Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 5

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations, and making minor amendments; amending Sections 22.214.040, 22.214.050, 23.22.062, 23.22.100, 23.24.040, 23.24.045, 23.28.030, 23.40.060, 23.41.004, 23.41.012, 23.42.048, 23.42.112, 23.44.008, 23.44.010, 23.44.014, 23.44.016, 23.44.026, 23.44.041, 23.45.506, 23.45.512, 23.45.518, 23.45.522, 23.45.545, 23.47A.008, 23.47A.012, 23.47A.013, 23.48.005, 23.48.020, 23.48.025, 23.48.220, 23.48.225, 23.48.245, 23.48.720, 23.48.724, 23.48.740, 23.49.008, 23.49.011, 23.49.014, 23.49.056, 23.49.166, 23.52.008, 23.54.015, 23.54.025, 23.54.030, 23.54.040, 23.58C.040, 23.58D.006, 23.66.342, 23.69.032, 23.73.009, 23.73.012, 23.84A.004, 23.84A.032, 23.84A.036, 23.86.007, 23.90.018, and 25.09.060 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Section 23.48.007 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_09082020_CB 119835

The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Okay. Moving on now to committee reports of the Land Use Committee item 17, will the clerk please read the short title of item 17 into the Record. Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 17 Council Bill 119835. An Ordinance relating to land use and zoning. Correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations and making minor amendments. The committee recommends that the excuse me, the committee recommends the council pass the bill as amended. Thank you. Sorry about that mount clerk I got ahead of you. I apologize. Okay. Item number 17. Councilmember Strauss, as chair of this committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report. Please. Thank you. Council President. This is the land use omnibus bill, which is considered roughly annual, roughly once a year and makes technical and clarifying amendments to our land use code. The Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee made several amendments to this legislation, including removing confusing language regarding unit lot subdivisions in response to resident communication. We changed. We made a change that will make it easier to include decks and patios on detached dwelling units and a compromise amendment regarding long term bike parking requirements for affordable housing and senior living facilities. There are there is a substitute amendment to consider today before we consider the base legislation, and that substitute makes several technical corrections and clarifications. The substitute also makes minor changes to the bike parking requirements to clarify the allowance for up to five steps to access bike parking only as applied to exterior stairs and to allow a waiver from that step. Maximum for townhomes and row houses that are built steeply are on sloped sides. I think that there might be a little bit more work to do here and understand that it's important to move forward today. I can address, though, Councilmember Peterson's landmark amendment as it comes up. Thank you, council president. Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss, for addressing the Bass legislation and the substitutes. I'm going to hand it back over to you to formally move the substitute version of the bill. Thank you. I will move to post. Substitute. To Council Bill 119835. Okay, colleagues, we are entertaining a motion to amend Council Bill 119835 by substituting version three for version two. Is there a second? Becca, thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 119835 by substituting version three for version two. Councilmember Strauss, you already addressed the substitutes. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Not at this time, other than it made some technical and clarifying changes on technical nature. Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. Are there any other comments on the substitute? Councilmember Peterson. Council president. Will this be the time where I would move to amend the substitute? Okay. No, the substitute is not formally adopted yet. So once we we have to adopt a substitute before any amendments to the substitute can be considered. Thank you for asking that procedural question. Any other comments on the substitute? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the roll on the substitute? Our bold. Yes. Whereas. I. Lewis. Yes. MORALES Yes. What's better? Yes. Peterson. Yes. So on. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Council President Gonzales. I. Not in favor and then opposed. The motion carries the amendment is adopted and the substituted bill is before the council. Councilmember Peterson, I understand that you have an amendment, so I am going to hand it over to you to formally introduce the amendment, and then we will open it up to discussion. Thank you, Council President and thank you, Chair Strauss, for shepherding this bill forward. This omnibus land use bill. At the most recent land use committee, I had introduced an amendment to cancel the request from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection to take the authority from the Landmarks Board regarding landmarks sites. That amendment tied in a vote of 2 to 2 in the Land Use Committee and was therefore not incorporated in the version of the bill that advanced. And we just talked about the substitute since the time of our committee vote, we confirm that the Landmarks Board has not officially weighed in on this move to take authority from them. In addition, historic Seattle opposes that change to strike the words cites from the bill so or to the right to add the word cites to the bill. So this amendment that I have recirculated this morning gives council members a chance to consider this amendment if they weren't on the land use committee and those who might have been okay with it previously to reconsider it. This memo was crafted by central staff and approved by the law department, and so I'd like some moves to amend Council Bill 119835 as presented on the amendment. Amending Section 17 of the bill, which was distributed earlier, basically striking the word sites so that the authority for sites would still stay with the Landmarks Board and that it's something that Stsci can come back with later if they want to. Is there a second? Was that you can't remember her. It was okay. Sorry. We accidentally spoke over each other, so I appreciate it. It's been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 119835 as presented on the amendment. Are there any additional comments on the amendment? Councilmember Strauss, followed by Councilmember Hertel. Thank you. Council president. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for your robust work on this amendment. I will be voting no on this amendment, as I did previously in committee, and my office has spoken with our central staff and staff from Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation Program and South Park Reconstruction Inspections. Many of the concerns I've heard over email seem to be describing changes that are not proposed in this bill, and I understand that confusion in this in this manner is not helpful. So everything is working quickly and we're trying to work together. So that's why I really commend Councilmember Peterson for continuing to work on this. The proposal that this amendment seeks to remove is simply a technical correction that would not have a wide ranging impact that that has been thought. Specifically, these changes would not remove or weaken any authority of the Department of Neighborhoods or Landmarks Preservation Board currently has. The Landmarks Board currently does not have jurisdiction over use. And so that is how the building is used that already belongs with the sale of apartment construction and inspections, the Landmarks Board would continue to have authority over any physical change to the designated features of a landmark structure or site. That does not change with with this amendment. Seattle Department of Construction Inspections already has the authority to grant nonconforming uses, so they already have the authority to grant this nonconforming use to landmark structures if they meet the criteria. This includes the proposed uses compatible with the existing structure. The uses that are allowed within the zone are impractical to provide. In the landmark structure or do not provide inadequate. Financial support to maintain the landmark. And that the use is not detrimental to the surrounding uses or public interest. So they have to already be allowed in this area. This change would not change the existing authority other than to clarify that it applies to the landmark site as well as the structure. So the reason that the site, the we're focusing on this word site versus structure is because the existing authority already exists within the building. And so now we're talking about what is occurring outside of the building on the on the same property. The exclusion of sites from the code seems to have been a previous oversight and code drafting rather than a policy choice. I understand that there are policy implications, and that's why Councilmember Peterson, rightly so, has brought this forward again. And I think that there we could and should have that that policy conversation if if warranted. The current distinction between sites and structures leads to weird constraints in these land use decisions. For example, CCI could approve a child care center inside a landmark structure as a nonconforming use. However, if that structure has a parking lot outside or an outdoor area for kids to play, Stsci could not approve using that parking or outdoor space to support the child care facility because it is part of the site rather than the structure. So to kind of sum all of these changes up, there's no changes to how the Landmarks Board Authority operates. The board will still have authority over any physical changes to designated features, just an addition of sites to sitka's existing authority. I also understand that Stsci first consulted with Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation staff last year, but that does not mean that more robust conversation needs to occur. So unfortunately, it sounds like we have crossed wires in working remotely as virtual meetings can be difficult, and I hope that my comments clarify the proposal. This is not something that I'm going to, you know, fall on my sword about. I think that there are important conversations to have about how we use the sites of our historically designated. Buildings. I just wanted to clarify that the what we're discussing here about the site, the one the parking lot, the space around the buildings is already within the code for the building and it impacts only use and not the structure. And so, again, I really want to thank Councilmember Peterson for bringing this forward, continuing this conversation. And thank you, colleagues, for your time. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss, Councilmember Herbold. Let's see here. Okay. Thank you. So, you know, I think really for me, this hedges on this question of whether or not this is a tactical amendment or not. And, you know, we have a long standing practice of how we handle legislation that is part of the omnibus bill coming out of C.I. for the land use code . And to my knowledge, the understanding is that because it's a very large bill, it covers dozens of different code sections. In this case, this bill is 121 pages long. We have an agreement that we handle only technical amendments in the omnibus bill, and that we have an agreement and a commitment from the executive that the bills that are there have impacts on policy and that aren't technical in nature, are bills that we hear separately because of a heightened interest on behalf of the public and because of the existence of stakeholders, in this case, stakeholders that we have that we have a charter to give us advice on properties such as the the the incentive program that zoning code relief for historic sites. And so I don't believe this change is technical in nature. One of the things that Eugenia Woo said is adding the word with I'm sorry, with historic Seattle, adding the word site or sites might seem like a minor thing and it's not one word can have a lot of meeting when it comes to legislation and land use and zoning. The proposed addition of site or sites is not a correction of or of a typo typographical error. It is not correct section references. It does not clarify a regulation and it is not a minor amendment. Again, this is not a distinction. Our discussion on whether or not this is a good amendment or a bad amendment, merely that we have an agreement and a commitment with with stakeholders, with ourselves, with the executive of the types of of changes that we will consider in omnibus legislation. And then just wanting to also quote Barker, who is a former Land Works board member, when she said to basically shift authority from these sites, from our land landmarks board to the executive through this. This bill, she says, is a disservice to the hard work that the Landmarks staff and the Volunteer Landmarks Board perform. And I really think that Landmarks Preservation Board input would be would be invaluable in a discussion around what what may be useful inappropriate zoning code relief as an incentive to provide more flexibility for existing landmarks, whether or not they are properties or sites. So thank you. Alex, any other comments? I see councilmember Luis think elsewhere Mosqueda than Councilmember Morales. Thank you so much, Madam President. So I agree with everything that Councilmember Herbold just said in terms of really queuing up the posture of where this lands for me, in terms of the context of what the change is and and how it's packaged into the omnibus legislation. And I do want to hear, especially as someone who, like many of us formerly served on an on a city border commission from the landmark board on the the impact of this change. I'm especially given Eugenia Wu's email from historic Seattle earlier, really underscoring that historic Seattle does have some concerns with this legislation. And really for me, I was one of the councilmembers in the committee that did vote for this amendment before. I was certainly all kind of potentially changing my vote in the committee today. I do think the email from historic Seattle was really impactful, given that they are a very critical stakeholder on our mission of historic preservation, especially as relates to the critical work they've done around place. Make the Washington Hall and the Good Shepherd Center and just a lot of the organizations they put a lot of investment in gives me a lot of respect for for what they do or don't think is important in this world of historic preservation in the city of Seattle . And I would certainly like to work with them more, as they said, not necessarily to oppose this change forever, but to to see what a more deliberative process, to discuss some of the implications around the potential change of the site and sites, language that could have bigger implications. So for those reasons, I am going to vote for this amendment again today and and appreciate Councilmember Peterson. Bringing it forward again. I think Councilmember Mosqueda was next and then Councilmember Morales. Thank you very much, council president. I want to underscore the comments that. Council. Member Strauss made today and as chair of the committee, what he has brought to light in the last few conversations that we've had. So to add to the conversation that we had this morning, I want to reiterate that this omnibus change only applies to single family zones. So this will not apply to, for example, the Beacon Hill Garden House, which was mentioned earlier today from our friends in Beacon Hill. This is not within a single family zone, so that is not going to be affected. Furthermore, nonconforming uses may be approved on landmark buildings already. This is already a practice. So this is a technical change in nature. The omnibus change would extend this to include sites and approving nonconforming users through the administrative conditional use process is the jurisdiction of CCI after consulting with the Department of Neighborhoods. The Landmarks Preservation Board does not have jurisdiction over this use. I just want to say that one more time, because I think there has been some. Confusion out there. The Landmarks Preservation Board does not have jurisdiction over this use. This is not shifting any role that they currently have. Additionally, any physical change to the designated features of a. Landmark building. Or site is the jurisdiction of the Landmarks Preservation Board. And that authority is not changing within the omnibus omnibus building code. So Councilmember Strauss said this already, and I'm just lifting this up. To. Underscore the importance so that this doesn't get lost in the in the discussion around this, because I know some of these topics can be somewhat contentious. We're very interested in preserving landmarks. We want to make sure also that we're looking at opportunities for the best use of public spaces or other spaces to serve the public. But this again, this does not change the jurisdiction of the Landmarks Preservation Board within this code. This is a technical change. Department of Neighborhoods and CCI treat landmark buildings and sites the same deal and has authority over physical changes at end of our building and the CCI. And again, I want to reiterate. The nonconforming uses may be approved on landmark buildings. Already the omnibus change would extend this to include sites and approving non-conforming use through the administrative conditional use process is again the jurisdiction of CCI. After consultation with feeling, I'll be supporting this. That wasn't clear from my earlier comments and just now. Thank you very much. You can have some of us get a customer. Morales. Just to clarify, I'll be supporting the bill Aziz Ansari and Councilmember Peterson. I'm not supporting the amendment. I just want make that clear. Sorry about. Okay. So I. As I understand it, you know, this is as an omnibus bill, supposed to be technical in nature. And I will say that it does sound like it's getting sticky because there is a deeper policy issue being addressed. And what seems like a minor word change in May leaves more questions about unintended consequences. We did have a conversation today with central staff who pointed out that there are no pending applications would be impacted by this change. But it is also my understanding, and maybe Councilmember Strauss can clarify this is one property that would benefit from this right now, from this kind of a change. So I think for me, the question is that clarity around what what would be impacted by this beyond just one potential project and how that relates to, you know, does a policy change being made for one purpose? Or if there is a deeper or a broader implication here as we're trying to make a decision. Councilmember Strauss, that question was addressed to you. So you're welcome to respond. Great. Thank you so much. And thank you, Councilmember Morales. My understanding is, as I explained before, the deeper. The long term benefits of this are that a building's use and the site's use could both be considered by the Seattle Department of Construction and inspections rather than this situation which we have today, which the use is only able the decisions can only be made within the building. And I think that childcare really is a great example because the State Department of Children, Youth and Families requires both parking and outdoor space. And so when we're looking at it from that type of technical change, allowing a department to make a decision based on an entire facility is is important. Now, when it comes to the one site that I've heard repeatedly also brought up, I don't it's not my understanding that there's an application and maybe Councilmember Peterson can enlighten us more about that site, because it's not within my district and it's not something that I've had my my fingertips. Right on top of. So when I hear that there is a bit of confusion regarding whether this is a policy change or a technical change. And that's why I said earlier, this is it's not the end of the world. It's not something that I'm going to die on my sword for. Because if there is a policy change, if this is a policy implication that people need to have a conversation about, then that's fine. And that's something that we should do when we're looking at especially historic buildings and single family zones, which comprise the majority of the city of Seattle. This could create cumbersome red tape that could be unnecessary in places. Now, if we need to protect certain aspects of our historic sites or historic sites and buildings, I think that that's really important. And that's why the Landmarks Board's jurisdiction over this does not change. Because the look and feel of. The historic site will not be altered by this one work change. It is simply the use of child care facilities. It is why I keep going back to that example, because child care facilities do require parking, drive up, load, unload and outdoor outdoor use, whereas most other uses are able to be confined into into the building. I do believe that the site that has repeatedly come up has a restriction for educational uses. But I'm not going to read it. I'm not going to wade into those waters because I don't have enough information to discuss it appropriately. Thank you. Hey. All right. Going to. It's. It's your amendment, so you get the last word. Councilmember Peterson, I'm going to just make a couple of brief remarks before you. You you do that. So my understanding of what we're voting on now is, in fact, an omnibus bill. It is designed to reflect technical corrections to the land use code as a cleanup effort. And frankly, I feel like we're making a mountain out of a molehill on this one. And I do think and believe that it is a technical correction. We have heard language both from Councilmember Strauss and Councilmember Mesquita, and I have not heard any any concrete citation to specific language that proves otherwise that Stsci already has the authority to make these sorts of decisions. And if that is true, and I don't have to have a reason to believe it is not true, then this language is clean up and is simply designed to make sure that the decision making by SDI is consistent as it relates to the site and use issues that Councilmember Strauss has highlighted. So I intend to vote no on this amendment and I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Peterson to close out debate on this amendment so that we can go ahead and call it to a vote and and address the underlying bill accordingly. So, Casmir Peterson, sorry. Now we're going to close that. We're going to close out debate. I'm sorry, Councilmember Peterson. And please. You. Thank you. And want to thank everybody who did call in and who wrote to us with their concerns about this from the different communities across the city. And, you know, there it's whether it's about a use or not because it talks about configuration of the site, which is is more than just use configuration of the site is is what CCI wants to put in there and have authority over. And so I'm it's precisely because of this confusion as to whether it is substantive or not that it's, in my opinion, should be pulled out, which is what this amendment would do to enable CCI. If they really feel that this is necessary change, that they can just come back and we can daylight everything and have a full, robust discussion about it. But it's just not appropriate in an omnibus bill traditionally to have what could be considered substantive change. And so I just asked my colleagues to consider approving this amendment, and then we can discuss this at a later date about the use and configuration of various sites and open space, etc.. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, we're going to go ahead and again close that debate because we've had a long conversation about this during council briefing. We're having a long conversation about it now, and there was a long conversation about it in the committee. So we are, I think, at the the end of the road here, and it's time for us to make make a call one way or the other. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the amendment as proposed by Councilmember Peterson. For both. Yes. Whereas. No. Lewis. Yes. Morales now. Let's get to know. Peterson. Yes. Salon? Yes. Strauss No. It's our council president Gonzalez now. Four in favor, five opposed. Thank you so much, Madam Park. The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember Rosetta And then Councilmember Strauss, you'll have the last word since you're the sponsor of the bill, because we're almost there. Thank you, Madam President. Again, thanks to Councilmember Strauss for shepherding this omnibus bill through. I want to say thank you for the work that you did to include amendments, technical in nature, to make sure that we codified the intent of what we passed through the ADU and dating legislation last year. This is going to go a long way to making sure that unclosed decks and rooftops over patios can extend to make sure that there's more ability for people to enjoy their ideas. And that is with rooftop areas. Because as we create greater density in the city, we know that we want to create a city that's livable and walkable and accessible for all ages and abilities. I know that we use our rooftop as our backyard because we don't have a backyard. And this is where we have our dinners on our patio and our kiddo plays and we visit with our elders. So I'm looking forward to supporting this legislation for a number of reasons, but especially I want to thank you for working with our office to include that technical amendments and make sure that we were clear on that effort. And I hope that that will go a long way for the livability of the city. Thank. Thank you, Councilor Mosquito. Are there any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Strauss, last word is yours. Just again, want to thank Councilmember Peterson for bringing this amendment forward and other amendments forward. Councilmember Herbold also spoke to the importance of omnibus bills making technical and not policy changes. And I know that in days of working virtually and remotely, that it can be confusing what is technical and what is policy. And I appreciate everyone's willingness to work together. Some of the other, as I said previously, some of the other confusing language that we removed was regarding what unit subdivisions, which again could be viewed as either technical or it could be viewed as is policy already discussed was the patios and decks for a use. And also I want to highlight the there was a lot of work put into one amendment regarding long term bike parking and I know that there's now there could be some additional work to clean it up in the future. Just that in this moment where we continue to hear how divisive everything is, this was a moment where people came together and really were able to compromise and find a solution that works as best as it can for everyone engaged. And so I want to thank my colleagues on the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee and thank everyone all excellent public stakeholders and city departments who weighed in on this very long bill. Thank you, Council President and I look forward to the passage of this omnibus bill. Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss, for all your work on this particular bill. Well, Kirk, please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended. Revolt. Yes. Yes. Whereas. I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. What's that? Yes, Peterson. No. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss Yes. Council President Gonzalez. I. Eight in favor. One Oppose the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affects my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Committee reports we are now going to hear from the Transportation and Utilities Committee agenda item 18. Will the clerk please read Agenda Item 18 into the record?

AN ORDINANCE relating to City streets; changing the name of the portion of Thomas St between 1st Ave N and 2nd Ave N to Lenny Wilkens Way; and superseding the relevant portions of Ordinance 4044, Ordinance 89910, Ordinance 102981, and any other ordinance to the extent inconsistent; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_12062021_CB 120236

Agenda item to council bill 120236 An ordinance relating to city streets changing the name of the portion of Thomas Street between First Avenue North and Second Avenue North to Lenni Wilkins way and superseding the relevant portions of Ordinance 404 for Ordinance 89910 Ordinance 102981 and any other ordinance to the extent inconsistent and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. And so my move to pass a council bill to set. Is there a second? Second. And Kim Petersen as sponsor of 0ur recognized in order to address this item. Thank you. Council President Pro Tem Herbold, colleagues, as I mentioned during this morning's council briefing, this council bill 120236 follows up on resolution 32019 that we recently adopted unanimously to change a portion of Thomas Street near Seattle Center to Leonie Wilkins Way. Leonie Wilkins is, of course, the legendary basketball star, coach and philanthropist. And while the resolution added an honorary designation, the streets adopting this ordinance is stronger and more permanent because it legally changes the street name. As noted in the summary fiscal note, our Seattle Department of Transportation will create and install the signs at a modest cost, which is already covered by their existing street sign budget. I join the Durkan Administration in encouraging its passage today. Thank you. Thank you. Number ten, are there any additional comment on the bill? Just seeing none with Clark. Please call the roll on the package. Whereas I. Lewis Yes. Rosetta. I. Peterson Hi. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss Yes. Council President Pro Tem Herbold. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will be the signature legislation on my behalf. Item number three will please read item three at the record.

Summary: Review of 172-Room Hotel Development located at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway within the Harbor Bay Business Park. Public Hearing to Consider Two Appeals of a Final Development Plan Amendment and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a 172-Room Hotel and Restaurant at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway and Adoption of Related Resolution. (Community Development 209)

