 An Act to Guarantee Debt-Free Public Higher Education. On motion of Councilor Mejia, the rules were suspended; the resolution was adopted.

BostonCC_10272021_2021-1135

Thank you very much, councilman here. DUCAT 0600 shall remain in the Committee on Government Operations, but motions, orders and resolutions. Madam Clerk, would you please read Docket 1135? Serve me docket 1135. Councilor offered the following resolution supporting House Bill 1339 and Senate Bill 829, an act to guarantee debt free public higher education. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The chair now recognizes the At-Large Council from Dorchester Councilor Julian. Here, the floor is yours. All right. Today's my day was the last one. So thank you, Mr. President. Earlier this year, our body passed a resolution urging the Biden administration to cancel all student debt within their first 100 days in office. Sadly, as anyone burdened with the weight of student debt will tell you, that has not happened. However, thanks to thanks largely to the advocates of the community organizations and advocacy groups such as Zero Debt, Massachusetts and film efforts are underway in our State House to work towards addressing debt free public higher education. 8.1339.8.829. An Act to guarantee debt free public higher education submitted by Rep Higgins and Senator Eldridge is a systemic solution to the crisis of college unaffordability and student loan debt, which will guarantee tuition and fees free public college. It will also award additional cost of living, grant money to low income families to eliminate the need to borrow for housing, transportation, childcare, etc.. This is an incredibly impactful legislation, especially since Boston is home to UMass Boston, the city's only public research university and the third most diverse campus in the United States. UMass Boston is also a school where students are being saddled with debt that impacts their daily lives. Having access to debt free school in Boston would be an amazing opportunity for students who want to go to college but are afraid of taking on a lifelong debt. For those reasons, I move that we suspend and pass the rules to pass this resolution. Thank you for asking me here. Would any other councilors wish to speak on Docket 1135? Would any councilors wish to add their name as a co-sponsor to Docket 1135? Madam Clerk, please add Councilors Arroyo, Baker, Balk Parade and Campbell Edwards aside be George Flaherty Flynn please add the chair. Please add Councilor Will and Councilor me here seek suspension of the rules and adoption of Docket 1135. All those in favor please indicate by saying I oppose nay, the ayes have it. The the docket is hereby adopted. The resolution is hereby adopted. Thank you very much. We're now moving on to late files and I am informed by the clerk that there is one late file matter which is a personnel order. All those in favor of adding the file matter to the agenda please indicate by saying I oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. Thank you. To file matter has been duly added to the agenda. And Madam Clerk, would you please read the late file matter into the record? Certainly. In the City Council. Oct 27, 2021. Councilor O'Malley for Councilor Edward.

A proclamation designating May 15 through May 21 as “Public Works Week in Denver” and congratulating the Denver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Employees of the Year for 2021

DenverCityCouncil_05162022_22-0578

Moving on. There are no presentations this evening. There are no communications. There is one proclamation being read. Councilmember Cashman, will you please read Proclamation 20 to Dash five, seven, eight on behalf of Council Pro-Tem Torres? Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. As you said, this proclamation was written and filed by Council Pro Tem Torres as she is out of town and in her hopes that we don't suffer any more technological problems. She asked me to read this this evening. So this is Proclamation 20 2-0578. Designating May 15 through May 21 is public works week in Denver and congratulating the Denver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure's Employees of the Year for 2021. WHEREAS, in celebrating the American Public Works Association's 2022 theme of Ready and Resilient, we recognize the employees of Denver's Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Dottie, who are always ready to serve their communities and resilient amid change or a new challenge. And. Whereas, one challenge being the recent pandemic, we want to acknowledge the work that Torrey employees performed throughout the public health crisis and thank the staff who couldn't work from home and who came in to work every day to keep our city clean and make our streets safer. And. Whereas, Dottie continues to deliver high quality and cost effective services to the city's residents and manage and maintain the public infrastructure to improve quality of life in our city. And. Whereas, the Department focuses on continuous improvement, implementing new trash collection routes to improve efficiency, developing and implementing innovative tools for equitable delivery of projects and accelerating the implementation of bike lanes and bus lanes that make travel by alternative modes easier and better. And. Whereas, the Department keeps the city's infrastructure in a state of good repair, including streets, bridges, traffic signals and signage and enhances Denver's air. And. Water quality through street sweeping and the installation of green infrastructure and improved. Stormwater. Infrastructure to reduce flood risks and protect life and property. And. Whereas. The Department is overseeing the delivery of projects that support a strong economy and put people to work, including the voter approved Elevate Denver bond projects and the expansion of the Colorado Convention Center and renovation of the 16th Street Mall. And. WHEREAS, The Council specifically recognizes and congratulate the employees of the year for 2021 for their achievements. Bossier Commence Project Delivery Administration Infrastructure. Mike Harmon Project Delivery Administration Transportation Micaela Martinez Finance and Administration Cathie Tongue Accounting Richard Court Fleet Management. Lawrence Garcia Right of Way Enforcement. Mike Sazerac Right of Way Services. Anthony Aragon Office of Community and Business Engagement. Darrel Herter Junior Solid Waste Management. Deshawn Mayberry Street Maintenance. Scott Burton Transportation Operations. Paula Stokes Wastewater Management. Special Recognition goes to Juan Esparza for winning National Waste and Recycling Association Driver of the Year. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Council designates the week of May 15 through May 21, 2022, as Public Works Week in Denver and congratulate studies 2021 and. Boys of the Year for their outstanding contributions to the department and the city in Section two. But the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affixed to seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies hereof be forwarded to Denver Public Works and the ten public works employees listed above. Thank you. Council Member Cashman, your motion to adopt? Yes, ma'am. I moved the proclamation 22 days, 0578 be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. And we're going to call, I believe, on Council Member Torres first. That was my audio working. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Cashman, for your assist tonight. I was honored to be asked to sponsor this proclamation. And really, I think given the past several years that we have experienced, our team has really stepped up. We cannot function as a city without every single member of this agency. They're essential and valued. Thank you all. And I'm happy to support you and to recognize the 2021 employees of the Year. Thank you all so much for your hard work. Thank you, Counsel Pro Tem Torres. And we're going to go ahead and turn it over to Councilman Cashman since he had the the reading duties next to comment. And then we'll go to other members. Thank you, Madam President. There's I can't imagine any other department that touches. More Denver. Lives than the Department of Transportation Infrastructure. Just looking at this list of the people who who won were recognized and the areas that they work in. We've heard tonight and public comment about the need to improve our sidewalks. That's that's Dotty. They pay for our roads. They pick up our solid waste. They are involved with drainage projects. I mean, you could go on and on all day long. Body touches every family every week in some way or another. And so I just joined. Councilwoman Torres, thank her for bringing this forward. Thank you. Not just the winners, but all the employees of the Department of Transportation Infrastructure for what they do for us every day. That's all. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Through a little bit of serendipity, I had occasion to call an acquaintance that I was trying to get some information from. And when I was talking to him, he told me that he was at the at this national convention or conference of waste and recycling operators. And I don't know what city it was in. I didn't ask what they dropped out of the window instead of water balloons. But he told me that he had just attended the ceremony where Juan Esparza received his award. And I thought that is really remarkable for one of Denver's drivers to win this national award and just representative of the entire solid waste crew. I know that they've had a rough time through the pandemic, Mayor. They've had a hard time keeping up with the demand in the schedule, and I salute every one of them when I happen to be at my house. When the recycling or the trash truck comes through the cul de sac, I always go out and thank them for the hard work they've been doing under very difficult circumstances. But it's recognition that's well-earned and overdue. So with that, thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. I will be brief. I just want to thank every single one of you. I appreciate all of you and everything you do. And so to my constituents. Thank you. Councilmember Canete. I would just like to add my congratulations to our driver of the year. And if there is ever the term everyday hero, I would apply it to this department, not just to those who do solid waste as it may be large in number, but those who do transportation and all the other pieces of the safety net work , safety, sanitation. My dad worked in the sewer business and he had a saying I can't repeat on air, but the community would be, you know, buried. And you know what? If it weren't for the folks who do our infrastructure? And so I also just want to add a little kudos for a particular example of going above and beyond. Two weeks ago, on a Friday night at 410, a neighborhood in Central Park had an illegal dumping incident that blocked access to their alley. It was an incredible quantity of bizarre items. I, i i'm sure you've all seen way more than I have. I could not explain this particular dumping incident and what motivated it. Or. How it precipitated. But at 415 on a Friday, I was able to get through and the team cleaned it up in time for people to be able to access their homes that evening. The residents were incredibly grateful. I'm privileged to just be able to know how to reach you all, to be able to activate that system. I know you do that often for folks who call 311 or find you in other ways. I've heard those stories, so I know I'm not the only one who's been able to access those kinds of responses in an emergency. Just an example of going above and beyond. So thank you so much and thank you for bringing this forward. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President. I also wanted to. Make a few. Comments recognizing the individuals who were named earlier in this proclamation. I won't take the time to read them again, but I know most of you are here in the audience tonight and just want to extend my gratitude and appreciation. I know you don't always hear from people when you're doing a good job. You do hear from them when their trash doesn't get picked up or a stop sign gets knocked down and doesn't get replaced right away. But you all do important work for our city, and I know that the residents do truly appreciate the work you do. You may not hear from them all the time. I know I do. When I'm out and about in the community and people talk about our agencies and the services that they receive. But for each one of you, I know you reflect the work that's done by all of our men and women who work within the department . And you're reflective of the hard work that each one of them do for our city. Day in and day out. So much, much praise and appreciation for your work. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega and I will go ahead and add in that we are very, very grateful to our dotty folks. They really did keep the city running during a very tough time. But they also have in my time in office really improved how they listen to the community and how they actually get out and walk in the area that we might need to look at a little bit closer and work on education and work on making sure that people are heard. And that's so important, especially now in our neighborhoods when people are struggling and the cost of living and inflation is so high. And it means a lot when we can make infrastructure improvements that improves people's day to day lives. It makes you a little bit happier when you come home, when you can get in and out of your neighborhood in an easy way and you feel like you're getting those amenities that you're seeing in other parts of the neighborhood or the community. And so really appreciate our dotty folks and and wholeheartedly support this proclamation. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Torres. Cashman I. Black. I. CdeBaca I Clark. I. Flynn. I. Hinds II. Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval Oops. Allergies. Sawyer. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Proclamation 20 2-5 78 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for the proclamation, acceptance and Councilmember Cashman, who would you like to bring up? Well, it's as much a mystery to me as to you. I'm hoping someone from our find daddy staff. I see Executive Director Adam Phipps. Thank you, Councilman. And thank you, Councilwoman Torres and council president and council tonight. I'll be very brief here. It's my humble ability to be able to accept this on behalf of an incredible department. We have, when fully staffed, 1500 dedicated employees that serve the residents of the city and county of Denver and those who visit, work and play here on a daily basis. You know, the theme for Public Works this year is ready and resilient. We have a team that throughout the pandemic, more than two thirds came in every single day to provide the critical service that our community needs. I can't think of a more ready staff. And as far as resiliency goes. We had an incredibly intense snow season this year. We had 13 weeks of constant deployment. That's 24 hour coverage time away from family time, away from friends time away from hobbies that our team came in with unprecedented short staffing levels to ensure that our roadways were clear. We are ready and we are resilient and I am honored to be able to lead what an incredible and talented. Group of people. I do want to take just a moment while I've got the microphone here to mention safety, safety for our traveling public as well as safety for our employees. Our our commitment and desire to serve at times can come ahead of safety. And we're working to make sure that everything that we do in Denver and how we do it is at the safest standard possible. We ask everybody and I ask those listening online tonight for the ability to slow down. When you see our workers out on a construction zone, slow down when you travel around a solid waste truck doing its or performing its route, slow down when you see a pedestrian or bikeway or bike rider at a bikeway. And please put safety top of mind. And to the council members here, I thank you for the unanimous support of our department. We feel it not only tonight, but every single day that we're doing our job. And we appreciate that. And ask anybody that if you see a dotty employee, think that dotty employee recognize them for the hard work that they do every day. It's what I try to do. Where I strive to lead on a daily basis is recognizing that talent and appreciating everyone for their individual contribution. So with that Council President, thank you. Thank you. We appreciate it. And as a final plug for Dotty, they are also hiring. And so I would say, if you are interested in joining this great, amazing dynamic team, go to Denver gov dot org and look for some of the mini jobs that they are currently hiring for as well. So thank you, Director Phipps and I see Councilman Cashman. Yeah, I'm. Just wondering if we have any of the other winners whose names were mentioned, if they're in the audience, if they could stand up and be recognized. Councilman, we do have a handful and specifically. Directed to recognize that superior national driver as well. So please stand up to any of the non employees as well as our. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Thank you. I love it when we can have a celebration and then we can keep it going by recognizing people. And so congratulations again for your important work. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on to our bills for introduction.