AlamedaCC_02052019_2019-6448

Thank you. Rodriguez. All right. And now we're moving on to our regular agenda, and we have only one item, but it's a big one. So this is the the review of the 172 room hotel development located at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway within the Harbor Bay Business Park. STAFF Is Mr. Thomas, are you are you going to address this first? All right. You are. Your act. Yes. Thank you. I think. Oh. My God. Actually, we've got to fix think. We're just having a momentary. Are we having a moment? Okay. We're having a moment. There we go. Click it. Thank you. The panic was just starting to set. In. The evening, Mayor. Marilyn as he Ashcraft and vice mayor knox white and members of the council. Good evening. My name's Sandra Thomas. I'm your planning director. I will be presenting the staff recommendation tonight. And what I recommend that we do, since you have a lot of speakers, is I recommend that I move through my nine slides relatively quickly. I'm just going to give a sort of a quick overview of the situation and the staff recommendation. I myself, the city attorney's office, a number of other staff people are here to help me answer questions if and when the Council has any. The project applicant would like a couple of minutes to speak on behalf of his project, and then you have to appellants tonight. So I recommend that you give the applicant, I think three or 4 minutes is going to be more than enough for him and then 5 minutes for each of the appellants. But obviously, it's your meeting that's just a staff sort of suggestion on how to proceed. Once the then let everyone else speak who's come here to speak tonight, then you can close the public hearing. I know you know, this is for the benefit of everyone here who this is tonight, then that's your time to has a council to deliberate on your decision tonight. And your decision tonight is a decision as to is to answer a question. And the question is, did your planning board make a mistake when they unanimously approved this project two months ago? And I will describe the the process under which they underwent to make their decision. But that is the question that you will need to deliberate at the end of the hearing tonight after you've heard from everyone else. The appellants, there's two of them essentially are making two basic arguments. They are saying that your planning board and the city made a mistake on the environmental review of this project, that the environmental review was inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act. So that's sort of concern, number one, from the appellants. And the second concern that is essentially, and I'm summarizing is that the project is just too big and doesn't meet our development standards for this site. It's probably no surprise, as the staff are recommending, that you uphold the planning board because we believe they actually did their job correctly and followed all the state and local rules and regulations. Just a little history on this. And I won't go through all this these words, but. The Planning Board in the city. We we do need to follow rules when we review development applications. We cannot and your planning board cannot make up those rules as they go along. So what your planning board did is they followed the existing rules that were in place for the review of these types of projects. And there's two big sort of agreements that really everybody should understand. And that is, first of all, there is an agreement between the city and the property owners of Harbor Bay. Harbor Bay, as probably everybody knows, was designed as one large master plan community. The business park shown on the lower right of the slide here is was, as you can see in the top. Slide it. This is manmade land. This is land that was made. For the purpose of developing it. And this was a approach. The development agreements were many originally approved in 1974. There were all sorts of disputes that were playing out. And eventually the city and that developed meant that the property owners entered into what's called the development agreement. This is a basically a contract, and it lays out the rules, the rules and obligations for both the developer and for the city, for this master plan community. And in this 100 page document, I'm going to summarize it in two bullet points. It basically says, look, the city is going to get a 22 acre shoreline park that surrounds the entire project. We're going to get a firehouse. We're going to get a school site. We're going to get a ferry terminal. We're going to get all the roads necessary to support this place. And the developer is going to build all of them and they are going to build it right on day one, just at the beginning of the project. And in return, the city is going to allow the land owners to develop 3000 housing units, which they did, and up to 5.2 million square feet of commercial development in the business park. And that's the basic deal, and that's the basic deal that has been followed for the last 30 years. And in the review, the developer agreement talks about in the review of this of new development will be done in consistent with the existing zoning and development standards, which are all documented in the development agreement. So we can't vary from those standards when we review these developments as they come forward. There was also a second agreement that really governs how this how Harbor Bay has developed over the years. Late seventies, the city of Alameda is proposing to fill the bay for Harbor Bay development as we know it today. A new agency is created in the state of California called the Bay Conservation Development Commission. It's almost happening simultaneously. Of course, this new agency gets created for the San Francisco Bay and says, Well, you're filling the bay, so we're going to have a permitting authority over every single building you built. Of course, that immediately sets up another lawsuit, and what is called legal settlement agreement is enacted between Bccdc and the property owners. And it basically says, well, since the purpose of Bccdc is to. Ensure maximum feasible public access to the shoreline. That agreement says while you build a 22 acre shoreline park all the way around the perimeter of this development, and we will call that maximum feasible public access for the entire development. That's essentially what the settlement agreement says. And therefore, every project that you can build doesn't need to come for a separate permit to determine whether maximum feasible public access is being provided with that individual project. Because we've agreed that it is the 22 acre Shoreline Park, which the developer will build on day one, which they did. And that agreement has has governed how the city and bccdc process all development at harbor Bay residential and commercial. Of course, those agreements are designed to keep us all out of trouble and avoid further lawsuits. And they've worked pretty well. But there has been some problem sites this I would call this one of them not maybe not a problem separate difficult site. It's it's zoned for commercial manufacturing and it's part of the business park, but it's immediately adjacent to the park. It's immediately adjacent to some to the neighborhood and it's immediately adjacent to the ferry terminal. So it's been a little difficult over the years, a little controversial. We originally approved an office development with ten two storey office buildings and 26 on this site. That project was approved by the planning board and then appealed. The Council upheld the Planning Board's decision to develop the site, but it was just before the recession and as a result, only two of the ten buildings were built. Stacy went back and Maguire and Hester, the two office buildings you see out there today, 2014, there was a proposal to do assisted living on this site. It was also approved. It was then appealed by the neighborhood. That appeal was not upheld at the time, but the project applicants were proposing to come back with a revised application . And then for reasons that had nothing to do with the city, they dropped that application. We now have a hotel proposal that has been approved by the planning board and is being appealed by the neighborhood and the other appellant the labor union, three or four. I think once again there's this issue of sort of following the rules. I'm sure there's many people tonight who will argue that this should be a park. It can't. It's never been planned for a park. If we want to take private land for a public purpose like a park, we do have to buy it. The planning board and the city cannot use your regulatory process, your planning and zoning process to essentially create open space by denying projects. So let's just get to the major issues before you did your planning board make a mistake when they reviewed the adequacy of the environmental analysis? I think the appellant and staff and everybody playing board all agree, yes, this project requires an air. That's not the question before us. We all know we did in the air. The question is, and what the applicant is saying is that the Planning Board should have required us know an additional EMR for the development of this site . A little background on this. The city did in the air in 1974 for the original development plan. Then in 1989, when they did the draft, when we did the development agreement, there was a major overhaul of that air to address the development agreement and the plan development of the business park, which was then documented one year later in the general plan as well. So two year, 1989, 1990, all supporting and evaluating the environmental impacts of 5.2 million square feet of commercial development in the business park, 17,300 employees in the business park and ten excuse me, 100 foot buildings in the business park. Just for reference, and this is important today, we have about 2.75 million square feet built in the business park, and we have a somewhere between five and 6000 employees in the business park. So we haven't come close to hitting what we had projected in the prior year. The California Environmental Quality Act says you will not require property owners to do a second air. Unless there's evidence that there is the potential for new environmental impacts that were not covered in those original areas. And that's the process the city went through to look at. Well, are there any new impacts that might be result from this project that we didn't anticipate that when we did the prior year and those prior year in 1989 and 1990, assumed the 5.2 million square feet and the 17,000 employees. So we do look at those issues and we look at with every single project the council knows the planning board is very familiar with this. What people may not understand is every single staff report we do an environmental analysis and we look at this. So these issues were talked about. And so really the question and we do this with every witness is now the third project on this site in the last ten years that we've evaluated. And so obviously the first question that always comes up, you know, what about traffic? There must be traffic impacts from developing this vacant land. And every traffic study we've done in the three in the last ten years for this site specifically. Looks at this. And remember, the question is not, oh, are there going to be impacts from developing a vacant site? Of course there's going to be more cars. It's a vacant site. So yes, there will be more cars, but that's not the question under the California Environmental Quality Act. The question is, were those cars not anticipated when you did your air before? And would this generate additional cars or more cars or more traffic than you originally anticipated in your prior air? If it does, then you need to do an update or a new air. But if you're already analyzed it, then you don't and you shall not require a new way. As I said, you know, the traffic analysis and that's been the same for all three of them for the last three years, first for the office project and for the assisted living project, and now for the hotel project. The conclusion is from our traffic consultants who reanalyzed this in 2018. No, there is no evidence that there is going to be additional traffic generated by this project that is up and beyond what the prior air projected. Because remember the prior year a projected of traffic from 5.2 million square feet and 17,000 employees. You only have about 6000 employees out there today, so we're not even close. Of course, hotels generate less daily trips than office and R&D development, which is what was projected in those prior year. So if you just compare, well, the prior year assumed a certain amount of deployment on that site and it was at that type of development. The hotel does even less than that. It generates less peak hour trips even in the 2006 office project and is providing shuttle services. So when you look at all the record that the planning board looked at, they were absolutely right. There is no evidence that a new EMR is needed for traffic. Next question that we look at all the time, because this could change over 20 years between the last year and this year is the biological impacts. You know, maybe there were no endangered species on the site in 1989, but there are today that could happen that could generate new impacts we don't know about. So every project we send out, biologists, trained biologists, not only by the city, independent biologists. And they walk this site. They did it in 2006. They did it again in 2014, not 2016. And then they did it again in 2018 to look for endangered species or any kinds of. Potential biological impacts and every single time they come back with the same conclusion. No, you do not have any endangered species. And once again, people it's this issue of are there any impacts that you didn't forecast? I've I've been told. But the rabbits have moved out there. That's true. And the rabbits are super cute. We do love the rabbits, but they are not an endangered species. And that is not a new environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. We also I think the appellants weren't fully aware of the fact that we have a bird safe window ordinance and there are conditions of approval on the project. So they the bird strike concern is is not evidence for the need for an air obviously construction materials. We put a lot about that in our staff report. This is all governed by state and federal regulations EPA, OSHA, CARB and a number of facilities so that the use of certain types of construction materials is not a new environmental impact requiring any air. And of course, as you know from the packet, we have review and sign off from the Airport Land Use Commission, the Oakland Airport. These are not new impacts. There is no new impact. And of course, noise is also not a new environmental impact from the cause of building this hotel. So on this CEQA findings, we are recommending that you uphold your planning board. They they interpreted and implemented sequel correctly, and there is no evidence of any new impacts or more severe impacts that would cause them what you already projected. Next issue that's been raised in the appeals is it's just too big. The project is too big. What they approved is too massive for the site. Well, we have zoning regulations which establish what you can do on the site. So that's how we measure whether it's too massive or not. If it complies with the regulations and it's not too massive, if it exceeds the regulations and it is too massive. The main restriction on this site is what's called the floor area ratio. It's 0.5, which is relatively low for an urban area, but not uncommon in a business park. When you translate, it's a relationship of how much floor area you can have in relation to the amount of land you have. In this case, when you do the maps, the project's about 119,900 square feet in floor area. That's the maximum amount of floor area you can build on this site. The Westmont Project a few years ago, same basic size floor area. And this project meets that floor area. The other issue that has come up a lot is, oh, it's the buildings too high. Well, the building is 63 feet to the top of the parapet. The height limit is 100 feet. That is documented very clearly in the development agreement that I talked about in the CMS zoning, which is what this site is zoned, as well as our 1990 general plan, which made it very clear that high rise is a, quote, high rise buildings, 100 feet as of right. That means by right and up to 156 feet, subject to discretionary review, can be built at the business park. So the planning board was absolutely correct when they determined that the that the projects not too massive for the site. It complies with those regulations. Setbacks, same situation. There's a setback requirement all included in the development agreement and in the zoning for this site. It's for this type of restaurant retail, commercial, recreational use, which is what a hotel falls into. It's 25 feet from the edge of the park. This building a setback, 35 feet from the edge of the park. If you want to if you if you measure all the way to the water's edge, it's 75 feet. So it meets the setbacks. It also meets the parking requirements, the parking requirement for this project with the restaurant and cafe that's also being added next to the ferry terminal, which is we think is going to be a great asset for the business park. It's something that the business park has been looking for for a very long time, which is another restaurant, waterfront restaurant. This they are providing two hour and 75 vehicle parking spaces to meet the zoning requirement. The parking demand study basically said that's way too many. You will never need 275 parking spaces for this hotel. So what the planning board did is put a condition of approval on the project, that they have to provide the vacant spaces to ferry parkers or ferry riders who can then park there during the day. They're required to advertise it with signs and provide a mobile app so that people can check their phones and see if there's parking available at the hotel when they're heading down to the ferry. There's accusations the city and the planning board didn't do the public noticing, right? We did. We worked consistent with all state and city requirements for public notification for all the hearings we had. That's includes newspaper ads, postings and letters to all property owners within 300 feet. And that's all been documented for the record. Finally, the planning board did approve it with some conditions. I think we all agree that if we're going to do a hotel here next to our ferry terminal as sort of a gateway into Harbor Bay, it's got to be awfully nice looking. The planning board said this is. Not and. I'm going to just interrupt Mr. Thomas for a minute and ask that the audience be respectful to all of our speakers. And the reason for that is Mr. Thomas is a veteran. He's used to this. We will we may have some people here today who are speaking in public for the first time. It is very intimidating for them to have people laugh or cheer or jeer. So I'm just asking what I like to say is make the podium a safe place where anyone feels welcome to get up because I want all of your input and you will have a chance. But please do your best to be respectful to the speakers. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Thomas. And the person who was laughing at that last statement, I think we all agree with her. We didn't think that this was a good enough architectural design. The planning board said this is not good enough. We you meet our height limits, you meet our size limitations. But from an architectural standpoint, we're not happy. So they did not approve this architectural design. And they said, before you pull building permits, you need to come back to us with the final elevations, because these aren't good enough for this pride, for this site, which is such a visible site. They also want to see that public art plan. They suggest using public art to really make this a signature building. And then, of course, the other thing that they said was we want to see revisions to the landscaping lighting plan and we want you to do that with the surrounding neighborhood, because we think a lot of the issues in terms of creating a good neighbor, particularly with the residential on the back side, can be addressed through smart landscaping and lighting design. So with that, I'll wrap up. Staff is recommending that you uphold your planning board's unanimous decision on this project. The environmental analysis is adequate. The project is consistent with standards and agreements that have been put in place to avoid problems and misinterpretations. And there is no evidence that the planning board erred in its unanimous decision to conditionally approve this project. So that I'll wrap up my comments. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Does anyone have any clarifying questions they want to ask Mr. Thomas? If not, not from the audience. This is a lively group. Okay. What we are going to do now is I believe the sequence is we will hear from the applicant and then we will hear from our two appellants, and then we will take public comment. And we have speakers subsidiary. I'm just guessing a. Very large stack. All right. Information. All right. So. Oh, I'm sorry. One minute, Councilmember. Point of information. Do we have, like, a time limit on either the or any of these? Well, I so I heard and and Mr. Leach, this is the applicant. Mr. Leach, Mr. Thomas kind of spoke on your behalf and said, you want 3 minutes to speak. Do you feel that's adequate due to it? Well, you can have three. And then he indicated that the appellants could each have 5 minutes. I will check with the appellants and I will just say whatever one gets, the other gets. I'm a mother of twins. That's the way we do it. So anyway, so with that, any further clarifying questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Leach. Come on up and be sure to speak into the microphone. My name's Robert Leach. I'm the lead developer for the project. I wanted to basically, I think I'm sure most of you probably know by now that I grew up in town. I was born and raised here. I grew up in town, went to high school, elementary school here. The only reason that that's important is because it gives me a historical perspective about what's been in the city for the last 50 years in terms of commercial development and hotels. And, you know, we set out a year ago really looking at this project and saying, hey, how could we build the nicest hotel in Alameda? And that really has been our goal. And we basically, you know, looked at the site and felt that it had so many great potential to it because of the the location, the waterfront, the ferry terminal next door. It makes it really an excellent hotel site. It's 5 minutes from the terminals at the airport. We noticed that I've always known, even when I was a policeman out here, that we didn't have really many good restaurants out of Harbor Bay. And so we wanted to make sure that we added a nice restaurant and. And it's funny that we have a pizza transportation center, a nearby, but no coffee stores nearby. So we wanted to add coffee station as well. And pizza is one of the groups that we're talking to. Great restaurant, great hotel. I can tell you that what we've designed and and I would agree with Mr. Thomas that there's things we can do to try to enhance the exterior. But the shape and size was built deliberately on the idea that we wanted to maintain an open view for the residents. And if you look at the site plan in the photographs, you see half of the site is open. And that open creates a great corridor for for everyone to look out towards the water. If we lower the building down, all it would have done is made the building wider and block more of the view. As we started this journey, we met with staff. We've had three community meetings. A lot of folks are here today, and I think that we listened as much as we could. In fact, we made 37 changes to the project based on input from the community and from the staff trying to address everybody's concerns. One of the things I wanted to do after, you know, I read Miami to newspapers quite often and saw some of the controversy on on another hotel site out there. And so our goal was not to come in and ask for variances or can we have a favor or do this or that? We basically said, let's take a look at what the rules are. Let's make sure the reapply to it. We do everything for the rules 100%. Don't ask for variances. It's I know it's controversial. I know that there's a lot of people that would prefer it's open space and not to have any commercial development at that part of the business park. So we did everything we could to comply. We think that we have a really nice project, far and away, and I've been building hotels for 30 years. I can tell you this would be the nicest hotel ever built in Alameda. And and it's a top of the line product. You know, it's a marriott hotel, the largest hotel company in the world. But the owners of the hotel or a family owned business, they're not a big, giant corporation. They're a small family. And they've done everything they can to comply with the regulations that are in. Appreciate your review tonight and hope that we can have your support. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Leach. Okay. I know we have to appellant's staff. Can you help me out with who's going to go first? Either one. Okay, listen. Come on up and introduce yourself. Thank you. All right. Okay. Yeah. Speaker three Go. Okay. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Mike lOSO. I'm here for the appellant Laborers International Union of North America Local 304. Our concern is about the seeker compliance with this particular project. And I'm going to break it down into three general categories. The first is we don't think. I don't think anyone who reads the 1974 EIA can think that that air addresses this hotel project. There's nothing in there that talks about a hotel project. There's nothing remotely related to a hotel project. It hardly even resembles it doesn't resemble the current business park. It was just a conceptual notion. It was a zoning decision to make it commercial, a concept floated about a business park much smaller than what exists today. And there's nothing in there to help you with any informational value about whether this proposed hotel is going to have any significant impacts or indeed relevant to whether this hotel has any significant impacts. The city prepared a report from Environmental Science Associates attempting to rebut the points that we made. First, there's a I think Mr. Thomas did this as well. And they try to add on all of these addendum addenda that have come since the 1974. Yeah, those don't count in terms of looking at whether this project requires in the air. You can only look to the 74. Yeah. You don't get to look at addenda that weren't subject to any kind of hearing or comment process under seek what they might have come up before the board, the design board or to develop the planning board. I mean, but they weren't subject to under a sequel to any kind of hearings. Second, if you look through that 74, yeah, again, there's just nothing in there about a hotel project and there's really nothing in there even about the office park. So it's only the conceptual idea. It was limited in size and and certainly nothing about a proposed hotel. So the first problem with it was going back that far, 44 years is that simply doesn't help you with any relevant information to evaluate this project. I suspect no one's looked at that 74 year to evaluate whether this hotel is going to have impacts on bird strikes or GHG emissions, certainly which weren't addressed that back then, of course, or for that matter, the issues that we've raised about indoor air pollution, formaldehyde emissions. So the second category, and this is the the Environmental Science Report notes that this was a programmatic air and therefore we agree it was a programmatic PR, it was a step back, didn't even have any details about a business park. And that leads to a tearing analysis under Sequoia. And in terms of tearing, it's a fair argument standard. We've shown that there are issues with bird strikes, as the city acknowledges with its most recent. Was that as a concern? We had an expert and I think Mr. Thomas makes light of the fact of the quality of the experts that we had. Look at this. Dr. Smallwood looked at the city's ordinance. He's still concerned. He doesn't think there's enough there's any evidence, really, of whether the glazing that's required is going to actually work? He hopes it does. But still, there's still a possibility that birds are going to keep running into that building for the formaldehyde issues. We had one of the preeminent experts on that issue look at the project and he calculates a cancer risk of 18 and a million for the workers in the building from formaldehyde emissions into the air. And the fact that there's some requirements from the Air Resources Board, he assumed compliance with those when he did his analysis and just looking to other agency regs, that's not a sufficient analysis. We can't just simply point to some requirements and say it's done in terms of GHG emissions. The report, prepared in response to our appeal actually acknowledges this GHG emissions and comes up with a number that's above the air quality management district's thresholds of significance and then tries to put that back in the bottle by claiming taking credit for emissions from a project that wasn't built and that's just not allowed. And to see if we have to look at reality, which is 1500 metric tons of GHG from this project. The third category is that even assuming this was covered in the 1974 air, there's no substantial information or significant information that requires major revisions that because it doesn't cover any of the things we're talking about. The same with those three issues GHG birds and GHG and formaldehyde emissions. None of that, of course, was covered or even known about back then. You have to look at those afresh in order to make that EIA work. And there have been major revisions out there, obviously, for the overall. We have an office park that's much larger than anything that was even conceptually noticed in 1974. And also, in addition, the circumstances have changed quite a bit. So we go through this in detail in our letters. I don't think the planning board got into the details like this. They thought they were barred from doing anything or square by the development agreement, which says that nothing's going to happen under Sequoia again. So I don't think they actually consider this the evidence that they were present. Thank you, Mr. Raza. And our next appellant is. If you can introduce yourself, please. I was just wondering if my PowerPoint presentation could be put up before my time starts. Oh, sure. And if you tell us your name, I won't count it against your time. What's your name? My name is Brian, shrimper with. And I'm the president of the Freeport Homeowners Association. Um. It's the one that looks like this. It looks like. Yeah, the colors are different. Sorry. Yes, that's it. Exactly. Just do I have. I'm sorry. Also need a little help on the technology. Just the arrow. Just perfect if your head is there. Okay, so as an appellant, we're asking for several things. One, to rescind the decision of the planning board and if not, place the project on hold until a decision from the BCD on the full permit process is taken . We think we have a good chance there. We're getting good reports back and that you should return it to the planning board to address critical project deficiencies and conduct an authentic community based design process. I'm just going to leave that up. These are the points that I'm going through. It's in your pamphlet. Does this blend into the shoreline? We believe it does not went into the shoreline. It's a massive right next to the commercial development. As you'll see, the original project is on the top. The project now is on the bottom. And what a big difference that it has. You know, your setback is a minimum setback. Doesn't mean you can't put it further back. So why are we going with minimums? I don't understand that. Nothing in there says a hotel. It has a restaurant. I've never seen a five story restaurant. As we can see in this, it says restaurants, retail, commercial entertainment. Sorry about this. We don't think it's compatible with your zoning organ. 30 Dash 37.5 which says that it must be compatible with adjacent or neighborhood buildings and surroundings. It's not even compatible with the commercial, so it's much less the homes that are right there that you're supposed to promote harmony, harmonious transition in scale and character between different designated land uses. We believe it doesn't do it and visually compatible with the surrounding development. And it's not it's not even visually compatible with the commercial area. Your other zoning 30 Dash 5.2 talking about minimum looks at public safety, health and general welfare haven't been done. Your project design the resolution 1203 dated in December of 1981, where prominent buildings should be placed on the Harbor Bay Parkway spine and not on this little outlet that's there. Protection of hills to bay, continuity. When we're walking on our wonderful park, we're going to have a massive over pressing wall of a building between us and the hills. And it's going to stop. The enjoyment of our park designed should be minimize or mitigate architectural bulk. It does not do that. It's entirely out of scale with everything else. I think we've already talked about the environmental concerns, but it's in your packet. I don't think climate change was even envisioned when that E.R. was done. We've just spent a lot of money on that. And yet we're going to say, oh, does it matter in this area? Inadequate traffic study. They keep talking about traffic study. Well, a traffic study is all done in the commercial area. None is done in the community. How do they know that it's not going to impact the community? They haven't studied it. They haven't looked at it. And I think that that's a very important part. They need to look at that very critically and very in-depth. There's other landscape issues that somebody else will be planned. Pay various creating hit. We're creating free parking when city policy is to encourage transportation by bicycle and ride share. What's going to happen is you're going to have people who used to ride there say, man, I could take 15, 20 more minutes in the morning and snooze that alarm one more time and park there instead of taking my bike or rideshare or something of that nature. That's what's going to happen. There was strong opposition from residents in the public in planning board meetings, Harbor Bay Isle Association Resolution, which represents over 20 homeowners association and 3500 homes, came out against it. We don't believe that most of our concerns are are done. They haven't talked about design mitigation, how we can, you know, redesign that building to make it look, softening the project BCD commercial only applies to the original developer and not to accessories. And we believe that we have a point there and that we will make that at bccdc. You should wait until that decision has been made there. Is it really for everybody in perpetuity? Whoever buys that project, 20 people down the line. So again, we're asking you to rescind or place it on hold until the bccdc process can be determined and whether it's going to go home. And I want to thank you for your time and attention. Thank you, Mr.. I know that. Remember how we went over this? No applause, no cheers. New Jersey. And we'll get out of here sooner. So thank you to our two appellants and our applicant. And we now come to our public speaker's slips, which are 33 and I think growing. So when we have normally a speaker, we get 3 minutes over a certain number of speakers, you get 2 minutes, we're over that. So what's council's pleasure on on this Vice Mayor do you have any thoughts Socratic to me? I decided to take Councilmember Ody off the hook for a moment. Any suggestions on how to proceed? You know, I hear from all of you. No, I don't have any. No. Okay. A council member decides. I have a question. Desert hall. Maybe this is a legal question. Does it hold water to have speakers speak at 2 minutes? But then if we feel like it's going long, we change it and then and then make it one minute. Or if we set a time, it doesn't have to be. I could even answer that. No, no. I remember what I said about mothers of twins. Everyone gets. You know, that wouldn't be fair if the first few speakers got 2 minutes and others got one, so. Okay. My suggestion would be unless somebody wants to make it, make a suggestion. Is it we give all speakers one minute and one minute, if you're cogent and prepared, is really quite a bit of time. And that's more you know, I'm sure it'll be more than 33 minutes just because it takes time for people to come and go . But we can we can do something different. We can do 2 minutes. Maybe. Four, but let's not spend all our time deciding how many minutes and give the time to the speakers instead. How where do. I hear two? I mean, we can vote on that. And if it doesn't pass, I can propose 90 seconds, but. Oh, that's Councilmember Vela. I was going to say 90 seconds. 90 seconds councilmember or vice mayor, 90 seconds. So we take a vote of 90 seconds all in favor of 90 seconds, say I, I. How many was that for? And Councilmember Desai is No. 3 minutes. Okay, so that's. I'm sorry. Democracy still prevails. So we have a minute and a half. So here we go. Let me call the first three speakers and try to remember to keep doing that. I have first Patricia Gannon, followed by George Humphreys, followed by Chan. Just one name, Chan. Okay, Miss Gannon. I believe they were scrapped in city council council members. I'm Patricia again on Bay Farm Island, and I am here to strongly urge the council to either rescind the Planning Board's decision or make them or make it very or to send it back for serious revision. And I do commend the developer for having community meetings. And I was at these two of those, and 90% of the people there were totally opposed to the project. They raised their hands and very few people were in favor of it. So I just would like to point point that out that this massive and I'm not opposed to the hotel on Bay Form Island, not on the excuse me, the business park. Surely they can find another location which would not totally destroy that beautiful, pristine piece of piece of land that it so enjoy, but not only to the citizens of Alameda, but also all of the animals. As a member, active member of Golden Gate Audubon, former board member, I am concerned about the impact. It's not only the hotels itself, but it's all of those. The traffic, the garbage trucks, the people and all of that is going to have a very negative effect on the peace and serenity of the entire neighborhood. And also that agreement that was signed was with HIPAA and not their successor and the Oak. And I thank you. I totally agree with the two. Appellants. Thank you. Okay. And Mr. Humphries. And as Mr. Humphries is approaching and after Chen speaks, we will have Ed sing. Thank you, Mayor Ashcraft. And the members of the Council. I agree with the the appellant's points that they raised because of the brevity of time here. I won't say why. I am. Urging that you rescind. The action of the of the Planning Board. However, I would like to say this if you feel compelled to approve the project that you might consider a what I would call a mitigated project. For example, you could downsize it to 4 to 3 stories from five stories. You could reduce it from 172 rooms to 100 and use a. 100 foot. Setback. Which I think is really. Required by the table 44 in resolution 1203, the park and parking would also be reduced if you have a 100 room hotel and then you'd have room for a 1 to 2 acre open space, which would allow for a wildlife area or wetland. Thank you. Thank you. And Singh? I'm sorry, Chen. Good evening, Mayor, and the city council member or everybody who is sitting here actually can listen to the public. So I'm here representing my family. I'm a homeowner in Highbury Island and I'm also architectural designer. So I opposed to this my our residents in proposed 2902 Hopper Bay Parkway. First of all, for my understanding, the 2900 Harper Bay Parkway is a commercial manufacture song. So per the Code of Ordinances, 34 point what? 34.10. See, the uses permitted for this parcel doesn't even. Include a hotel. Neither the restaurant or the ballroom. So per the zoning ordinance, the Mario residents in is not even allowed for this parcel. That's my first question. And the second of all, there was another hotel proposed actually just one mile away from this site. And the CDC didn't even permitted scale wise or height or functions very similar. If we compare apples to apples. And what is said is quite simple, that project is too large for the parcel, significantly obstructed views of the bay and a radius access to the shoreline. That's how they didn't get a permit for that hotel. And I run out of time. But I just want to finish because I want to. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Ed Singh. And after Mr. Singh, we have Emma Khan, followed by Charles Hodgkins. Good evening. Much. City Council Gong, Haifaa Choi. Happy New Year to you as well. I want to talk a little bit about the zoning for this particular piece of land at Sea Dash MWP, which the developer and the city staff have repeatedly told us are permits any developer to develop up to 100 feet high and including hotel and you know doesn't matter whose next door to them you know they can build . Well, what about the rights of the residents behind this hotel? And I just want to re-emphasize something that Brian Trimper said a few minutes ago, that this project does violate the planning board resolution number 1203, which says you must pay design attention to minimize or mitigate architectural balk. I've been in four meetings on this project and each time I see the architectural rendering, nothing has changed. It's a big rectangular 73 foot high box. So where is our input into this? Regarding the setback, I just want to re-emphasize that under Planning Board Resolution 1203, Table 45, there is no classification for hotels. If you look at the offices up to 50 feet and 100 feet, the setback from the Bay Edge Park, not the shoreline is 50 to 100 feet. Thank you so much. Ms.. Ms.. Can. McCann, followed by Charles Hodgkins, followed by Pat Lamborn. Hello. I'm a homeowner. I've lived in Harbor Bay for 15 years. I originally wanted to come and let the city council know how much the small, narrow strip of Bay Trail has meant to my family, my children, and how the project is going to really affect our access to the bay. I still plan to do that at the Bccdc meeting. I think that is more their concern and I just ask that you please can we delay the decision until we have a chance to hear their decision once we present our our position as homeowners and users of the park, how this is going to be a different feel than offices with our access, it's going to change the public access and implied private property of a hotel that we don't see with the office buildings. So I just ask that we wait, take it slow, make the right decision. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. City Council. My name is Charles Hodgkins. I'm the president of the Community. Of Harbor Bay Owners Association. And we did. Pass on the exact date we passed at our last board meeting. We passed a resolution opposing this project. We actually sent you a copy of it, so I'm not gonna read the whole thing, but it lists out more or less all that. The reasons have been passed by to you, by the appellants as to why we feel this is a project that is incompatible with our community. So we we do strongly. Oppose that and stand in. Opposition of the hotel. Thank you. Thank you. And Pat Lamborn and Ms.. Lamborn is followed by Donna Fletcher, followed by Dan Reidy, followed by Blair Scully. Good evening. Good evening. Mayor Ashcroft and council members. I'm Pat Lamborn. I'm a fish with feathers. I'm a unionist and an environmentalist. I'm a 40 year union organizer. I retired. Now I'm in. And I've always been an environmentalist. But yeah, now I count the endangered list. Turns out at the point and, you know, my husband and I pick up trash, including syringes, and there are still plastic straws. So I'm speaking to you as environmentalist. I would be more polite, but I only have a minute. Three of you were endorsed by the Sierra Club. Councilmember Vela, Councilmember Knox. Right. And Councilmember Odie, if you approve this project tonight, based on the Environmental Science Associates 31 page memoranda, you are repeating that nothing has changed since 1974. You have asked our entire community. I've gone to them. I've seen Council member John Knox and Councilmember Tony de Suck at our climate action workshops. Okay. What did they say? We've paid for a whole nother consultant by 2063, 36 inches of sea level rise. That will wipe out Crown Beach. It will flood shoreline drive and it potentially will wipe out the LC Romer Bird Sanctuary setback. You're talking about setting this building back 35 feet from the only natural shoreline path. There is just no way you can defend that, folks. Please set it back. He's check the box as a unionist. We've got some union deals here. Let's check the environmental box. Send it back to the planning board. Push the building back further. Look at the design. Do an environmental impact report. Thank you, Donna Fletcher. And Dan Reed's after Ms.. Fletcher. Good evening. Mayor Ashcraft. Members of the council and staff. The cities. Can you hear me? Okay? I'm okay. Stay. Stay about there. The city's right. The rules have been followed. The problem is, we still have a mediocre project. And we want to know what can you do to help us change that? We think that if we saw that the the project is going back to the planning board for some design changes, we would like to be involved meaningfully and significantly to make a significant difference in this project. So far, everything that's been done has been done for the city excuse me, for the developer. And I'm not sure that the city has involved the community in a good faith, meaningful way. And you hear tonight that that's what they're asking for. The result is that we have a project which. Really fits more on a freeway than it does on one of the last beautiful, primo, buildable lots on the bay in the Bay Area. Can we not do better? Can Alameda not do better than this? I believe we can with community input. So we're asking you to please do what other communities do, recognize what our amenities are, value our amenities, take steps to protect and preserve them. This is a neighborhood, a community. Thank you, Mrs. Fletcher. This is. Dan Reidy. And after Mr. Reidy, we have Blaire Skelly, followed by Cathy Liang. Thank you. I do have a letter in to you, but I just wanted to comment on a little bit about the environmental important events that happened in the environment. And some of the comments that came here triggered a few thoughts. One is that when the 1989 addendum was done, which is three inches thick, it was very seriously reviewed at the planning board level and by the city council. And then they the they looked at it's filled with a number of explanations of how the project from 74 had been revised, many times ways downsized, and therefore different mitigations were improved. What's interesting is that after that was done, we went forward like the extended stay hotel is built, the Hampton Inn is built, Hampton Inn building another building next to it right now today. And other buildings were built in the business park. We didn't have to do all of those new revisions of environmental thinking. The build out of the business park there was already 1.1 million built at that time. The rest of it was built out without discovering a lot of new environmental problems. These are brought out sometime to stop a project and not in our static sequel analysis. Thank you. Thank you. Blair Skelly. Followed by Kathy Liang. Followed by someone. Gilmore. Debbie. Deborah. Okay. Thank you. Hello. Oh, good. Evening. I live have lived in the. Bay Farm Island for 25 years, and I do not support the proposed Marriott Hotel. You know, I clearly understand why the city needs more tax revenues and that a hotel can generate significant revenues. But I really the question, the need for another hotel in the area, if there really is a demand for that, the hotel belongs at the other end of the parkway where the businesses are. I really don't believe I've ever seen a big hotel like this, right. Bumping up right next to residential properties. This very large, standard looking hotel will definitely impact the residential area near it, as well as all the people who enjoy the use of the trail. Um, you know, the five stories. There isn't even a five story hotel at the other end of the parkway. The hotel also impact our property values and will affect our wonderful quality of life because of the increase in crime, traffic and noise. As has been mentioned, the traffic study that's been done is inadequate as it doesn't address traffic is going to run through the residential areas. I I'm not a NIMBY and I was fine with the nursing home going in on that property, but I just can't support the hotel going in. So I would ask that you please rescind the planning board approval of the project. Thank you. Kathie Lee on. Honorable mayor and council members. Thanks for this evening. It's my understanding I agree with all the appellant comments. You sent my voice, my letter. You can read that. I'm just going to cut to the chase. And it's my understanding that there's a BCD meeting this Thursday in two days to review the existing permitting for this land. It's also my understanding that there's a current permit with the BCCDC that expires in April. That leads me to the concern of why is this being rushed through? Or that certainly the feeling that is created. It seems the right thing to do would be to respect the process by allowing the BCCDC to perform their review first, then bring this project back to the Council and subsequently the Planning Board to work with the community. It's as simple as that. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Deborah Gilmer. And Miss Gilmore is followed by Helen Simpson. Hi. Hi. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. Excuse me. That's the first time I spoke this large of a group. See, this is why we don't share. Go ahead. I appreciate everyone that's brought really good information, and I'm really happy that my board voted against. And, um, just please think about this. You know, I love Alameda. I've been here since 99. And I would really be sad if you don't fall in the right way. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Helen Simpson, followed by Gary Thompson, followed by not Charles Hodgkins. Unless there's a different Charles Hodgkins, then followed by Carrie Thompson. Hi, Miss. Sorry, Miss Simpson. Yes, yes. Good morning. Good afternoon. It's not really. Going. To work as. It was. I lived in Alameda for 25 years. 24 of those years have been out on Harbor Bay or Bay Farm. And when we decided to buy a house and raise our family, we never envisioned a five storey 172 room hotel being built in our backyard in a residential area. I ride the ferry every day. I ride my bike to the ferry. The parking issue. Is another can of worms for the ferry, and having shared parking with the. Hotel is not the answer. It's not a guarantee of spots. It's first come. First serve at the cost of 7 to $10 a day for ferry riders to park their. I also understand there's two other hotels going up in Harbor Bay Parkway. So that makes it four plus the addition to the Hampton Inn. I also understand that the developer is developing something on Ballina Bay, the Westin. As for his website and also the hotel being built on Park Street, why all of a sudden we need all these hotels in Alameda? I hope you rescind this and not go forward with the hotel and protect our neighborhood in Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. Gary Thompson. Greetings City Council and thank you for Dark Sky. I would like to. I would like to see this sent back to planning. And I'm not here to impugn the planning commission, but I believe a 1990 study did not take into account today's environment and the use of these pieces. Now, I was I have a shop that since be home in Harbor Bay. Every down and every day I take Runcorn Parkway 98th and down and get off one day, not a year or two ago, I started coming home and I turned on my GPS to see what it would do and it put me off on Fruitvale . Then it dumped me off into Fern's side, and I was shocked at the traffic that was lined up on Fern's side all the way the bridge all the way down Island Drive. This was during when everyone was going to work, and I couldn't believe it. The traffic studies come back saying there will be no impact. It's made a huge impact. I've lived there 20 years now. And and the difference of traffic moving through the neighborhoods has changed dramatically. And a huge part of it is coming right down. MCCARTNEY And coming right down. Davey Drive, where the schools are. And because people who live out of the area taking the ferry and working at the park now out where we are, Google is dumping them off before sending them the fast way. The cinema short way. But not the fast way. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Our next speaker is Carey Thompson. Ms.. Thompson is followed by Robert Doud, followed by Tai Hudson. Good evening. Good evening, everyone. My name is Carey Thompson. I'm the chairperson for the Government Relations and Economic Development Committee for the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. And we support this project. We think that it is a good project and that it will bring local jobs, it will bring much more revenue to the city, and it does add parking to the ferry. Yes, there are people that will drive to the ferry, but that doesn't deter those that are not willing to drive. There are people that are willing to get out of their cars and take their bike every day that they do that or take the bus. So I don't think that that is necessarily a true statement. It people are people and those that are really environmentally conscious will do the right thing. And I think that that's a good thing. So anyways, we do support this project and thank you for your consideration and listening to everyone's opinion. Thank you. Robert Dow. Tie Hudson and Bassett about after that. Thank you, Mayor. City Council. I've been a resident for. Over 25 years and now a business owner in Alameda. I think everyone voicing concern tonight is correct in their feeling that this location is very special and it should and I believe has been vetted thoughtfully. I'm in favor of this hotel. I think it's I think it's a great location for private and public to use. You get it, you get to be able to use the restaurant, the hotel, the coffee shop. There's more places to sit. As far as the view that was brought up as a concern, I don't think people look east to the mountains. I think they look west to the bay and the mountains across the other side of the bay. I think this this hotel suits the needs of the Harbor Bay businesses and the Alameda residents. I don't understand the traffic and the traffic concern, which I believe is would be minor, especially when many of the patrons of the hotel would use a ferry when they're visiting San Francisco. In addition, the hotel has given up 100 spaces for the ferry. This, on day one, may not guarantee the hotel one room, but it will guarantee traffic and parking reductions in the local. Resident residential streets. Earlier I said this. This should be and has been vetted thoughtfully. I think this developer has done a great a great job in taking in design concerns and bringing them up. I but I wish the city would move forward and maintain a critical eye on the design and ensure the quality. Yeah, the next speaker is in. Good evening. Hello, Mr. Hudson. Come on up. Good evening, mayor. As the trapped and members of the city council. I'm Ty Hudson with unite here local 2850 the hotel and food service workers union in the East Bay. And I'm here to express our support for this project and to urge you to. Uphold the Planning Board's. Decision. As you know, I don't come we don't come here. To support. Just every hotel project. We're here to support this one because this project is doing. Exactly what we need. A growing hospitality industry in Alameda and in the East Bay to do. It's taking the high road with respect to good jobs and workers rights. And as the hospitality industry grows in in the city of Alameda and in the East Bay as a whole, this is exactly what we need developers and hotel employers to do to ensure that a growing hospitality industry and a growing economy spread prosperity throughout our community. So again. Please uphold the Planning. Board's decision and approve this project. Thank you. Thank you. And next, just about followed by Adrian Alexander and Michael McDonough. Good evening, Mayor, as the Ashcroft and city council members. My name is Bassey. I've been Alameda resident for 18 years and have lived on Bay Farm since my wife and I moved there in 2001. I currently work in San Francisco as a police officer and have done so for more than 23 years. I'm here tonight to urge the Council to affirm the Planning Board's approval of this project and deny the appeal. I ride the Harbor Bay Ferry on weekdays going to work, and while I walk to the ferry, I've noticed many ferry riders have an extremely difficult, difficult time finding parking. I believe the additional parking that this project will provide is sorely needed. My family and I look forward to having a restaurant and coffee shop within walking distance and meeting conference space that can be used by schools on Harbor Bay. We frequently exercise along the Bay Trail and would welcome the upgrade to the path along the water. This developer has agreed to make these upgrades and I think it's worthwhile. Many of my neighbors support fully the project and it's my understanding that the hotel will have security on site, adding to the safety already adding another layer of safety to the safety already provided by harbor security and our own Alameda Police Department. I've heard people voiced concern about increase in crime, but in my opinion, the hotel would make their neighborhood in the area safer, not less so. So I hope you will allow this project to move forward tonight. Thank you. Adrian Alexander, Miss Alexander's followed by Michael McDonagh. Good evening. My name is Adrian Shakes Alexander. I've been born and raised in Alameda. My mother is 92 years old who was. Born and raised in Alameda. And she's with me tonight, too. So I'm speaking for her also. My husband and I have both lived on Harbor Bay for over 30 years. We are in favor of this project. We're looking forward to a nice hotel that we can invite our family and friends to stay out when they're in town . I'm looking forward to another food option out on Harbor Bay. Those are very limited. I know this developer has worked hard within the community and held community meetings and been fully vetted. I sat through the entire planning board meeting with Mr. Thomas and listened to all of the planning board members and their comments and every one of them was for this project. I knew they had to vote for it unanimously. So I ask that you uphold their position. They're qualified. People. They did their homework. And at the next school. Teacher, I know that's important. And doing their homework, they did. And listen, if you had a chance to listen to their comments, you would know the positive aspects of this. I hope that you will continue to vote and vote for this project. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for bringing your mom, Michael McDonough, followed by David Rice, followed by Lily and Tamir or Tammin. But Mr. McDonough high. And good evening, mayor and council and staff. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce and a resident of Alameda for, I think, 28 years, 25 of those on Harbor Bay. And two perspectives here. As a resident, I think this is an awesome project. Not only does it give better access to the shore for the public, but the comments about the restaurant are very needed over there. There's there's hardly a place to eat when you're living in Harbor Bay and the coffee shop and the extra parking. All this is has been said. But from the council standpoint, we hear all the time that we need more hotels, especially in Harbor Bay. And I know that I get that feedback. A lot of the residents here don't get that feedback, but we have a lot of businesses there that they have to send their visiting staff, salespeople and customers to San Francisco or Oakland for hotel needs. And that means we are losing revenue. And I don't have to remind you, but maybe the public that in the coming years we're going to have a terrible budget deficit if we don't bring in extra sources of revenue and a hotel is the best source of revenue we can get the total tax as 100% goes to our general fund. And this hotel, the Park Street Hotel, the other Harbor Bay hotels, hopefully we'll get one on Ballina Bay and out at the point eventually. These are all very important revenue sources for the city. Thank you, Mr. McDonough. David Ross. Good evening, Mayor. Council staff. Thank everybody here for participating in this reasonably checkered process called democracy. The question for the people behind me, how many of you showed up at the planning board meetings? Who followed this process? I represent labor. I've lived in Alameda for 40 years. I've been part of organized labor. It has made me who I am today. In 2 hours and 54 minutes, approximately, I'll be 65 years old. I'm the only person that brought a bike here tonight. We hear about traffic litigation. You hear about people. Complaining. About how your time is going. Keep going. Yeah. How? 7 seconds. 45 seconds. Mr. Ross. Mr. Ross, it's your time to speak in public. You can debate with the. I'm in favor of this project. It represents jobs. It represents a unique opportunity in terms of apprenticeships. At any given time, there will be between seven and ten crafts. Everybody's looking for workers. Opportunities consist of apprenticeships. It's not a toehold. It's the full body through the door. Not everybody in this room is foolish enough to think that everybody that graduates from high school in Alameda is college bound. This project affords the opportunity for people to make a good living, provide for their families insurance, maybe even be able to live in Alameda. I thank you for your time. I encourage you to move this project forward. Thank you and happy birthday. Lillian. Lillian, help me with your last name. Is it? That wasn't her. Okay, so I'm after Ms.. Tamir. We have Dennis SAC, Ervin Gonzalez and Joe Ernst. Thank you. My concern is specifically with the increase in traffic on McCartney Boulevard. I believe when the Business Parkway was developed in 74, there was an assumption that traffic for the business park would flow from the airport down the Harbor Bay Parkway to the business park. Today, with our enhanced technologies, with Google Maps, etc., instead of using the safest route, traffic goes through the quickest route, which is through through my residential area, right down McCartney. So even if the traffic was anticipated, the traffic patterns that exist today likely were not anticipated in 1974. Many of us have children that attend Bay Farm Elementary or Bay Farm Middle School. There are many, many children who Cross McCartney Boulevard twice daily to get to school and back. It's becoming a busier and busier streets, and I'm concerned about their safety. So as you discuss this development, my request is that we also consider these traffic concerns and find ways such as a traffic stoplight or a lighted crosswalk that will increase the safety of the pedestrians crossing. McCartney Particularly at the intersection of McCartney and Algoma. Thank you. Thank you. Let's see. Did a sack. Mayor Ashcraft, thank you for your letter yesterday. I am here representing Raila Graber, who I. Recognize you. Knew fighting for a life in the hospital. As you know, she's been a huge donor and contributor to your community for many years, both generous with her, with her generosity and with her activism in protecting your city. You know, the the Lehman Brothers hijacking at the point the attempt to take over part of the golf course for housing. And she can't be here. You suggested I contact the developer. I can't contact the developer because I'm the lawyer who sued Mr. Leach for his failed project in Sacramento. We sued him for fraud. He never did pay off on the entire judgment. It was one of several lawsuits that led to his bankruptcy. When we discovered it was the same Robert Leach here, we discovered his his last project in Palm Desert has left $3 million in unpaid bills, which are subject to a current arbitration in this project. As you heard at the beginning, Mr. Thomas is not representing the interests of the city and the community. He's representing the interests of the developer. You're plant you did not get input from your planning board and it needs to be sent back to them because he told them that they had no choice. You all know that setbacks and height limits and failures aren't something you have is right. That's the maximum. And projects are always smaller than those maximum setbacks of maximum heights of maximum failures. Thank you, Mr. Sacco. We wish Ms.. Graber all the best. My next speaker is Irving Gonzalez, followed by Jurist. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft. And council members and staff. I'll keep it brief. I'm Ervin Gonzales. Been a 30 year resident of Harbor Bay Isle, having lived in Oakland in an urban environment, working in San Francisco of much of the same. One of the things that we, my wife and I and our daughter who went to school here, really appreciate the fact that that this is a community that is very charming and very characteristic. That is one of the reasons why I simply feel that the building in and of itself, with its setback so close to the path and the shore and its height of of 72 feet is just inappropriate and out of scale for the environment. I think a picture is worth a thousand words. It really does stand out as being a an overly scaled building. I think that despite the fact that it has checked off all the boxes, as the gentleman before me just said, I think you can tailor the project to be set back a little bit further, have less parking, and be able to create a building that is either terraced back or otherwise addressed. And it's nice to hear. That there is encouragement here that that prevented revisions are pending and there will be a more neighborhood participation, which I will be involved. In. So thank you very much. And we look forward to. Mitigating some of the. Concerns. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Instruments and Mr. Ernst is followed by Daniel Greg, followed by Sean Lavelle. Hello. My name is Joe Ernst. I am here tonight speaking as president of the Harbor Bay Business Park have been in that role for nearly 15 years. I'm also speaking as an active developer in the business park since the late nineties. Both perspectives give me a lot of history and understanding of the various controls and requirements there. I'm here to request that you deny the appeal. I do think this is a good project, one that is highly sought after by the businesses in the business park. From the many years I've worked there, I know the hotel, the setbacks, the heights are all within their requirements. We've had a number of attorneys over the years financial institutions, both for Australians. Our buyers review these documents. The EIA has standing from previous projects we've approved. I know the traffic for this project will be less than the one we approved back in 2007. The BCD there, there's an extensive track record there, Documented, which led the BCCDC attorneys recently to recommend to the commission no permit be required. So if Bccdc Commission changes course on that, that will be strictly political. It won't be based on the legal merits, I believe. But that aside, you know, we want more good businesses. We want more jobs in Alameda. We can't keep asking good companies to come to the business park without amenities, without hotels. They want this hotel and the business park approves. Thank you. Mr.. Mr.. Daniel Gregg. Father Sommerville. Hi. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the Council. My name is Daniel Craig and the Leadville Field Representative. A I just stop for a minute. I would ask. Well, we have. The speaker should have disclosed that he owns the property. Isn't there an issue with someone coming this close? Yeah. And also, we don't normally have people up on the dais. Thank you. So we reset the timer for Mr. Greg, please. Uh, again, I'm a lead field representative of Carpenters Local. 713 covering Alameda County. I represent approximately 38,000 carpenters in Northern California. Many of them live and work here in Alameda. As many of you know, the construction industry when it comes to hotels is a is pretty tough for union workers to get into. We think this is a unique opportunity here, both having union carpenters build the project on site and. Have staff also. Represented once the hotel is finished. It might be the first of its kind in Alameda. As far as I can tell. A commitment by the developer to his union. Carpenters on this project is an opportunity for local residents to get training. Apprenticeship and the payment of area standard wages and benefits. The staff report suggests and I know this was. Said earlier, but I want to mention a real quick. The appellants failed to demonstrate that the planning board's actions, findings and conclusions. Including but not limited to actions. Findings and conclusions suing to secure were not supported by. Substantial evidence. I've been hearing this a lot lately, lately in cities all over Alameda County, Northern California and. Beyond. It's a tactic by many organizations to challenge Square to get what they want out of a developer or out of a project. We don't think it's ethical, and it's probably not legal. And I just wanted to make that known. In conclusion, the Carpenters Union fully supports staff's recommendation to affirm the Planning Board's decision to approve the project. And we ask that the Council. Support the recommendation as well. Thank you. Thank you. Sean Lavelle is followed by Jay Harris and then Karen Bey. Good evening. My name's Sean Lavelle. I'm a union carpenter and Alameda resident. US carpenters have to be up early in the morning, so I'm gonna make. This short and sweet. As Mr. Greg said before, this can be built with union labor. And considering the costs of living in the Bay Area, I think it's going to be a huge boon to working people in Alameda. So I suggest that you deny the appeal and go forward with the project. Thank you very much. Thank you. Then Jay Harris, followed by Karen Bass. Hi. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and city council members. My name is Jay Harris. I'm an environmental attorney on behalf of the applicant. I reserve this time. In case I heard any. New CEQA issues come up. That wasn't a part of the DB documentation. That's been going back and forth. And I didn't hear any and name of the gaming environmental laws thoroughness and I want to. Thank the city staff are being thorough in this. Project and thank the. Developer. The applicant for being thorough in their work. I also would point out that the Planning Board. Was. Very thorough and reviewing. Consistency on this project and seeing that it was. Within the scope of the earlier. Development agreement in the city zoning and general plan, and it was very thorough in their review of the design elements. And in fact part of the conditions was that they would return with some of the further. Design elements of this project. Before final approval. Just thank you. And I just see my time on. Recognition that it is late. Thank you. We don't see time, but thank you for your comments. Karen Bey and Ms.. Bears, followed by Doug Dargan, followed by Amelia Foose. Good evening. Good. So I just want to remind everybody that this is a business park. It's anchored by Penumbra, which has over 1700 jobs, Abbott Labs, who is expanding, and many other biotech companies that are expanding. So and it's part of our economic development strategy. The business park and the goals of the economic development strategies are to increase jobs, to increase our tax base, and to add value to our parks by adding amenities such as restaurants and parks. This project checks all the boxes. And so in closing, this project will add tremendous value to our business. The Harbor Bay Business Park, a waterfront hotel with restaurants and cafes right close very near to the ferry terminal. This is just the kind of project that we want to see in Harbor Bay. Thank you. Thank you. David Hunt, former councilmember, former vice mayor, even Lou. All right. Thank you for the introduction. When we were about seven years ago, this came before us a different council altogether. And we were going to. We were asked to subdivided into five parcels. It was originally one parcel. In doing so, George came forward and representative his company and what during that presentation was presented as a two story opportunity . It was strictly a lot. Of discussions of. What took place on that. I'm not too sure if you guys read those things, but that your council made a decision at that point in time. Furthermore, I know that you've been struggling with parking and the ferry and talking about transportation in general. If you want the ferry to be a viable situation, you need to really do address it. What is happening out there is that it was short on parking then and these little tokens of 100 more spaces is not going to solve your problem. Your residents have not grown and Harbor Bay and Alameda in general, but your parking demand has spilled over throughout Harbor Bay residents. And I think that's a. Concerning issue with you guys and doing so. I would say that the vast, vast majority of the additional people that are using the ferry are off island, off Alameda coming in. That's a a something is a total different generation. The other thing. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry. We've got speakers to go. I am, too. Our next speaker is Amelia Firth, and Ms.. Foose is followed by Zack Boling, followed by Steven Gertler and Brian McGuire. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. My name is Amelia Foose. I'm a homeowner in Harbor Bay, adjacent to Freeport Development, adjacent to this lot. I'm here representing dozens of my fellow neighbors who are not able to be here due to Chinese New Year, as well as many a lot of young families, families with young children who they were not able to be here this late tonight. Our community is strongly opposed to this business, and this proposal in its current form is simply too tall. We chose Alameda because of its small town feel. I've lived in Manhattan, in New York and San Francisco, and I chose Alameda because I don't want to raise my family in the shadow of a high rise. It's not about losing bay views. I don't really have a baby to lose, but I will lose view of the sky because of the height of the structure. I can appreciate the desire for more jobs and supporting our unions and to obtain more tax revenue for the city. But we do not need a 72 foot, 40 foot tall building to achieve this dream. Secondly, I am very concerned about the issue of traffic, as numerous people have said before me. Mr. Thomas from the Planning Board asserts that no evidence, there is no evidence of new impacts. However, I want to point out this is not a sufficient analysis to my knowledge. What I found there was one study that was provided by the developer that was part of this public hearing with the planning board, and that was an insufficient study that really just looked at the Harbor Bay Parkway. And of four out of seven of those data points received a score of an F, and that's hardly reassuring. This. Thank you for your time. Okay. Zack Bowling is our next speaker, followed by Steven Gertler and Brian McGuire. And I think you've all got that down now. Good evening. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Yeah, I will. I'll keep this brief. I don't want to parrot things have already been said over and over. I fully support this project as both a very writer, as somebody that works in the business park, occasionally working with clients as someone that state and all the hotels that we currently have and that space, it's something that is desperately needed is more hotels and it's great tax revenue for the city. I, I absolutely think it's the easiest way to fill our coffers and help our underfunded projects in this city. So I fully support any hotel efforts in the city generally to supplements. But in this case, I think this project is really good for Alameda and that's all I really have. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Steven Cortland. I'm a resident of Alameda. I sat here and listened as your planning director advocated for this project with more zeal than the developer did. He loves this project, and he wants you to love this project. But your job is to make an informed decision. And I don't see how that's possible when your own staff. Is feeding you a bill of goods and giving no credence to any arguments. To the other side of the question. They want you to approve this. Project and they don't want to give you any information that might cause you to doubt that conclusion. They are doing you a grave disservice. Thank you, Brian Maguire. I've said that more than once. Good evening again, everyone. Brian Maguire, just want to provide a little perspective here. A planning board that was 100% made up of Mayor Spencer appointees unanimously approved. This project found that it met our objective standards and rightfully honored a decades long commitment made by your predecessors. Predecessors, probably. There's lots of good reasons articulated for it to support the project, and I won't go into all those again. But just a couple other comments. The project will be built, able to withstand a lot more sea level rise than most of the homes of the people that are asking you to deny this project. This isn't like, yeah, you know, it's it's just a little confusing for me. Also, a two storey building blocks the views of the bay just as much as a five storey building does. And going a little bit higher allows us to get things like the parking for the ferry and more view corridors, etc. So it's time for us to start setting the right example. Things like the square and Bccdc process should not be abused by homeowners who want to freeze the city and amber or even even our union allies who want to get labor concessions. Sometimes it's time to let those processes work the way they're supposed to for genuine environmental concerns. But in the middle of a urbanized, dense environment, the best thing we can do is dense urban infill, so should not uphold an appeal. Thank you. All right. We've come to the end of our public speakers. And by the way. Well, well, then everybody speakers you held to your 92nd level time limit and I think you helped inform the council. So again, nothing is easy that comes before this board rarely anyway. So who wants to who wants to lead the discussion? We have to do this. Councilmember They said, Oh. Wait, hold on. I'm sorry you. Needed a bathroom break. But. Oh, okay. Yes. Wicked. Sorry. Yes, 5 minutes. Seriously, 5 minutes, people. Okay. We could take a look back at 940. It's it's 932. We'll be back for you. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. Too much laughter for. Advice of concern. All right. So, everyone, if you if you would like to continue your conversation, feel free to move out into the hallway. If you would like to stay for the meeting, please sit down and come to order for you are really okay. You staff you. We just want. We want to start the meeting again. He has a gavel. Okay. All right. So the first thing we're going to do is we are going to close the public hearing because we just heard from, I want to say 34, 35 speakers. So the public hearing is closed. Excuse me. And we are now going to do council deliberation. So do we have any clarifying questions of Mr. Thomas before we get into our deliberations? I know I do. You do, too. Do you want to go first? A can take it away. I call. I call on you when you try to avoid me. So you might as well go and you might have me. Just a couple quick questions, Mr. Thomas. And first of all, thank you to everyone who came out and spoke. I just want to get that out on the record. So just some clarifying questions on some things. I heard there was an allegation made that the business part of the ER was approved for a much smaller business park and I thought the slide maybe had a different take on that. Can you kind of describe and tell me who's right? There is there was a 1974 EMR that er was comprehensively revised and updated in 1989 that it was done for the development agreement which specifies very specifically a 5.2 million square foot er the contention or the statement that was made earlier that oh you can't even consider that revision as legitimate is, is wrong. We absolutely disagree with that. An addendum is a revision to an area and it was approved by planning board and City Council in 1989. Okay. And then I remember doing the bird strike ordinance because I think it was one of my referrals with then Vice Mayor Melissa Avella. I mean, if my memory is correct and you can tell me if I'm right or wrong, then the Audubon Society gave us a model ordinance for that and we adopt in their model ordinance . That's absolutely correct. And they were here supporting our ordinance when you adopted it. Okay. So can you just kind of briefly tell us what the applicant is entitled to as far as my right and what our, you know, what we're allowed to do when there's a buy right project? Yeah, the issue, the buy right terminology is in our general plan. It's also in the development agreements. It's the 100 foot height limit, it's 100 feet. And they are well within that height limit, the parapets, 62 feet. The project is also entitled Under our development agreements with the developer for a floor area ratio of up to 0.5 , that's 120,000 square feet. So the idea that we can as a city just sort of start arbitrarily hopping that down runs us afoul of those agreements. And then I think there was an allegation that a hotel is not allowed and C MPD, can you trust that? Construe the CMP. And can you tell us what that stands for? Thank you. Commercial manufacturing zone. That's the same zoning district for the entire business park. As we've heard several times, there's already two hotels in the CRM. So this issue has been debated and discussed several times before, and the council's approved hotels in the CRM, essentially, hotels are allowed in the CRM district, both at Harbor Bay as well as other CRM districts in Alameda. There are two last quick questions and it's been sent back to the planning board for some design considerations. You know, what opportunity at all will the public have to have input in those design modifications? What the planning board felt? They they they put a conditional approval that they wanted to see a final architectural design and a final landscaping lighting design before the project pulled building permits. And they were very clear that they wanted that to be a public process, a process with the community and neighbors, whoever interested I know the chair of the Planning Commissioner of the Planning Commission has reached out to me since that hearing, said, look, if that if this project moves forward, she wanted to personally be involved in making sure that that public process occurred and that she wanted to and that we invited the public to work on the design of the building and the landscaping lighting. I want to make it clear, though, you know, and I think the problem the council with the planning boards was struggling with here was we can't get to that level of detail if we as a community are still having an argument about whether the hotel should even exist. So that's why the planning board took this two step process. And then lastly and thank you for your answers. This is an appeal from planning board decision. So can you kind of describe what our role is as the council? And normally we're a policymaking body, but can you explain our role when there's an appeal. Under under the zoning code? The planning board has the is the final decider on projects like this unless and they make the decision for the city. However, there is an appeal process and the point of the appeal. Is. It's an operating for you as the elected officials to determine whether your you believe your planning board made a mistake and what we essentially require a sort of substantial evidence standard for that. Like, is there any evidence have you heard anything tonight that makes you feel that they erred in the interpretation of the zoning code and the interpretation of any of the development agreements? Any of those things in the interpretation of the California Environmental Quality Act? Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Any other Claire? Just to. Claire. Okay, so we are. We are conducting a meeting at this time, so just to clarify. Excuse me. You could. You do need to wait to be called on. And I haven't called on you. So do any other council members have a question for Mr. Thomas? Mr. Desai. Just to clarify, the the nature of this hearing is that it's a de novo hearing, meaning that we can evaluate anything under the sun with regard to this project. Not just we're not just limited to the. You have the ability to change the project. Yeah, exactly. It's a de novo hearing, so we're not limited to the planning board. You would change the project. We find. Whatever, whatever it is. Because you felt the planning board made a mistake and so you wanted to change what they did. That would be an aspect of the de novo. Exactly, yes. Okay. Do you get your question answered? Okay. I have I have follow up questions, too, but I can wait. Well, you've got. Okay, go ahead. Great. So the thing that really caught my attention when in listening to the planning board was when one of the planning board members said the following, and I believe this is a. Word for Mr.. DE So just to clarify, you were going to ask a clarifying question of. Mr. THOMAS. Yeah, the clarifying question is about the nature of of combining parcels. Okay. Okay. Let me ask the question. Preface questions a. Little bit. Yeah. Okay. Well, I could just get to the question then. Okay. So, Cliff, did we correctly combine the three parcels that constitute the project? Because there is one parcel. About 30% of which is in the water and can never be built on. And then combining the three parcels that achieved a certain amount of square footage, building square footage, which is of the roughly 120,000 building square feet. But that's a that's a function of combining the three parcels. The question I have is it's also a legal question. Did we follow California subdivision map or with regard to combining parcels? Did we follow state law with regard to combining parcels? Because I saw one thing that said that anything less than five, four, 5000 square feet can up that parcel cannot be combined. So let me put it let me ask that. Yeah, no, William. And I'll just say that I'm sure Mr. Thomas can ably answer that. And we have our assistant city attorney, Selena Chan of Land Use Matters. So feel free to. Yes, please. Let me just one quick answer. There are three contiguous parcels, all owned by the property owner. What the planning board said is because you are we are you have development potential on all three of them and you want to basically treat them as one parcel, one large parcel. Then the condition is that the applicant merge the three parcels into one parcel prior to any issuance of any building permits. The reason the Planning Board made that specifically is because we want to make very, very clear. You're building this hotel at one end of the site. There's this other end of the site that's being used for a parking lot. They did not want a separate parcel there because they didn't want any miss understandings. You know, ten, 15, 20 years with somebody comes along, goes, oh, I've I've bought a parcel, I want to develop it at point zero. As far as I know, you're using the development potential for all three parcels with this one building and therefore we want this treated as one contiguous person. So I still want to ask it's still a legal question. Did we follow the California subdivision map if there was any provisions regarding combining parcels or did we follow existing state laws? What about that 5000 square feet or less? This is Chen. Do you want to help with that answer? Good evening. Celina Chen from the city attorney's office. And to answer your question, we conditioned the planning board, conditioned its approval of the design review and development plan application on the subsequent merger of the three parcels. So that is something that will happen subsequently. So you're basically saying it pass legal muster? Yes. Okay. Thank you. That follow up question, either staff or legal. Is that in the ordinance? It's written that all parking, whether required or in excess of all parking, shall be provided on the same parcel as the use which is generating the parking demand. Is this. Now we've got two different parking places. We got one parcel, we got the primary parcel, which is roughly 4.6 acres. And the other parcel which is roughly, I don't know, point six acres. It doesn't seem to be. I mean, you've got parking for this project on that 0.6 acre parcel. So that doesn't seem to satisfy this requirement that that park that all parking off street parking be provided on the parcels that is generating the demand. Hence the need to merge the parcels into one parcel. And that's why that is. I mean, that is why that is a condition of approval. We wanted to make sure that we didn't have a misunderstanding in the future with somebody saying, Oh, I just bought a parcel with a parking lot on. I want to build a building on it. No. If we approve this project at this size, you're using up the development potential for all three parcels. Therefore, we want them merged into a single parcel before we issue the first building permit. And was that it just was that an. It also resolved that? Was that a discussion that the planning board? Yes, absolutely. We discussed that at the planning board. The need for the merger to occur prior to any building permits being issued. Okay. All right. Anything else, Mr. Dess? Thank you for now. Okay. Councilmember Vela and then Vice Mayor Knox White. Mr. Thomas, there is a question or an issue raised earlier about the safety of schoolchildren crossing at McCartney and Audubon. My question is. You know, can we look at that separately or does that have to be part of a traffic study relative to this project? We can totally look at it separately. I actually spoke to the woman briefly and unfortunately I don't have it, but I'm I told her to check in with us tomorrow. But I'm like 75% sure that the city has already budgeted and is planning to put in a signal at that intersection this next fiscal year. I might have my intersections mixed up, but I'm pretty sure we've already got we've already programed and I funded a new signal. That island. And I think it's I think it's one one spot over but. Is. It. It's island. Right? Right. But but again, the question is, could we look at it separately? Okay. And. What would we do in that in that respect if we were looking at it. Would direct I mean to very simply direct staff to look at it tonight. It's a great time to look at it. We are working on our transportation projects for the next fiscal year. The budget will be coming to the Council for the next two fiscal years in the spring of the next couple of months. Thank you. Okay. Both. Both way. Thank you. I have a few questions and comments, but I wanted to start first just by saying that there was a comment by Mr. SAC about you and your coworkers and where your loyalties lie. And I thought it was completely out of bounds. And, well, I will allow Mr. Leach to stand up and address the other part of your character assassination, which seemed to be the point. You were here. It was completely inappropriate. And I'm not going to sit here and let people stand up and impugn the integrity of the people who work for the city of Alameda, who are good people, who work really hard to just have people stand up and just claim that they don't care. I disagree with Andrew often. We have lots of passionate conversations. I never once think that he does not have the best interests of this city. You should be ashamed. All right? Not at all. You can take this off line after the meeting. Let's get back to the. Topic at hand. We've addressed a lot of the issues that that have come up. I want to I wanted to ask about the traffic and then I have some kind of boundaries of what we can talk about the issue and you kind of said this in your presentation, but the issue is not that the city does not think that there will not be traffic impacts, but that for the balance of how we can make a determination, a significant impact is actually and this is in the essay report has to be a 3% increase in traffic at a specific intersection and that when staff looked at the traffic studies, that 3% threshold could not possibly be met by the amount of even the whole. If all the traffic went through one intersection, it still would not be and therefore it is not possible for the way in which we can make decisions tonight for there to be an impact. But that's not to say that there isn't going to be more traffic from where it is today and staff wasn't making, is that. That's absolutely correct. Okay. I just I think it's important tonight for, you know, this is a difficult issue. You know, I know I'll say that for someone just to go back again, it's not that we are discretionary to decide to do an environmental review or not because it has been approved in the past. We are not allowed to write legally. We cannot just do more environmental analysis and hold the developer that. That's correct. Has specific language that says if you already have any air in this case, it's the 1989 amended air. You cannot require another one just because you feel like it. You need to have evidence that there's a significant impact that you that's not been. Covered in a city of impact would be like the traffic that we. Just like where the 3% threshold or we found endangered species on the site or one of those issues. Okay. And. And and just. Go with me for 2 seconds. But the reason for that is because, as you said in your presentation, they built the parks, the shoreline, the schools, all the public amenities that Harvard got built under the development agreement and the environmental clearance. And it would be completely what would be illegal. But the reason is because it would not be fair to then go back and say, okay, now you gave us everything you promised. Now we're going to change the rules for you and make it harder for you to recoup those costs as you were. That's that's right. In terms of the development agreement, that was absolutely the intent. But, you know, totally separate from the development agreement is the California Environmental Quality Act, the law. And that's this issue of you can't be requiring another year just because you feel like it is. That's a standard set in that law. But the development agreement is where some of these height limits and the U.S.. Exactly. Stuff is set. And that's why we can't make changes there. Okay. And in a phrase that into a question, right. Yeah. So I just clarifying. Clarifying. And then for Sequoia, is it fair to say that it's not the sequel wasn't done. It's that when doing Sequoia, a new environmental report was not. But we did this analysis. It just didn't trigger the need for a new exactly. Impact report, which legally we can't do. Is that correct? Our obligation is to determine whether another air was required. Sequel lays out the threshold for acquiring a new E.R.. We had to do environmental studies to determine whether those thresholds were triggered and those studies were done and those thresholds were not triggered. Therefore, we did not require a new E.R.. And then something else that came up a number of times. Two part question, but the Bccdc permit, is that something that they are deciding whether to do or is there an agreement that says that they don't have to be done? The hearing in two days or three days at Bccdc, as I understand it, from reading the materials and talking to Bccdc staff, is that they're board wanted to have a discussion about whether a separate permit would be required or not. Under the settlement agreement, it would not be required, but the board wanted to have a conversation about that because a lot of the residents had been going to the board, as you heard, to try to petition them to require a permit. It's important for everyone to understand, though. Even if the board says on Thursday, the BCCI board, oh, we want to require a permit for this project, meaning we won't have a separate hearing about it. They're not going to have that hearing until this board makes a decision on the project. They won't even be deemed the application complete until this board, the Salame, the city council makes a decision about this project. Thank you. That is my only question for now. Thanks. So I don't know. I have a couple. Did you say a rumor? Okay. So thank you, Mr. Thomas, for all your time and information. So my question. A couple of them. One is there was reference more than once to the 1974 E.R. and perhaps subsequent documents never contemplated a hotel. Can you talk about that? Yeah, this is this. A number of the speakers were sort of saying you did it in 1974 and it's totally old. Didn't it doesn't reflect what you have now. And there was this passing, like complete sort of discounting of what the city did in 1989. What the city did in 1989 is incredibly important for this conversation. That was the update to the 1974 E.R. That's when the city said, you're right, this E.R. needs to be updated because our plans for the business park have changed. And that 1989 revision to the 1974 E.R. was where the city very consciously and very specifically said our plans for the business park are the 5.2 million square feet, 100 foot buildings, the f they are. It's all documented in those agreements in 1989. And that's why the city did, as Mr. Readdy describes, a three inch environmental document that was reviewed by the planning board and the council and the community to update that E.R.. So what we have is an IIR that is very specifically designed for this zoning and this this development as envisioned. And it allows hotels and it talks about hotels in the business park. Okay. Thank you. And then there was also some discussion in the conversation about the bccdc in going back before the board that there's a B CDC agreement that expires in April. What's that? Well, I don't believe it. I don't know what they're referring to expiring in April. I think somebody was confused. And what they're talking about is that the city's development agreements expire in April. The settlement agreement with Harbor Bay does not expire, as far as I know, in April. And that that runs. The city's development agreement with the Harbor Bay Islands. Yes, that's come before this summer. Before. Okay. And then lastly, there was some assertion that the development agreement doesn't. Apply to subsequent owners that only the parties who negotiated or executed that agreement are or are bound by it. What that speaker was describing her, I guess it was the appellant was describing, was not our development agreement that what they were describing, I believe, was the Bccdc settlement agreement, which and that's what the debate is on Thursday. And you know what? Essentially, you know, that's their basic argument for why Bccdc should have a separate hearing for the site. I think I might not be phrasing that clearly enough, but is there is an agreement with the city right now, notwithstanding that it expires this April? Does that agreement apply to subsequent owners, for instance, someone who buys a parcel at the at the business park, even though. We have always as a city. Taken the attitude that the development agreement and this is true of all of our agreements apply to the land. These are entitlements for land, not to people to land. So when you apply a development agreement and give it certain entitlements through the land use process and then and then contractually establish those with a debarment agreement, you are basically first making those contractual agreements. It gives value to land. So if you're the owner of that property now, you have a more valuable asset. Of course, you can pass it on and sell it. Those those entitlements don't just expire once you sell your property, if you like. And this is true of the homeowners. I mean, under that theory, they could sell their house and then we'd say, oh, I'm sorry, we don't want to let you have a house on that property anymore because we've decided to change our mind. And you don't get the rights to have a house on this property anymore. I mean, that's essentially what we would be saying to the commercial developer now. Oh, we've changed our mind. We don't actually want you to build anything on this because you're not the original owner. I got that. Thank you. And then I do have one last minor question. So you've said that the planning board president made it clear that she wants the subsequent design review to be have community participation. So is there a way that some of our speakers I'm looking at, Mr. Gonzalez, Irving Gonzalez, sitting in the front row, is a former president of the San Francisco chapter of the AIAA. And and then my friend down the road, Donna Fletcher, didn't seem to be objecting to the project overall, but definitely wanted more community input. Maybe she is. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but is there a way that, for instance, those interested individuals can be tapped? Absolutely. They can always. First of all, we have to find out. Thank you for volunteering, people. This is we're only going to do this if this project moves forward. That's why we haven't been sending out invitations yet. If the project does get approved, gets through the Bccdc discussion and is then moving forward, this will be the very first thing that we start to schedule. What we'll do is we'll send out notices through the homeowners associations. Anybody can always contact the planning department. Just ask for Andrew and I'll get you on the list. Well, I know how. Much I want to do this with the neighborhood in the community, because we do think with the architectural design, landscape design, we can make it. Work. Better. Good. I. I don't anticipate anything, but I would suggest you get in touch with those individuals where you have them in the room. Okay. I think unless anybody else has clarifying questions, let's let's get into our discussion. So who wants to lead? I could start. Who is that? Councilmember Diaz. I think the biggest concern that I have about this project and looking over the record has to do with the combining of the parcels. I could understand why the now, just by way of background, there are three parcels and one parcel is 4.4 acres. Another parcel is 0.5 acres and a third parcel is 8.6 acres. The point six acres parcel is the parcel that is between the Maguire Hester building and where this project is going to be. I could understand why those two parcels would be combined, because the municipal code at at the time, the municipal code back in 1988, which was adopted in March 1988, not only said that parking generated by a project has to be met on the parcel of that project. Not only did the municipal code at the time in March 1988 say that, but it also said that if you're going to have shared parking that. Any use is that the parking is trying to satisfy any the demand that it's trying to satisfy. It has to be within 400 feet. Now, the hotel project is certainly within 400 feet of of where the where the wheat I'm going to call it the wheat parking. The hotel project is certainly within the 400 feet of the wheat, a project which is required by the 1980 1988 ordinance. But it's not within 400 feet of the ferry terminal. So I could see why there is a reason to combine the parcels between the main parcel of 4.6 acres and the smaller parcel of 0.6 acres. But I'm not convinced that there is any argument that says that that by right, we have to satisfy the project proponents efforts to combine the point five acre parcels, because if you just go to the Alameda County assessor viewer and you'll see the parcel, the parcel is of 8.5 acres, but it's a thin strip. 30% of it is 30 to 40% of it is in the lagoon that you all know. That's right there. And the other balance is basically on the on the. It's on this off the street, but towards on the green area. You couldn't build on it, in other words. So it is incorrect to combine that parcel with the larger four acre parcel, in my opinion. And in combining the parcels, the effort in combining the parcels, as indicated in the record, was to increase the air, the floor, the amount of building space. Because when you combine more parcels, you can by by definition, you can then have more building space. Right. And and it was a matter of the record that the discussion was focused on combining the parcels for purposes of increasing the FA because this is a direct quote from the planning board meeting. One of the planning board members said, quote, The three parcels joining as one is absolutely required. Otherwise these do not meet the FAA are and we would have to deny it out. Right. I can see to summarize, I can see a case for combining the parcels. The big parcel, 4.6 acres and the what I call the half wider parcel 5.5 acres. But I believe, though, that the wrong decision was made with regard to combining the third parcel, the point five acres. The implication of all this, though, is simply that the project would still continue. But rather than being 120,000 square foot project, it would be roughly 108,000 square feet. But at least it would, in my opinion, give us wiggle room to negotiate something where we have a project that perhaps covers. This is a technical term, a project that covers a wider building coverage because income and having a wider building coverage, we would have we could potentially have a lower built in. I would flatten it. You'd still have 108,000, but it would be flattened, hopefully two, three floors on. So I believe that, you know, based upon the de novo abilities of council to make a decision, I believe a wrong decision was made by the planning board when it comes to the environmental analyzes with regard to the combining of the parcels. Thank you. Okay. Who's next? Sure. Okay. Mr. Brody. Councilmember. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And again, I do want to give another thanks to everyone who came out. This is probably the one thing we've gotten the most letters on in a long time. So I'm going to be brief. I think there was a point made early in the presentation by Andrew that this was land made for the purpose of developing. So when we take a look at that, I mean, and somebody wants to build something on it. I mean, we're not asking somebody to build on Walden Pond or turn out a redwood grove or, you know, a virgin prairie or, you know, any of those type of things, you know, a battlefield from the Civil War or anything. This is land that was built to be developed. And I think the vice mayor said it earlier in another meeting, you know, and I'll kind of repeat it and paraphrase it. I mean, just because it's a vacant space doesn't turn it into an open space. So I think when you consider that in conjunction with the fact that this land was made for the purpose of developing developing it, I mean, that kind of informs my decision making. You know, the reason why I'm not going to say much is because I didn't really see any evidence of any new impacts or more severe impacts . I mean, that wasn't presented to me. And that's what we're here to look at. And I do feel that the project complies with our standards. And, you know, Mr. McGuire made the comment about the composition of the planning board. And I mean, that was I was going to mention that. And it was critical to me because, you know, I sat through the last four years when all of the planning board members were appointed, and I remember the previous mayor had appointed every single one of those. And, you know, I think a fair assessment of those appointees is that they were not ones that would rubber stamp development projects without, you know, doing their due diligence. I think that's a fair, fair assessment of them. And the fact that they agreed to this unanimously, I think says volumes to the project and and where we shouldn't fall as a council on it. So I plan on denying the appeal and supporting the Planning Board's decision. Thank you. Councilmember O.D. Councilmember Vela. Um, I'm going to actually go ahead and I know that there's going to be more council deliberation and discussion, but I'm going to make a motion to, to actually two separate motions. So one to direct staff to look at the intersection, McCartney and Arden BLOCK in terms of safe routes to school and pedestrian safety at that intersection . And I'm also going to make a motion to deny the appeals filed by Brian Trimper and Labor's International Union of North America. I'm putting that out there to, to narrow the discussion down and I'm going to comment on why I'm making both of those motions, if that's okay. It is fine. I would. My preference would be to give staff direction on the traffic implications because I think it gives them a little more latitude if they. Have happy to amend it. Okay. To give them direction. Okay. To. So it's just that it doesn't need to be a motion perhaps to just give it. So the motion is withdrawn and I'm just. Thank you. Giving direction. I think that, you know, there was a comment made earlier about the the use or the misuse of secure. And I find it disingenuous when there's 17 or 18 school challenges throughout California made on the behalf. Of of. Of one group. And there was that was just in by one law firm that has filed the appeal here. And that's just in 2018. And, you know, one of them was withdrawn in Sacramento where an agreement was reached. So I'm not really interested in negotiating through threats of lawsuits that are really not, I don't think, justly founded and the principles of secure and what it's meant to do in terms of the other challenge. You know, I think that a lot of the concerns that were raised are really not necessarily sequel concerns. In terms of what I heard from the community, I heard some concerns about pedestrian safety. I think that that's an absolute valid concern. I would like us to look at that through other means, because I think that there's it's not just related to this project. And certainly the city is committed to Vision Zero and it's something that we need to be doing anyways. With regards to why do we need hotels? We're right next to the Oakland airport and there's a lot of people that come in and out of that airport and they come here to our business park to do business. And we also have a need for space. We've got folks that have family visiting. I was talking with some Coast Guard families that were finding it very difficult to find places for their family members to stay when they were visiting. So, you know, and and we're in the San Francisco Bay area and there's a lot of different conventions that occur. And our hotels throughout the Bay Area are booked and it's very difficult to find hotel space. So it's something that we're seeing a lot of and that's why there's a lot of hotels going up. It's a it's a good time to do it. And it's something that we've looked into as a city in terms of, you know, is there a need and what can our city really, you know, make use of? And so it's something that from an economic development standpoint, we've looked at, you know, a lot of the design questions . I think our planning board made it very clear that they're they're planning to look at those design concerns as they come forward, and they want it to be a community based process. So I'm I'm sufficiently satisfied that that will happen. But again, those aren't secret concerns. I do want to thank Councilmember De Saag, who raised a question with staff earlier her articulately with regards to the 100 foot height limit. And it was disclosed that I think that the the contemplation of a building of of 100 feet, which was, I think, adopted prior to 1928. So it was something that was, you know, contemplated for quite some time. And so I think that there's certain things that that we've certainly been contemplating for a number of years in terms of what we're looking for in our community. And it was something that, you know, actually dates quite a far ways back. So I think this gives us latitude in making these design choices and these development choices as our community evolves and our need evolves. Thank you. Thanks, Mary Knox. If I could just quickly ask, I think it's answer the question, the issue of where we can we can make a finding to uphold the appeal without making a finding that there was inadequate, secure. Right. In the combining of the issue of whether or not combining the lots. That's not a square issue. That's just a. Procedural issue that one could one could run could raise up to. You know, do that in a de novo approach. I, I just want to clarify, because you said it was a violation of it. It made the second finding wrong. And I think they can do they can do both. So, again, I would like to I want to thank everybody who spoke as well as I started to say earlier. You know, I know that this is a very difficult issue for a lot of people, especially for some people that I know kind of well who are directly impacted and will have the the the the the view that they currently enjoy changed. I can say that as somebody who grew up in a family home that was on a ravine that was developed while we lived there, where places where we looked out and saw trees became a very, very large three car household and did change the nature of where we lived and. As in as I would say in this case, we didn't have any say. I believe very strongly that we have a fantastic legal staff. Ms.. Chen is phenomenal. We have a fantastic planning staff. Andrew Thomas does does us right. And it's one of the reasons why we have been as successful in moving forward without some of the legal challenges that our city with other cities around us have had in terms of approving things. They fight very hard for our community, but I also know that I can trust them when they say the school law is really rock solid on this and that in terms of discretion, we can't we cannot legally do it, do more environmental work. And we do not have discretion to talk about the height of the building, etc.. One place that in terms of the de novo as that question as well that I would like to look at, I have heard from a lot of people about concerns about the impact on the water and the 35 foot. The planning board talked a little bit about this and I would like us to consider including removing up to 25 parking spaces. The parking study says that this place is over parked and pull the building back 15 more feet back from the water. That is something we could do that would address some of the concerns about that, creating a more human space along the water, as some people have indicated, without actually sending this back or upholding the appeal. So as we move forward, I'd like to to look at that, but also as a part of our denial of the appeal, which I plan to deny, simply because, as Mr. already this Council member already mentioned, I have not heard any facts that were not mentioned in the planning board meeting that I listened to that were not addressed and have not been addressed by staff tonight as adequate. So Councilmember Vella. I have a question. So that's separate from the whether or not there's a motion to deny. Are you proposing that that's something that we have a planning board look at? Or is that something where you're asking to give direction? Can you clarify a little bit? I would be asking to make as a part of our motion, upholding or denying the appeal, upholding the planning board's decision with direction to remove that parking, as was discussed at the planning board and bringing back the kind of the siting of the building. So back after that. Sit down as a part of the as a part of the design review. I'd ask Mr. Thomas to come to the podium if you would. So, I mean, I I'm not in disagreement with that proposal. However, I am not sure I want the City Council to redesign this project, but rather to give direction for what it is we're trying to achieve. But Mr. Thomas, can you help us with when this goes back and we already know that we're going to that we're going to request a more refined, improved design? I'm in complete agreement with that. What about this concept or question of removing some parking spots? How many where? I think the planning board is already if if the council uphold upholds their decision, then the next step is talking. To the Mike. And Mary on. The landscape, landscape plan and architectural design. The council tonight could certainly amend that and say, hey, when you're doing the architectural design and the landscape design with the community. Please do have this conversation as well. The conversation of pushing the building back an additional ten or 15 feet, it eliminates a row of parking. But as Councilmember Knox White said, it's we already have a parking space saying it's over park. Now, obviously, the tradeoff here and this came up a little bit of playing board as well, the way we really wanted the extra parking for the ferry issue. So that's going to be the trade off in the conversation, which you could ask the planning board to revisit. So a question for you, Mr. Thomas. I did see that the statement that the hotel was over parked is currently configured, but by how many spaces was it over parked was given. So, so starting with the number of spaces required for those rooms and then the 100 spots that have been offered up for the ferry were there more. So let me clarify here. So our code required a lot of parking for every hotel room, 1.25 for hotel room. So that's a lot of cars for one room like that assumes that a lot of people come to one hotel room with two cars in. Does that assume 100% occupancy? No, no, that's that's just what you when you build the hotel. Well, so. Well, no, but it's so 11.25 for every room. Room. Right. Okay. So you to fill that parking lot, a lot of people would have to come with two cars for four. So they met the parking requirement per the code. So that's how many parking spaces they have. Our parking study says, well, that's a lot of parking, probably way more than you need, but you met the code, so the planning board then put this condition on or since we think you're going to have all this extra asphalt lying around that you're striping for parking, we want you to make it available to the ferry. Folks. What I think I'm hearing is suggestion that the council might amend the approval slightly to say, hey, planning board, when you go back and look at the landscaping plan on the architectural design, please look at with the community. The idea of moving the parking the building back 15 feet, if you do. I you know, we I don't remember the exact number, but just looking at the site plan, essentially, you you lose a row of parking. I think it's about 15 to 20 parking spaces. We already know we've got over 100 more than we probably need. So all it really does, it's a trade off between moving the building back a little further. Well, it just means fewer spaces on a daily basis available for ferry parkers. So I think at the end of the day, that's the trade off. QUESTION Okay. QUESTION So. Question. Do you have a question? I mean, just on this issue, since it was brought up, I mean, so how many spaces do we think the ferry parking is going to use, utilize? Well, here's the way that's set up. They're building a parking lot with a whole bunch of extra parking. We don't know how many extra the parking space said. We think you've got about 100 more than you need. The way we've set it up with the mobile app and the conditions approval is we we understand there'll be some days where there's the hotels got a lot of people. Other days will be less. So we don't know what it will be every day. It's not we're not proposing to fence off a parking lot for the ferry. What we're proposing is a mobile app signage to so that there's a way for people to go, oh, hey, there's extra spaces at the hotel. I can park there today. So how are we going to regulate that? I mean. It's going to be it's a private parking lot. So they will regulate it. They will. Our conditions say you must have signage saying parking available. You must have the mobile app so that if you're in Harbor Bay at 9:00 in the morning and you're thinking about driving down, that you'll be able to check your phone and go , Oh yeah, there's three spaces at the hotel available right now. I'm heading down. If it says No, we're full. We've already sold off the spaces. They're booked for the whole day, then you don't drive down. So that's the way it was conceptually structured in the conditions of approval. And then if you do drive down and park where you're not supposed to, you'll get ticketed and towed. Well, that's that's true. Today, if you park in the neighborhood. Well, I remember I have the scars from that. So. Yeah, no, I mean, that's why we don't want people driving down in the hopes of getting a parking space in the hotel if there's none available or if other people have gotten there before them. Okay. Thanks for. Those questions. I would just comment that being a bit familiar with that free parking. First of all, we want to start charging in the in the weed a lot itself because that's that's just a way that we bring in some revenue that helps with shuttles or whatever we do. And also it might encourage folks who say drive from and circle and park there to not do that. But I would say that you could be assured that whatever available parking spaces are, whatever number of parking spaces are made available, they will they will be filled up. Councilmember Desai I. Just want to close by saying this. So our planning director just said that the parking met the code, but bear in mind we also just had a conversation that the parking did not meet the code of March 1988. And that's why, as they say, they're going about me trying to combine the parcels. Right. So that's that's a contradiction. And the reason why this is important for me is because this discussion and analysis was not part of the planning board. Discussion is not part of the record. To be sure, this is not a school issue. This is a municipal code issue. But by the same token, it is also an issue that I am attempting to leverage in an effort to somehow wiggle away to make the project a little smaller. And so I think that's what council should be doing, is doing everything that it can to still have a hotel and still have hotel taxes, but also attempt to meet the needs of the residents concerned about a five storey monstrosity. Mr. Thomas, you want to come up and provide some clarification? I just want to I just want to address this. This issue of shared parking, sharing parking between two separate parcels is a provision in the code. It's intended for two different property owners, two different uses. We do allow for shared parking. That's where that 400 foot thing comes from. If you intend to meet your parking requirement on somebody else's property, our parking code allows that under certain conditions. One of the conditions is if you're going to share the park, you we tell you you need two spaces and you're like, Well, I've only got the space for six on my parcel, but I can lease some from my friend who's down the street and our code says it should be within 400 feet if you're gonna do that. This is a different situation. This is one property owner owns three parcels. Got it. Thank you. And I also saw in that I think shared parking is something to be encouraged because otherwise you have just empty asphalt. During. Parts of the day and night. I'm going to jump in with my comments. And then we I know we have a motion that is pending. I'm not going to I don't have a lot because my colleagues all covered a lot of the points I would have. And thank you to all for your thoughtful deliberation. It is always lovely when you can just make everyone happy. I'm not sure I've ever had that experience, but it would be lovely. But we don't. But then at the end of the day, where I sit as an elected official, I have to look out and see what all the different needs of the community are including. And I very much appreciate all the neighbors and the residents who emailed and who showed up to speak, most especially the ones who spoke respectfully, which was the vast majority of you. But then there are other people who weren't able to come out and speak. But I I've met with them. And I'll tell you about a couple of our businesses that are out there at the Harvard Business Park. We as Alameda INS should be very proud of some of the work that is being done it at Harvard Business Park and in fact, around our city. But I met last week with an executive vice president from Exelixis, which is a company that moved over from South San Francisco. They'd outgrown their space. They needed more space. They're expanding. This is a company that is developing gene therapies, targeted gene therapies to treat a number of very serious cancers. And they have I mean, this company was started by a couple of Nobel Prize winners. They chose to be right here in our backyard. In your backyard. And what the gentleman I met with told me is that and I heard this also from the president and CEO of Penumbra, which is also out there at the Harbor Bay Business Park, which does this nanotechnology noninvasive device, if you're having a stroke, that blood clot in your brain, they can go in quickly and minimally invasive way and push it out, save lives. And they are a worldwide company headquartered at our Business Park at Harbor Bay Business Park. But they've both told me in recent months that they run out of space when they have visitors and clients coming and the hotels that are out there fill up. So they shuttle them over to San Francisco, sometimes are taking them to the Claremont, sometimes the Oakland Hilton. But apparently that's maybe getting a little run down. It's not as favorite as some of them are. What really bothers me about that is we're not being business friendly to our business park residents who are doing amazing things and bringing a lot of revenue into our city just from the sales of these devices and whatnot. And also that is transient occupancy tax TOTTY that is just flowing over our city limits into Oakland, San Francisco, Emeryville, Berkeley for the Claremont. One of the things I think Debbie Potter has left, but we had a discussion a week or two ago that we need to raise our transient occupancy tax. And don't worry, residents, you won't pay it. This is what people pay on their hotel rooms when they stay here. But right now it's 10% of your hotel room rate, whereas our neighbor San Leandro charges 14%. Really, are we not at least comparable to San Leandro? But that's money that is going straight into our general fund. So it's not that we do this just to have more money coming into our general fund, but the need is there . We want to support our businesses. Exelixis made the conscious choice to move from San Francisco and they looked in a radius of different places and they just settled on Alameda and they're here. They love it. They're growing and thriving. So we need to we need to support them, too. I am mindful of the concerns of neighbors that they don't want to look at just any old monolithic building, nor do I. And I will say we could still work on this design. And I want so I want this to be a robust project process of getting input from neighborhood representatives, especially those with some professional expertize to bring to the table. And we I think with the proposal about reducing parking spaces, we can pull back from the shoreline a bit. It's what compromise is. Neither side got everything they wanted, but at the end of the day, this is a good project for so many reasons, not least of which the jobs that will create the space for hotel rooms, for restaurant and cafe visitors. And I've also talked to Mr. Leach about having come back from the Conference of Mayors. There are some great internship and work to learn programs that hotels are doing. I'd like to see that in Alameda with that. Councilmember Vella, do you want to restate your motion and then I'm not sure we've got a second. So I moved to. Pull it up again to deny the appeals filed by Bryan Trumper and Labor's International Union of North America. Local Union 304 In approving a final development plan and design review to allow the construction of a 172 room, hotel and restaurant on the Harbor Bay Business Park shoreline at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway. With the amendment to well while also directing staff to look at the intersection mentioned and then to. And I'm also amenable to taking the direction of the account of Vice Mayor Knox White that he proposed that we direct. Do you want to restate it that we direct? I would just say that the direct the planning board to identify how to pull the project back from the shore and remove. That's an option. Well, we can make it an option or we can actually say it's something we want. I would personally I would say I've heard a lot about the shoreline. I would I would make the motion to direct them to do that as opposed to make that discussion. I have and I want I'd like Mr. Thomas to help us word it in the way that's most effective. It's completely you can do it either way. I think the the if you if you just have them if you put it if you tell them just do it. Yeah. Then what I'm a little worried about is if they then get a whole bunch of ferry parkers coming down, then they're sort of saying, don't do it. There's that conversation that they might want to entertain. If you say, Hey, we want you to entertain it, we want you to seriously look at it, then at least they can kind of balance that out and maybe, maybe approve it with a setback. Or maybe not. It's but it's completely if you say, hey, we want it pushed back. No ands, ifs or buts, then you can just do that tonight. And then I just lastly, it's just the issue of the traffic signal and the intersection. I think that should just be. Clear that it's. Separate. Yes, that'll be part of. Direction to staff. Process. Comment. Okay. So we have I'm sorry. Just one more clarification of the motion. You'll be adopting a resolution, so. Uh. Yes. Okay. Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So. Are we doing a mandatory set back, moving the set back, or are we doing a consideration? Because I do have some concerns about free parking and there never seems to be enough. And I understand we don't want these big CS of asphalt and you know, we want to get people out of their cars and everything. But by bringing people to the ferry, we are getting them out of their cars and they're not crossing the bridges and they're reducing congestion on the bridges and the bridge approaches. So I like the idea of like moving the set back in, but I'm not sure I want to do that at the cost of ferry parking, given that I think we're going to see expansion of ferries like we haven't gone to the South Bay yet and there's just going to be a greater demand. And I think we're kind of choking that demand if we if we mandate that we reduce ferry parking. I get the general ideas. And also I think Sharon Road also needs to be looked at. Sharon Road in McCartney, I think there's some complaints there. So not part of the motion, but. The tourism. Direction. Councilmember Vela I'm fine with directing the planning board to look at alternatives on creating an additional setback through the elimination of parking spaces. And I think that that's the middle ground and it's it's not dictating the number of spaces. It's letting them know that that's what we're looking for them to do. So that's the direction that I would like to include. And I think ultimately we are adding ferry parking through this project. So I don't want to have us use terms like we're reducing it. We may end up reducing it by a handful of parking spaces in the end, depending on what the design looks like. So, um, is that, is that an acceptable direction? Okay. So I guess I'll second that motion then. Okay. So and then just to satisfy the request of the city I clerical. So we want to approve the draft resolution denying the appeals and affirm the planning board's decision to approve construction of the 172 room, hotel and restaurant at the given address with the additional direction given to staff. Correct. Okay. And we have a motion. Did I hear a second? Yeah. Yes. Okay. All in favor. I, I. Opposed. Okay, so the motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you, everyone, and thank you for coming. Yes. Okay. Councilmember, no. So I am Vice Mayor. Sorry. It's okay. I answered any. So I would like that. I would like the council to consider directing staff to send a letter to BCD about the about this issue. I think that there's a big planning for everybody. We had one more discussion going. If you could just go quietly and. We can wait if we want. But I think I think there's a significant issue related to the change in which they are the way they are considering changing, the way they deal with this permit, this specific issue whereby they are putting our entire planning process, basically saying that we've spent a year and a half planning or year planning. So I'd like to I'd like to consider directing staff to write a letter on behalf of of of the city to address that issue. And did you see the the letter from Cox and Castle and. Yep, that's a private firm. I don't want to rely on a private, firm letter. I'd like the city to address the issues that we have, which is right now, the way in which Bccdc addresses planning is they will not take any action until they until a city has gone through all the way through. We've worked with them to make sure that we are aligned, as we always have been, around this negotiated settlement. And now after we are approving the project, they are saying, oh, we may change the process. And I just think that that is a very problematic thing to do. I hear from the city attorney in our city, Mr. Roush. While I don't disagree with Vice Mayor Knox White's comment, I'm a little concerned that that direction. May not be within the four corners of what we have on our agenda. And I'm trying to be very sensitive to. Council taking action with. Respect to matters. That. Are not are not defined fairly decently on the agenda title. So I would I would be a little reluctant. To suggest. That you take that action tonight. Notwithstanding that, it makes good sense. Thank you. All right. So. So I will perhaps withdraw my. Yeah. My suggestion. Suggestion? Yeah. All right. Okay. So then this item is completed and we'll move on to the next. Thanks, everybody. Okay, now we have two more. And is that right? We have seven. We have City Manager Communications.