Recommendation to receive and file the Elections Plan for the 2020 Primary Nominating and General Municipal Elections.

LongBeachCC_10152019_19-1039

Clark will move to item six in place. Report from City Clerk recommendation to receive and file the elections plan for the 2020 primary nominating and general municipal election. Here to present information on future of L.A. County elections and the new voting system is Los Angeles County Registrar, Recorder County Clerk Dean Logan. And thank you. Bring my book for signature. Those of you who don't know, Mr. Logan is now a published author. His book came out a few weeks ago. You remind us what it's called. So set. Have to look on Amazon. It's exciting. Case Studies on elections administration is one chapter, but I'm very pretty appreciate that. We got some stories here in Long Beach we would like to share with you. So good evening. Council Members. Dean Logan, Registrar, Recorder County Clerk for Los Angeles County. I really appreciate the opportunity to to come to speak before you today and to share some information about the new voting experience that we are rolling out in Los Angeles County, starting with the 2020 election cycle. And before I get too far into it, I want to take this opportunity to to thank your city clerk, Monique Della Garza, and her staff, who have been absolutely integral partners with us throughout this process. And we could not be where we're at with the success of this effort and with the hard work that still remains ahead without without her support and all the work that she's done. So thank you, Monique, for that. So I'm very pleased to share with you that that after ten years of of work and research and engagement with the public, that we are ready to move towards a revolutionized form of voting in Los Angeles County. And when I say revolutionized, I'm talking about the voting experience we have in Los Angeles County from the perspective of a voter walking into a voting location on Election Day. The voting experience really hasn't changed since 1968, when punch card voting was first unrolled here in Los Angeles County. A lot of things behind the scenes have changed and updated since then, but from that voter experience, it really has remained the same and a lot has changed since 1968. And it is time for new opportunities, new options and new choices for voters in that voting experience. And we hope that through the work that we've done that, that we're doing this in a way that is going to increase participation, but also live up to the significance of that voting experience for our 5.4 million registered voters in Los Angeles County. I only have a brief period of time this evening, so I'll focus on on the significant elements of that change in voter experience. So gone will be the single day, single location, voting on a random Tuesday between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.. And we're moving towards a vote center model where voters in Los Angeles County can go to any vote center in the county over a period of 11 days to cast their ballot, which means we will have two full weekends of voting and we will give voters the opportunity to choose to vote at a location that is either convenient or more significant to them. So if it's easier for them to vote close to their home, we'll have vote centers in that area. If it's easier for them to vote somewhere close to work, somewhere close to where they drop their children off at school, or somewhere where they go shopping on the weekends. That the idea here is to be present in the community and to meet people where they are. And so so if they watched a debate on television the night before and they feel engaged and they feel like they're ready to cast their vote, that while they're out in their community, they will see a place that's available for them to do that. So the vote centers are really the most significant change in that that allows voters to vote anywhere will open those starting 11 days before the election, four days before the election will increase that to a larger number of locations. And again, those are available anywhere in the county at those vote centers. You will also be able to register to vote and vote on the same day. You can update your voter registration. So if you had an address change or if you had a change in party preference, you will have the opportunity to make those changes as well, drastically reducing the the need for provisional ballots, which often extend the canvass period in our elections process. So we're very pleased to be able to offer that. The way that we will be able to do that is through the use of an electronic pullback. So when voters arrive at these vote centers, they will check in using an electronic tablet poll book. We will be able to access all registered voters in the county. This is also our security mechanism so that if you do go vote somewhere close to work and then you try to go vote somewhere close to home, we will know that you have already voted and and we will be able to prevent any any attempts to vote more than once. They this will replace the paper roster. So you may recall in 2018 we had some issues with our paper rosters in L.A. County. One of the great things about this model is over that 11 day period, it really gives us a better opportunity to to recover and respond to any unexpected conditions that might happen during the election process. Another feature that we will unroll that we're very excited about is an interactive sample ballot, and this is an option that will be available to all voters. It's option. It's not required. But just as we mail everybody a paper sample ballot, we will now make the sample ballot available as an electronic app that you can download on your personal device or access through our website. You can then go through your process and press make your preselections by marking those on your electronic sample ballot. Take that with you to the vote center, scan it into the voting device, and it'll pre populate your choices so that you can print your ballot and have an expedited voting experience. We think that's a game changer for voters who are used to interacting with their personal devices. It still allows for the security because the ballot that you cast at the vote center is that. Paper ballot that's produced app on the device. You can change your mind at that point. But we also know with all of the consolidation of elections, with the local districts and municipalities now on the even year cycle, that our ballot is going to be very long, especially in March and the presidential primary. It's going to be a long ballot. So the ability for voters to have that option, to have an expedited voting experience is particularly important. That ballot marking device that you will encounter at our vote centers is that is been a labor of service and a labor of love on this project. It is designed truly to be a voting solution for all people, meaning that that voters with disabilities can use the same voting device that all voters use. They will no longer be relegated to a single device in the back of the room that that the poll workers are less familiar with. Everybody will vote on the same device. It allows, to a large degree, voters to customize their voting experience. So it has audio capability, it has a tactile keypad. It has the ability for voters to select the language that they wish to see or hear their ballot in. It has an adjustable touch screen so that voters in wheelchairs or voters who are particularly tall can use the same device by adjusting it. And ultimately, the device produces a human readable paper ballot that is the official record of the ballots cast. That's what's going to come back to my office to be tabulated. So there is security and transparency involved in that can be fully audited and and recounted as necessary. So for us right now, we two weekends ago, we had a mock election. We opened 50 vote centers in the community, two right here in Long Beach to introduce this to voters. We're now in a four month period of rolling this out through public education and outreach campaigns. We have a demonstration center in your lobby. Thank you to the clerk's office for that. That will be live here on Long Beach through the end of this month. We have street teams that are out in the community demonstrating this everywhere we possibly can. Right now, that's really the point, is to get the word out, because while this was designed by and for the voters of Los Angeles County, we are all creatures of habit. And unless we get the word out, people will expect that voting is the same as it has been in the past. So any assistance and partnerships for for people who are here tonight, people watching, and certainly our partners in the city, we have staff ready and available to to assist with those processes. And we look forward to delivering a new and exciting voting experience that lives up to the significance of our electoral process for the March 3rd, 2020 presidential primary. And just to note that those vote centers will begin opening on February 22nd. So we are very close to that process. And in it, I understand there's a debate tonight going on on on television, but it does seem clear with our primary being in March that California is going to have a stake in the nomination process for the the presidential campaign. So we're excited to to roll this out and to do it in a way that gives our voters a chance to be heard and to be confident that their vote has been cast as they intended to do. Thank you very much. Thank you. Public public comment time is there we have Mr. Good you excellent and Mr. Roberts and so is the individual to come up and speak. Mr. Good you accent. Next time