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove). (Public Works 276)

AlamedaCC_06042019_2019-6897

Public hearing to consider adoption resolution approving the engineer's report confirming diagramed assessment or levy of assessment maintenance assessment district a1-1 marina cove. So I'm going to ask the same question of the council. Does anyone have an and I take it no public comment because I don't see the public out there to comment. Do the councilmembers have any questions or comments for Miss Acord? Another great report. Or. Another great report. Move approval. Okay. I have a motion to approve adopting a resolution approving the engineers report, confirming diagram and assessment and ordering levy of assessment maintenance district 01-1 marina co to have a second second. It's been moved and seconded and maybe have a voice vote, please. Council member Dave said yes. Not quite. Yes. Yes. Vella. Yes. Mayor, as the Ashcroft. Yes. That also carries my five. Great work honor roll, Ms.. Acree. Okay. So with that, we move to item seven City Manager Communications, Mr. Leavitt.

A proclamation honoring the dedication of La Raza Park name change and the Annual Summer Solstice.

DenverCityCouncil_06142021_21-0688

Right. Sorry about that. You know, I could say. The delays all over today. All right. Proclamation 20 1068 honoring the dedication of Rosa Parks Name Change. Whereas Sanchez is a traditional Ghana, India, India cultural dance group comprised of adult children and families dedicated to preserving the indigenous dance of their ancestors, the Manchester Witches Hat. And. Whereas, Rupa Look Like US is hosting the 2021 to partner summer solstice in the newly named La Raza Park, where family members come to share oral oral traditions, pray and dance in honor of the rain that grows crops to nourish our bodies. Because without water, nothing survives. And whereas before, to look fantastic has been dedicated to the community and its families for the past 41 years, providing direction and guidance with dances and ceremonies in Denver, Colorado, Aztlan, and throughout the world. And. Whereas, the time to water the seeds that need growth and development to heal last has. Status de la vida moving from inhumanity to humanity. And. Whereas, for 41 years, Grupo Palo has used Fanta to educate the universe and to summon our ancestors to walk with us on this historic journey. And. Whereas, other forms of art, such as such a hero, ism, poetry and lava that emanate in the one hand they are part of our cultural renaissance produced in communion with Muestra. It is better to have joined us this year to celebrate the solstice. And. Whereas, the formal renaming take place of the former, the formal renaming will take place at the former Columbus Park to La Raza Park to honor the community that has lived with struggle and have also thrived in northwest Denver for decades. And. Whereas, the time to honor extras and deposit to battles, self, homeland, community and spirituality from Mesoamerica to Las Americas and throughout the world has arrived. And. Whereas, the summer solstice symbolizes the nurturing of our youth who need consensus and vision to create a better tomorrow, and that reclaims our identity and spirituality through action and performance in the Westeros community that is to pass down to the next seven generations. And. Whereas, political and intellectual, intellectual intellectual development is the basis of human progress, recognizing our past informs the course of history. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of City and County of Denver Action that the Council hereby recognizes and commends people across the Chicano, Chicano, Mexicano Indigenous community who have called La Raza Park home for decades and have advocated for the name change taking place at the city and county of Denver, officially recognized this year on June four, 2021. Section two of the city and county of Denver shall test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that the copy be transmitted to Santa. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, your motion to adopt. A motion that proclamation 20 1068 the adopted second sector. Thank you. It's been moved. And I think that second goes to Councilmember Hines again, their comments by members of Council Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So I just wanted to acknowledge Carlos, who will be accepting the proclamation and all of the dancers of Peru. That dance had been dancing at La Raza Parks for decades and keeping ceremony there and honoring all of those who have really struggled to change the name and but done it through ceremony and done it in a very. In a way that I've always had held in high regard. They've also done the smartest there. They've been a steadfast leader in our community. And so it's my honor to work with them this weekend at the official dedication of La Raza Park East coming 20th, which is the summer solstice. They'll be dancing there all day. So with that, I'll just ask Carlos if he'd like to join us to accept the proclamation. Oh, wonderful. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And I don't see any other hands raised for comments here. And so I'll go ahead and chime in before we vote on this one. But the ancestors have to be celebrating and dancing for sure. This has been a very, very long time coming and happy to be able to support this this evening as well. And so congratulations to the entire community on this celebration, especially as it coincides with the summer solstice. The another. No other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hi. I'm Cashman. Hi. Kenny Ortega. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Proclamation 20 1-068 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for the proclamation. Acceptance Council member Sandoval will start the five minute timer. If you'd like to introduce your guests this evening. Yes. I'd like to introduce Carlos Castaneda and his wife, Donna. Panos. Yes. Good evening. Good afternoon to all. Thank you, Madam President. Councilwoman, send the ball and the rest of the council for having me here. Unfortunately, my wife is not here with me today. She's doing some other things here. But I'm very honored to be a part of this here and in this time, very difficult time that we all been going through here. So I just hope and pray that everybody and your families are safe, well, and safe and continue to be that way. So my name is Carlos Castaneda. I'm the director. And the first part of dialog been in the existence since June of 1980, preserving the ways of the mystical Aztec down chichi mecca dance aspect, traditional cultural dance, music and song. And we have been in the community of Denver since then. Hosting a ceremony during the summer solstice, which we call Superfoiler, and the coast to coast this weekend to the summer solstice. Right before that summer solstice time, we we try to acknowledge what our our earth has given us, what the rain has given us as we continue to grow our crops. The beautiful rain that we have received so far has has really nourished all of our crops. The main purpose this is for the ceremony is to to prepare for this rain through this spiritual dance that not only here, but for for all the crops throughout, not only in Colorado, but this whole this whole Western Hemisphere, really. Myself, I have a a range of of migrant workers that have come and worked the field. So I know how important this this rain is to the the crops that feed our people. On top of that, we try to nourish these ancient traditions for these upcoming generations so that one day they will continue what our ancestors have have fought and given their lives for. Also, this this tradition has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years since before the coming of the Spanish into Mexico and that they need. Yeah. I'm sorry. I have to go. Background noise there. Then they need of this. Of this dance has allowed us to continue on and to share with our young ones. So I thank you for acknowledging us for this proclamation here. This year is particularly is going to be a very historical moment event for not only the park but for the people of Denver. You know, the struggle has been going on for for several decades now, too, as as you opened up in the beginning about acknowledging the native people of this land, it pays respect to all of those who have gone before us. And the name change of this of this part from Columbus to La Raza Park, meaning that the People's Park, the people of this land, really and even in between the roads where this this park lies in between Navajo and and I don't exactly know the exact street, but that whole down 38th, they have all of these native names. So thank you for that. This, as I mentioned, this struggle to be a part of this is a dream come true and a prayer come true for many. It's not just what we have left, but there have been many voices put into this. So I think each and every one of the people who have supported this struggle, this is a very small step for our people, but it is a victory that we are very proud of. So I thank you all for acknowledging that and putting that on the proclamation as well. This park is a beautiful park in the heart of the North Side, Denver, and there are many children that have yet to to to walk into this park and learn the history of how this park has come to where it's at today. So this ceremony has been open and will always be open for for everyone who steps into that park so they can learn the appreciation of the Mexican people, the Aztec people, tradition that has come from from from Mexico. We will be hosting several representative of other groups throughout California, Arizona, New Mexico, Mexico, Utah, different places. In the past years we have celebrated with them and fed feast with with the public at the end of our three day celebration. This is just the last day of it. And we feed everybody who's in the park. We do this. We have done this with the help of many other organizations. So I want to thank all of them. You all know who you are. I don't want to take up too much time, but I greatly, greatly appreciate everybody's effort. And I thank you once again. I am honored to accept this proclamation on behalf of ore. Thank you very much for do. Oh. Well, thank you so much for joining us this evening, sir, as well, and Councilmember Sandoval for sponsoring this proclamation. And we hope that you have. Celebration and good attendance as well. And so thank you for all of your wonderful.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $3,000, offset by the Third Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a donation to the Naples Improvement Association for the Annual Naples Boat Parade, and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $3,000 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_02012022_22-0109

Thank you. Let's have item 22, please. Communication from Councilman Price recommendation to increase appropriations by $3,000 to provide a donation to the Naples Improvement Association for the annual Naples Boat Parade. Price. Thank you. I've moved and asked my colleagues to support the item. Fantastic. Is there a second? Does my voice just voices. Okay. Okay. Bring us your hand. Acknowledge that as you spoke in a very public comment. At this time, if any members of the public would like to speak on this item, please press star nine or use the raise hand function. Seen none. That concludes public comment. Thank you, members. Please get in. Let's do a work on District one. I. District too. I. District three. I. District four. District four. District five. And thumbs. Up. Thumbs I received. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. Hi. Motion is carried. All right. Item 23, please. Report from City Manager Recommendation to receive and file a one year update on the implementation of the Racial Equity and Reconciliation Initiative citywide.

A RESOLUTION relating to funding for construction and long-term operations and management of public spaces on the Central Waterfront; reaffirming the overall funding plan for the Central Waterfront Improvements and the principles that will guide implementation of these improvements; outlining the process for formation of a Local Improvement District and completion of a fundraising plan for philanthropy; and identifying a framework for an agreement with the non-profit Friends of Waterfront Seattle to operate and manage public spaces on the Central Waterfront.

SeattleCityCouncil_09112017_Res 31768

Bill Pass and Chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item. Agenda item 32 Resolution 317 68. Related to the funding for construction, long term operations and management of public spaces on the central waterfront. Reaffirming the overall funding plan for the central waterfront improvements and the principles that will guide implementation of these improvements. Outlining the process for formation of a local improvement district and completion of fundraising plan for the lottery, and identifying a framework for an agreement with the nonprofit Friends of Waterfront Seattle to operate and manage public spaces on these Central Waterfront Committee recommends resolution be adopted as amended. Thank you. Councilmember worries. Thank you. This is again is from Office of the Waterfront Resolution. This resolution expresses the city's commitment to evaluate future agreements in legislation that will come before council next year. These agreements and legislation include our partnership agreement with Friends of the Waterfront for Operation and Maintenance of the new Waterfront Parks and the establishment of a local improvement district around the new central waterfront. Subsequent agreements will be transmitted to council during during 2018. I want to stress that this is not creating a lid on a local improvement district. This merely outlines the legislative process to form a lead. As you know, the lid process is very detailed. It would include an assessor, a public comment, a hearing, a hearing examiner, or an appeal process, of course, a vote. And before that, a final assessment and rule. So we have many more council actions, but this mainly just outlines the legislative process to form a lid which will come before us next year. Thank you very much, Councilman Schwartz. Any comments? Councilmember Bagshaw Yes, thank you. And I really appreciate my colleague, Councilmember Suarez, just said and I want to give us all a little history just again for the record to remind us how long and how much work has been going on. On this has been not just ongoing but long going efforts. This all started back prior to the time most of us were on the council when there was a decision to build the tunnel, which gave us the opportunity to create a real central waterfront that we all want to see and be proud of. In January of 2011, we passed a resolution that created that waterfront committee in August. A year later. In 2012, we passed another resolution that adopted the waterfront concept, design and framework. And many of us went to other cities. We I personally went to Boston, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, met with leaders to learn what they have done and how they did it, that it was successful. And in that model, we followed a third party nonprofit model that we saw in Boston with Rose Kennedy Greenway, and that is we entered into a contract with our Friends of the Waterfront, and they have been friends indeed to implement and activate work on the waterfront, even during construction, and to help us create a maintenance plan. And then in 2014, many of you will remember that our voters voted the Seattle Parks District, where we got a $3.5 million ongoing budget to operate and maintain the waterfront. And then the following year, 2015, we passed an ordinance that. Piloted a maintenance project at Westlake and at Occidental Park so we could see how does it go? How does it work when we're entering into partnership, not just with our Parks Department work, but with partners such as DSA. And as we all know, major success. We saw very quickly at Westlake and Occidental having a place where everybody could go, and you felt good about being there. So we now have partners. And I want to say thanks to the Friends of the Waterfront, to our Parks Foundation, to our Alliance for Pioneer Square and the Aquarium. All these entities are helping us raise money and helping us bring to the city of Seattle all the things that we want to see down on our waterfront. And we heard during public testimony that there's been no outreach regarding the slide. And I just want to say, not only is that not true, but it's really not true. We have with our Office of Waterfront have been working closely with Boma, with DSA, with Nai up, also with residents. And also, just for the record, I have been cleared by our Ethics and Elections Office to be able to vote on this. You remember a couple of years ago, I was told as a District seven resident that I was not going to be able to do that. But they've changed the rules. And I just want to make sure all of you know that I'm going to be very much impacted by this slide should it pass. I'm at ground zero, right on air, about a block away from the waterfront. I intend to be supporting this, but the process has been long. We do not know yet how much the assessment is going to be for the properties, but we do know the general direction that the procedures, the outreach will be going in. We all will be hearing. A lot. More of that. Also, during public comment, one of our speakers said that an LED has never been used for a project like this, and that's not true. We've used and lied for our streetcars, for roads and bridges. And even our friends in Magnolia will tell you, for those who remember, Magnolia residents paid one third of the cost of that Magnolia Bridge. Go figure. If we tried to assess one third of the cost of Magnolia Bridge now, people would have a heart attack. Truly, we are we have a partnership with the city, with the state, with all of these partners. Friends have committed to raise a million, $100 million. The aquarium is going to raise a significant amount for their. Own. Their own addition. And the aquarium and I just want to say thank you to my colleagues. This is just one of the first opportunities you're going to begin to hear about the slide. Our office of the waterfront is here now. And I say thanks to the friends of the waterfront, to all of you have done really great work. I am excited about where we're going. I know I'm going to be paying an additional assessment. And frankly, this has been part of the plan since around 2010. So thank you for that. We'll be hearing a lot more. And I just are just to pass this resolution today. Thank you very much, Councilman Baxter. Any further comments, if not those in favor of adopting the resolution? Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The resolution stopped and Shah will sign it. Is there any further business governance for the Council? If not, we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the day. Thank you.

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation and report on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) “Year in Review,” highlighting the President’s 2020-2021 work plan, including Connect So Cal Plan adoption, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, the Regional Equity Framework, the Regional Data platform, and other key milestones.