we. Wobblies. Yes, this is. I think they're behind me and ready. But my name is Amy Ericson, and I'm a resident here in Long Beach for my entire life. I'm here with the Long Beach Suffrage 100 tonight to thank our city clerk, Monique, too, for bringing the new voting machines to the city and allowing us to come and try them out. We've been putting the word out through our circle of women that has been put together. We also are here going to be here every month to honor women through this year of the suffrage. And this is the perfect agenda item to do that on tonight, because the 19th Amendment was really set up for making sure that everyone can vote. And I think that's the important piece of what we're doing this year as we're having our events, as you're seeing us in the community. It's to remind everyone that we are here to share the idea of getting out into the community and doing good work, but also voting for the things that we need and as well as working on the census. So you'll be seeing us working around that as well this year. And we wanted to be here tonight to honor our first women that we're going to honor throughout the year. And in this case, because yesterday was Indigenous People's Day, we wanted to honor, honor some tongva elders. I think that's important to be aware and honor the space that we live on here in Pomona and make sure that we are thinking of those people. So we have a great man here who's going to speak about his own mom, who was one of those elders here in the community. But I think it's also important for everyone here to know, as well as the council people that we are honoring women throughout this year that did things here in Long Beach over the last hundred years. There is an honorary there is a recommendation form on our website. We'd like each of you, including the council people, to bring up bring forward women that we should honor through your districts. We want to see every district honored in this way and anyone here in the audience to go and find that and share that with us. And we'll be choosing those and bringing them to council one or two at a time through each month. We don't want to take a presentation time or extra time. We want to be able to fit this into the regular work of the council, and we're going to find good moments to do that in each of these times . So thank you again. Some of the women of the suffrage 100 group are here. Appreciate them standing back there. If you see us around in our whites or in our sashes, it's because women are being talked about and honored in our city. We came to the library opening to honor Billie Jean King being there. And we appreciate all that you guys are doing as the council to help us through this year. I'm going to give the rest of my time to Louis Robles. Some like me. Um, yo. Yo MC Tax Tokyo Visa Pool. Good evening, Honorable Mayor. Glad you could join us. And city council members, citizens. Of Long. Beach. Welcome and good evening. Happy to be here. My name is Louis Park. Epifanio Valenzuela Ramirez, Jr. Just call me Louie. You have to remember all that. I'm a member of the one in your band of Mission Indians, a Hashim Em nation. We're state recognized as a native peoples of Orange County. Our traditional land extended from here in. Long Beach, throughout, throughout Orange County, down into San Juan Capistrano. But more importantly, I'm a lifelong resident of Long Beach. I grew up in North Town, attended. McKinley, Long Beach, Jordan, Long Beach City. Cal State, Long Beach graduate. My parents moved to Long Beach in 1948. They bought their dream house just on the other side of the airport because they wanted to be in the country. The north Long Beach of that time was pastures, open land. They have memories of coyotes, horses. So that's what brought my. Family to Long Beach. You know, but I'm going to take you back. Before Long Beach was one more city, before there was Rancho Los Cerritos. Before there was Rancho Los Alamitos, there were the villages of Tex Sanga, a Wanga, a manga Pavone, all Indian villages here within the boundaries of the city of Long Beach. Some of those were occupied until the mid 1800s, you know, and those. Villages were occupied by strong. Women. There's an old saying that when you want to get words, you bring in the men. But when you want to get things done, you bring in the women. And so it's been traditional that the women of the native tribes are the ones that got things done. And my mom was a strong descendant of that. My mom believed there were there were forth there. Three things you didn't you told my mom. You never told my mom. You never told my mom can't. Don't or you shouldn't because we're all things that she was going to push against and get through. My mom grew up one. Of eight and she always. Wanted to go to school, but she couldn't. She stayed home, helped raise her younger brothers and sisters. My grandma was a single mom. She went to the bank and sat in there. This is in the 1930s. She sat in the bank until the bank president would give her a loan so she could open her own flower shop . So she was a single mom and a business owner in the thirties and forties. So this strong spirit has been going on since Native women all to this time. And I think as we honor 100 years of suffrage, it's that strong spirit that started with the warrior native women that carries on today. And so from my family, it was just a real honor that my mom was was singled out. And my mom would say, I can hear her up in the stars going, I'm just one person. Don't I'm nothing special, you know? And so I just honored all the grandmothers here, all the mothers. You're the ones that get things done, you know. And so it's those same women that that pushed for suffrage and 100 years. That's just a blessing, really. But thank you for this time. Thank you for honoring my mother. And this celebration will go for a year. And you're going to hear a lot about some incredible citizens of our city. 2 seconds. All right. Thank you very much for all the stories we tell. The stories. Good evening. Council Members Thank you again. I want to just commend our city clerk, Monique Delgado, for all the work and recommendations you're doing for the election plan 2020. It is definitely a plan that will bring more diverse communities to the election booth, underrepresented groups into the election booth and women into the election booth. And it's just amazing to have a city clerk at this time, at this 2020 time, when we celebrate the right to vote. We will send you a book on Lillian Valenzuela Robles so you can learn more about her work and many other women who made who gave women agency to go to work in their communities and then also represent the communities and ultimately have the rights that all other people have. Lastly, within this year, suffrage is an unfinished business. That is are our motto. That's what we represent, that this election plan is part of making suffrage hopefully one day finished. But as of now, suffrage is unfinished business. And thank you for your time. Thinking of Suarez. I want to just to add, Mr. Logan, I saw most representation in the back. It is plain back there. I just want to just commend you and your team and just thank you for how available you are. You just you and your team do a fantastic job for the entire county. I know you have a great partnership with our Clark, but I also know that the amount of work that you all put in to ensure that we have safe and fair elections is really important. I know 2020 is going to be a huge shift in the way elections are are operated, and certainly with technology and the way the pulse centers will be working. And so I just wanted to thank you for your work and for just continuing the partnership. So thank you very much. Mr. Logan. Councilwoman Mongo. I want to also commend you. I got to, as a county employee, attend some of the early meetings and to see a organization as large as the county of Los Angeles make critical changes, and to be so innovative and really think about keeping it lean and what does it mean and how do you honor our past and make sure that people have confidence in the voting system? It's really impressive work during a time when transitioning large systems has been seen across the country as very, very, very difficult. So cheers to you and the work that you and your team have done. Hopefully you'll stay with the register recorder for many, many more years. Thank you. Councilor Pearce. I yes. On top of congratulating you guys for job well done. I think it's always important to remember why we are doing what we're doing and we know that the city of Long Beach, there's been times when we've had 10% voter turnout. And so that this is not just to be up with technology, it's not just to kind of change the way that we've done things. It's to really make sure that we strengthen our democracy in the city, that everybody that is eligible to vote does vote and knows that there are different formats to get that information. And so I really applaud you guys for thinking outside the box on how to reach those difficult to reach communities. And I applaud the awesome women here today, and I look forward to seeing the diversity of women and people that have either been a part of the suffrage movement or people that are joining. So thank you guys very much. All right. Thank you. And with that, please cast your votes. Councilman Price. Councilman Austin. Motion carries. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Logan. And to everyone that that attended. Next up is item 27, which is the MWI lease.

Recommendation to enact a resolution for the City of Long Beach recognizing October 9th, 2017 and every second Monday in October henceforth, as Indigenous People's Day.

LongBeachCC_10032017_17-0887

move it from the end to now. So if we can go and hear that item. I know there's a lot of folks here for that. We'll just try to hear that one next. Okay. So with that, Councilman Pearce. Thank you, Mayor. So I would like. Well, you guys need to read the item. Yes. You want to read that? Why don't you go ahead. Communication from Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Price and Council Member Super Non recommendation to enact a resolution recognizing October 9th, 2017 and every second Monday in October, henceforth as Indigenous People Day. Yes. Yes. So you understand. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. And thank you guys for your patience. And thank you for reading the agenda item. So today, I think, is a day that's really important to a lot of folks. And a day, as I said, outside, has been long coming and it's a little too late. But it's it's today is the day that we get to celebrate our indigenous people that live in Long Beach, that make Long Beach great and that make the United States great. So I want to thank you guys for your sacrifices, for your love, and for reminding so many of us what it means to love Mother Earth and stay connected to that. And so, as I mentioned outside, I believe that you guys help bridge cultural divides and that it's really important that we have a space to celebrate your contributions. And so what I'd like to do today is ask Amy ERICKSEN, the chair of the Human Relations Commission, to come and speak. And then if we could then have a little presentation from you guys a short 3 minutes, and then we can go behind the rail and hear the rest of public comment. Okay. I know I just kind of took over the meeting, Mayor, but that way we can do this, so I'll let you go ahead. Thank you, Councilwoman Pierce, honorable mayor and of course, city council. I'm honored to. Be here on behalf of the Human Relations Commission to read our letter of support for this important item. Also, before I read, I would like all of those in support of this item to please stand while I read the letter. The Human Relations Commission requests the City Council of Long Beach to officially recognize Indigenous Peoples Day on the second Monday of October each year. Currently, several municipalities and states recognize some form of indigenous peoples day, including the states of Vermont, South Dakota, the cities of Phenix, Seattle, Denver and of course, now Los Angeles. By observing Indigenous Peoples Day. An appropriate focus is placed on important current and historical events related to the genocide, struggles and contributions of Native Americans. Long Beach has its own historical ties to Native American history. The Indian village of Fonda, near Kelsey, Long Beach, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. During the 1990, the Save Permanent Coalition successfully organized to stop the historical site from becoming a commercial development. The proving the grounds remain a sacred site for the Abilliono and Tongva Indians. Earlier in the year, local leaders addressed the Human Relations Commission to advocate for official recognition of the contributions and history of indigenous people and Native Americans . During their presentation, they shared how the traditional approach to tribal decision making has a focus on transparency and consensus building. The Commission agreed that these were values in line with our commission and important for the promotion of inclusivity of all people in our local government and our communities, especially at this time. As Lombard City Council's Principal Advisory Commission promoting better understanding among the diverse ethnic cultural groups in Long Beach, the Human Relations Commission submits to the Lombard City Council the following. Recommendation. The Human Human Relations Commission strongly urges the City Council to enact a resolution for the City of Long Beach to observe Indian Indigenous Peoples Day on the second Monday of October on an ongoing and annual basis. I would like to invite Cheyenne, Phenix students at Lombard City College and a resident here in Long Beach as the next generation of our elders to really come up and speak to what this means to our community. And she's a president of the Native American Student Association and Lombard City College. Thank you all. Hold on. Hold on 1/2. I'm just trying to I'm trying to understand, is this part of the presentation or just public comment? It's part of the presentation. Okay. Because we have to do this as part of public comment as well. And so I'm going to just include this is part of public comment. Okay. So please go ahead. Continue. Yeah, it's a minor who council. Thank you for having us. Thank you to Supernova Councilmember Supernova Price. And Peirce for bringing. This resolution up. And, Amy. My name is Cheyenne Phenix. I'm a student at Long Beach City College. I wanted to start off with. The personal testimony of when I was in elementary school to all the way in high school. Of the experience that I faced of oppression and marginality within elementary school all throughout high school, that I was ashamed of who I was, of my long hair. And my name. Because students would see me as something other than what they were. And I didn't have many friends. And I was always made fun of because the way my name is and my the way I. Looked, which was different from other students. So from then on, I guess going into a little bit of history from 1490 to beginning the colonization of the Americas, North and South America and Central America to 1776 declared the US independence all the way to current day 2017. Indigenous people have faced genocide, colonialism and also the values that we did not live by, which is capitalism and greed. And those are the values we do not live by. And we also acknowledge our ancestors. And we lived here in harmony and peace with the land and the earth and each other. And I wanted to acknowledge our ancestors and the people of this land as well. The Tonga, people who are no longer here, but only the descendants are here and still carrying their voice. And I am the result of that. I am still here. Our people are still here. Despite all of the atrocities that happened to our people, the devastations and massacres of Wounded Knee, the massacres in the Navajo Nation, in the Navajo territory, in the Cherokee Nation, all the way to the Iroquois, all the way to across Mother Earth, throughout Turtle Island, to the Philippines, to Africa, to other indigenous communities. I want to acknowledge all the indigenous people that are here. We faced historical trauma for 525 years and it's continuing today. And as the great chief Sitting Bull said, let us put our minds clear and see what we could do for our children. That's what we should do here. And that's what I urge you to do, is to vote unanimously to maintain the right side of history, and please do something that will be better for this community, for the world to see as a as an international city. Long Beach and the county of L.A. this morning has just passed and recognized indigenous Peoples Day as the second Monday of October and as well as the city of L.A.. So please do the right thing and vote for this to happen. Okay? Thank you. Thank you very much. But so we're going to go thank you very much. We're going to go back to the council for up for some discussion and then I'll open it up for if there's additional public comment, I will put it up for public comment after the council. Councilmember Pearce. Yes, thank you, Mayor, and thank you for presenting that to us. I first want to thank my colleagues that have signed on to this item and recognize that this room has some people, that this matters a great deal too. But this is not everybody. And recognize that Councilmember Supernormal, this was an item that was dear to him. And I know there were people that you had asked us to reach out to, but we are moving quickly on this. So I just want to recognize that not everybody could be in the room today. Second, I would like to say that I need to make an amendment to this item just to make sure that we move this the correct way. I want to make an amendment that it reads that this is a recommendation to direct the city attorney to draft a resolution that would then return back to this council next Tuesday to make the second Monday in October henceforth as Indigenous Peoples Day. And so that is what I'm asking my colleagues to support us on today. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I want to thank Councilwoman Pearce for bringing this item forward tonight, and I appreciate the comments that were already made, especially from our Human Relations Commission. I was student body president at Cal State Long Beach during the debates and during those times, and I remember them vividly. And I am very fortunate to be alongside colleagues who believe it's important to recognize the role and the history of the indigenous population in the city of Long Beach. I thank everyone who came out tonight and I thank my colleague for bringing it forward. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. As the city council before has supported Standing Rock. We will absolutely. I know I will absolutely support this item. And I also think, Councilmember Pearce, for bringing this forward. This is absolutely what Long Beach needs and I look forward to celebrating that day. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. A standing, strong supporter of this recommendation. I think it's a no brainer for me. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Durango. As the child of immigrant parents whose parents my great grandparents were Native American, when we phrase it, they were. They were Mexican. Indian. Up in the hills of Sonora. I strongly support this. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes. If there was a time for us to support anything, it would be this item here today. And I strongly support this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman Mango. I also want to lend my support to this item. Congratulations. I can count. And I think you can, too. Thank you, Councilmember Supernatant. Thank you all. I'll follow with my colleagues in being brief. I signed on to this item and I stand in support. Thank you. Thank you. Well, you all got a unanimous vote, which is great. So I'm going to I'm going to go ahead and open up. There is a second public comment if anyone else wants to speak. But if I can, please ask you to just keep it brief, because I think it's worth well where this is going to be a unanimous vote. So and I moved it up from the end. So it's for you guys. Okay. So thank you. All, mayor and council members. My name is May Lee Blackwell. I'm born in Long Beach, raised in Long Beach. And this is the first time I've ever had the honor to appear before you. I teach at UCLA in Chicano studies, in American Indian Studies. But I'm a product of Long Beach, and I live in Long Beach, so I commute to UCLA just because my heart belongs here. I'm also a native member of District one, and like many urban American Indian folks, I was born here in Long Beach. I am Cherokee and Thai heritage, but I grew up in a largely Mexican neighborhood, and that's how I teach in Chicano studies, and that's how we do in Long Beach. Right. We're part of a diverse community. And I want to say that I'm completely honored to follow Cheyenne and the youth that's taking leadership here for us and and speak with you. And I wanted to say, as a faculty member at UCLA, we have this really amazing mapping indigenous L.A. project that's not just about honoring the Tongva whose land we're on, who are not just in the past, but members presently who are doing educational workshops for LAUSD and hopefully for Long Beach Unified to help them develop materials to teach to our children so that things like teen suicide among American Indian youth don't continue to be disproportionately so high because people. And so students like and won't continually to be shamed in the classroom by distorted histories. I also want to say that indigenous people are among the Latin American Indigenous Diaspora. We have a huge Zapotec and Mayan community. We have a Samoan and Pacific Islander community and American Indian community. And so I feel like this resolution honors all the indigenous peoples of our community. It's part of the diverse face of who we are and it gives an important view. It also sometimes I think we hide our own diversity hidden. I'm a founding member of Cats, the city of Long Beach to Spirit Society, and we're in every kind of civic and political and social group. So Native people are among what we call to spirit LGBT community. And so we are here honoring your I was going to encourage you to support, but since you're already supporting, I'm honoring your support. And also just I'm you know, also alumni of Cal State Long Beach was there during the struggle and and just completely honored that Long Beach is joining the right side of history and that we're acting to stand up to celebrate our actually existing diversity, because lots of folks want to put Indian folks only in the past. But we're here right now in front of you, speaking with you and being with you. So with the open heart, I honor your decision and thank you. And we'll be here, I think, next week for an. Their motion. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. I am so L.A. Gonzales is the last speaker of the speakers lists of close the speakers list. Very good. Hold on a second. If you could hear and close the speakers list, are you going to be Christiansen? Are you going to speak? Okay. Christiansen is the last speaker. And please, if we can just keep this brief, I'm going to because I think I'm going to go after Mr. Good here. We're gonna go down to 2 minutes. Mr. Good here. I support this, but I want to support it in an enhanced and slightly different way instead of limiting it to one day. I want to meld this paradigm into what I have often suggested before this council is that instead of having just one day what we will do, what will should be done, is take . The. Weekend of the longest day of the year in the middle of the summer. Starting at noon on that Friday ending at 9:00. That's that the following Sunday. And what they can do and what I've always said to all these different groups is we'll have a people's day and they can march from sunup to sundown here and there , over here, all over. They'll take in the biggest park up this road, down this road, under this road here and there, wherever. Not just for one day, but starting Friday night, all Saturday, all Sunday till Sunday night, no matter who it is. Indians, blacks, whites, combinations of gay, straight, even Democrats. All right. That makes sense. Instead of just having it one day and then also every week, a council is devoted to items like this. This day, it's this group. Next week, it'll be another group next week. All right. The business of this country is business. That is the only thing this council should spend its time on, period, because without the business we don't have the money. To pay for people's housing food. They don't have jobs. So let's enhance it. Don't limit it to one day. That's three days. Friday night till Sunday march. Here and there. Everywhere over hill, over Dale. Under the bridge. Over the bridge, up the road, wherever. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, friends. My name is Red. I am an organizer with refuse fascism dot org, which is the movement unifying around the single objective to drive out the Trump-Pence regime. And we are here today uniting with red earth defense in their call to support Indigenous Peoples Day, and we would like to officially endorse that. And also, I have a message for the city of Long Beach on November 4th, 2017. We are calling on the masses nationwide to take to the. Streets in. Cities and towns across the country, including Long Beach. At first denying. In our thousands, declaring in our thousands that that this regime must go and this regime is illegitimate. This has been a nightmare, a nightmare for Native American people in Donald Trump, pushing a vicious Make America Great Again mantra, which glosses over the fact that. The. This country was never great. It was founded upon the. Extermination and. The dispossession of Native American people. This is a nightmare for immigrants who. Their next step could mean. Deportation, detention or being. Separated. From their loved ones. This is a nightmare for black and Latina people who are being openly targeted by this administration, who are having vicious police brutality unleashed upon them, mass incarceration and the wanton murder of our youth by the police who are supposed to serve and protect. This is a nightmare for women and so rectified, degraded. Thank you so much for your time, please. So we are. Calling on. The masses. Thank you. Join us November 4th. It begins November 4th. We realize there are fascists in the house, but we are calling on the masses to join us November 4th. Go to refuse fascism. All right, folks. So the mayor stepped out. We're going to continue to run this meeting in order. We have 2 minutes. Please try to remain on topic and we'll make sure everyone has an opportunity to speak. Thank you, sir. Please come forward and provide your testimony. What a living in that beautiful world, a beautiful country like United States. My name is Guillermo Hernandez. And I am so happy to come back to Long Beach to see Beautiful Faces, a stressed out when a lot of stuff happened here and all over the place. Why do you have them here? I am here for one main reason. Get reconnected and try to convey in a message to everybody in a way that we need to go back together and remember all the struggles they are ancestors went through. For us to be in the position that we are right now. Your ancestors and my ancestors went through hell. And they come back and they help us to go to a school to do beautiful things. So that way we can have these positions. So I know I'm not tell you what we need to do and how we need to do it, but let's go try to find a way for us to get together so that we weaken this stage, finding a way to put together the story. Up the continent. And a good. Great. So early and early. I was invited to do the ceremony outside and I was expecting to have a lot of upside in the ceremony. And for whatever reason, consulted. At first it was real brave to be in front and and be part of that ceremony. And when we do some of these activities, always we have a special gift that we give to people who help us. Same thing that you guys give and recognize. So when all you permit. If so, right. When you counsel Paris, I want to give you a gift. Coming down front. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Perhaps the council maybe can meet you for that gift. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Good evening. I'm Kristie Castro. I'm a citizen of the Navajo Nation and the vice chairwoman of the Los Angeles City and county Native American Indian Commission. We celebrate a month ago, Los Angeles City, changing Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day. We celebrated this morning in Los. Angeles County, replacing Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day. And I'm very excited to hear that. I think there's unanimous support for Indigenous Peoples Day being established in the city of Long Beach. So I really want to applaud your leadership. And I actually am going to ask you to continue to be leaders on behalf of indigenous peoples. The the change around indigenous peoples day is not just symbolic. Some people confuse it and say it's just a holiday. Why does it matter that? I just want to share a few reasons why there are real consequences about why why this holiday matters so much? We're protecting our children. As you know, the federal holiday still stands. The second Monday is critical because we are working to counter the negative images, stereotypes and false history that our children are subjected to during this time of the year. The American Psychological Association has come out against these racist aggressions based on a growing body of social science literature that shows. The harmful effects of racial. Stereotyping and inaccurate racial portrayals on the social identity and development of American Indian young people. Our young people suffer suicide. At 300. Times the national average, and we can't afford to continue to harm our youth. So establishing Indigenous Peoples Day on the second Monday of October will serve as an antidote to these negative messages. I can list a lot of other statistics that show how native peoples are continuously dehumanized in this country, whether it comes to sexual assaults against are women, poor, you know, educational outcomes because of a biased school system that doesn't teach our history. But I really appeal to you to continue to support indigenous peoples in issues. Absolutely. Thank you for your time. Next speaker, please. Wilhelmina Tucker. Yes. Thank you. Long Beach City Council for honoring this day. It's really special to me because I'm actually a Long Beach resident myself. I was born at Saint Mary's Hospital in Room 155. And I grew up in a small town which is called Mingus, which is on the outskirts of Long Beach, which is 90810 zip code. I always considered coming as being a part of Long Beach as my roots had established here long ago. My great grandmother, I mean, my grandmother actually owned one of the last houses on Locus, which, you know, and a building up a condominium right there. My grandmother, my mother and my sister used to work for the copper penny. A Brief History by myself. I'm a Lakota, Oglala Sioux, Muskogee Creek, Chicano of this nation. And my grandmother had a left elbow, fixed coat. She she was a narrator of a documentary called Wiping Tears of the Seventh Generation, which is my generation. And it's been prophesized that we would come back to show our strength, to show that we are still here, that we are still making a fight for our people and just not our people, but everybody who actually is living on this land because we honor them. We have sacredness to this land. And I thank you, all of you guys of whom you talk. Yes. Thank you for. Your time with 40 seconds to go. Next speaker, please. Good evening, members of the council. My name is Gail Werner and I'm a member. Of the KU. Panel LUSANE, you and Kumi that are small tribes that are located in north San Diego County. And I really appreciate that you are unanimously voting for. Indigenous Peoples Day because, well, in 1903 the Capilano ban was forcibly removed from their lands to a reservation at gunpoint. And I think that these are the kinds of histories that most people don't know, and that happened right here in Southern California. And I think that by taking this step that it. Helps to change that. And also. I've tried to live a positive life. I've moved here 35 years ago. I've been made my home here and I came up to CSU AB to do my MFA in In Art, my Master of Fine Arts. I've been a teacher. At Long Beach Unified School District for I was for about 20 years and I've been try to live a positive life for my all my relations in the from the past. Thank you it can we remain on. The topic of race and so. I'm just hoping that by doing this that will help make a more positive image for the past. And the. Present and future. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Next speaker, please. Hello, counsel. And we're going to take a second. I know the time started, but I do want to take a sip of this water right here. I think really what I wanted to. Speak tonight, so I'm going to give her a chance. Oh, my God. Water is very good when it's clean, water is low. Excuse me. And thank you, counsel. I'm going to say across there, I grew up right here in the seventh District. My family has lived in Long Beach over 40 years now in this beautiful city. And this beautiful city, beautiful land. I love Long Beach. I went to high school, Danish Poly High. School, I went to UC Irvine and I got my degree there in political science. I got a degree there. And what I learned of that, I was pretty raw, actually. I learned to give back to your community, give back. Participate. That was what I learned out of. My poli sci experience. And so. I have been a musician. Locally and I perform for my city because I want. To give the energy of love. This is not my first time in this chamber. I've been here numerous times for numerous different issues. But today's a new day council. And tonight I'm here because this this issue has everything to do with my heart. This this indigenous peoples day is. As my sisters and my brothers said earlier, is not just about a hurrah for this one day. It's a symbol. It's a symbol of our indigenous roots on this land. Okay. And tonight, I speak beyond myself, beyond Navajo. I speak for our Earth. And as indigenous peoples, I offer as an indigenous person, I offer a solution because I've been here all night on my own most of this evening, and I've been listening to everything, these new developments in our city, which, you know, are very nice. And I see. Ma'am, I'm going to have to be fair, we're at the 2 minutes, but thank you for your time. We can conclude your statement. Thank you. I do appreciate it. That's true. I would have had a minute left, but it's okay. I'm just going to finish my thought there. I want to work with you to support honoring the sacredness of this land. I, as a political scientist, I feel that our community is spiritually malnourished. And you've seen that in this. Chamber with people. With a mental illness that is. In our inner city. My solution is. That spiritual connection. We revive the. Spiritual connection to the earth, and that has everything to do with our indigenous peoples who lived on this land and honored our land in that way. That spiritual connection has always been important. That's what we have to offer to you. I would love to work with all of you what you're doing. I see it's great. By. The people behind you, but thank you so much for your time. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Thank you to my sister. My name is Sandra Koster with protectors of Earth Mother. I am Chicana and that is Mescalero Apache Yaqui City on this North American continent we call Turtle Island. And I want to thank Councilmember Jeanine Pearce, who supported this when we brought this to you before you were sitting on this council. And thank you to Councilmember Superfone. Price and to Councilmember. Muranga for sharing your history tonight, because that's important. I'm declaring the second Monday in October Indigenous Peoples Day is changing the universal consciousness for the better. My concern is a cultural genocide that continues to happen, as our sisters were saying, you know, in our schools, public spaces. And as a result, there are millions of Southern Indians who suffer from cultural amnesia. Many call themselves Hispanic and deny their indigenous heritage. I don't see illegal immigrants hustling in washing cars at the car wash. I see the original peoples of Turtle Island and they're in some of the poorest communities in this country. Our promise today and in the future is to make sure that the next generations know who they are and can seek strength in that. And it starts by first existing. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. I thank you, Mr. Mayor, and council members. This is my first time speaking at one of these events. I'm a local resident of Long Beach of the sixth District, also a student at Long Beach City College. I'm here today to ask you. I mean, it's. Already been decided. It's cool. Thank you so much. But. I do want to put an end to this whole notion of celebrating the genocide and the exploitation of native peoples. Not only here in. America, but throughout the world. And celebrating indigenous peoples day is a great way of doing that. From what I've heard earlier about the whole. Urban organic farming. That would be a great way of, you know, doing the whole indigenous part, because way before settlers came in from Europe, there was actually vast edible forests that the indigenous would just go around. Yeah, the whole point of a confederacy. Right. That was taken by the U.S. later on. Yeah. I'm just ranting right now, but thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker and Miss Christianson was was the last speaker and close the speakers list. I'm going to but I'm going to allow you, ma'am, to speak. But the absolute last speaker is a lady in the at the back of the line. That's it. Speaker's list is closed. Good afternoon. I'll try to be brief. I want to talk about what brought me here today. I'm an environmentalist. That is, I've made a commitment for the rest of my life to protecting the environment. I would like to live in a planet that is habitable for future generations. And as we all know, the planet is under threat. Life on Earth is under threat because of the destruction created by capitalism, created by occupation, genocide and imperialism. I wanted to mention something that I think is missing from the conversation of being an environmentalist, and that's that we are not only called to be protectors of the earth , but also to honor those who were the original caretakers of this land. To be an. Environmentalist, to. Me, means more than having a set of policies or voting a certain way. It means having. A. Relationship to our earth mother in the. I want us to acknowledge and have an open mind, open ears to listen to the. Indigenous. People and have an open heart to understand the pain of the Earth. Mother of the Earth is speaking out. She is asking, where were where are her original caretakers? She is asking us, where are the youth of the people whom she gave sacred languages to? I was speaking with a friend about why it is important to recognize indigenous rights as we do this work for the environment. And I want her to understand and I want all of us to understand that we will be we will create that future that we all want to see a sustainable future. But that will only happen if we know who we are, that we are the descendants of a people who once walked proudly upon this earth. If we acknowledge the history and the truth of this land, that is the only way we will reach a future that is sustainable. A future that we can all live in existence of peace. And that begins with acknowledging the truth. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. Hard act to follow, Elliot. I just want to say, as the mother who raised her children in a Long Beach Unified School district and really tried to incorporate a very different understanding of treaties of the missions of. Colonization that this is a long day coming. And I also want to thank you guys for unanimously supporting this. I want to say that we were all indigenous once. You know, the content of our character. Like Martin Luther King said, it's the content of our character. And we were all indigenous once. And what does that mean? That means that somewhere back there and we all had the same ancestors, you know, and we were families. That's what tribes are, their families. I don't write that stuff in the paper when it says, Oh, they're getting tribal. Tribal is your family, it's your relatives. And in Lakota way, your relatives are all alive. You know, the rocks. The rocks are alive. So with that, I want to invite this council to a couple of things. I want Cheyenne ask me to make sure that you guys know about many went through this gathering. We're bringing it back. The Indian people are bringing it back up in Angels Gate Cultural Center. That's the 13th, I believe, through the 15th. And it's wonderful. The first Many Wonders gathering was in response to 500 years and peoples up there said the elders said, you know, John Fund Maker, you've heard George here speak his son. We're not going to talk about Columbus. We're going to honor our ancestors and we're going to teach many winters gathering. We're going to teach our youth. So I would also say that the messages of indigenous people are important. And the message from Rebecca Roberts, a hard to read, is Don't frack our wetlands. No oil development on wetlands. Please join us in a demonstration to defend the loss of those wetlands from beach oil company in Mineral Partners. 200 million oil bill adventure. Thank you so well quick. So I miss Christianson who was the last person on the speaker's list I left the lady coming up is the last person on the speakers list we ed next you gentlemen sir, the speakers list is already closed. So next item now? Nope. She's the last leader on the speaker's list. She's she's the last person on the speaker's list. Go ahead, ma'am. So I'm glad you all are. All in a majority for Indigenous Day. Gentlemen, gentlemen, we're going to let the lady speak. You guys, you guys could grab a seat. She's the last person on the speaker's list. Oh, I know. Thank you for that. Good to see you. Good to see you, as always. Absolutely. Go ahead, ma'am. You know you all. Forget that the. Workers, which majority minority. Built Long Beach to this international city that it is today. So I don't I don't really feel you need a comment because like the like people have said, your heritage runs Indian heritage runs through pretty much all of your you. I think you all should increase the time that the community gets to speak. 2 minutes. 3 minutes, 5 minutes. I mean, a comedian gets 5 minutes, you give the community 2 minutes. You all only value this community, so called community, because I don't think you all know what it is when you all need our votes, when we need you to stand up for each individual district and do your jobs. You all don't show up. The only time you show up is for the stakeholders and the business people of this community, of which working people, people of color, build the businesses in this community. So I don't believe you all need a congratulation for doing the right thing and one day is not enough to celebrate Indigenous people. The original people of this land. So I would ask that you extend it to a three day weekend the way you have all these other celebrations or festivals or all this going on in and this international city of Long Beach. And I'm talking to you. You and you especially. You know your neighborhoods. They are atrocious. Thank you. One of the simplest things. Thank you, ma'am. That makes me know that you all are still. Thank you, ma'am. Time is up, Bill. Thank you. Slaves on the plantation. I like my neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. So we're now going to go ahead and take a vote. Members, she's going to cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. And to everyone that came out. Congratulations. Of course. It's obviously a big win for Long Beach and we look forward to celebrating every single year. So congratulations to all of you. We'll move on with the regular agenda. Thank you. Hey, next up is we're going to move on to item number 41.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; accepting statutory warranty deeds to the Shu property in King County, Washington, the Bratager, Glaser, Goelz and Abelson, Ross, Smith and Cummins, and Wejmar and Wiley properties in Skagit County, Washington, the Povlsen property in Snohomish County, Washington, and two treasurer’s deeds for two Skagit County properties in Skagit County, all for salmonid habitat protection purposes; declaring certain real property rights surplus and no longer required for providing public utility service or other municipal purposes; ratifying the grants of deeds of right to the State of Washington on the Bratager, Glaser, Goelz and Abelson, and Ross properties for salmon recovery and conservation purposes; authorizing the grant of an easement for ingress and egress over the Povlsen property; placing said lands under the jurisdiction of the City Light Department; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_01282019_CB 119354