LongBeachCC_05182021_21-0470

Thank you. I think our last item is item 35. Item 35 Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson. Councilwoman Cindy has Councilman Allen Councilwoman Zahra recommendation to receive and file presentation and report from SCAD year in review highlighting the President's 2020 make through 2021 work plan. Of Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As one of the just concluded my year as president of SCAD. I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me the time since 2014 be a part of this board, the great regional board. I've learned a lot and I've become a better leader as a result of the experiences being there. And, you know, traditionally when you serve on a board or you go to a study tour, you come back and report back to city council. So I'm happy to attach my year review report and I have a video just to show this. This year has been a you know, it's been a hard year. You know, I've been in the past, I've been able to go study alternative forms of transportation in Australia or, you know, the challenges around clean air in China. And, you know, we got you know, we got invited to Israel and Hawaii and all those things. This wasn't the year for that. This year was really local government folks hunkering down and getting work done. And so I want to thank Councilmember Allen. Also, Councilman Austin serves on the committee for being good members of of for being good members of SAG. And I want to take a moment to show the video of the year in review video. Thank you. When I think back of the events of the past year, I go back to the moment that we learned that COVID 19 was here in our communities and that we needed to respond. It's a strange world, the space between things. What we learned was that essential workers still need to go out and provide basic services. And we learned that schools may be closing and that if you weren't essential worker, you may not have had the means to provide for your family. So it was a very scary time. Now I know that when we get out of this, I. Want to help. When we will. But during that time, local government still needed to provide its basic needs and basic services. And so local leaders needed to step up and find a pathway forward without a lot of certainty about what the future looks like. I think about the Southern California region. We're already a region with tremendous opportunity, but also great meaning. We were in the midst of a housing crisis, a regional housing needs assessment. Next, local plan, setting our goals and vision for the next 25 years. And that work couldn't stop. So this regional council of local leaders from six counties continue to work through the challenges to make sure that we're setting the stage for a Southern California that's inclusive and strong. And think, get this. Ordinarily, our year is busy at SCAD because we have a lot of things that we get involved with as a regional MPO. But to have the combination of two primary assignments that SKOG has, one that's done every four years, and one that's done over eight years, to have those two come together in one year, obviously was a lot of work to get done. Where we had the most significant impact is not what we were able to do, but how we were able to do it. We had every excuse in the world to not meet our deadline on Connect somehow or not adopt the methodology on Rina or to not address the economic recovery. But we did it all, and we did it all in a fashion that built a real consensus across the region and helped place our region on a stronger, more firm footing for the future. A lot of decisions have been made in the last year and a half that have been very difficult, that have required a lot of regional thinking as opposed to parochial thinking. And I think that's where you have to celebrate our regional leaders, our board members that have come from these various cities and counties able to come together and actually fight for what is in the best interest of the region. This last year was a little harder for Skaggs than other years because we had to work on the RTP or Connect SoCal as well as regional housing needs assessment. You know, this plan is almost a half trillion dollar plan, planning out the regional transportation needs for the next 20 years. This is really important that we do advanced planning so that local entities such as my city of Ontario and the County of San Bernardino can aim all of its projects to what would be beneficial for the entire region. This year, we developed and adopted a final allocation plan for the six cycle regional housing needs assessment, which will help cities meet anticipated things in the six county region over much of the next decade. In the process, we gather input from throughout the region, examined a variety of methodology options and in the end challenge ourselves to come up with a formula that addresses our housing needs in an effective and equitable manner. And now PSAC is focused on providing communities with the technical support it needs to meet that challenge. During this past difficult year, Scaggs staff, it's really stepped up to develop tools that we can all use in our cities and counties to deal with complex data that we need to make better plans and figure out how we're going to get to where we want to go, including the regional data platform. The housing element parcel especially directs us to solutions for our housing challenges. Additionally, we have COVID Vulnerability Indicators Dashboard again helping us figure out how COVID has affected our communities, which particular segments are really having challenges, and what we can do when. We learn where those challenges are. So with this technical assistance that our brilliant staff has come up with, we can work better for a better future for all of us with our different challenges. Last July, SAG declared racism as a public health crisis and in the months since has led region wide discussions on ways to eliminate barriers that reduce opportunity for millions of Southern Californians. The results of this effort include a draft framework for the agency's action plan on racial equity and the development of an inclusive regional economic recovery strategy for Southern California to make a true recovery from the devastation of this public health and economic pandemic. We need to close this historically large racial equity gap and factor in the importance of long range planning for transportation and land use in creating more inclusive communities. Research is always a big part of what's kept us. But this year, COVID changed our lives in ways we could not imagine. As a result, many of our studies took on a new sense of urgency. Some of these studies included an early preview of the economic impacts of COVID on the region, a last mile freight study addressing the very real surge in both business and home deliveries, and analysis of changing transportation demands, and a sophisticated economic forecast that illuminates the need for an inclusive economic recovery strategy. One of the biggest. Successes this year has been in the support we've been able to give at the local, city and county level. Millions of dollars in funding are being invested across many different areas of land use and transportation planning. Some of these include a series of local technical assistance programs that will invest. Nearly $65 million in local plans and programs. A subregional partnership program allocating $23 million to local governments to prepare and implement local housing elements. The Sustainable Communities Program, which is supporting projects in the areas of active transportation and safety. Housing and sustainable development and smart cities and mobility innovations. We also. Have the 28 mini grants awarded through the Go. Human Campaign to Fuel Community. Active Transportation Safety and Engagement Initiatives. We have multiple programs geared towards. Accelerating urgently needed housing production throughout the region. All of this local level support is emblematic of the collaboration and partnership that is so central to who SAG is a win for our cities, a win for our counties. That's a win for Skegg. It's a win for the Southern California region, and that's what we're here to do. The COVID year, as I call it, the year 2020 taught us a lot of things and we did a lot of things that we had not done before. And so it's been a very instructive year for us to on one level, to find that we have capacities that we didn't even know we had. But I just want to be very grateful for all of our stakeholders hanging with us, being with us through the changes in our processes and approaches to our work, all of them , I think we're able to adjust to the new beat that we sort of began to dance to. It's Greg. Skog has the opportunity to help shape the future for Southern California, and the future is uncertain. When I think about the future, I think about my daughters, my six year old and my three year old, and the future that they will have growing up here in Southern California. I want them to have clean air to breathe. I want them to have clean water to drink. I want them to have access to affordable housing and jobs, education, economic opportunity. And we want this for all of our children. These are things that we all agree on. And as long as we continue to focus where our interests intersect, the future of Southern California will be bright. You do? So thank you. That concludes my presentation. It's been a it's been a great year. I plan to conclude my year is immediate past president and hopefully recruit one of my colleagues who wants to, you know, have the experiences that I've had. And it's going. So thank you so much for this opportunity to share this report. And it is attached. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sarah. Thank you, Mayor. I want to congratulate Vice Mayor Richardson. Ah, former president of SAG Richardson, on a job well done and representing our great city at that level and said thank you so much for your service and your leadership. Councilman's in the house. Yes. I also want to. Congratulate. You, vice mayor, for a great job in representing the city of Long Beach. I know that you have been a great value just scad for for several years now. So I'm really excited for you and the experience that you've had and and also the leadership that you will continue to bring to us because of your experience there . So, again, congratulations. Thank you, Councilman Allen. Yes. I think that was a great video and I just can't pass up on the opportunity to say thank you to our vice mayor for his service to Scott. That was an awesome video. Mr. Vice Mayor, you are absolutely the right leader at the right time. And you have led the charge on racial equality and inclusion as a gag as well as our city. And I know this to be a fact. Our our communities are going to benefit from your leadership for generations to come. I'm going to say this again. You are you are bold, you are fun, and you are hella passionate. And I applaud your work at SCAD. You are just an incredible chair. I learned so much from you. So just great work. Thinking, Counselor. Anger. In short, thank you for your service, Benjamin. Thank you. So what's gag again? I'm just kidding. Oh, I'm just joking. Well, no, listen, I'm just giving the vice mayor a hard time, so if you like, I like to do that. So congratulations, Rex, on your year of service. And I think I think, Councilman Allen, I think you serve on Skaggs also or the alternate. And we've had a long tradition of this body being involved on on Skye and at the Gateway COG and so many of these regional boards, which are always very important for the city. So congratulations. And with that, I don't believe there's any public comment. So we'll do a roll call vote. Councilwoman Sundance. Right. Councilwoman Allen. I'm Councilwoman Pryce. I can swim in super. I'm Councilwoman Mango. I. Councilwoman Sara. I. Council member oranga. I. Councilman Austin. All right. Vice Mayor Richardson. Yes. Washington. Thank you. And with that, we have a new business, as we called Mayor Carlos, the man before we close. All right, Mr. City, Attorney, you have a ruling. Thank you, Mayor. This evening, in closed session, council authorized the settlement of the Anthony Garcia versus city of Long Beach litigation in the amount of $250,000 by a vote of 9 to 0. Thank you. Thank you. With that we're going to go ahead and ahead this. Sorry. Sorry, Charlie. Any business?

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt resolution amending the Master Fee and Charges Schedule. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03242015_15-0249

Item three Report from Financial Management Report. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and adopt resolution. Amending the master fee and change charge charges scheduled citywide. Because they were competing for the. Okay. I'm going to turn this over to. Time to go. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. This hearing, the staff report will be presented by Leah Erickson, our budget management director or manager. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. City Council's approval is being requested for second quarter changes to the master fee and charges schedule for the second quarter adjustment process. There are minimal changes and six departments have proposed a total of 19 fee changes to the schedule, along with four deletions. The Master fee and charges schedule is updated at least twice a year to allow departments to meet City Council's stated policy on user fees, which calls for full cost recovery whenever appropriate. City Council last approved an amended master fee and charges schedule as part of the 15 budget process. Some examples of the changes in the report include a change to the passport postage fee to reflect increased postage cost. There's also fees related to implementation of the Mills Act to include a change of the application fee to be 1100 per property instead of per unit. And lastly, there's also a reduction in the youth pool swim fee for the Belmont outdoor pool from $3 to $1. Proposed reductions for the remaining city pools will be heard by the City Parks and Recreation Commission on April 16th. Department representatives are here to answer any specific questions on the changes. Councilmember Mongeau If one of my colleagues has a question on changes, I have a question on the next round of this that I thought would be important for the hearing. All yield to another councilmember. Okay. Leah, Miss Erickson, if you could for a quick moment, give us a little background on what the difference is between exhibit A and Exhibit B. I know you and I have talked about the questions I've received from constituents regarding the variance and what the confusions are. Would you be able to speak to that, please? Sure. Councilwoman Mongo Exhibit A is included for reference purposes and includes the entire master fee and charges schedule. Exhibit B includes just the fees that are being changed or deleted or new fees. And so that's what city council would be approving at this point. So I read a fair share of these fees to be supportive of our idea that. We're not increasing fees. We're actually lowering fees when it comes to the pool to empower children to participate in learning how to swim, which is a valuable tool and a valuable skill to have. And then these other fees are new because of other laws and changes that we've made to be more business friendly, specifically in the downtown area. Yes. That is a that's correct. That's an establishment of an exemption process for a noise hearing. Yes. So so just to be clear, these new fees are to support the community and business. And potentially, if we had any other requests for when this comes back to us. And six months would now be the appropriate time to make that request. Yes, you could you could ask the administration to look into things. So as we've discussed, I'd like to make a formal request for the administration to look into the parking permit process. As many are aware, in the fifth District, along with my councilmember, who's missing for a quick second. All of us have been here for quite a while and needed a few bathroom breaks. We have some parking districts and the make up of how parking permits are charged there. We believe a group of constituents and myself believe that there might be a more effective way to make those charges. That would not be as costly to the residents. And I know you and I have kind of talked about that maybe the first car cost a certain amount, but each additional car would be less because the processing costs to the city would actually be substantially lower for those additional cost. And therefore, we would be able to save the taxpayers some funding while still giving them the privilege of the parking district for the areas that are so impacted by the community college, the college and other areas throughout the city. Is that something we could have back in the next iteration in the fall? Councilwoman Mango Yes, the administration can. The staff can look at that and and report back and see if any changes are warranted. My goal is that this is back before the council before we permanently make the areas that are currently temporary, permanent, because we want to make sure that we're doing the best by our citizens to ensure that those prostitution fees are reasonable. So thank you very much for that. I'll be supporting this motion or this hearing. Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you. I also want to say thank you for I know you heard loud and clear the residents regarding the Mills Act. And I see here there's some adjustments that have been made. And so I just want to make sure that Mills Act application fee is changing per from per unit to per property. That is correct. I just wanted to make sure that was that I was reading that correctly. Councilwoman Gonzales. That is correct. Okay. And I think that's about it. But I just wanted to thank you for all that, because I know that that had been brought up a few meetings before, and you heard them loud and clear. So thank. You. Thank you, Councilwoman. There still is not a motion or a second, but we do. We are doing that. Are you okay? Thank you. Councilmember your anger. Yeah, I see that. There's also an inclusion of marriage license fees of. Does that mean that our city clerk will be administering more marriages? Yes, that is correct. There is a civil marriage ceremony. The. Okay. Is there an estimate as to what that may generate? Just out of curiosity, if you have any kind of numbers that you can work on? Councilmember Durango. We don't have an estimate of the number of couples who would choose to use the city clerk at this time. But once we have more experience, we can report back. That's all. Thank you. Councilmember Alston. Yes. I was just curious regarding the the Long Beach Airport and the commercial use permits, and I see that they have gone up significantly for filming. And how did we reach that conclusion to to almost double those fees? Is anyone? Are we? Okay. So. I don't seem to have a representative here from the Long Beach. We do. Okay. I'm sorry. I'll turn it over to. For the Long Beach Airport. Carolyn Carleton Lowe. Councilman, this councilman, this is. Our effort to. Bring our fees in line with the rest of the city and also to reflect staff time that goes into. These endeavors. Okay. So our filming permits, this is in line with what they are for the rest of the city. That's what I understand. Okay. I was just curious. It just kind of jumped out at me. I know we are making great strides as a state, you know, a local area to to encourage our filming and to continue to do that. I just want to make sure that we're being consistent. Thank you very much. Okay. So we have a motion and a second seeing no further comment. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the Council? Mr. Goodhew. Very good Hugh Clark, as he does have a serious issue relative to the. Fees that are charged to hold rowing events. In the last six months. Within the last six months. Three events in the for the first time in the history of Long Beach, three rowing events had to be canceled because of the increased fees. Two by the junior program. One by Cal State University. It had to. Moved to another for that event, had to move it to a city that was not the second worst managed city in the country. For those who are not familiar with it, the Marine Stadium was specifically fashioned, specifically fashioned for rowing a 2000 meter course period . And I think it would be a very strong indictment. For this city. To undertake action that would undercut that. I see the city manager smiling. All right. He's clearly a buffoon that doesn't understand. The Marine Stadium was too. Good here. I realize. Oh, no, I don't think you do. You realize if you come to the mic, you will not disparage our staff. Is that clear? Is that clear? Simple. We expect civility. You have a right to speak, but civilly only. Webster defines the conduct if it would fit the category that Mr. West has displayed. Period. Well, you're. Saying that you. Develop. The Fifth Amendment and you want to throw out that one. Final chance. You have one final chance. Okay. Civility. Civility includes buffoonery. And we have that. But the record speaks for itself. I didn't make the wallet report. All right. We've got a very serious issue. This is one manifestation of it in the history of Long Beach. We've never had to do that. We've had intelligent. People that weren't buffoons. Thank you. Any further public comment. CNN members cast your vote. I'm a yes, Madam Clerk. Motion carries seven zero. Okay. We're going to go on to the next item, please, Madam Clerk. I think actually. Is it consent annexed? Yes, it's consent calendar.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $500, offset by the Eighth Council District One-time District Priority Funds, transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a donation to Khalo Creative LLC to support the Absolute Best of Long Beach event; and Decrease appropriation in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $500, to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_04192022_22-0450

Thank you very much. We have a fund transfer items 28 and 29. Item 28 Communication from Councilman Austin. Recommendation to increase appropriation in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by 500 to provide a donation to Kahlo Creative. And item 29 is a communication from Council Councilwoman Price recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in this event in the City Manager Department by 500 to provide a donation to Carlo Creative. Thank you. I got a motion in a second. Councilman orson, any comments? Councilman in dallas. Is your public comment at there? Any members of the public that would like to speak on item 28 or 29? Please line up at the podium. If you're in the zoom, please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine now. See none. That concludes public comment. Okay. Thank you. We do have to roll call. Vote, please. I'm sorry. Let's see the roll call vote. And we have to make the announcement. Go ahead. Councilwoman Sandy has. Hi, Councilwoman Allen. Councilwoman Price. Hi, Councilman Sabrina. Hi. Councilwoman Mango. Hi. Councilwoman zero. Council Members. Ranga. Hi. Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. All right. The motion is carried nine zero. Thank you. Okay. And now we have two presentations. I'm going to start with the the anniversary presentation of the L.A. riots. I mention this over to Councilwoman Cynthia.

Message and order for the confirmation of the appointment of Ralph Jackson, as a member of the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission for a term expiring on May 1, 2023. Referred to the Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation. Councilor Bok moved for reconsideration of Docket #0406 Councilor Bok and Councilor Baker moved that the Council confirm the appointment. On motion of Councilor Bok and Councilor Baker, the rules were suspended; the appointment was confirmed.

BostonCC_03232022_2022-0406

Just went through my initial motion and now instead I'm moving suspension and passage of docket 0406040720408 with the consent of the Chair a planning development of transportation. The Beacon Hill Architectural Commission currently only has one valid full member, and so it's creating a real issue. And our side and all three of these people are are well known folks who have been very active in the community. And so. Mr. President, I seek reconsideration since I know we put them on file, but instead to suspend and pass all three dockets. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Do I hear a second? Second? Councilor Edwards second the motion. At this time, the chair recognizes counsel Baker. Counsel Baker. You have the floor. I just wanted to rise. And in consultation with counsel, counsel, I'm familiar with this situation here. I believe for the for the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission to actually do business. This is this is this is an easy road for me here. So I have no problem not having a hearing on these ones. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Baker. So on docket 040604070408. Mr. Clerk, are we taking a we're going to take a vote on each one separately. So we'll start with zero four, zero six. All those in favor say I. I opposed say no, no. The ayes have it. Docket 0406 has passed. We talk at 0407. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I oppose any. The ayes have it. Dawkins 0408 all in favor, say I. I opposed. Nay, the ayes have it. Docket 0406.0407.0408 have passed. We're on to personnel orders. Mr. Clarke, please read Target. 04110411 Council of Flynn for Councilor Loyal.

Recommendation to respectfully request City Council to support the Human Relations Commission's recommendation to suspend all non-essential travel to the State of North Carolina and Mississippi until the repeal of the North Carolina Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act ("HB2") and Mississippi House Bill 1523, and Respectfully request a signed letter be sent from the Mayor and/or City Council to the Governors of each state opposing each respective bill and informing them of the City of Long Beach's travel sanction.

LongBeachCC_06212016_16-0584

Communication from Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilwoman Gonzalez and Councilmember Richardson. Recommendation to support the Human Relations Commission's recommendation to suspend all non-essential travel to the state of North Carolina and Mississippi until the repeal of HB two and HB 1523. Thank you, Madam Clerk. As many of us know, many municipalities, including San Francisco, Seattle and New York City, have banned all non-essential travel to both North Carolina and Mississippi. What I'd like to share, and I believe that this is shared among quite a few of our members of our constituency, is that we cannot allow the continued discrimination against the LGBTQ community and must definitely take a stand that is meaningful. Long Beach is committed to creating and sustaining a community that promotes tolerance, respect and love for thy neighbor without regard to race, color, national origin, religious creed, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. We cannot keep hating and murdering each other because we do not agree with who they are, with whom they are, I should say. We must continue to act out in a way that is positive. And I believe that banning non-essential travel to North Carolina and Mississippi until they repeal their respective bills is our logical next step. Before. Well, we have a motion and a second, so if we can take it behind the dias. Councilman Gonzales. I want to thank you, Vice Mayor, for bringing this forward. I think it's it's exactly spot on what you're what you're mentioning. And Long Beach has been a city that has not discriminated against. We've been very open for our LGBTQ community. I think states that just seem to harbor these these ill, you know, feelings and these this hatred is really no place for us to be doing travel or non-essential travel to. I think this city is much greater than that. And we are. We just passed My Brother's Keeper about, you know, talking about the advances of people that definitely need our help the most. And I think coming off of such tragedy that has happened and coming off of just the beauty that exists here in the city of Long Beach with who we are and the diversity in so many different levels, I feel that this is a great step in solidifying our support for that. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman. Yes. Thank you, vice mayor. You know, in this day and time, I think it really hurts me, too, that we still are passing judgment on each other so much that they are considered less than persons instead of what they really are, which are human beings, you know, full and participate in every right that each of us were born with. You know, that said, I just stand with you. And I really, truly believe that we are all God's children. We need to treat each other as such. This is a such a tragedy. But with that, all that said, we have to really stay vigilant to everything we watch and see. Thank you very much for bringing this to the diocese. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. I just want to say that I wholeheartedly, wholeheartedly support the Human Relations Commission's request. And I want to thank Vice Mayor Lowenthal and my colleagues for inviting me to sign on. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Yes. An injustice to one is an injustice to all. I support the Human Relations Commission and I really want to just applaud them for for bringing this this item forward shows that they are actually working as a commission, being thoughtful and and proactive to try to bring issues like this to our attention. So I will definitely be in support. Thank you. And are there any members of the public that wish to address the Council on item 38 who's come forward? Good evening, Honorable Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Myles McNeely and I'm the acting chair of the Human Relations Commission. I wanted to first thank you all for taking the time to address this very important issue. I'll be brief in summarizing our recommendation. I did want to highlight that we were unanimous in supporting this recommendation and that survey. And as I mentioned, several cities across the nation have already instituted similar travel bans. Part of what fueled our engagement in this issue was learning about two separate incidents that occurred this year where transgender persons were victimized in Long Beach because of their perceived gender identity or their perceived, perceived transgender identity. After hearing about these of these events, one of which was a violent stabbing of a transgender woman, the Human Relations Commission developed developed a very deep concern about the dignity, safety and well-being of transgender persons in Long Beach. We believe that this travel ban demonstrates solidarity with the LGBT community, and we believe that we must continue to reinforce the notion, the notion that all members in our community are deserving of respect and dignity as the City Council's Principle Advisory Commission promoting peace, tolerance and mutual respect. We believe that adopting this recommendation sends a clear message that Long Beach is a city that embraces these ideals and embraces our diverse community. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor. Members of council. My name is Porter Gilbert. I'm the executive director of the LGBTQ Center of Long Beach. I am also joined this evening by Stellar SEWA, who is a member of our board of directors. I want to give my my biggest thanks to Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilwoman Gonzalez and Councilmember Richardson for spearheading this effort at the council level. And huge thanks to the Human Relations Commission for continuing to prioritize the prioritize LGBTQ issues and understanding that we still have quite a bit of work to do. What laws like the ones in Mississippi and North Carolina say about LGBTQ people is that we are not valued, that we are not worthy of protection, that we are not worthy of being able to walk about in public safely without question. We know from from many instances here in Long Beach and throughout the United States that since these laws have have been passed, that people have now taken it upon themselves to begin questioning people in restrooms and asking them whether or not they belong in restrooms and attacking them when they're in restrooms. We know that people can no longer sue for discrimination in the state of North Carolina, not just for discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, but based on race or disability. So these laws have a very national impact, even if they were enacted at the state level. And by enacting a non-essential travel ban, you are sending a message that Long Beach refuses to stand in the face of discrimination silently. You're standing with our LGBTQ community here in Long Beach, and you're standing with the LGBTQ community and the rest of the United States. So thank you very much for your consideration this evening. Thank you, Porter. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Alexandra Billings. I'm an actress and I'm an assistant professor of theater at California State University, Long Beach. I am celebrating in December my 20th wedding anniversary to my wife, who I met in 1976. I am also transgender, and I transitioned in 1980. I'm 54 years old and I'm not really sure where some of these states think. I've been going to the bathroom for the past 30 years. But it has been in women's restrooms. I've also changed my clothes. Been in locker rooms for a very, very long time. And nothing terrible has ever happened. However, terrible things have happened to me because of what I am. I've been beaten, hit, called names. And raped at gunpoint because I'm transgender. Now, I know there's a lot of debate about what I am. And I really understand it because I do understand that you might look at my life and think, well, you could just choose something differently. And that would be great. Believe me, if I could make a choice about my lifestyle. It would have been something that would have caused a lot of people far less pain and riddled me, probably with far less shame. But I've come to realize in the 54 years I've been on the planet that what I am is a great gift. It's a spiritual gift, and it's a gift of the heart and the mind, and that what I am propels me into something new. So I want to reassure you. And I heard here in this room just in the last 15 minutes, somebody's talking about recruitment of gays. And I can assure you, the only thing that I have ever remotely recruited was people to come to my house and watch Judy Garland clips. And I don't think that that's detrimental to anyone's spirit. So I just want to say lastly, that I, I want you behind me. And what I mean is that for me, it's less about banning travel and more about me feeling you're behind the revolution. Any marginalized community, if any marginalized community were being treated this way and being told that they couldn't go into restrooms. Or had been able to use drinking fountains or been able to ride it in any part of the bus, the entire tire country would be outraged. So I ask you to be behind our movement, our revolution. Thank you very much. Thank you. There's been a motion in a second and we've heard public comment. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Item nine. Let's to item 19 and 20.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to accept and expend grant funds from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Land and Water Conservation Fund, in an amount not to exceed $2,016,000, for the Davenport Park Expansion Project; Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $1,975,680, offset by grant revenue; Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $1,975,680, offset by a transfer of Land and Water Conservation Grant Funds from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation from the Capital Grants Fund; and Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department by $40,320, offset by grant revenue. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_12152020_20-1255

Thank you. Item 25. Please. Item 25 Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine and Public Works. Recommendations to accept and expend grant funds from the State of California in an amount not to exceed one point million. The Davenport Park Expansion Project. District eight. Councilmember Austin. Thank you. Is there staff report? Yes. We have a brief staff report by Eric Lopez and Brant Dennis. Yeah. Thank you. Mr. City Manager, Honorable Mayor and members of City Council. I've asked our Parks Planning and Partnership Bureau Manager Meredith Reynolds to provide a brief presentation to support the project. Thank you to. Greeting members of mayors. The City Council wanted to provide a brief overview of the Davenport Park expansion. And next slide, please. This has been a long time coming. The history on the Davenport Park expansion began long before many of us were around when the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency acquired the six acre land, which is a former landfill in 2006. Since that point in time, the redevelopment agency has been dissolved, and so the property sat without the final design or any construction happening on it until 2014, where a community survey effort was begun. So since that survey provided some initial feedback in 2015, the concept plan was developed in partnership with the Community and Council District eight that took the survey information and started to create those concepts. From there in 2016. The concept plan was completed and the Department of Parks Recreation, Marine submitted a grant application that eventually led to what is being proposed in front of you today. During that time, we were working with the grant agency. Some initial work began and was completed to cap and close the landfill and to construct the walking path that is installed there today. The initial study and sequel was completed in 2019 and Site Plan, Review and Planning Commission approval was secured in January of 2020. Next slide, please. This additional acres of land just under six acres, together with the existing Davenport Park, will total approximately 12 acres. The amenities proposed include a multisport turf playing field and bleacher seating, outdoor fitness equipment that will be placed along a perimeter exercise walking loop shaded picnic area, drought tolerant landscaping and entry plaza on Paramount Boulevard . Additional parking along 55th way and many site furnishings throughout, including trash receptacles, benches, pedestrian lighting and bike racks. Probably most importantly, to make sure that the park feels like a holistic park is a connection to the existing developed part of Davenport, which will help us provide those pedestrian connections and make the park that total 12 acres feel very usable for the community. Next slide, please. This is the initial site layout that we have been working with the designer on. So you can see here the predominant amenity is that multisport turf field. And so this will have the opportunity to play a myriad of field sports. And the parking along 55th way along the Northern Access Point shows where people will access the park. And then you see the meandering walking loop surrounding the sports field. So you start to begin to see in this rendering how the new acreage will connect to the existing park and how the park begins to have a holistic feel from the user perspective. Next slide, please. So the project budget available for the project is just over 5.7 million. And tonight the item in front of you is to accept and appropriate the grant received from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. And there's additional measure, a funding that is set aside for this project along with 1.4 million and park impact fees. And the anticipated project timeline is here on the right section of your slide. And we're still in the design phase, which is anticipated to continue through July of 2021. Subsequent to that, a bid for the construction of the project is anticipated in November 2021, with the award in January of 2022. The construction is to follow, which is anticipated to happen between April and December of 2022. During that time, that section of the park will be fenced and under construction. And with that, that concludes my staff report. Myself, our director Brant Dennis and Public Works Director Erik Lopez are available for any questions. Thanks so much. You are, Mr. Reynolds, for the Great Staff Report. I can tell you that as a councilor for a district, somebody who has been working very hard with your department and staff to get this project moving, it has. This is this is welcome news, particularly this grant from the Water Conservation Fund. We'll actually put this project over the top. And I really think it's important to to point out what it takes to develop a park. Right. You went through a timeline there. That is, I think, very, very illustrative, where it shows that it takes several years and several different types of funding just to get a active recreation field or park developed. And so it's no small undertaking to do that. And so I do want to appreciate all of the dedication from our city staff that has gone into making this vision a reality, taking the former dump site, transforming it into a park that will be enjoyed for it for generations to come, for by, by youth and families, not Long Beach community. And so this is this is a project that I'm very, very proud of. I'm happy to make a motion to accept this this item and recommendation and ask my colleagues to fully support this as well. Okay. Great. Thank you. Next up is comes from India. I just wanted to second the motion and say that I absolutely support this. Congratulations, Councilmember Austin. I think that this is going to be great in your district. I'm very passionate about any time that we have an opportunity to increase green space and opportunities for families to enjoy, the outdoors is something that I'm always going to be supportive of, so I'm happy to support. And second, in your motion. Thank you. Come to my very Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. And I, too, want to extend my congratulations to cast member Austin. Projects like these. We'll take a peek a lot of time. As if not for the tenacity and the perseverance of the council officer in this case, Councilmember Austin. To keep this project moving along and looking for the money to make it happen is is a quite an accomplishment. I want to congratulate you on that. And I also support any kind of any kind of just an opportunity for open space. We're going to go for it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. Thank you. I want to also chime in. This is a great project. You know, it was a beautiful park before the second phase, but it's going to be completely transform space. So congratulations to Councilman Austin. This is I mean, this this is an area that has no parks actually no parks on that on that small area. It's very close to my home. It's used to be in the ninth district. And it's a see, this level of investment here is is incredible and it's certainly welcome and needed. So congratulations on this transformative, transformational project. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you. I want to congratulate Councilmember Austin. This is a fantastic project that has been years in the making. I cannot say enough how excited I am for this exciting project. Great work, great community input, and most especially great on bringing in outside funding. Thank you, Councilwoman Sara. Yes. I too want to thank Council member Austin for being such a strong advocate to ensure that there is expanded, open and green space in in North Arm region for the city overall. And so I want to congratulate you and and just appreciate that that that you continued to ensure that we do do have opportunities to create parks. And it's a lot of work. So thank you very much. Thank you. Before we vote, I just want to add, for as long as I've known Councilman Austin, we've been talking about this park and he has pushed and pushed and pushed staff and pushed me and has really been the champion on ensuring that this park gets finished. And, you know, if you haven't been out there and I have a few times, you just look at it and this the potential is just right there. It's an incredible space. It's just right next to the neighborhoods that really need access to open space. And I just want to also thank the staff for their creativity and making sure that this park never fell off the radar and that you guys kept pushing and pushing until we got it completed. And so thank you again to Councilman Austin for your leadership on this. I'm very excited for the opening of this park. I think I think, Councilman, you and I have done, I think, some similar openings when some of the trails were open and some of the other kind of smaller elements of the park, that this will be something really special when it's done. And so congrats again. And with that, we will go to a vote. Councilwoman Zendejas. I. Councilwoman Ellen. I. Councilwoman Pryce. I. Councilman, supra. All right. Councilwoman Mango. I am a woman. Sara. I. Councilmember Waronker. I. Councilman Austin. Vice Mayor Richardson. All right. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. That concludes the item on the agenda. Would you have any closing remarks? I do have one from comes from Ringo.

Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2021 first departmental and fund budget appropriation adjustments in accordance with existing City Council policy. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03092021_21-0196

Item 13 Please. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to approve the fiscal year 2021 first departmental and one budget appropriation adjustments citywide. Can I get a motion in a second, please? Got a motion by Vice Mayor Richardson and a second by Councilmember Ringo. There is no public comment on this item. So, members, please go ahead and cast your vote. District one. That's. District one. Can you hear me? Yes. District two. I. District three. This for me. I said. I. Yes, thank you. District for. All right. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. By. District eight. By District nine.

Recommendation to receive and file a report on the development and launch of BizPort, the City’s new online application to reduce the cost, confusion, and time to start and grow a business in the City of Long Beach. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10112016_16-0931

Thank you. Let's have item number 14. Please report from City Manager Recommendation to receive and file a report on the development and launch of Biz Port, the city's new online application to reduce the cost, confusion and time to start and grow a business in Long Beach Citywide. Thank you, Mr. West. Vice mayor. Council members were very, very happy to have a quick report on our new technological innovation. Our online ombudsman for starting a new business. Our technology. Innovation. Itim director John Keisler is going to walk us through this with the help of his team. John. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm here with Heidi Wares mother, project manager for Biz Port and we have a short presentation to give you some visuals of what this new tool can do and why it's valuable to the city of Long Beach and our entrepreneurs. And so we usually start with the innovation delivery approach with a user and the user's journey. And the process for an entrepreneur can be very, very difficult and challenging to find the resources that they need to open their doors. And so what this port tries to do, it's focused on entrepreneurs that we interviewed here in the city of Long Beach. We mapped their journey and we developed the tool around their experience so that it can help them get through the process a lot faster. Currently in the city of Long Beach, and this data is as recent as yesterday, it takes approximately 27 days median for all business license types. From the time that an entrepreneur will register for a business license to the day that it gets approved. And that could involve many, many different agencies. That could be the city agencies, you know, fired planning, building financial management, but also could be county, state and even federal agencies that. That have to participate. In that process. So what we want. To do is we want to reduce confusion, reduce cost, make our entrepreneurs more competitive and improve access to these resources. 24 seven And as I mentioned before, the process is designed around the user's journey. So even if it involves 12 different agencies, we want to give them the tools and the resources they need when they need them and designed around the process that they'll experience. So this is what it looks like. This port is built mobile first by our development group Code for America, a civic tech nonprofit from the Bay Area. As you remember, the council approved the Code for America Fellowship in August of 2015. And throughout this process, our Code for America developers arrived in February. And believe it or not, we were ready to launch by October 5th. That's one of the fastest processes technology implementations built from scratch that I've ever experienced. It's built in open source architecture, which means that it's highly flexible and entrepreneurs will be able to build on this code. In fact, it's reported that eight other cities in a county have already approached Code for America to access this open source code and make it a part of. Their. Organization. Strategy to help entrepreneurs. This port also brings a number of new solutions with regard to communication of information, including new what we call Internet clips or I clips that come in multiple languages. They present information about what could be complex rules and regulations in very simple and easy to understand format. They use icons that are familiar and universal, and they utilize subtitles in multiple languages so that people who may not use the volume or may need information in different languages can access that information quickly and easily. And this port is really built around three important stages of planning a business, launching a business and growing a business. Most of the business portals that are out there right now in the country really focus on what we would call the launch process. How do you register your business in the regulatory process of that city or county? We really have a philosophy that entrepreneurs will be able to get faster to approval, open those doors, faster saving time and money if they spend a little bit more time on the planning process. And so there's resources in that first column about business planning, financial planning and accessing services that are outside City Hall. So the Small Business Development Center, small business consultants, even mentors from regional agencies like Score. By the time you get to the launch process, we hope that our entrepreneurs will be more competitive and move faster through the regulatory process of licensing, permitting and perhaps applying for special permits in special uses, and then on the growth process once they've opened their doors. What kind of resources. Do they have for. Workforce hiring, obtaining funding to expand their business and developing their marketing plans so that they can increase the amount of customers? Something else that's very, very cool about this port is the fact that we've now established my profile and we call this the digital wallet. Many entrepreneurs explain to us and even city staff that sometimes business license numbers, you know, permits the state sellers I.D. This information can oftentimes get lost over the course of a entrepreneur's process. So this is the first time that the city is offering a digital wallet where they can keep this information and they can walk into any city department, bring this up on their phone. We have almost a hundred users already. We launched October 5th and already have 100, almost 100 profiles in the system today. You can see some of the information that you might keep. It can get confusing. And instead of having to keep lots of pieces of paper, you can start to load this information into your digital wallet. The other thing that's really unique about this point is the help chat function. All of our our information that's that's trans transmitted ideas to improve the site. Maybe questions about the licensing or permitting process can be communicated by clicking on that little bubble, the chat bubble in the bottom right corner. You're welcome to log on to your phone right now and chat with our developers. Lisa and Mark from Code for America are sitting right here in the audience and likely Lisa will respond to you if you send her an idea to improve the application. What else is unique here is that we receive hundreds of calls and questions across the city each day about different issues related to licensing and permitting. But if you chat a question about business licensing, for instance, our Code for America team has has written rules that will automatically send that question to the business license staff member who's responsible for that item. So we've found a more efficient way to refer and triage questions and send them to the people so that there's no wrong door. Another set of tools that we were told as we explored the process of starting a business was about site selection and about finding a building or a space. There's a really neat tool that. The Council. Of Governments in the Gateway area had built called Zoom Prospector. And so we've integrated applications like this into this port so that you now can find what's called a ring study. So if you see that that little ring up there, this was a search I did this afternoon looking for a building that was of a certain square footage for a certain purpose or type. And then I dropped a ring around it and said, what is consumer spending look like across different categories of goods and services? These tools, oftentimes to do a market analysis, we were told, can cost 15 to $30000. Now, an entrepreneur has these these resources at their fingertips, and they can use this for their business and financial planning. Something else that is extremely unique about this process, actually. You see, I mentioned there were 100, approximately 100 users that had already established a profile. It was 99 as of this afternoon because Heidi downloaded this this screenshot for us. But something that is really unique about the process for ongoing development and evolving this tool is what we call our shared dashboard in our analytics club. This is a group of approximately 25 people from cross-sectoral organizations. So our business improvement districts are Long Beach City College, our Small Business Development Center, as well as city staff from multiple departments meet on a monthly basis to review the behavior and usage of this sport. We use these numbers to drive strategy not only to develop new aspects of the system, but also to test where our users are coming from. Right now, a thousand of our 2500 sessions in the last 30 days have come from the business licensing websites. So we know that a lot of people come to us looking for information about their business license. We also know what kind of devices they're using and how they're accessing this information. That big spike in usage, of course, was October 5th when this report was announced and unveiled. We saw the highest usage in one single day, and we've seen usage reach the 2500 sessions mark, which is an incredible statistic when you consider that it's just recently been unveiled to the public. And finally, as we finish this up, ongoing development is going to be driven. Through an. Online survey. So we're able to capture in real time information about how we're doing rating the services rating against those those challenges that we mentioned at the beginning of this presentation cost, confusion, competitiveness. How are we doing and how can we improve? And then finally we're trying something new in that we have put our marketing and promotion tools out on an open source platform called GitHub, and that code is available to other organizations, partners that will help to embed that code on these digital banners in their websites and really try to institutionalize this point throughout the community so that the entire ecosystem, including all of our business support services, our business improvement districts, our local universities and colleges, can embed this point in their practicing curriculum. So with that, I'll finish my report and be happy to answer any questions about this part. Thank you. And just I just have a couple comments. I would say I think this is great, fantastic. And I'm really interested in seeing what the next step is. If someone, you know is savvy enough to get an app in or go through a website to go through this process, then they probably could navigate City Hall on their own. But for those who aren't savvy aren't that savvy, I think this could be a good tool if it sort of helped keep that, hold them accountable to sort of the next steps and things like when they need to get, you know, signatures for a facade of a sign program, they just want to get their sign up. You know, another thing is it would be good if we looked into DocuSign. You know, we're still collecting wet signatures to get a rebate on like facade project or a web signatures from property owners. And sometimes you have more more than one property owner, and it isn't worth it for a $2,000 rebate to go to people across the country. And it would be good if we somehow streamlined it to have DocuSign in there to where they can. The next step, after you get your business open, get your grants, get your rebates and all that stuff process. So, so John, that's just a recommendation. I'd love to see that. And that's what I've heard from a lot of the small businesses, you know, to get them to take time to download the app and go through it or come down to City Hall is a lot. When you get them there, you want to if you get them to download that, you want them to be able to do everything they can while you have them. That's my comments. Councilman Andrew's Councilwoman Price. Thank you. This is fantastic. So congratulations to everyone on your team and the the folks who have helped us with from Code for America. So this is fantastic. Thank you. This is up until this point, our district office has had a human biz part. Her name is Lisa West and she's been helping businesses through this process. So this is going to be much more efficient and we're already starting to talk about it at our community meetings. So thank you. I do want to say, while the code for America people are are here that, you know, about two or three years ago I saw the TED talk on Adopt a Hydrant and I would love to see some quality of life apps be developed for the city of Long Beach through Code for America. I've talked about it a lot. I've talked about it with John. I've talked to I know my former chief of staff, Julie Maliki, spoke with some of the Code for America folks in San Francisco. And I recently talked with our the chair of our innovation commission. I think there are a lot of opportunities for us to incorporate technology into our quality of life issues. We don't have the need for an adopt a hydrant here because our hydrants don't get snowed in in California. But we do have medians and trees and homeless issues and bike theft issues and bike tracking issues. There's a lot of opportunities for us to incorporate innovation into quality of life issues. So community watch groups, anything like that. So I'm so excited for Biz Port not to take away from how exciting this port is, but I would love for our residents to have more of a finger on the pulse of what's happening in the city around them and have a sense of empowerment and engagement, much like our business owners do. But this is this is a fantastic, tremendous new addition. And Heidi, congrats for taking the lead on this. So thank you very much for the presentation. It was excellent. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes, thank you. This is wonderful. I actually sent a little message to Lisa while I was here thanking her. So I have a couple questions are just actually just a couple of thoughts I had. This is fantastic. As my colleagues have stated, I love all this because I think that this does give businesses and entrepreneurs that are budding another opportunity to do things through tech, which is really great. What type of I know we have analytics on the back end, so I mean, are we looking maybe at a year out or what where are we looking at as kind of our deadline to see how this is functioning well or not? Councilmember Gonzales. So so the cool thing about the way that this architecture is built is that it's entirely iterative. So it'll continue to be shaped by the usage and behavior of the users and the feedback that we get. It's also a collaborative project, meaning that our business support agencies who really drive the good work to attract and retain and grow our businesses out in the community, we're able to use this tool as a shared platform to leverage and better empower them with the tools that they might need to really expand that effort and grow business . And so so something I think in terms of analytics and what we call business analytics is that there will be a round of initiatives coming that relate to leveraging or making open more city information through what's called our Argo hub. And a few weeks ago, really the council considered an item and approved the contract with Ezri to expand the GEO Hub and to leverage city owned data and make that available to the public to start developing even more applications that can help for them to self-serve and solve problems. And so we really think that in terms of analytics, that the launch of the Geo Hub and the new Geo apps and we just recently featured that at the Civic Innovation Summit last Thursday and then we rolled it out in terms of the applications at at Cal State Long Beach on Saturday with our first Geo Apps challenge . We believe that that is going to be a huge driver of opening up that data and providing more analytics about how people are using this portal to ultimately expand the number of business licenses in the city. Great. That's wonderful. And one more thought that I'll add. I think that's fantastic. I'm wondering if there's a way and I think I've talked about it with you before, to identify these entrepreneurs or existing businesses that currently have patents, because I think that that's what makes the city very inventive and unique, is learning how many patents they have in the city. And so that would just be really interesting. Maybe if there's a way to embed that in the software, I think that'd be great. You know, maybe clicking on something. I have a patent and maybe a short snippet. I think LinkedIn is starting to do that as well. Like, do you have a patent? And that information may be very valuable to us. Thank you and great work. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I just wanted to thank the team for all their work. I know that you guys have been plugging along on this and looks really great. I also want to thank Code for America for all of your work. I know you guys are also working with some other groups on a couple of other things that we're working on in the city. So really excited about that is, I think is the same question that the vice mayor had around. What's next? Are there ways on here for us to if they're expanding their hours to collect their signatures on here to do things that will allow us to kind of fast track that growth part in a new, exciting way. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Well, I just want to salute the I-Team, I think. Job well done. This is exactly what you guys were put in place to do, is be innovative, be creative and create tools to help us grow business and make us more business friendly. I think this app, I think it serves as a good baseline to start from. I'm hearing comments that they'd like to see more, but darn well to to to start with. Very well. Thank you. I guess you're a victim of your own success. You do a good thing. People want to see more. But thank you. Thank you. Let's give another round of applause to the Innovation Team and Code for America for doing what they what they did. Is there any public comment on this item? Seeing none. Members, please cast your vote. Councilmember Soprano motion carries.

Recommendation to receive Charter Commission appointments approved by the Personnel and Civil Service Committee pursuant to Section 509 of the City Charter and Section 2.03.065 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

LongBeachCC_04012014_14-0227

So 10/1 item ten is communication with the councilwoman. Jerry Lipski, chair of the Civil Service Committee with the recommendation received charter commission appointments approved by the committee membership. Hey, Mr. Mayor. You. You Mic. Thank you, sir. You made several recommendations to the Personnel and Civil Service Committee, and we took those up on March 18th and are recommending for full City Council approval the following Charter Commission appointments first as the Citizen Police Complaint Commission, and the new appointment will be Raul and Rivera, and he is to serve as an interim left by Susan Gluck of Arc, who as the second District Representative, and David Clement to fill the vacancy left by Rick Magilton Michael Emery as the third District Representative. You also made a recommendation to the committee, which approved was the new appointment to the Civil Service Commission for Robin Perry, eighth District resident, to fill the vacancy left by Jean Carrot two. And last but not least, and we were kind of debating this actively, whether or not to approve Mr. Shannon's appointment to the Water Commission. It was close. Was very close, but. Well, you recommended him. So we we did approve the recommendation for both Arthur Levine, third district resident, to fill the vacancy left by Susan Dolman and Robert Shannon, a third district resident to replace Paul Blanco. With that, I would make a motion to approve these recommendations. Moving, seconded. I just all I know a couple of you ear could you just please stand up. I just want to recognize people who are willing to serve. It's I want to thank you all for that. It takes a lot of time. These people spend a lot of time on public business for just for fun most of the time. So I want to thank you. It's you're really acting in true public spirit. So thank you very much. We have a motion. And second, any public comment? Members, please cast your votes. Bush motion carries some votes. Well, now that they are officially in office, I can say this Shannon wasn't a real problem, but Art Levine was truly a mercy appointment. I just I just wanted everybody to know that I couldn't let the evening go without without getting on you. Thanks again. I really appreciate it. I'm surprised they made it through the committee. Yeah, I. I don't know why I thought Shannon was even closer, but that's all right. Thank you, gentlemen. Really appreciate the willingness to serve. And good luck. We'll go to 19 category.

Recommendation to appoint Planning Commission as the Hearing Officer, in accordance with Long Beach Municipal Code 2.93.050, for the purpose of conducting a revocation hearing for the revocation of a business license issued to Damitresse Yancey, dba Miko’s Sports Lounge, and for the commercial industrial business license issued to the Ronald L. and Peggy C. Mackey Trust for the operation of a business located at 710 West Willow Street, as well as a hearing on the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for 710 West Willow Street based upon violations of the Conditions of Approval associated with the CUP pursuant to Long Beach Municipal Code 21.21.601. (District 7)

LongBeachCC_08092016_16-0722

Report from Development Services and Financial Management. Recommendation to appoint the Planning Commission as the hearing officer for the purpose of conducting a revocation hearing for the revocation of a business license issued to MICO Sports Lounge and for the Commercial Industrial Business License issued to the Ronald and Peggy McKee Trust for the operation of a business located at 710 West Willow Street, as well as a hearing on the revocation of the cp47701 West Willow Street based upon violations of the conditions of approval associated with ACP District seven. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to Mr. City attorney. Mayor and vice mayor. Councilmember Austin has to recuse himself on this item as he has a conflict. And so he will step out of the room during the discussion and vote and then return in his conflict. Is he is a union representative of the owner. Okay. And also, I know that Mr. West is going to begin by giving us the staff report. Mayor council. Members. We have. A quick staff report by our Director of Development Services. Amy Bodak, as well as our Manager of business licenses, our business license bureau. Jason McDonald So Amy or Jason. Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council, thank you for your attention to this item tonight. The planning staff recently notified the the business owner that there was consideration for the revocation of their conditional use permit and that a hearing would be scheduled in the coming weeks or months regarding some potential allegations and violations of that conditional use permit. As part of our research, it has been determined that there are also potential violations to the business license for the business, as well as the business license for the underlying property. And in an interest of consolidating these issues, it is requested that you consider appointing the Planning Commission as the hearing officer for the potential revocation of the business license aspects of this application. That's the short version of the staff report. I and Jason McDonald are here to answer any questions you might have. Okay, Canterbury Ranga. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you. Voted for that report. I know there's a lot of people here interested in making some comments regarding this item here. So I would let the the people for a public B please line up and speak about this if they want to say anything otherwise. I would like to support that this item go to the Planning Commission for a consolidated hearing. I would for sometime in the very near future. And that was your support. Please. Okay. There's a motion in a second on this item. If you have public comment, now's the time to please come forward and make your make your public comment on this item. Do you have a comment? Please line up so we can go one after the other. And each 3600 Pacific Avenue. Hello again. I am in total support of the recommendation to have this hearing. I don't expect to give any testimony tonight, nor should there be any given tonight, only a matter of whether or not to conduct the hearing. I do believe that there is a typo in the way this is agenda ized. The second reference to an address on West Willow is 701. That would be on the other side of the street. I believe it should both reference 710. Yes, sir, that's correct. Okay. And with that. Good luck. Thank you. Speaker. Mayor Garcia. Council members. My name is Christy Cain and my husband and I live on the 2600 block of Main Avenue, just across Willow Avenue from Chico's Sports Bar. We are very close to Willow and we see Migos from our front door. I am speaking to voiced our support for the closing of Migos. The business has been and continues to be a poor neighbor to the wriggly community. They have ignored the concerns voiced directly to them by the residents affected by the criminal activity of their patrons. And they have ignored wake up calls in the form of the denial of their entertainment license and the recent strings of violent incidents that have broken out there over the last several months. We will never forget witnessing the immediate aftermath of the attempted murder of a bar patron that occurred literally in front of our house a few days after Christmas. This was followed a few months later by a stabbing. Other problems, while less dangerous, are nonetheless a blight on the community. The bar is so loud that we often cannot keep our windows open on summer evenings. This happened as recently as last Sunday morning at 1 a.m.. Bear in mind, we are all the way across Willow, a busy boulevard. That is how loud it is. We also deal with overflow parking on our street and the subsequent 2 a.m. interruptions and littering from drunk patrons that come with it. Residents closer to the bar have it even worse than us. MZ Yancy has had the opportunity to work with her neighbors and with the city to address these problems. Instead, she denies and scapegoats. It is time to say enough and revoke the business license of Mico Sports Lounge. Thank you. Thank you. Just as the city attorney also just wants as a reminder that I want to remind everyone so that the motion in front of us is to send this issue and to give the Planning Commission the ability to do a hearing. So the motion from the council is not to revoke or not revoke any sort of license or any sort of business. It's to send the issue to the Planning Commission. So obviously make sure you're speaking to that issue. The issue in the debate is about whether or not this should go to the planning commission, not whether or not something should be revoked or not revoked. And I just want to make sure that we clarify that for the purposes of this discussion. Next Speaker Thank you. Hi. Mayor Robert Garcia and Council. I'm Steve Duprey. I'm a member of the Wrigley District and I'm going to change my format and that I would. There's been a lot of violations regarding their planning commission cases. So I'd like you to seriously review them in regard to, you know, the purpose of the business is to enhance the local community and increase the property value and the livability of the area. So we need to consider all the violations because it seriously affects the value and the health of that neighborhood. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. How you doing, Mayor Carlson? My name is Hank Norman. I grew up in Long Beach. I'm a I'm a local entertainer. And Michael's is a is a safe haven in our community. It's a place where community activists we go. We have meetings their. He's allowed us to have meetings there where we can talk about better in our community. And we've got community actually like hashtag, say, Long Beach. And the Long Beach players we meet there. And we. Have community meetings about. Saving our community. So I would just like to say that. Michael's is one of those one of the stalwarts in our community. And we need to keep it. And keep it going because. It's a place where we can come and enjoy ourselves. Come out and dress up and have a good. Time and get out there and enjoy ourselves without having to go through all the problems. So I just want to say thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Hi. My name is Priscilla Quinn, and I'm an employee of Mico Sports Lounge. I've been there from the beginning and in rebuttal to what the lady said about the shooting. That happened not in our bar, didn't start in our bar. And I don't know how we are being punished for events that happened surrounding the bar. There's a liquor store on the corner. There's a flower shop on the other corner. They're blaming us for the parking situation because of the traffic. We have no control of that. There's an alley is actually not an Alyssa Street, 25th Street, where the cars go up and down. It's not necessarily our patrons that's coming up and down the alley with the loud music or parking on their street Valentine's Day. One of the neighbors was upset because they couldn't park, but people would buying flowers from the flower shop. But we were faulted for, you know, people parking in front of their property. Also, I don't know the 250 calls or whatever that's supposed to been made. I want to know if all of those calls was for Michael Sports Lounge or for 710 West Willow. Because I have patrons that come in all the time that mistakes are bar for the 710 bar. So with that being said, our crowd is a nice crowd. We have a 30 and over crowd. There's never been a fight break out in the bar. The police has never had to come in there and break up a fight or arrest anybody. I'm none of that. Unlike other bars in Long Beach just in January, January 26, where the officer was injured at a bar brawl, there's been a stabbing at a bar that's not even a half a mile from us where five people were stabbed. I don't see them being punished. And like I said, I think we're being held as a scapegoat for all the other things that's happening around the bar and they're following us for. Thank you. Next speaker. And just just as a reminder, so I'm under the assumption the last speaker is against sending this to the planning commission for for for a hearing. Okay. And I just wanted to make sure we try to keep the conversation within the parameters of of what the motion is in front of us. So. Yes, ma'am. Next. Hi, my name is Monisha Sara and I'm also an employee of Meiko Sports Lounge and I am also against. You going forward in any kind. Of sending to the planning commission? Yes. Yes. And I also reiterate what she was saying. We don't have any problems. There is a a nice place. A lot of people come. They have 50th anniversaries, parties and. And it's nothing. Outrageous or outlandish going on there, but people having a good time. People park on the street because they're allowed to park on the street. If they if someone wants someone not to park in front of their home, they should have to get an extra one to get a permit for people not to park. People park there and go other places. They don't just come in to the bar. And I just want to say thank you. Thank you. Next week. Hello. My name is Vivian Bonner session and I stay and also stay around the corner from me called the state of 2400 block of Daisy Avenue. I am a single parent. I raised five kids, two that made it to the NFL. So my thing is now that Michael is around the corner from my house, I decided to go there just for comfort, not to see fights or to engage in fight. I think it's a safe haven for me before me even open. I never attended bars until they open. Now I tend bars and when my kids come back in town from playing in a field, they do visit me also. So I think it's a safe haven and I feel no reason they should be closed. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. My name is Sabrina David. I'm a 49 year old native of Long Beach, California. I'm also a professional. I'm a banker. I'm a commercial real estate agent in the city of Beverly Hills. I am one of those heathens that patronize me. I have never, ever experienced any problems while I was in the bar or outside of the bar. I've never been robbed. I've never felt any fear for my life or my safety, nor my livelihood. I am against the recommendation to send this this to the hearing, to revoke her license, her business license. All of my friends are professionals. You see some of them standing before you or sitting before you. That's a place where we go and unwind after a hard day's work. It's a place where we gather and we have an opportunity to meet up with our friends that we haven't seen for 30 or 40 years. I personally am like Vivian. I did not patronize bars in Long Beach. I have never been to another bar other than because within the city of Long Beach, I think that it's a shame that we're not being supportive to. And in my personal opinion, I think that there needs to be more representation if the neighborhood is not happy with the parking situation. There's a very easy fix for that. There's permeable. Think other areas of Long Beach? No, no. There's no parking after a certain at the time. If you don't have a permit, that eliminates that entire problem. If they're concerned about the people that walk down the street or are in the alley, then you're basically going to have to close every business in the city of Long Beach, because I'm pretty sure all of you are very much aware of the melee that is occurring within our city. It's not just in the Wrigley. A child and a mother was just killed on ninth Street. I was 10 minutes away from there at that time. That could have been me. I wasn't doing anything wrong, and it appears that they weren't either. So this isn't a matter to me of whether or not the participants or the patrons that visit Migos are unruly. There's unruly people throughout America. In case we haven't noticed, that is something that law officials need to get a better handle on it. That is not her job to police people who leave her business. It is her job to police the people that are patronizing her business within her business. And she's done a fine job in doing that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker, please. And man, before you go, your if there's any other speakers, I'm going to close the speakers list. So just please get in line and then I'm a close, closer speakers list so we can. Okay. So I see. One, two, three, four, five, six, folks. I'm going to close the speakers list after the gentleman that's walking that gentleman back there is the last speaker. Then the speaker's list is closed. So these are the final speakers. Please go ahead. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Deborah White. I am a resident of Wrigley, and I would just like for you to reconsider sending this to the Planning Commission. I think that there are unwarranted. I too patronize Michael's and had not patronized a bar until Michael's opened. The 250 calls that I read yesterday in the press telegram that that that they say are being made. Find it hard to believe. But I mean, if that's the case, that is the case. But please take into consideration the people that are coming before you today, the professionals, the ones that feel very safe going there. If if I didn't feel safe, I wouldn't be going there. And as I said, I am a resident. I live probably two blocks away from the bar. And I just want you to look at the accusations to me that are unwarranted and reconsider sending this to the planning commission. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes. My name is Trinidad Renfroe. I'm a 46 year old and I am a 42 year resident of the Wrigley. This is I am. First of all, I want to say I am against the recommendations that you that we have before us against Michael's. And I just want to tell you that this is the first bar that I have been able to bring my family to for different occasions as far as baby showers, birthdays. And all those above things. And I think that. It would be a very, very sad story if you guys would. Go against what the. People are here to speak about. Michael's is not the only bar on Willow. There are a few bars on Willow. And I feel that if. We are going to condemn her. About these different. Allegations, these same allegations are against the other bars that are on Willow, also. So I'm just saying that please take in consideration everyone that is speaking here, because we're here for a reason and we're here to support Michael's Bar. Thank you. Next speaker. My name is David Pittman. I live on Main Avenue, very close to the bar. My neighbors and I were all going to speak. Actually, I wasn't even prepared to speak because we thought that this was going to come on around 7:00. So they will be showing up, I guarantee you. We are thrilled that this is coming before the the council and to be recommended to the planning commission. This has been going on for two and a half years. It's an incredible nuisance, over 250 calls to the police. And let me also say that many of those calls are doubled up when they give us a call number. They put two and three calls on the same number. One of my neighbors. Who lives the closest to the bar. Recently, regretfully had to sell his house and move because he could no longer take the noise, the rudeness, the behavior of both the staff. And the patrons of the bar. And I just feel sorry for the person that bought that house. But we urge you to put this forward to the Planning Commission, and I assure you my entire group will. Be there at that. Meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Randi Hall, and I'm a lifelong Wrigley resident as well. I'm here to say that I'm totally against the recommendation, and it's kind of upsetting to me personally to try to destroy somebody's dream. Based on a personal vendetta, you cannot attribute what goes on outside of cause, which goes on in pretty much every neighborhood in Long Beach to make out. There was a shooting. Yes, with a patron, whether by the person that committed this crime. And Michael's name. There are lots of things that go on in that neighborhood that need to be addressed. There's a homeless problem in that neighborhood. You can interview that to me. Can you? You can't. I'm just here to say don't destroy somebody's dream based on a personal vendetta. And that's all this is a personal vendetta. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. My name is Vincent Lawrence. I'm a 57 year old resident of Long Beach. I've been here basically all of my life, except for when I was in college. I left to play pro ball and I came back. I've also been a peace officer, Compton PD. And, you know, the things that I see sometimes that go on, they're not right. I was hired by D.D. and a staff of mine. We patrolled that place. She wasn't having events. We would have somebody out the front door. We would have somebody in the alley, which if you lived in Long Beach and you know it. That's not an alley. That's 25th way. That's a street. Now, as far as I remember, there's a liquor store on the corner. I chased homeless people away from from urinating in that alley. We don't sell 40 ounces. We don't sell drugs. But I'm chasing people through the alley. That's not Diddy's responsibility. You know, the 250 calls. I'd like to see the proof of it. We had a book. Every time they come out. And after being a peace officer, it really saddens me to see this go on here. And the police officers that come out have said there's nothing going on here. There was one night in particular where five times the officers came. And the resident that you're talking about, the gentleman that so-called moved, he was upset because officers didn't do anything and the officers told him, we're not coming back out here. I introduced myself to him and he kind of had an attitude with me and I said, Sir, I'm here to make this work. We can work together. I gave you my name. I gave you my number. And I never heard from me. Every time when we're there, she has us there sometimes on Friday and Saturday nights. There's nothing going on. It's sad that there's a liquor store there and people are driving from that liquor store now. It's sad that women are selling flowers on Valentine's Day at 230 or three in the morning. They're blaming me cause. Somebody said earlier, Didi is supposed to take care of two people in the bar. We take care of the people around the bar, inside the bar and behind the bar. We try to pick up trash and stuff at night. That's not our responsibility. We make sure we know people go out, they have McDonald's and this and that. And the gentleman who stays behind us, he has cameras faced on us. All you got to do is pull his cameras and you see my security people doing that. I'm just saying, I don't think this needs to be gone. It's like they're trying to blow her dreams. You know, she has the right to do like everybody else to make a living and have a place for the people in Long Beach to go and come back and be proud of not to be chased away because of prejudice, because basically that's what it is. You know, I heard the lady say that she lives across Willow. You can't hear anything across Wall because we have the doors close and your sound walls in there. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Hello. My name is Demetrius Yancey. My friends and family know me as a Dee Yancey. I am the owner of Make All Sports Lounge. I was basically here, too. I know that you guys have a list of items that I supposedly violated. I'm here to let you guys know that I in no. And every way I'm trying to come with in compliance. I received a letter from the planning commission or whomever it was that asked me to give a security floor plan of my security. I contacted Detective Burress, Laurie Barry. I was worried. Would she? I asked her, what did I need? She told me, Just get your guard cards from your security and give me a floor plan of how you have it laid out. I submitted that to her. I submitted all the documents that the city asked for. I got additional five parking spaces. Yes, I did put the wrong date on there, but I did everything the city asked before. When they returned it back to me, they said I was out of compliance with my security because I should have two security at 7:00 and one that comes in at ten. Now, they wanted me to have that. They should have said that. They just asked me to do a floor plan. How was I supposed to have my security when undercovers came in and they said I was outside of the my permit? I had they documented this having eight customers in a bar. What eight customers do I need to security? At $80 a watt. And then I need another one at 10:00. No. So I don't see that as a need for the city to tell me to have security and have different things that's not needed. If you guys are coming after me because I've had a shooting outside my bar, I had a stabbing, which I believe was a plant outside my bar. I don't know who tried to commit suicide outside the bar, even though alcohol is a depressant, but nobody on a Sunday. I have a bartender back here. Well, gee was like about seven or eight people there on a Sunday night, crowded like out there. Say, if you want to replicate my license because of me having these six items and over 250 calls which have not been validated, I need you to then go ahead and revoke the license. Panama Joes. Legends Tailgate. Todd Bowles. Give me 70 and bar. I need all those bars revoked too, because they have done worse than I have and they've been open for 60,000 years. Stabbings, killings, shootings. Seven Wardlow Station had a security guard and a patron shot inside. There was no coverage of that at all. I had somebody shot outside my bar 70 and had somebody at the same time. Media coverage everywhere. Two people got shot at. Wardlow stated nothing but I'm getting revoked. Revoke all the bars license. Thank you. You are welcome, sweetie. Next speaker. Hello. My name is. And to make Michael Lewis. And part of me goes for snatch. I'm a bartender and I have been bartending for turbos and duties. And as a bartender, I have never seen what I have seen between them two at our own bar. What you guys put heavy on us? I'm not putting the blame in on what I'm trying to bring out in our problems because you both to worry about your own. But I'm just saying, as example, that I have worked at these bars, L.A., the bottom line in which you how you are coming at us and what I have seen throughout me working as Bartell. That's okay. I won't do that. I won't say foul play. That's not writing for Justin and neighbors in Harlem next door. How long that bar? I've been a 40 years before we got there. We can find the stuff at the bar in a way before work. So which makes it different from us being there when it was there before us. So what were the complaints when it was KBR, the Mai Tai Sandbar, all that? So what makes it different from us that we black women and we want something? So what's the difference? That's what I want to know. Want to answer that? No. Because what's the problem? That what he's talking about? You know, when you moved in that place, it was a bar there where before you even decide to move into Wrigley. So how do we have the guidance to control about what's going on around there with way before us? So the the blame is all he told is on us. And I don't understand that. Like I said, the shootings like say across the street, they come from other places drunk, want to come to the last minute, make their last rounds, and they bring them problems with them with the last rounds. So but in the case. And that's because why the night within the damn calls. And that's a shame that you guys allow it just because they can call it means from any time the police have came and nobody knew that they were mad. So by your being wasting your time in this city for doing nothing, you actually can add to what the residents because they're waiting all the time because it was a waste of noise. I have a beautiful day. Thank you. All right. Sorry. You're going to. I've closed the speakers list. I'll let you go ahead. But you're going to be the last person. I can't I cannot keep allowing people to speak. So, ma'am. Hey, guys, guys, guys, I'm going to go ahead that I'm going to go ahead and let this gentleman speak. Ma'am, if you are, you and I have to close the speakers. Listen, so I understand there may have been a confusion about the time certain I guys. Okay. And I'm making it fair. And from what I understand, there was a confusion about the time certain for certain people. And so I'm trying to be I'm trying to ensure that there's the people that are here to speak on it, can speak on it. And we'll we'll clearly want to make sure if there is a time certain. From what I understand, some people thought it was six, that people thought it was seven. Okay. Well, I. I didn't. Well, ma'am, I can't I know nothing from no speaking from the comments please. From the sections. So, sir, you can go ahead and speak. I'm going to close the speakers list, ma'am. So this is the last. This is the last. The last gentleman. Well, listen. Hold on 1/2. Give me 1/2. Charlie, can you for 1/2? Sir. 1/2. Okay. We're going to do. Listen up. What we're going to do is because this is a possible hearing and it's a sensitive issue. I'm going to allow if you want to speak on this issue, you can lineup right now and I'll allow you to speak on it. And then I'm closing the lesson. Last call right now. If anyone else wants to speak on this, please come forward. Okay. So please come forward. And then I'm closing the speakers list as the last call. And we're just doing this because it's a it's a it's a sensitive hearing of the possible appeal. So. Okay. This is it. Last call. Okay. The four people can speak. Go ahead, sir. Thank you. My name is Rick Europaischen. I'm the one who owned two houses right behind the bar. I'm the person that was the most affected by the bottom. You know, I lived in that house for 17 years, and two of my kids were actually born and raised there. I have no plans of moving very comfortable. I love my neighbors. I love the neighborhood. You know, one of the speakers mentioned earlier that we knew when we bought the house it was a bar. And you're absolutely right. But it was a neighborhood boy, not a nightclub. Hey, guys, we everyone has an opportunity to speak and be respected at the mic. So please, no outbursts from the audience. Continue, sir. So all the problems that they feel that they're not responsible for in the beginning, call the police. By the time the police will get there, the answer is whatever that might be, where there was loud people drinking outside, urinating on my mind, on my yard, doing number two on my yard, all those kind of incidents. We have proved that, ma'am. We have proof of that. So I had to put cameras on the house just to be able to prove that. And if they want proof, there's plenty of including Mrs. Miss Yancy, you know, acting like she is God and she can do whatever she wants. And I have it in video, record it. So I'm not here to do any personal or become any personal because I did deal with it for two and a half years. I moved. I took a hit on the house. I had to make personal sacrifices. So you talk about someone's dream, you know, for a bar. I'm all for that. I'm I'm a business owner for over 20 years here in Long Beach. Some of you know me already for for many for many years. And including the gentleman that spoke earlier, which is a police officer, I actually sold time to his wife. So, yes, absolutely. But the way he approached me when he did it wasn't the way he mentioned or polite. It was all every time through it. And you know what it's like to be threatened at 2:00 in the morning, 3:00 in the morning, people knocking on your door, mentioning by name. And I have proof of that as well, too. And also people are telling me they want to f me they're going to go. So I was afraid we left because I was afraid for my family's safety and for my safety. So you want to consider that? I want before I urge you to take a look again, I don't want to kill anyone's dreams. But why this shadow of mine? I have to make sacrifices. And before you guys consider body, put yourself in my shoes, please. Thank you for the time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Next speaker come forward, and then we have the two ladies after her, and then we're done with the speaking. Good evening, Mayor, and thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm an employee. I've been there two years. I'm a single mother, which I most definitely would not put myself in a position not to come home to my son. As far as the noise. That is so not true that front doors shut and she is adamant about keeping that back door shut at 8:00 or we get in trouble. It's terrible. But we have to live together, work together and try to make it work for everybody. This man bought his dream home, left and came back. So, you know, as far as people outside and the stabbing, actually, I was working that shift. He wasn't even from he wasn't even in the bar. He came running off the street in. There was something from somewhere else that came running from way down past the pizza place. So I most definitely, again, would not put my son's life or my life and this is my livelihood as well as a lot of other employees there. So we just try to come to a medium. Of course, I'm against sending it to the commission, come to meet medium and work it out. I've heard my CAC speak with the gentleman in the back. It's almost like he is looking and antagonizing. He's, you know, looking for a reason. We will be there was four women leaving the bar one night. It was myself, the two owners we have, we're leaving. And it was not like we were thinking like giving hugs and saying, have a safe trip home. And he came out yelling at us all to go home. So I'm sure there are loud incidents that surround the area. But again. You can't justify closing a bar or yanking her rights or her her license because of what happens outside. Like I said, officers have come in, walked through, said they've come back on an off shift. Thank you for listening. Have a good evening. Thank you. Speaker. Hello, everybody. My name is Kerry Sanders. I just live a few doors down from the bar. I wasn't planning on speaking, so I don't have anything prepared. I just am appealing to you to please consider rescinding the license based on the fact that. Just as a reminder, we don't rescind the license. It's appealing to us to send us to the Planning Commission for hearing. Okay. Obviously, I'm not prepared, but my my issue here, I've only lived there for a year. I got very lucky in being able to buy a home. I never thought I would be able to. And I bought my home there. Nothing was disclosed to me when I bought the home about a nuisance problem. You know, I'm not saying there is. There isn't, you know, in my opinion there is, because I've lived there a year and I've seen a lot of things and heard a lot of things. Uh, I've never talked to my fiancee or anybody, but I, you know, I, myself and my daughter live there. And I remember. Many nights. When I just hear a lot of. Screaming and yelling. People obviously drunk because I used to drink. I know what it's like, you know. Just going at it in the middle. Of the night or going giggly in the middle of the night on the way to the car to go home after partying. And then there was the incident where I was sleeping and my daughter woke me up at. I forget what time it was. To tell my mom I heard gunshots, you know, and it was like, come to find out that was somebody getting shot in the face. And this is my American dream where I'm living. Somebody is getting shot in the face steps from my house. And I'm just I was in shock. It was I think it was Christmas Eve, the day after Christmas, something like that. I don't remember exactly because I obviously I'm not prepared. But, you know, I I am all for her having a business. I just don't think this is the right place for a nightclub atmosphere. There's no parking for it. You know, my daughter has to park sometimes down the street as some of the other residents. And, you know, I understand everyone needs a place to have fun from time to time. I just don't understand why it's so difficult to, you know, real in, you know, the people that are leaving from the bar. I've you know, I've I've frequent in bars when I was younger and a lot of times there's security around they're telling you, you know, on go home. You can't just hang out. Well, that doesn't happen around there. Just last weekend, there was somebody hanging out in front of my next door neighbor's house just drinking from their car. And my dog started barking. It was like midnight. That's what goes on on a weekly basis, and it's hard to sleep. So I'm just asking you to please go forward, send this to the council and thanks for listening to me. Okay. Thank you. And then this is our last speaker before this goes back for discussion at the council. Go ahead. Hi, my name is Jeannie Moreno. I am kind of a little sickened by what I've heard since I've been here. A lot of the residents have stated that they haven't spoken to me, Nancy. They don't know why my fiancee allows the things to go on and around in the perimeter of the bar. Unfortunately, her character has been assassinated here today. I have no Ms.. Yancy, I am 52 years old, August 12th. I have known Ms.. Yancy for over 40 years, and I know her character, I know her intentions, and I know the type of businesswoman that she aspires to be. And it's not somebody that wants to bring havoc into a neighboring community that she grew up in. Okay. It's a it's a haven for a lot of us that most of the people that patronize that bar, I don't want to say most of us, they everybody that patronized that bar have been classmates since elementary school. We all know each other. We all look out for each other. We all help her, police that area to make sure that she is successful in her business. It just seems to me that every time a community sees a a group of black individuals get together and we try to have fun. We try to communicate. We try to be together as one. It's always looked upon as a place that needs to be shut down or a place of danger. Well, that's my opinion. I guess. No, we're not having outbursts from them. I just feel that she's being victimized on that aspect. And I understand that this gentleman lived behind her, be on and outside the business. But sometimes when we purchase property and we are in an area where there are businesses, liquor stores. Several bars. Flower shop. There's all kind of things that going on in that community. We have to understand that there's a possibility that the purchase we making, if it's a family house that we're buying, that we may want to reconsider where we placing our families. So I say that to say that people have to understand that the decisions that we make, we have to take responsibility for those decisions. And I understand that you relocate it. It's no longer a problem for you. So when people's businesses are trying to prosper, it's always unfortunate when it's an African-American business. That's always viewed as a problem. In Long Beach. This has been constant. We have to shut it down. We have to stop. People like myself don't normally get in a political situation. But when it when you don't speak. This is when problems and things persist. I had to say something tonight, and I'm glad I did. Thank you. What? 1/2. Councilmember Ringa and then I have a couple of council members that won't make it. They'll want to comment. First of all, I want to thank everybody who came down tonight to speak on both sides of the issue. Just as a reminder that this tonight was not a hearing. So a lot of the testimony that you provided and I can't go into the record there is going to be a should this item move to a planning commission. That would be the opportunity for everyone to come in and testify and give your opinions and your viewpoints and whatever evidence you have on this issue. So tonight, it's an administrative procedure that we have to conduct to determine that the planning committee will be the hearing officer. They will hear all the evidence. They will hear the staff report more at length with everything that has been out, that appeared even in the paper. And then at that point, all the the evidence can be presented and then the planning commission will make its decision. The decision is not here tonight. We are simply putting it to the Planning Commission for a hearing, and they will schedule it and have the hearing at some future date. So I strongly encourage you, those who spoke tonight to contact our planning, our our Development Services Bureau man, our bureau bureau department head to get a schedule as to where the Planning Commission will meet again so that you are notified and you can attend that planning commission meeting to again provide your testimony. So I want to thank you for being here tonight. Unfortunately, we can't accept all your testimony for a hearing because this is not a hearing. This is simply to refer it over to the Planning Commission for a hearing on some future date. But again, thank you for being here. Thank you. I'm going to have a couple of speakers from the council. And just as a reminder, there's a motion by Councilmember Turanga to send this to the Planning Commission for a hearing. Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes, I have a question. Is justice is a part of process. I understand, you know, the conditions were not met from what it states and then the police calls for. Service were high. But what was the defining moment for us to be able to refer it over to the Planning Commission? I'm just trying to. Clarify that there was continued issues with their entertainment permit and continued issues with their inability to comply with the voluntary conditions of the business license combined with ongoing issues with the conditional use permit. So combined, those triggered us to consider this a potential nuisance property and the Planning Commission would have the hearing of the CFP. At that point we investigated whether there were other issues related to the business license because those tend to if there's tends to issue be an issue on the land use side, there also tends to be an issue on the business license side and discovered that there were significant issues related to the lack of an entertainment permit and the continued entertainment that was going on. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Camera. Go to Vice. Vice Mayor Richardson, who is the second? Let him make some comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I just want to. A couple of things I want to say, thanks to Councilmember Durango. First, for walking us through very clearly what the next steps are in this process. And my own my thoughts here that are in here, and I'm not familiar with with, you know, this bar or that surrounding neighborhood. And that's why I believe, you know, I support the fact we have districts and you have an elected representative who who's really task of figuring out the balance between neighborhood, neighborhood needs and business interests. And and so you are the local expert I'm going to defer to on this. But I will say, you know, there a threshold has clearly been crossed. And I want to see that everyone can achieve their dreams. So a process has begun. I encourage you all to engage that process, both the residents and the community, because we've actually never done this process before. We've never revoked a copy in the city's history. So this is the first time we've done this, you know, as a city. And I and I encourage it. We're all learning here. So I want you all to kind of go through this process and let's see what happens. But ultimately, you know, this is really about making sure there's a balance between neighborhood interests and community needs. And and frankly, when businesses make it easy for the city, businesses make it easy for the city council when they work out a lot of this stuff before it even gets here, frankly. So so those are my comments. And again, Councilmember Ranga, I'll be somewhat supportive of your motion. Councilwoman Mungo. For development services. What was the date of the original initiation and notice to the bar owner related to the first violation? And how long does the bar owner get to correct the issues? Madam Councilwoman, I don't have that information with me. There were some previous meetings that did occur between business license, police special events and development services with the property owner. Excuse me, the business owner. I don't have the specific information on the first time it was it occurred. But then we did send a formal letter announcing the potential conditions, violations in June of this year and asked them to immediately comply with those conditions. And we have not heard a response from them to date. So typically we give a first meeting and longer than 60 days before it comes to this body. Typically, we have many more interactions. And do you give property owners and business owners the opportunity to come into compliance when there are continuing issues, though, we continue to move towards a process of revocation but are absolutely willing to continue those discussions up until the point of a hearing. So if within the last 60 to 90 days they had become in compliance, you would not be recommending this. Go to the Planning Commission today. That is correct on the CFP, but there are also business license issues as well. So we would have to look at that as well and. I would say that assuming that all of the land use conditions under the cap come into compliance, there would need to be continued compliance and not relapses because those those also have a tendency to occur as well. What is the process look like? If this body did not vote to move this to the planning commission, what would be the next steps? So the CFP revocation would still go to the Planning Commission. They see their business license revocation, if it were to proceed, would actually occur at this body and not at the Planning Commission. So this is actually giving an opportunity for a consolidated, more streamlined process for both those in favor of and those against it. Yes, ma'am. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. And I think that that is a good recommendation for actually both sides, that they wouldn't be leverage to come to two bodies to make their cases. So I'll be supporting this motion. Councilman Andrews? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I'd like to thank everyone who's coming out tonight to really support Mico and Amber, because the fact that maybe I should have to, you know, even withdraw from this, because the fact that I've known Michael ever since she was a little child, I know the father. I know the whole family. And the biggest part about all of this is what I'm hearing is that here's the young lady and her group is trying to start a business and make her life better. And I think that's what all the American dream is, is to try to open up a business or get yourself a home and do something is right for you and your family. And what I'm hearing tonight is that, you know, seems like the two sides, you know, the the landowners and the the individuals, the business owner. And I think somehow along the way, I know Michael has done everything she could to try to keep these things in order. What happens outside? I've been there many, many times. This is where I go when I get off from work in the evening, and I've never seen any problems in that place. Now, the other things that happened, I'm not there, you know, 24 seven, but when it's open, I'm there. And I've been there many, many times and I've enjoyed being there. And I think it's a safe haven for many, many people, and especially people of color, a place to go and sit down and enjoy themselves and really, you know, do something that we haven't had a chance to do. I've been here for 70 years, and I know that we've only had three bars of people of color. And most of them, you know, like you say, they have their problems here and there, but nothing like some of the problems I've seen and heard of in the city of Long Beach. Michael, I know you know what you have to do in order to keep yourself in compliance with what they're telling you to do. That has to be done. You know what? We know it. I would just hope that you and your your community can get together and really sit down and try to solve this problem because you have a great business. This business shouldn't have to be closed because of the outside elements that's causing the problems. It's not your business. It's that outside elements. And I know the people who live in that district there. They should understand that, you know, we have problems all over. I would just hope that this would be able to be resolved somehow before we get to the point of telling that you really have to close your business. I would hate to see that happen, and I'm hoping that everything works out. And with that, I just hope things work out. Thank you. Council member Pearce. Thank you, Mayor. I also want to thank everybody for coming out today. It's moments like these when when we want to support minority owned businesses as much as possible, especially women owning businesses. And so I want to follow suit with Councilmember D and just urge that in between now and the time that we move forward, that there's some community dialog between you guys and the residents of folks who haven't talked to the owner, you know, trying to sit down and figure out where we're at and how we can get into compliance quickly and be good neighbors together. And it's these moments that are really tough, that really take kind of putting some of our pride and some of our assumptions aside so that we can figure this stuff out. I did have a question when will this be going to the Planning Commission? Should we vote to move this? We have not yet scheduled a hearing date and it will be sometime in the next couple of months. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. But just what? Just a pressure thing there kills me. If. You're. There you go. Okay, Councilman. I just have a question. Mrs. Wodak, if it go once it goes to the planning committee, how long do they have in order to, you know, make a decision? Or do they make a decision? And does it come back to us for us to make a decision. On the CFP revocation, the planning commission would be the deciding factor. Their decision could be appealed to the City Council on the Business License revocation. I believe that is also the case. Charlie. Excuse me. City and Mr. City, attorney. That is correct. It could be appealed back to the city council. Also the decision of the hearing commissioner then could be decided in front of this body. So in other words. So in other words, during that time, they would have a chance to really get together and take a lot of. These notes or that would really need to happen before the hearing. Yes. Yes. Before the compliance needs to be before the hearing and it needs to be absolutely consistent. Yes. Michael, where are you? You understand that? Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify that point, I think it's important for everyone that's here. I know the neighborhood folks here, the owners of the bar and patrons. So the process is if this goes to the planning commission on both the license and the Cup issue, but a planning commission makes a decision and if they choose on that decision, what they decide on can both be appealed and it will end up back at the council anyways. Is that correct? It could be, yes. Okay. So just to. So essentially it goes planning commission. If the planning commission makes a decision one way or another, I'm assuming. That is correct. So regardless of the of of the vote of the Planning Commission, whether it's one way or another, it will come it can come back to the city council if it's appealed. So there's two steps to that. I just want make sure everyone's aware of the process so that everyone understands that process. Councilman, your. One last comment based on what I've heard so far. There is a window that we have between now and the date that it's scheduled to go to the Planning Commission. I want to offer my office to mediate a meeting between Nico's and the community to come together so that we could start making some progress on this. Because the last thing we want to do is to break anybody's heart, break anybody's dreams, what they want. And I'm sure that the D.A. is is wants to make sure she has hers. But we also have a neighborhood that wants to live in peace. So I think that if we could do this between now and a planning commission and come up to a mediation, that would be wonderful. Otherwise, the process will continue because we've already set this in motion. So I ask again that my colleagues support the motion to go to the Planning Commission, but I want to also emphasize that between now and then that I hope we can get together and come up to a solution that would be amenable to everyone. Okay. There's a there's a motion in a second to send the this issue to a planning commission hearing, which is the first step in this type of process. And so with that, members, please go ahead and cast their votes. Motion carries. Okay. The council has voted. We're going to we're moving on to the next item. We're actually, I believe let's see, it's seven, which we're going into the budget hearing now because we had a time certain for that. So we'll go into the budget hearing and then when we come out of the budget hearing, we'll go back to the regular agenda. Thank you. And we're just going to take just a one minute recess so that we can get set up for the budget hearing. And we'll be right back. You guys. I know. I know what I. And I'm like, Yeah, I don't think I want to. We don't. I would like to tell them that. Oh, yeah. Like a little boy. Okay. I mean. So a presentation that do. Yes. Education. Something. We're going to go ahead and start the council meeting the hearing again. Can I please get a roll call? Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember Pierce. Councilman Price. Councilmember Surinam. Councilwoman Mango. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Muranga. Councilman Austin. Vice Mayor Richardson. Mayor Garcia. I'm here. Thank you. We're going to go right into the budget hearing for fiscal year 2017. So I want to turn this over to Mr. West.