Council Bill 119 354 related to the city excuse me. City Satellite Department Accepting statutory warranty deeds. Can we recommend civil. Pass. As member skater? Thank you very much, Mr. President. This legislation authorizes Seattle City land to accept a series of deeds in exchange for previously appropriated funds for environmental conservation and salmon habitat protection. This continues our commitment and city lights ongoing effort to procure and preserve environmentally, critically and critical lands across Washington for permanent preservation. Good for the environment and good for our city. Any questions or comments in that? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Herbold II. Johnson Suarez Macheda I. O'Brien Swan Bank Shire President Harrell. Hi eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passed in show assignment. That concludes our agenda. Is there any further business cover for the Council? If not, we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the day. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Very much.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7036 for Fire Station Workforce Privacy; award a contract to World Wide Construction, of San Pedro, CA, in the amount of $2,085,427, and authorize a 20 percent contingency in the amount of $417,085, for a total contract amount not to exceed $2,502,512; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12222015_15-1326

Next item report from Public Works. Financial Management and Fire Recommendation to award a contract to worldwide construction for fire station workforce privacy for a total contract amount not to exceed 2.5 million citywide. Thank you. Any any public comment on the item? CNN members, please cast your votes. Oh, I'm sorry. Absolutely. Can we get a can we get a staff update on this item, please, before we vote? Thank you. Yes, this has to do with our gender separation. And I'll turn it over to Mr. John Crumby, our city engineer. Good evening, honorable mayor. Council. This item is coming forward to adopt construction contract with worldwide white construction for tenant improvements focusing on workplace workforce privacy at four fire stations located throughout the city, the fire stations, number two, four, ten and 22 are in need of immediately upgrades to improve working and living conditions of the men and women that serve the stations. Proposed changes would provide adequate privacy modifications, improved building configurations and gender accommodations. Over the past four years, the fire department and in conjunction with the Public Works Department, has been investing investing significantly on improvements to several fire stations. The changes to data provided improved privacy modifications, building configurations and gender accommodations, also known as workforce privacy improvements. Past improvements have addressed health and safety issues. The abatement of lead in asbestos containing materials. And improved compliance with current code regulations. The improvements to these fire stations also are intended to improve public's perception of Long Beach Fire Department quality and readiness. Construction has already begun or already been completed. At fire station seven, 13 and 17 stations in order of construction within this project, or Station four, two, 22 and ten. With that staff is available to answer any questions. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Yes, thank you very much. I think you answered my question. I wanted to know what progress we've already made. And you've already said that. Do you have any anticipation on when new stations after this is complete will be scheduled for upgrades or. So the. The gender accommodations is proceeding in order of the the needs. And so we'll continue to do so. We do not have the the next schedule project ready to go yet. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any public comment on this saying now please cast your votes. Motion carries. Adam 15 Report from Economic and Property Development, Development Services, Financial Management, Library Services, Parks, Recreation and Marine and Public Works. Recommendation to declare ordinance binding and determining that a credit is due against the transportation improvement be applicable to the city.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and any subsequent amendments with the State of California Department of Health Care Services, to receive reimbursement for allowable Medi-Cal Administrative Activities, in an amount not to exceed $2,250,000 for the period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04112017_17-0265

Please report from Health and Human Services recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with the State of California Department of Health Care Services to receive reimbursement for allowable medical administrative activities and an amount not to exceed 2,250,000 citywide. There's a motion and second public comment on this item. Very good. Very briefly. This is something I've had in my mind, because I see this every day and it it is deals with the health issues. At the corner of. The transom at ocean and pine as the shoe get off the blue line and walk toward the convention center. There's a sign there that deals with health issues that I think does not represent this city well. And we don't want you know, we want people to have a good mental frame of mind. But that sign lists down anxiety, staph infection, PMS, sciatica, backache, sinus infection and acupuncture here. I don't think that's a sign is. Helping engender a positive image of this city. When we people, they don't want to see that or hear that when they come in. They don't want to hear they want to divorce themselves and put whatever problems they may have behind them and so forth. So I would suggest relocating that same someplace. Thank you. Thank you. There is a motion and a second. See no other public comment. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. 14.

A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment between the City and County of Denver and ALClear, LLC d/b/a CLEAR concerning expedited screening options for passengers at Denver International Airport. Amends a revenue contract with ALClear, LLC, doing business as CLEAR, to add three years for a new end date of 1-21-21 for expedited screening options using biometric authentication for travelers at Denver International Airport. There is no change to the minimum annual guarantee amount of $250,000 (201208853). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-20-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 1-17-18.

DenverCityCouncil_01292018_18-0049

Let's see. Under bills for introduction, Councilman Ortega has called out for a question and possible vote Council Bill nine approving the purchase and sale agreement with the retailer for property located 8101 East 40th Avenue and also street under bills for final consideration. No items were caught out under pending. No islands have been called out. Madam Secretary, take the first one. 49. Councilman Ortega, ask your question. So I was able to get my question answered from Aaron Barraza from DIA. It was clear that this was actually a revenue contract. And so this you know, my question was if it had any direct impact on the Great Hall and the fact that it is a revenue contract sort of changes that equation. So. Aaron Glover, you're at. Thank you for the information. So I have nothing further on this one. Thank you. Councilman Ortega and Aaron Barraza. Is your last time in this chambers and this official position. We want to thank you for all your hard work. He's giving a skin upgrade at DHS. Let's give them a hand. You did good. You answered a question. Good job. Way to go. All right. So we're going to go on to the next one. Madam Secretary, please bring up 40. Yes. Go ahead and ask your question. Counsel, Marty.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $500, offset by the First Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to support the Long Beach Blues Society, Blues for All Event; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $500 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_08032021_21-0738

And so I will do my best. We are going to come back to the budget. We are going to go ahead and do items 21, 22, 27 and 29. All the funds transfers as one item. Madam Clerk. Communication from councilman's into his recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by 500 to support the Long Beach Blues Society. Blues for All Event. Item 22 Communication from Councilwoman Zendejas recommendation to increased appropriations in the City Manager Department by 10,000 to provide a contribution to social and environmental entrepreneurs to support their youth, sports and mentoring program. Books and buckets. Not to mention Haas. Mayor. Would you like me to add the other two items? I thought you had read all of them. No, we. Don't. The other two items are. Item 29 and 27. Item 27 Communication from Councilwoman Price Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary to accept and expend grant funding from the Port of Long Beach and Item 29 Communication from Councilwoman Sorrell, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilmember Your Unger recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by 3586 to support the Rigley Village BLOCK Party. Compromise in the House. Thank you, Mayor. It takes a strong community to build a strong community. Individuals stepping up, willing to put in the work and willing to work together to create solutions and address the issues they've met and they may see in their community as they live in this community. That is why I am proud and a strong supporter of our new books and Buckets program, a youth program that is very much needed in our Washington neighborhood. And I am excited to continue supporting this program. I would now like to give my remaining time to David so he can speak a little bit more about the program if David is here. I don't see. Thank you. I'm Truman Price. It's support this item. Councilman Ciro. I just wanted to speak to item 29 around the village block party that, you know, that's the first in-person event I was able to host since I've been in office. And I thought that it was a great kick off to doing more in-person event, particularly bringing resources to community and bringing residents together to to connect, but also to activate the small businesses in the Wrigley Village area. And looking forward to continuing the work and the celebration in our Wrigley Village area and throughout the other parts of the districts. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion any second by consumers and they have some price. Members, please cast your votes. There is public comment on item 22. I'm sorry about that. Please. Please come to the comment is your public comment. And I can say, please come to the podium. And then can can someone from the clerk's office send me the public comment? I don't have any up here. Okay. Snake in Faith District six. RESIDENT I'm just coming today in support of books and buckets. I think it's an amazing opportunity. Youth led organization in the Washington district that's really speaking to the needs of the community. And I want to say much respect. To Councilwoman Zendaya for ushering locals in her neighborhood, in her district, and an opportunity to lead the. Youth towards positivity. I, as a person that runs a bookstore, would love to support by donating books. Big fan of David. And everything that him and his associates are doing and, you know, feeling very generous. Ms.. And they are so, you know, I don't know if there's. Anybody here from the organization, but I would. Love to give some money as well, because it is important that private individuals also step up to support the youth and not just the city. So thank you. I also wanted to say thank you to Councilwoman Soros. Amazing blog. Point. I didn't know if it was you know I liability issue that's why I don't want to say anything. But it was a great. Block party. I grew up in Wrigleyville. I was born in Pacific Hospital. So it was great to see so many people on Pacific. Avenue and lots of children and pinatas. And it was a great opportunity to see everyone out. And thank you again, Councilwoman. Mayor. I think we may have a video to see that. Do you guys have the books and buckets video? Well, cue that up right now. Thank you. It isn't your typical youth sports program. I'm Christian Longo in Long Beach, where I'll introduce you to the founder who is from this neighborhood and is now back on the courts he grew up in hoping to bring others up with him along the way. Ever heard the saying the ball is life? It's definitely a way of life for 12 year old Stephen Sheppard. I was playing since I was like three when my grandpa. We were playing in this court right here. Since then, he's spent almost every day here dribbling, passing and shooting with his neighborhood friends or as part of a summer program called Books and Buckets. Outside, all as a great program. With lots of responsibility. Because you also have to practice, but also keep your book and read about it. So then you can educate your mind about what's happening. And motivate yourself in life. The program was started by another kid from the neighborhood, David McGill Soriano, who used to spend all his free time with friends on this very court. I came when I was growing up right here in the Washington neighborhood. There was no youth program, there was no youth center. And I wanted to be a part of something. David would take an hour long bus ride out of the Washington neighborhood every week, all to join a youth program he says helped his physical and mental development. When I got older, I was thinking like, Man, what if what if our neighborhood had that? You know, what if I had take the bus ride when I had to do all that? And so when he got older. He did just that, bringing others who grew up in the area back with him. The camp brings an academic side with group discussions, readings and guest speakers and mixes it all together with. Well, I think you can guess what. The part that really, really that meant is the basketball part, the basketball academy. But more so than just developing for their future, it's a means to keep them safe in the present. This neighborhood wraps with its share of gang violence. Kids as young as Stephen have already experienced it. So basically there's there's a lot of gang violence and they want to influence you to do bad things. And it's things like this that motivated David to keep. His camp going. Our youth know them as well. I know them, but they go to school with them. So if this program wasn't here, they might be a part of that. By being here, they gain more than just basketball knowledge. They gain community. You know. We'll passing the ball and they take the shot. And the day we give them the tools and they can help solve the problems in the neighborhood. Locals coming back to their hometown and putting the ball back in. Kids like. Stephen's for. Thank you for that. Thank you. With the motion in a second, please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. And just a note for the clerk. I don't have any public comments up here, so I just want to make sure that. Currently there is. Okay, great. Thank you. Next up is we're going to do item 19. Actually, I'm sorry. Let's do the the the four open public comments because. If you want to call those for the podium.