Recommendation to request the Board of Health and Human Services to produce a detailed report within six months on any past discussions, memorandums, codes, ordinances, and/or regulations on leaf blowers. The Board should also provide input on any studies or documented health and safety impacts that have been identified by researchers on this topic. Equally relevant to developing a response strategy is any data available on complaints and potential impacts regarding this issue. Finally, the report should include recommendations that City Council could consider taking on this matter as a next step.

LongBeachCC_05102016_16-0407

Great. Thank you. And moving on to item number five, make a brief. Comment. I didn't ask for it. Yeah, we did. Public comment? Yes. Yes. No public comment on that. But we did public comment. Item number five, please. Communication from Councilman Price, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Council Superman and Councilman Andrew's recommendation to request the Board of Health and Human Services to produce a detailed report within six months on leaf blowers. Cameron. This over to Councilwoman Pryce. This item comes after a very lengthy discussions and robust discussions with residents in the third District regarding leaf blowers and the potential negative impacts that they have on the environment, including noise and air quality. What we did was we started to get a lot of concerns from residents letters to our office regarding this issue. So Belmont Heights resident and I actually wrote a letter in the grunion and asked the community what they thought about leaf blowers and whether they thought we needed to have some regulations on leaf blowers in general, but also maybe modifying our leaf blower, having a leaf blower policy that allows for certain types of leaf blowers so that we could minimize the detrimental impacts to the environment. So John Cisco from the Belmont Heights Community Association was the resident who coauthored the article with me. And as a result of the article, we received numerous letters and correspondence directly to our office, but also in the local paper regarding the issue. Many people are supportive of either banning them entirely or thinking about an alternative that allows leaf blowers to be used but has battery operated, not gas powered leaf blowers that could be quieter and less detrimental to the environment. So we wanted to have our. Board of Health and Human Services. Take a look at this issue and analyze the impacts and the possible options that would be available to the city of Long Beach. Looking at what some of the other cities have done, several cities have actually banned them entirely. Others have allowed for modified the use of certain leaf blowers, modified leaf blowers to be used. And we want the board to come back with an analysis for council and give us some recommendations and options in terms of what we could do to better the noise and health impacts of leaf blowers in our community. So I'd ask my colleagues to support this. Again, we're not voting tonight to ban leaf blowers. We're just asking the board to evaluate the impacts of leaf blowers and make recommendations to council in regards to what some options might be for us. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Orengo, I'm sorry, I my apologies. My summary. LOWENTHAL Thank you. That's quite all right. I wanted to thank Councilwoman Price for including me on this item. And as she alluded, this is not something that we are looking to ban, but perhaps find alternatives and even incentives. Ten years ago, approximately ten years ago, we adjusted our noise ordinance, which included tweaking the hours of operation for leaf blowers, which ended up being a win for residents because it gave us a reprieve from early morning leaf blowing noise, especially on the weekends. And as our city evolves and we continue to live closer and closer to each other, and we continue to want to raise our standards on how our world and environment we live in should be treated. We do have to take careful review, as Councilwoman Price mentioned, these issues and issues that impact our quality of life. And I think it's timely. So I appreciate that you brought this forward. I look forward to the report coming back. And as the councilwoman mentioned, I'm hopeful that we're looking at alternatives and incentives. Years ago. There were. Rebate programs for folks that wanted to switch out the types of leaf blowers that they purchased. And if those opportunities existed, that would be great. It's very important to be sure that folks remain as whole as possible in any process that we look to to improve our public policy. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. The one concern that I have with this issue is that I don't think there's a over expanding study that's going to include what would be the economic impacts on the leaf blower or gardeners trade. I don't get the grunion in my in my area. So my neighborhoods that don't necessarily have access to that type of information or access to weigh in on this issue. The cities that were mentioned there. Yeah, I have no comment on that. They're not they're not my communities. But I am concerned about the effect that it would have economically on the businesses that provide our gardening gardening services to throughout the city, not only in the second, third and fifth, but also in the sixth, seventh and eighth and ninth in terms of what they do. So I would want I'm not I'm not saying I would oppose this. I'm saying that if we're going to do a study that's being comprehensive as possible, they include the economic impact that this would have if we were to have complete ban or the economic impact it would have if we were to require our gardening services people to switch from a gas power to an electric power or any other alternative power and power manpower that breaks into doing this kind of service. So I would want staff to also include that. As far as that, what would be the economic impact of switching the leaf blower capability of people? Thank you. I see no other public or. I'm sorry. Let me get a public comment. Any public comment? Please come forward. Hello again. Ryan Serrano, first district. Um, I mentioned that I own a business called Earth Store Technology, one of the services that we provide as ecological landscape maintenance services. But we only do really like fine gardening maintenance, so we don't do any mowing below service. We only actually take care of food, productive spaces or native habitats. And but what I can say is that my father, I grew up doing landscaping work at my father, and that's where my background is. And he had a mambo service and he still has it. And what I can say about that industry overall is that it's highly polluting and highly exploitative of of and underpaying workers. And the noise pollution is a major issue. But I would also speak to the air pollution which all of those gas powered machines have no have no emissions regulation. So they don't have a catalytic converter like a like an automobile does. So to give you an idea, the carbon emissions of a of a mower blower operating for one hour is equivalent to driving most cars 300 miles. And. In addition to that, for people who are doing alternative, who do have some sort of alternative gardening, especially something that's drought tolerant, like a native landscape, the mowers and blowers are actually propagating weeds and actually creating an expense for these for these alternative gardeners that are actually otherwise doing something that's good economically. So I think that that's important. Also speaking to the economics of of workers and and the people who do those jobs now, I think it would create more jobs. When you take away those machines and start recognizing that labor, you would actually increase the number of people who are paid to do skilled work and increase the number of people who are doing things like raking and and pushing brooms. You could actually employ more people and I think you would also see more self-employment versus people working for big companies that, again, exploit people who are willing to compete for low wages. And this is coming from the son of of a mexican immigrant who watched who watched him grow up in the world doing that and also who is employed people in that position. My company has been paying a minimum wage of $15 an hour for the last two years. So I'm light years ahead of 2020 doing work that involves no polluting machines. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening again. In control. And this is not a new issue. I don't see anybody left. Up here that remembers about 20 years ago. Diana man. Waged war against the leaf blowers and a number of us came down and raked leaves out here on the lawn in Lincoln Park while the gardeners used the leaf blowers. And we found out that. It took just about the same amount of time to get the leaves off the grass. However, the gardeners were very much opposed to this, as you were saying. They were afraid that they would be losing their employment. Now, 20 years later, well, actually, it was about 11 years ago that I hired one of those gardeners that was opposing the leaf blowers with the provision that he use, rakes and broom and. He was hesitant at first, but now he uses rake and broom for all of his jobs. He has found that it's cheaper because he doesn't have to buy the gasoline and it's better for his health and a better for his hearing. And he's a complete convert. I did pay him a little more each month to do this. If you do decide or even if you don't decide to ban the leaf blowers, I think you can start in the city parks with Azteca. They stand out there with their leaf blowers blowing leaves off the park grass, which is totally and needed. And along the medians they're blowing leaves off the part of the grass. And this is wasting a lot of money and time and polluting the air. And so if nothing else comes out of this, I hope that you will. The next time that you. Contract with as tecca that you make sure that they don't have they don't use their leaf blowers anymore. Thank you. Thank you. See no other public comment. I'll go back to the council. Councilman Mongo. So I want to kind of add to Councilmember Ortega's comments. If we could also explore some of the options. I know within my neighborhood we have a couple of gardeners. I live in the same neighborhood as an Cantrell, and we have a couple of gardeners who are in the neighborhood multiple days a week. And they actually would prefer if all of their clients would all align to the same day of the week, because then they wouldn't have to come back so many times. And the same is true of some of our poor men, and they've actually spoken to me a few times and they said. What do I say to your neighbor to convince them that everybody else gets their lawn done on Thursday, but they want their lawn done on Monday? Well. A lot of it has to do with what day the trash is picked up and what day the street sweeper is and things like that. And so one might also consider if we consolidated the days in a community when the leaf blowers and lawn mowers were available, because that would actually help from an economic standpoint, the gardeners that have really strong roots that perhaps they would align better and then they'd be feeding the gas to and from each neighborhood and getting more houses on the same street. So I want to be pro-business and ensure that they are helped, but also be conscious of the quality of life of our neighbors. And that could be a neat compromise to consider in the report. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues. What I would like to do is recommend that we move forward with the study first and let's see what the study says and what the alternatives are. And then we can ask for an economic analysis of the alternatives, because I don't know that the Board of Health and Human Services is in a position to do an economic analysis. I think they're just going to talk about environmental impacts and pollution. And to Councilman, your Angus comments, you know, we are all very respectful of one another and I think we all do our very best job when we draft agenda items to be to try to give our colleagues data, but to reference the cities that were listed in our agenda item and somehow, you know, imply that those cities have nothing in common with, you know, a particular constituency, I think really defeats the point of the article. And I say that with all due respect, the the article that was written and it's available online and the agenda item that went along with it really are designed to talk about the impacts of the pollution, which impacts kids regardless of what district they live in. They impact adults, seniors, they impact people. It's not a district based thing. So the pollution issues and the noise pollution and the health environment, the that there's numerous studies available online that weren't included in our agenda item talking about the damaging effects to health and to asthma and to breathing as a result of the dust that's collected are that flows in the air as a result of leaf blowers. All leaf blowers do is they move debris from one location to another that that's all they do. And in the process, they blow the debris into the air. So that is why it's a negative impact on anyone that lives in the area. It's not a district thing. And the cities that were listed on the agenda are listed on the agenda because they happen to be cities that have very successful models. But again, there's a lot of research out there on it. And I would like just to find out, like Vice Mayor Lowenthal said, there's possibly some incentive programs that could help people switch out the equipment that they have and get equipment that's not having a polluting impact on the environment. And the city can possibly be in a position to help incentivize that change over time so that as they get ready to to change out their equipment, there's an incentive the city can provide that gives them a non gas operated leaf blower. So if council will indulge me, I think it would be simpler for this study to have the Board of Health and Human Services do an environmental impact because a report that's the that's the scope of their expertize. And then if it comes back and we want to go further than we can request an economic evaluation, and that would probably be a different city department that would handle that analysis. So that would be my recommendation. Okay. Councilmember Ranga. I appreciate the councilmember for a second district's comments. My my comments were not targeted towards any negativity towards those other cities, obviously. But when we compare Long Beach to other cities, we don't compare ourselves to those cities right there to that. I just want to clarify that very quickly right now. And whether they have successful models or not, that's fine. My comments were more directed in terms of I'm not saying let's proceed with a study. However, we need to include an economic analysis as to what's going to take place. I think that doing a study first and then going back and doing an economic study, doing a piecemeal, we should just do it all at once. I don't want to waste. Let me let me rephrase it. I would like to have staff pursue it in a more efficient manner by looking at the big picture as it's all inclusive, as opposed to bringing one aspect of it first and then going back and readjust analysis that needs to take place again to do it, to go back again, that those are the types of studies that I really don't like. I mean, I've we've gone through this before with other studies that we've had where I was basically opposed to the studies because any time there's there's staff time involved, it there is a cost impact to that staff's time to do that. And if we have one, the deals just with environmental and if we come back and deal with the economic, that's twice the work. So maybe it's a question for the city manager in terms of being able to consolidate or being able to have a two pronged type of study that would address all those issues and in one report. As opposed to doing it one against the other of city manager. I guess it be a question for you. Mayor Councilmembers Honestly. We're here to take direction from the City Council on. Where the council likes to go. I think it I'm looking at what Councilmember Price said, probably the Health and Human Services Department, I mean, commission is not the vehicle to look at the economic impact. But we're not bringing up the economic impacts of it as well as what would that what would it mean for vendors who might be required because of the study? And, you know, I agree with with with the overall impact of what leaf blowers have, you know, gas and all that. I mean, I agree with that. I'm not opposed to that. But there is going to be an economic effect. Should we move in one direction or another? So I'd like to know what what that is going to be, if at all. If time is not of the essence, I see no reason why we. Can't do to dependent. Studies. We would do one with the Health Department Health Commission, come back to. The Council of the Council. So wish they. Could direct it to staff for one of our economic development commissions to then review that piece to come. Back to the Council for a final decision. Okay. So you're saying that you want to do part A before going to part B? I think that it's up to the city council. It's up to you. Well, that. Would be great. As long as as long as there's no hurry to do this immediately. And there was a need to. Well, 90 days was. I think it's a go to the Board of Health and Human Services and at that point they would come back within. What is the days? Within six months. Is that. It? Six months? Yep. But. Okay. We think you can work with that. Great. So we have a motion in a second to go to have board Health Human Services come back in six months. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Okay. Not to complicate things, but I was just suggesting because, you know, we're hearing so much out there, but I think getting the report back first would be great to be able to understand the the environmental impacts. But is it possible as well to have staff come back with just some, uh, some type of incentive programs that could be available to these businesses just so we can get a preliminary idea of what is out there. And then if we do need to come back, go, you know, come back and then go back to the Economic Development Committee. Then we do that. Absolutely. That's we could be checking with HMD on that at on a parallel course. And then with that information, we could then do another look see at this if desired by the council. Okay. And perhaps that comes back just in a two from four, unless the council wants an anything additional with that. But that's certainly. Wonderful. Thank you. Okay. There's a motion in a second. We've done public comment. Members, please cast your votes. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities’ Emergency Assistance Program; temporarily extending increased assistance related to COVID-induced customer delinquencies; and amending Section 21.76.065 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_05242022_CB 120329

Agenda item four Council Bill 120329 An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities Emergency Assistance Program temporarily extending increased assistance related to COVID induced customer delinquencies and amending Section 21.7 6.065 of the Seattle Municipal Court. Thank you. I move to pass Council Bill 120329. Is there a second? Second, Councilor Peterson. And this is your bill. The floor is yours. Thank you. Council president, colleagues, all three utility bills, utility relief bills here co-sponsoring Councilmember Nelson. This one happens to deal with Seattle Public Utilities specifically. It does the same thing for our emergency assistance program as the city bill we just adopted a moment ago. As with its companion bill, this council bill 120329 simply extends an existing utility relief policy. Extending this release through 2023 will become even more important for customers of Seattle Public Utilities, because the King County Executive and King County Council members are currently considering a substantial increase in wastewater treatment fees. King County passes their wastewater treatment fees, which comprise nearly 50% of households, as few bills directly to our Seattle customers. So the more relief we can provide to lower income at SPU customers, the better. Thank you. Councilor Peterson. And I should have noted that I actually had it noted here in the margins that these are the items two, three and four are Councilmember Peterson and Councilmember Nelson. So thank you. Are there any comments for Councilmember Peterson? A cast member must get up. Thank you so much. I just want to take this opportunity to thank Councilmember Peterson for the joint work that we are looking into with the public utilities folks about how to make sure that more of the people who are qualifying for the utility discount program get automatically enrolled. And that that's something that I had looked into in 2018 and 2019. And I think with the continued efforts to extend additional support, but also the concern on the horizon that many of these supportive programs are going to sunset, having automatic enrollment and things like utility, discount program and other strategies to support working families. It's going to be really critical. So I really appreciate you taking the reins on that, Councilmember Peterson, and your quick action to respond to some of those ideas and look forward to continuing to engage with you on some longer term policy solutions. Thank you, Casper. Hey. We all done. You council president asked. Okay, great. There you go, Mr. Peterson. No, thank you. So thank you, everybody. So let's move on. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Councilmember Strauss? Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales. As. Council member mosqueda. I. Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson. All right. Council members want. Yes. Council president was not in favor and opposed. The chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to this legislation. So, going to finance and housing counselor ROSQUETA has items five, six and seven for us. And I understand that you're going to read five and six into the record. And Kessler ROSQUETA will address five and six together, but we'll vote on them separately. So, Madam Clerk, please read five and six into the record.

Recommendation to approve the City of Long Beach Digital Inclusion Initiative’s Digital Inclusion Roadmap to ensure that everyone in Long Beach has equitable access and use of computer literacy training, the Internet, technology devices, and other digital inclusion resources. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06152021_21-0562