A RESOLUTION of intention to establish a Ballard Parking and Business Improvement Area and fix a date and place for a hearing thereon.

SeattleCityCouncil_08012016_Res 31685

The report. The Full Council agenda items one through three Resolution three 165 of intention to establish a ballot parking and business improvement area and fix a date and place for hearing thereon. Resolution 316 86 to initiate a ballot parking and Business Improvement Area Resolution 316 87, declaring the intention the City Council to hold a public hearing relating to changing the assessment rates for the West Seattle Junction Parking and Business Improvement Area. Councilmember Burgess. Thank you very much. These are three procedural resolutions that allow the city council to consider a request to establish the Ballard Business Improvement Area and to modify the rates that are charged for the existing West Seattle junction by a resolution 31686 initiates the process for considering and establishing the ballot via Resolution 31685 since September seven, 2016 is the hearing date for the proposed ballot BIA and Resolution 31687 sets September seven as the hearing date for changes to the assessment rate for the existing West Seattle junction. By, as you know, colleagues bills are funding mechanisms that allow members to assess themselves and then provide enhanced services to their neighborhood. We have nine bars in the city today. Thank you very much, Councilman Burgess. Are there any further comments or questions? We'll take these individually, each resolution individually. I move to adopt resolution 31685. Second. Those in favor of adopting the Resolution 31685 vote i, i those oppose vote no. The motion carries and that resolution is adopted that the chair will sign it and move to adopt resolution 31686. I can count. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Vote I II. Excuse me. Those opposed vote no motion carries and that resolution is adopted. I move to adopt resolution 31687 Second those in favor adopting the resolution, please vote i i those oppose vote no. The motion carries and that resolution is adopted. Thank you, Councilmember Burgess. Thank you. Support of the Civil Rights, Utilities and Economic Development and Arts Committee. Please read the report.

AN ORDINANCE establishing a new Ballard Parking and Business Improvement Area; levying special assessments upon owners of business property, multi-family residential property, and mixed-use property within the area; providing for the deposit of revenues in a special account and expenditures therefrom; providing for collection of and penalties for delinquencies; providing for the establishment of a Ratepayers Advisory Board; and providing for an implementation agreement with a Program Manager.

SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118747

Thank you. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. To report the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee agenda item one Capital 118 747 Establishing a new pilot parking in a business improvement area, levying special assessments upon owners of business, property, multifamily, residential property and mixed use property within the area, providing for the deposit of revenues in a special account and expenditures therefrom providing for collection of and penalties for delinquencies. Providing for the submission of a rate payers advisory board and providing for an implementation agreement with a program manager. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Councilmember Burgess. Thank you very much. This legislation, as we've heard, establishes the Ballard Parking and Improvement District, the BIA in Ballard. It's one of the economic development mechanisms that we use in city government to allow neighborhood business districts to establish a variety of programs to address issues that they've identified as important to them. In this particular case, the Ballard Business Improvement Area is designed to accomplish eight objectives a clean environment, which includes sweeping of sidewalks, graffiti removal and advancing plans for a Ballard public restroom facility, advocacy on urban design and transportation issues that affect the Ballard Business Area. Business development and retention for businesses that are serving that community or may serve them in the future. Marketing and Promotion Activities. Promoting Ballard as a destination to live, workshop, eat or play. Public safety and health enhancements in the neighborhood. Programs related to education and network opportunities for individuals and for businesses. Promotion and management of the Ballard Seafood Fest, which happens every year and has been going for 40 some years in Ballard. And then finally, the management of the BIA and its financial and administrative obligations. Some speakers this morning indicated that they never received notice of the council's consideration of this matter. Notice was sent on August 22nd by the City Clerk to approximately 125 potential ratepayers in the area. That's 16 days before the public hearing was held. The public hearing was held in council chambers on September seven at 930 in the morning. One person spoke against establishing the ballot BIA. The committee recommends that this ordinance be approved. Any further comments or concerns? Councilmember O'Brien. Great. Thank you for highlighting all that. Councilmember Burgess. I've had conversations with a number of community members going back over a year now about this work, as we know, with business improvement areas throughout the city. There is a requirement for a certain threshold to be met and a lot of conversations to be had. We did hear today from some folks that have expressed concerns about their building being included. What I've heard on the street, my conversations with the folks in the area is is broad support for this. Today, we heard some folks highlight that they would like to see the boundary drawn a little bit differently. And what I know and I can share with my colleagues here is that the legislation around base does allow future expansion of those areas there. My understanding is there are folks that are outside the area that would like to be included in the future. It'll just take some time. I've talked to the folks at the Ballard Chamber and they have also an interest in doing that as it allows moving forward. What I can tell you is that there is a lot of growth happening in Ballard. There's a lot of opportunity in that neighborhood and a lot of challenges that come with it. And I really applaud the people that have come together and are willing to commit their resources to add to what the city is doing to help improve the conditions in the community. And I fully support this legislation. I want to remind colleagues that the the legislation talks about the different scales about how folks are charged, but there's a cap for a residential unit can be charged no more than $90 a year, $7.50 a month. So residential participants is relatively modest. This would raise nearly, I believe, $400,000 a year for community wide improvements. Any further comments from any of my colleagues? I'll just say that I'll be supporting this legislation. But some of the objections that I heard this this afternoon do concern me that I continue to think that the city should not do a bare minimum job of notice, that the notice is intended to create a discussion and a dialog . Dare I say a negotiation. I trust that a lot of this was going on, but when I do hear I was barely complying with either the guidelines and I'm not sure that's what I heard. But I would like to be very proud of of solid outreach done by our departments. Even if we disagree with at least know that there was a forum by which the disagreements were vetted and they would move forward. So I'm very pleased to hear that there's still a process moving forward as we unfold. The Big I continue to think this is going to be very good for the neighborhoods and the businesses and the residents in this area. But again, I think lessons could always be learned when we establish these buys. No, the comments from any of my colleagues. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Thanks, John Burgess. Gonzalez. President Harrell. All right. Seven in favor. Nine opposed the bill passed in the Senate. Please read agenda item number two.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Section 23.41.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) to adopt revised Neighborhood Design Guidelines for the Roosevelt Urban Village; and amending Section 23.41.012 of the SMC to replace Map A for 23.41.012 and make minor corrections to clarify legislative intent.

SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118446

The Report of the Planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee Agenda Item 20 Council Bill 118446. Relating to land use and zoning amending sections 23.41.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code to adopt revised neighborhood design guidelines for the Roosevelt Urban Village. And. Amending section to 3.41.012 of the Seattle Municipal Code to replace map a for 23.4 1.012 and make minor corrections to clarify legislative intent. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So in 2012, the city council made a reason to the Roosevelt of an urban village out of that work. They decided it was time to update the design guidelines. Side guidelines are one of the pieces that the design review process looks at to make sure that new development is consistent with the neighborhood's vision for itself . So this came through. We heard a lot of support from the community for this and looked forward to passing it. Great questions or comments. Please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. Hi. Okamoto. Hi. Rasmussen. So want. I. Back? I got in I Harrell Lakota High and President Burgess at eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 21.