Motion carries. Thank you. The last item is 35. Report from Technology and Innovation Economic Development Recommendation to approve the Digital Inclusion Roadmap to ensure that everyone in Long Beach has equitable access and use of computer literacy training. The Internet technology devices and other digital inclusion resources. Citywide. I have a motion in a second, but there is a staff for Mr. Mayor. So, Mr. Modica. Mr. Mayor, I need to recuse myself on this one. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. Given the fact that I work in the technology and telecommunications industry an abundance of caution, I am stepping outside and recuse myself on this item. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of the council. This was a big policy initiative by the council in 2018, is to create funding, find a way to do a digital road map. We went through a process and found some additional funding. It's been a big outreach effort with our community and there's been a lot that the council can be proud of for digital inclusion, especially with the CARES Act. So I want to give a report today on what we've been doing for the road map development, which really helped inform how we spend a lot of those digital divide dollars that came through the CARES Act and is going to be furthered under the Recovery Act. So Lee Eriksen. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. The Technology and Innovation and Economic Development Departments are pleased to provide an overview of the proposed Digital Inclusion Roadmap, peer review and discussion. The Digital Inclusion Initiative strives to ensure we achieve our vision that every individual on Long Beach, regardless of background, neighborhood or identity, has high quality, accessible technology, resources and services to be civically engaged and social and economic empowered. This vision was co-created by stakeholders and community members as part of the Digital Inclusion Roadmap Development. The city's digital inclusion initiative has three focus areas that collectively work to achieve the vision. We believe that digital inclusion is only met when all three areas are met. Capacity includes free, multilingual computer literacy, training and technical support. Connectivity includes low cost and free, high speed quality. In-Home Internet services and technology support. And technology includes low cost and free quality, internet enabled technology devices and technology support. We didn't wait for the digital inclusion roadmap to be finished before starting our digital inclusion work. And already the City of Long Beach has received ample recognition for advancing digital inclusion efforts in 2020. Economic and Digital Inclusion Program Manager Rebecca Comber received the Charles Burton Digital Equity Champion Award presented by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. This National Award recognizes outstanding leadership and dedication in advancing digital equity. You also see the city receive recognition as a 2020 digital inclusion trailblazer three times in a row, and also a California social and public information official Caprio Award for our social media engagement campaign, which was done in all four of the city's languages. I'm now going to turn it over to Rebecca to cover the roadmap development process and the proposed digital inclusion goals and Community Priorities Strategies. Thank you very much, Leah. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. As Leah mentioned, my name is Rebecca Coloma and I'm the city's economic and digital inclusion program manager. I'm super excited to share with you all about our great work about developing our digital inclusion roadmap, which uplifts collective impact and an equity lens as part of our way to advance digital inclusion for all in Long Beach. On January 23rd, 2018, the City Council approved the city manager to work with several city departments on a digital inclusion master plan to support this effort. Back in March of 2019, the City Council saw further approved one time funding of 40 K to the Technology Innovation Department to support the development of the road map. And as I mentioned, the essence of this process does include collective impact and also an equity lens. So through collective impact, we were able to work closely with the community and cross-sector partners in a structured format to be able to solve a digital divide and ultimately advance equity and inclusion. And through that, we focused on performance management, developing a common agenda, making sure we had a joint plan of action, and fostering open communication with all of our stakeholders who were involved in addition and equity lens was also imperative. Through an equity lens, we were able to segregate data, address systemic and institutional barriers, and ensuring that we were uplifting the lived experience of community members that are most affected by the digital divide. As part of our digital inclusion road map development process, it was very imperative for us to ensure that we were engaging both stakeholders and also the community through stakeholder and community engagement. As part of our stakeholder engagement process, we hired a consultant called McCormack, and we were able to convene a 50 person multidisciplinary Digital Inclusion Stakeholder Committee, which officially kicked off back in August of 2019 through October 2020. And this committee provides strategic guidance, vision and oversight over the development of this process. And the committee also reflected the entire spectrum of digital inclusion. And also as part of that, it was also crucial that we also engage with community members as part of this process. We hired Pueblo Planning, who is a social justice and justice urban planning consultant to help us out with the community engagement activities. It was very imperative that we partnered with local trusted community partners, and these partners included Central Cha, Long Beach, Forward, the United Cambodian community and the YMCA of Greater Long Beach. I do want to talk a little bit more about our community engagement process, which was very unique. First and foremost, we intentionally uplifted the community members as experts as part of this process through power sharing and intentionally acknowledge that historically and currently marginalized communities are typically left out of government decision making processes. And Pueblo Planning had a great way for us to also engage with the community, and that was also through art and storytelling, where they were able to use that process to uplift their lived experiences, knowledge and vision for what digital inclusion should look like here in the city of Long Beach. We had a variety of different ways to engage with community. Over the past year, this included community pop ups, workshops, interviews, and also a survey. And through that, we were so excited. And during a pandemic, we engaged with more than 170 community members in a process that was both meaningful and inclusive. During our community engagement process, it was very important for us to understand what some of the key challenges and barriers were for being able to access and utilize the internet and computers. Some of these key challenges and barriers included high costs with Internet services, poor quality broadband literacy and English literacy barriers, lack of access to electricity to name a few. And as part of this process, I wanted to share a testimonial from Angela, who resides in central Long Beach, and she was able to share some of her challenges with accessing and utilizing the Internet and computers. And this is a direct quote from Angela For one of my classes, the computer wouldn't work because the Internet wasn't working. So I had to email my teachers through my phone because I have mobile data to tell them I was not able to complete the assignment. I told him that if I would give him more time, if I could do it, I would have more time. And I had to drive my car to my grandmother's house because my grandmother also had Internet access to complete the assignment. So here is a perfect example of a Long Beach community member from their own words that shared what challenges that they were experiencing with having poor internet and computer access. As part of our process, it was very important for us to also uplift strategies, goals and objectives that would advance digital inclusion here in Long Beach. For the purpose of this presentation, we will be highlighting some of the key top strategies that were referenced as part of this development process for capacity. The top community strategies included providing one on one tutoring, where community members can learn how to use the internet and computers. In addition, providing classes where community members can also learn how to speak, read and write in English. In addition, establishing a hotline where community members can call to resolve any issues that they're having with Internet service providers. And connectivity. The top community strategies included providing free and low cost quality, high speed Internet services for community members at home, and also being able to administer free quality wi fi provided at public parks and also at public libraries. And last but not least for technology, the top strategies included providing free and low cost quality desktops, computers and tablets for community members, and also providing technical support where they can receive information on how to address computer issues and also any other technology related issues. In regards to next steps, we heard a lot of great expertize wisdom and lived experiences on how to address the digital divide in Long Beach. Once this item has been approved by City Council, city staff will officially kick off an equity focus implementation process. And this process would both involve us convening with the community and cross-sector partners. And we will establish an implementation committee where we will have the opportunity to identify funding personnel, data collection and reporting structures to implement this process . As part of our conclusion, I would like to take the time to thank the mayor, city council, city manager, city staff, community partners, and most importantly, the community for all of their inspiration and collaboration, time and commitment with developing this digital inclusion road map process. That concludes our report. And Lee and I are more than happy to answer any questions that you may have. Well, thank you. That was a really excellent report and a really great presentation. I also just want to just note. I want to thank a staff you all did a fantastic job in the presentation was really great. So, so, so, so good work. I also just want to note that State Senator Gonzalez was a real champion on this issue and really brought this issue forward to the council on multiple occasions and continues to do that work at the state level. But we want to make sure that we obviously think and recognize her for bringing this to the council as a as one of her kind of top type issues and priorities. There is a motion and a second, I think Councilman Mango, who made the motion, had to had to leave. So maybe someone else can make the motion. And I think she's got to be here for it to make the motion. So let me do this. Ottomans and in. Europe. Thank you. Thank you very much. We are. And thank you for recognizing all the hard work that now Senator Lena Gonzalez has put into into the digital divide items that we have before us here today. Great job on the staff. Thank you, Ms.. ERICKSEN. And thank you, Rebecca, for a great presentation. As you know, COVID COVID 19 highlighted and brought to light many of the already existing impact and inequities in our city. And among those was the digital divide that posed an additional barrier to many of our students, parents who had to condition from going, you know , in school to online schooling. We also saw that many of our neighborhood associations found it difficult to transition to virtual meetings, especially because many people lacked access to Internet electronic devices or or they just did not know how to navigate the Internet. In addition, I am particularly glad to know that much of our community outreach, many of our computer literacy programs, among other resources, will continue to be offered in multiple languages. I am very, very supportive of this item and our city's effort to close the digital divide so that we can all move forward together. Thank you. Thank you very much for all your hard work on this. Thank you. Catherine. Ringo. Thank you. This is a very encouraging item that's coming forward, but it's always how do we pay for it? That's that's the challenge. And I'm hoping that nationally I know that there was a discussion about making Internet accessible for everybody and a national basis. And I know that there were a few bills being considered in the state of California to do the same thing. But nothing has happened. In your report. In flipping through it, I see there's other testimonials as well, and one where it says Each month I pay $35 for Internet and my daughter understands that it is the cheapest . It does not meet the needs of my child's education, however, because it has been very slow and because it's very cheap. That's just. Part of a quote. And then the other one, he's the one who hits me hardest is the rent is not affordable anymore. We are living in a time where food and rent is very high. We pay for rent and food. So do we want a luxury? Laptops are not a luxury. They are a necessity for daily life. I would like to see help for kids to get laptops to get accessible quality internet at a good price. So I'm hoping that during this period of of bringing this forward that we are talking to our partners. Well, Verizon and and Spectrum and any other service provider here in Long Beach to provide affordable Internet. And I brought this before I went, senator, senator and then Leader Gonzalez, which was a councilmember here. I joined her in the whole discussion about the digital divide, especially when it comes to West Palm Beach and the first District as well, because we both are adjacent districts and we we suffered the same consequences of not having good Internet access or at least one at an affordable price. So I'm hoping that when we move forward with this and we are looking for the funding that we can work with our partners to to make it accessible, first of all, and to make it affordable, of course. So I support the title for today, but we need to get cracking on getting the funding so we can make this a reality for all citizens and all residents in Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. The town. Councilman Taro. Thank you, Mayor. First, I want to thank Lee and Rebecca for the awesome presentation, and I want to thank the technology and innovation staff as well for their hard work. You know, during the pandemic, it really lifted the high need that really demonstrated how much of a divide there is digitally. And, you know, I just really appreciate the team because, you know, during the time when, you know, obviously went virtual, there was just a high need for access to Internet as well as computer. And really the team stepped up and really fill in that need. I saw them everywhere possible with food drives and all of these spaces. So I really want to acknowledge that and appreciate that. And I really like the the community engagement approach you took and how inclusive and accessible it was in the way that it was approach. And it really shows in the report and I really look forward in the next steps and how you're really bringing equity to the forefront in how we implement it and appreciate the way that you'll continue to work with in partnership with the community organizations as well as active residents. So thank you so much. Councilmember Councilmember, your rank I think you spoke already to the to the second rate. Why did you pick up again? Okay, Councilman. Councilwoman Allen. Thank you, Mayor. And I also want to recognize Director Erickson and the T.I. I staff for their hard work on this road map. I also want to appreciate I want to say thank you to Senator Gonzalez for all of her hard work on this item. I know this was a major undertaking and I was just so impressed when by the presentation, especially hearing all the goals and community strategies. I also just really respect the community engagement and outreach that was achieved during this process. I feel like that you really took the time to understand the barriers in accessing the Internet and computers. So just great work on this. Councilman Austin. Thanks. I want to say most of my questions have been answered already. I wanted to just compliment the staff on a great report and presentation. I. I did have a question related to. It seems like. We've experienced a lot and learned a lot in the last year. We had to work through some some some unexpected challenges in terms of connectivity issues that were experienced. I would say prior to. 2020 or even as this process was going on, had there been any any significant improvements from Internet service providers in terms of expanding capacity and and and connectivity for for residents? I thank you for that question, Councilman Austin. I did want to mention that the Internet service providers were at the table throughout this whole process. So Frontier Spectrum, Verizon and they have been offering low cost programs and most of them are participating also in the emergency broadband benefit. And I know that they've also been making investments in in the connectivity in the cities in this inner city. So a lot of investment, small cell deployments, etc.. I'm increasing fiber capacity. So there's been a lot of investment in the city over the last couple of years. And one of the items that you approved earlier, 34, is continuing the city's work with digital, with building a fiber network, the citywide fiber network, to provide access within any within two miles of any point of the city's fiber. And so that's also going to be able to be moving forward with the the approval of that item to to use the broadband group to help us design and engineer the city's fiber network. Okay. So this is probably a deeper conversation, but I would really love to understand how that that infrastructure actually looks. Um, from ISP. Um, you know, because we know that there's not a lot of competition either. You live on this side of town. This is who you have. You live on this side of town, this is who you have. And sometimes there's also disparities in terms of quality. Right. And and I think we need to dig a little deeper there as well, because we understand that there's a digital divide. But then also there's a digital divide with, like I said, quality and individuals who are required to work from home or get to be productive in their daily lives. I've heard from a number of individuals who reached out to me and said, Hey, can you do something about this? Because my Internet goes out at a certain time every day, right? And I'm down for an hour or two. So, so, so I think this is a great, great jump starting point for us and I appreciate that work. But I do think that we still have a lot to do. This is a much broader issue. Thank you, Councilmember Supernanny. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. And I make this same comment. Every time this topic comes up. And by the presentation, I can tell you doing it. That we continued to collaborate with the public school system and almost it sounds like there was a bit of a gap analysis where you saw what the school district was providing and then we could fill those gaps. So really great to hear that. But, you know, my. My point has always been. If the school district is is supplying every student with a Chromebook and a hotspot, then that's a starting point that we can work from. So thank you again for the report. Thank you. And let me make got a public comment, then I have a closing comment. We have Jacob O'Donnell. Jay Cutler. Great. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. My name is Jacob O'Donnell calling on behalf of Senator Lena Gonzalez to express support for item 35. As the former first District Council member, Senator Gonzalez launched the Digital Inclusion Road Map Initiative to ensure every Long Beach resident, regardless of zip code or income level , has Internet access and that providers are serving and investing in our communities that deserve it the most. Now in the state legislature, Senator Gonzalez continues to advance policy in this space with the introduction of Senate Bill for the Broadband for All Act, which will ensure funding for high speed fiber infrastructure projects in underserved urban and rural communities throughout the state of California. We want to thank city staff for all of their hard work and dedication on this initiative and all of the community partners who have put so much hard work on and collaboration into this effort. And we're excited to see the next steps. On advancing digital equity and inclusion in the city of Long Beach. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. I just wanted to add also that I did want to thank the Technology and Innovation Commission just because I know that they worked on this issue pretty thoroughly. And it's a really great folks on that commission. And I just know that their work is reflected in this in this roadmap and this report. And then this is maybe a broader question for Mr. Modica, or we can you know, we can maybe bring Mr. Lee, Kevin Lien. But I think this report is so good and it's you guys did such a great job. I just don't want it to just live as a report. So I just hope that you're thinking about how it can live, as, you know, not just online, but how do we create infographics and a story and materials so that we're out telling the story online? This is the type of report and I could see this about other reports as well, that we should be digesting it down to smaller images and infographics and one pagers that we're able to post on social media so that those can share within the community about what we're doing. So I just want to make sure that we are thinking about that for this report and for others, of course. But I just always, whenever I see such a well done, broad report, I just don't want I don't want us to be the only people that that see it. So if we can just work on it, that would be that would be great. Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to add, you know, the $40,000 that we reported earlier, that was from at the time Councilwoman Gonzalez's account and the Technology and Innovation Commission was an active participate through this whole process, including studying the digital inclusion divide at your request, actually back in 2018. So and we definitely are going to be moving in towards implementation. And as part of that, we are going to continue our equitable work and equitable approach to outreach and inclusion and have also a state of of digital inclusion every year as part of the approach. And I just really wanted to also just really give a lot of credit to Rebecca. The work that she's done is it's just been really amazing with this whole process. And she's being actually asked to speak at national, state and regional conferences and cities and groups, and we're even L.A. County's asking us, Hey, what are you doing down there? So this this work is really getting a lot of attention. And and she totally deserves the work she got from the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. And Rebecca, the presentation was phenomenal. So thank you. And let's continue this this amazing work. Thank you, Leah. Such impressive staff and commissioner work here. Just thank you all very much. Members, please cast your votes. American. Do you have to vote? Motion carries. Thank you. Now it's new business, so I want to make sure that we still have quorum here. Okay, good. So if you have new business or an announcement, now would be the time count from your income.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Waterfront Project; authorizing a second amendment of the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Renovation and Expansion of the Seattle Aquarium and Development of the Central Waterfront Project between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Aquarium Society.

SeattleCityCouncil_09252017_CB 119086

Bill passed in Sherwood Senate. Please read an item number 18. Item 18 Council Vote 1190 86 relating to the Central Waterfront Project authorizing a Second Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning renovation and expansion of the SAIL Aquarium and development of the Central Waterfront Project between the City of Seattle and Seattle Aquarium Society. The committee recommends the bill pass from Bexar. Thank you. This bill will approve an update to the menu between the city and the aquarium. We first entered into this, I believe, in 2012. And the the effort here is to reaffirm the role of the Ocean Pavilion as a key element and the Central Waterfront Project, in fact, that's been in front of us once again. And we've seen multiple versions of this about where the Ocean Pavilion will be located and the aquarium now will agree and surpass the 1 to 1 match to cities funds that have already been invested to create a project design that, as we call it, 30% design. So this again is an extension and we recommend passage of the bill. Thank you very much. Any further comments? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the Bill Johnson. O'BRIEN All right. So on I lecture Gonzalez I Herbold I President Harrell I seven in favor an unopposed. Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Number 19. Well I thought we held 20, so probably. Right. So 19. Right. Okay. Well, I was right on a procedure around here. Finally got one. Right. Okay, let's go 19 and we'll skip 20 to 23.

A RESOLUTION providing an honorary designation of 22nd Avenue NW between NW 56th and NW 57th Streets as “Rob Mattson Way.”

SeattleCityCouncil_04222019_Res 31878

The report of the City Council. Agenda Item one Resolution 31878. A resolution providing an honorary designation of 72nd Avenue Northwest between Northwest 56th and Northwest 57th streets as Rob Madsen Way introduced day April 15th, 2019. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you, Council President, colleagues. I'm excited to pass this designations today. This would designate the 22nd Avenue between Northwest 56th and Northwest 57th. So that's the block between or on the west side of the Ballard branch of the Seattle Library as Rob Madsen Way. Rob passed away last year. He retired in 2013 from the city of Seattle, having worked for the city for 42 years in 1973 and or Mayor Wes Holman. He was appointed the the director of the Ballard Little City Hall at the time as head of the Ballard Neighborhood Service Center and founder of the Ballard District Council. Rob continued his work, connecting residents of Ballard with each other in the city services through most of his career. In later years, Rob was often referred to as the mayor of Ballard. By introducing this resolution, Mayor Durkan, along with his family and friends, intends to honor Rob with this honorary street station. There will be a celebration as the signs go up in the neighborhood at a date to be named in the future. But Rob was someone I didn't get to work with a whole lot, but someone who I know is respected by just about everyone in the community. Amazing person. Thank you, Casper and Brian. Any other comments or questions on this resolution? Actually my honor in supporting this. Thank you, Councilman Bryan, for bringing the full council's attention. Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote. I, i those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the resolutions adopted, and Cher will sign it. I don't know. He had some fans out there and given a longer speech. Okay, please read the next agenda item.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and any necessary documents and amendments, with the County of Los Angeles to receive and expend $650,000 in grant funds, to operate a Youth Jobs Program that will assist approximately 309 youth, ages 14-24, for the term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06212016_16-0562

Next item, please. Item 17 Report from Economic and Property Development. Recommendation to execute an agreement with the County of Los Angeles to receive and expand $650,000 in grant funds to operate a youth jobs program citywide. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. I just want to is this this the funding that we use for our summer youth, our jobs? Again. It is a portion of that. So it's an augmentation to the we are funding that you saw in the previous item. Again, it's an annual allocation that's gone on for several years. This is the highest allocation that we've gotten initially in the city of Long Beach, partially based on the performance in the placements that we've we've achieved . It does allow us to extend the programing down from our 18 to 20 4 to 214 year olds. And again, it's direct work experience money. And with this money, it actually allows us to put about an additional 310 Long Beach youth to work each summer. And and is this some of the funding? We're, you know, forget all that. But this is this is fantastic. And the Summer Youth Hire is that program is a phenomenal violence prevention program, along with the spirit of everything we've talked about tonight. I think the fact that you expand on that program, adding 300 additional positions for youth 14 to 24 is outstanding. I know that we've talked and we've set a goal this summer for 150, hiring 150 North Lombard youth over the course of this summer. And so I just want to say, keep up the great work. I'm this is a really tremendously important item, and I'm honored to help you again spend this money. Councilmember Gonzalez. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. Thanks again, Nick. Again, this is also I know it's annual, but we're expanding it to include, you know, four years younger for our youth, which is great. I just did have one question really is whether we can receive, because I'd like to see how this is performing. And what do you think would be the best time to find out to get like a two from four back to the council to evaluate the performance. So most of most of the work experience will happen before the end of August. There are some participants whose circumstances will change over the course of the summer, and we're able to carry some of this money forward and carry them forward. BULK But the bulk of the expenditure and program activity will occur before the end of the summer. So we would be happy to come back to you with with the TFF in September to let you know where, what the placements were by district, what businesses sponsored our youth, how they performed some of the, some of the performance reviews that the employers put forward. That's great. I know you get excited about numbers just like I do sometimes. So thank you. Appreciate that. That's wonderful. Council. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I see a note in the staff report that the average youth will get about 125 hours worth of work. I think that's that's significant and certainly falls in line with the summer months. I see here that this goes into effect July 1st, 2016, 18 through June 20, 2017. The question is when will we start ramping up to hire these 300 youth? Have they been hired already in anticipation of this? I'm sorry. Actually, as of this afternoon, 92% of those slots are already full. So it's we anticipate the annual allocation. Again, there's there's other funding that serves use. There's certainly always other opportunities through through our work with the private sector or the or the foundation community to bring more money then to serve the youth. So so we keep this cycle of applications on, on a rolling basis in our work and to have youth eligible and ready to go when they have the the bulk of their schedule open in the summer. Well, thank you. This is great news. And I will be supporting this hardly. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on item 17? Sing None. Members cast your vote. Motion carries. Next item, please.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, to be known as the 2022 Pay Zone Ordinance; adjusting the pay zone structures for 2022 for the City’s discretionary pay programs; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120244

Agenda Item three Council Bill 120244 An ordinance relating to city employment to be known as the 2022 pay zone ordinance. Adjusting the pay zone structures for 2022 for the city's discretionary pay programs and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I moved past Council Bill 120244. Is there a second second? Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Again, I am the sponsor of this bill, so I'll address it first and then allow others to make comments, if any. Constable 120244 would adjust the pay bands for city discretionary pay programs by slightly more than 7%. Employees in these discretionary pay programs would be eligible for a salary increase within this payment, subject to the discretion of the appointing authority. The Seattle Department of Human Resources Director recommends adjustments to these pay bands every one or two years, depending on the particular program. SDH Hours Director Direct Excuse me. Director did make a recommendation, and the recommendation was to adjust the pay bands by 7.016% to reflect a compounded increase of 2.9%, plus an additional 4% that has been authorized with council bills. 120242 and 120244. The 2022 adopted budget appropriated funds for a 2.9% wage increase for certain non represented job titles in executive departments, in part because these job titles were excluded from the 2.9% wage increase in the 2021 adopted budget due to financial constraints stemming from the COVID 19 economic crisis. Again, I've already spoken to how the city has planned and budgeted for the fiscal impacts of these annual wage adjustments for city employees. And just like I did with the previous two bills, I recommend to my colleagues passage of this legislation. Are there any additional comments on Agenda Item three Council Bill 120244. Hearing none. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120244. Agenda Item three. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Thank you. Councilwoman Rosetta I. Peterson by. Strauss? Yes. Herbold? Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez. I am in favored and opposed. The bill passes and the terrible planet will please if it's my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Liquid Please read item four into the record.

Recommendation to receive and file the application of Sancho’s Restaurant, LLC, dba Sancho’s Tacos, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 5272 East 2nd Street. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_03132018_18-0233

The next one to get requested to move up is the consent calendar that was pulled. Absolutely. Which is item 18. Report from police recommendation to receive. And file the application of Sanchez Tacos for an original application of an ABC. License at 5272 East Second Street District three. Councilman Price. Thank you. I just want to let my colleagues and everyone who's watching know that this is a fantastic newish business that's in Belmont Shore on Second Street. We wish them the very best of luck in everything that they do, and I'm very happy to recommend that these conditions be approved by my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any public comment on the pooled consent? Poll consent? Okay, members, please go and cast your votes. The motion carries. Okay. Motion passes. Okay, great. We're going to do the mix up. Items are going to be 23, 24 and 33, which have all been requested to get moved up to 23, 24 and 33. I think we'll probably do 23.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with Clark Services for Cleaning and Maintenance of Park Street, Webster Street and Marina Village, in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,264,323. (Public Works 275)

AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8437

Recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute a five year agreement with. Our services for cleaning and maintenance of Park Street, Webster Street and Marina Village in an amount not to exceed $1,264,323. Councilmember Dysart you pull this was that because recuse. Myself is necessary. Okay. All right. So essentially, we'll take a vote. Do that. Yeah. Okay. All right, then we can get a vice mayor. Next, we can unmute. I've got a collective. I'm of approval of the item. All right. Thank you. Thank you. It's been moved by, and that's why it's seconded by Councilmember Bellamy. We have a roll call vote, please. Uh, yes. Vice Mayor. Knock fight. Hi. Councilmember Odie I avella i mayor as the Ashcraft I that carries by four eyes. One absent. All right. Thank you. And can we get Councilmember Dave Suggs back? He is right there. Okay, then we will move on to item five D and vice versa. Next. Wait, you asked for this? So the floor is yours. Did you want to hear the report? Was that it? I actually just had some questions. I'm happy to hear the report if we like. I also half of half of that is I just wanted to give our staff some really huge kudos on the completion of this report. Yes. Thank you. That's that's nice of you. Yeah. So and I just just I do have some questions. I did send them to staff a little earlier this this afternoon or late evening when I warned them that I would be pulling this. But essentially this for the sake of anybody watching, it's a report on the impact on shallow groundwater and sea level rise. And while I can't find the exact citation that I would love to read, the first page actually has a consultant's mentioning that city should be doing this work and nobody is. And I think we are one of the first cities to actually start looking at this issue. This issue ended up in our Climate Action Plan because input from our community around whether or not just putting walls up, sea walls up would actually have any impact around our our our soil. And I think for me, it was very interesting to to read through how some of the old contaminated soil issues actually become quite, quite significant issues in some surprising places around town, actually earlier than sea level rise starts to impact things. And so, you know, like I said, I just wanted to do a celebrate for our staff, just the huge accomplishment that I think this is. But also then ask a little question, follow up questions about their thinking. I'm there are some recommendations on policy, strategy, focus areas and some other next steps. And given that this does identify some kind of earlier than some of the other sea level rise strategies and recommends updating the carp based on them.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the appropriate City departments and City Attorney's Office to report back at the next available City Council meeting on gaps in prevention, services and housing for individuals and families who are precariously housed or experiencing homelessness, as well as the costs, and opportunities to address these needs. The report should include a recommended funding strategy and implementation timeline for a dedicated local revenue source to address for housing opportunities for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, as well as early and late prevention strategies and services for those newly homeless and those experiencing chronic homelessness.

LongBeachCC_07242018_18-0618

Great. Thank you very much. Moving on to item number 12, Madam Clerk. Item 12 is a communication from Councilmember Richardson. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Vice Mayor Andrews. Councilman Austin. Recommendation two requires city manager to work with the appropriate city departments and city attorney's office to report back on gaps in prevention, services and housing for individuals and families who are precariously housed or experiencing homelessness. Thank you very much. I'm going to turn this over to accounts from Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Tonight, we're going to have a conversation about local revenue options in both short term and long term strategies to address our housing crisis and support for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. It's not a new conversation. I do want to acknowledge all the work that this council has done. In fact, over the last two years has been over ten different ideas generated from the Council around the issues of homelessness over the last two years. But there hasn't been one item addressing the issue of a local revenue option. This issue of housing affordability has become increasingly urgent in California, with rising housing costs, limited supply, taking a toll on communities across the state and everyone's feeling the effects of the California housing crisis. So Long Beach is not immune. Far too many of our residents are experiencing housing instability. The housing crisis affects millennials who graduate from college and must immediately move home with their parents. It affects families who, despite the best efforts, can't save enough to put down a down payment on a home. It affects seniors living on a fixed income who can't afford to stay in their own homes. It affects people who've lost a job or face a health care crisis and forces them to get behind on rent and face the brink of homelessness. Now, here's a deeper dove into the housing instability problem. In January 2017, our city had 1863 individuals living on our streets. And we know as many as 3000 to 4000 people, including children, seniors, transition aged youth, students, families, men and women. They'll become homeless each year in Long Beach. For many, it will be temporary, but for some it'll be long term. Nearly 20% of our residents live in poverty. Currently, 21,000 households or 60,000 people are precariously housed, meaning their household income is just 30% of area median incomes. And this means the families are paying more than 90% of their income just on housing. Additionally, 222,000, or roughly 47% or half of our residents existing in Long Beach. Our cost burden, meaning that they spend 30% of their income on rent. At the same time, 56,883 Long Beach residents live in overcrowding conditions. In fact, accounting for population growth, an astounding 28,000 additional units are needed by 2040. If we're going to meet our goals to house those individuals or families in need, we know the main issues, main causes associated with homelessness are loss of jobs, insufficient income, increasing rents , break down the family dynamics, domestic violence, physical behavior, behavioral issues. And while the housing crisis statistics are devastating, our city has been doing a great job with the resources that they do have. A city, a Long Beach has experienced a 41% decline in the bi annual point in time count in the past six years. And this is just a one day picture of who's in our city shelters and active on our streets. This decline is is due to the incredible work of our homeless services team, the interdepartmental coordination with our health department, police department, fire department, parks and Rec department, public works, our city attorney, our city council, all of us are our Health and Human Services Department brings in over 12 million annually to service the services to support homeless prevention efforts and supporting those who are homeless. The Chief Housing. And thanks to our nationally recognized continuum of care, which is our system of delivery, we have permanently housed over 3000 people since 2013, and 390 of those were veterans in 2017 alone. So before we move forward, I want to just take a moment and hear it for our homeless services team, the continuum of care and our team, our entire wraparound service. We can just hear it for our health department. Thank you. But despite the efforts of this amazing team, issues of affordability and availability of housing continues to persist in our city. In the last two years, we've taken several steps to begin aggressively addressing the housing affordability crisis here in Long Beach. In February 2014, 2016, a group of housing leaders and advocates were assembled to comprise comprise an Affordable and Workforce Housing Study Group who were tasked with preparing policy recommendations on both revenue tools and incentives for the production of affordable housing. In May 2017, the City Council started the discussion of identifying new revenue source to address the housing shortage through a number of through the adoption of 29 recommendations as prepared by the study group. This is this is that report. In September 2017, city staff returned a memo this this memo in September 2017 to the city council with options for revenue source outlining the costs and benefits of a local housing bond that could meet some of our affordable housing need in our city. And so that has been in our hands since 2017. And in November 2017, we launched Everyone in Economic Inclusion Initiative, which is a call to action to Long Beach leaders to begin to look at and institute and implementing national best practices that really focus on economic inclusion. And a central element of that work is acknowledging that access to adequate housing is a foundation for economic success. And then most recently, this May, the city launched Everyone Home, which is another initiative designed to amplify the work in play and identify and fill the gaps where we have greater challenges. So despite federal, state and county funding that currently supports these various services initiatives, there's still a missing piece. The lack of a local dedicated revenue lack lack of local dedicated revenue to support the development of local affordable housing. Currently, the City of Long Beach does not have the resources to build the number of housing units necessary for those needing low income in homelessness house homeless housing, nor does it have sufficient resources for preventative services. Are continued care funding through the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development provides rapid rehousing, transitional housing and permanent supportive supportive housing as well as job, job training and other supportive services. The county's Measure H funding supports additional rapid rehousing, outreach and case management services, as well as some of our homeless prevention services and apartment owner landlord incentives. However, as the second largest city in the county, these resources do not meet the growing need for services as housing becomes more difficult to access in the city of Long Beach. Historically, municipalities across California have been involved in financing programs such as bond financing that facilitates the development, expansion and retention of affordable housing units. Such municipal bond bond issues were issued by redevelopment agencies. RDA used redevelopment tax increment to pay debt service on the bond. However, due to the loss of redevelopment in 2013 and the elimination of associated tax increment revenues, the use of RDA municipal revenue bond is no longer an option for the city of Long Beach. Since the loss of redevelopment, cities are funding innovative alternative approaches to funding the development of affordable housing and supportive services. For example, in November 26, November 2016, voters in the city of L.A. overwhelmingly approved Prop H, H, H, which developed which will develop 10,000 permanent supportive supportive units for upwards of 20,000 homeless individuals and those at risk for homelessness throughout the city. Additionally, in the city of San Francisco, the city currently has 7500 supportive housing units, as well as four fully funded navigation centers that provide counseling, housing assistance and employment assistance. This November, San Francisco voters will be voting on a measure to raise $300 million for an additional 4000 supportive housing units. Likewise, in August 2016, the voters of the City of San Diego approved $290,000,000 million housing levy to produce no city of Seattle. I'm sorry to to produce and preserve 3000 units for low and very low income individuals. Allow along with dedicated funding for substance and mental illness support. And what we have in common is a will. What they all have in common is policy connected to the will of the voters to fund a local revenue measure. That's what all of these comprehensive strategies have in common. They marry the local revenue strategy to part to policy, and they go to the voters through community discussions, analyzing research and looking to other cities. What we learned thus far is if affordability and availability are the chief barriers to addressing the needs of our communities, then we cannot truly address or end homelessness without a comprehensive prevention strategy coupled with a local source. So funding to support and promote the development of affordable housing in our city, even if it's just the means of matching funds as the next city council at the next City Council meeting, this motion asked for us to be presented with options for recommended funding strategy and implementation timeline for dedicated, low level local revenue source to address affordable housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, as well as early and late prevention strategies for those newly homeless and those experiencing chronic homelessness. While we figure out the best route to funding the development of additional housing, there are some things that we can do today. First, we've been having conversations for months now, even years, about the need for a year round homeless shelter. For the past seven years, we've hosted temporary winter shelters in North Long Beach. Each year, the council declares an emergency. The community has very little time to prepare. The facilities are often below standard, with inadequate restrooms and issues with different operators. However, by leveraging recent state funding, we have a real opportunity to finally acquire a site and create a comprehensive plan for year round shelter with services and a foundation for a larger, permanent, supportive housing complex. Similar to what you see on the West Side with the century villages of Cabrillo tonights, I want to add to my motion for staff to immediately begin the process of acquisition of a building to be utilized for the year round homeless shelter, and they can start by considering previous sites for the winter shelter. Secondly, over the past two years, I've had the honor of serving as chair of our homes, our housing authority. And during this time, we work to create a package of incentives to entice landlords to accept more of the housing choice vouchers. Housing choice vouchers. Some called Section eight, what used to be called Section eight. It's a critical tool for cities to be able to provide support and a tool for people on the brink of homelessness to obtain quality, affordable housing in Long Beach. However, despite our best efforts, there's currently over a thousand voucher holders today that can pay for an apartment, pay for somewhere to live. They can't find a place to rent. One of the contributing reasons for this outdated practice is that so one of the one of the major reasons that people can't find it is that a lot of times, if you look at an advertisement says no housing choice vouchers and no Section eight, and this is an outdated practice. And so while a landlord could could choose whether or not to accept any tenant they like, it's come to our attention that this practice may be outdated and may not be consistent with state law. So as a result, many Long Beach residents need to wait years on a list to get approved for a voucher only and have that voucher expire before they can actually use it to get into a unit. And so we shouldn't, in this housing crisis, have the luxury of stating that we're going to discriminate anyone's going to discriminate based on source of income. And so today, I'm going to add some emotion for city staff to begin the process of creating a source of income discrimination policy in the city of Long Beach. Finally, last summer, we began a conversation on the persistent crime, blight and violence associated with nuisance outdated motels throughout the city. In many cases, human trafficking has taken root in these motels. Drug activity has taken root in cities all over California. Motel conversions are starting to serve as additional tool to address temporary and permanent supportive housing needs. So it's time that Long Beach build on our work with our Nuisance Motel pilot program and begin to find opportunities to convert nuisance motels into supportive housing. And so the final piece of this is I'm going to add to my motion, too, for staff to begin to research and identify funding strategies and partners to purchase nuisance motels for transitional permanent housing opportunities. So to reiterate, reiterate, my motion consists of four things. One Staff return to City Council at the next available meeting with dedicated local Let local revenue strategy and options for the development of permanent supportive housing and comprehensive prevention services. Number two, Considering past winter shelter sites, initiate the process of purchasing a building to be utilized for a year round homeless shelter. Number three Create a source of income discrimination policy in the city of Long Beach and for research and identify funding strategies and partners to purchase nuisance motels for transitional and permanent housing opportunities. I want to thank everyone who's participated in this conversation over the years, but more specifically, folks who have stepped up over the last two weeks to contribute their voices in this conversation. And I'm going to call them out. LLC Building Strategies Council, Centro, Chas, Long Beach Forward. Long Beach Ministers Alliance Apartment Association of the Southern Cal of California Southern Cities. Libra Housing. Long Beach Pacific West Association of Realtors. Pacific Six. Long Beach Community Action Park. A Ship Walk. Long Beach Adobe Communities. California State University. Long Beach Private Real Estate Professional Association Century Villages at Cabrillo Link Housing. Clifford Bia's Housing. Habitat for Humanity's Innovative Housing Opportunities Long Beach Affordable Housing Coalition Goodwill Scamp Century Housing Corporation Meta Housing Corporation The Richmond Group The Guidance Center Skid Row Housing Trust City Fabric Children Today Long Beach Veteran Affairs Health Care System, Los Angeles Local Initiative Support Corporation and the Top Inn Thomas Safran Associates. And with that, that's my motion. I urge city council support and I look forward to the conversation. Thank you. And if we can go to public comment, that would be great to. Have counsel Boston Public comment first. Okay. Let me go to public comments. If you're going to make a comment, please come forward and line up at the podium. Thank you. There may be a lot. Of people on this topic there. Just to give you a heads up. My name is Michael Caldwell. I live in. The first district. Your income? Yes. Thank you. If I'm hearing that correctly. I would assume that that state that it would be wrong. For a. Landlord to request or require that a person needs three times the amount of. Rent just to. Qualify for an. Apartment. I've been on the brink of homelessness three times. I'm 40 years old. I have a job. I barely make $1,000 a month. I currently rent a small place in the first district. It takes a person 30. They need to make $30 an. Hour just to get by. In a standard two bedroom apartment. For a person like me, I would probably have to work three jobs just to have a place over my head. I had an apartment for 15 years on the border of Lakewood. I got booted by it from that. From that apartment. I was giving. Them money every week. I worked at Disneyland for ten years. I was behind on the rent. I gave them money every week. I gave, I gave, I gave. I could not give. I couldn't give anymore. I was I tried. Different. Programs. No one would no one would listen to me because one rule was I had a job. I wasn't homeless. I had I had a means to do it. I had to end up living in a motel across the street from the Long Beach Town Center for nine months. I hated it. They came by and they. Said, Why are you still here? And I told the truth. I had a fiancee. We had a nest egg of $25,000 in a bank account. We called up multiple people. We told the truth. We said, we have this money. We will gladly pay it. For one year's bit of rent. They said, no. You only bring in 1200 dollars a month. And we were devastated. I had to move I had to move out of Long Beach for a year. I hated it. I love this town so much, I did not want to leave. So I think the problem if. This initiative of yours, Councilman. Richardson, works and these landlords take out that requirement, it will greatly solve the problem. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. Council. City Council. I'll be brief. I love Long Beach. I chose this city 20 years ago to raise my children to live here the rest of my days. To. Just to enjoy the things that you have in the city. I'm now in trouble along with a lot of other people my age, our retired vets. My landlord has decided that he wants to raise our rent $300. All of us who live in that building on fixed incomes. We're disabled. We have our vets who've gone on to foreign wars for us and came home and most of them homeless before. And I'm asking you for your help. We voted for most of you, and we really, really are on our way out into the street. Our landlord convoy has given us until September 1st to pay that extra $300 or we're going to be asked to leave. We can't do that. Not at this age. Most of us have sicknesses. We have disabilities. Mentally, physically, emotionally. We can't afford to get put on the street. I've been homeless once for four years with my family. The reason being there aren't any policies in place for me. I worked. I worked hard. And there still aren't any policies to help me and my fellow people here. I live at 401 West Sixth Street. I've been there for four years. I don't want to move. I can't move. The only option that I have is for you to come to our rescue. We need for you to talk to our landlord and explain to him that we just want to talk. We have some issues that he'd be glad to hear. But he won't. He refuses. So I'm here to ask you to beg you. Please contact Carl Voight. He has nothing to lose and we have everything to lose. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. It's. The Gateway. It's okay. Oh, okay. Good evening, everybody, including you. I am here for one reason. I wanted to ask you just to protect our seniors. I am a senior. I'm 85 years old. So far, I've never been homeless. But the way. It's going, I mean, looks like I would be. But no, I will not, because I will fight and I will fight for anyone. If you would in the Institute rent control, these things could not happen. I live here. No, it could not happen. Okay. I live here totally in health. I lived in Detroit for 40 years. 41 years. I came out here because my family lives out here. Their children, you know. Anyhow, I go and find a good job for their children. A good education. And I want. All of the children of this area, of any area to be able to do it, not just to get except. Okay, maybe. An extra whatever it is that things I bought, you know, maybe an extra airplane. No, we cannot let it happen. We live in a state that has enough state, enough reserves. It's one of the most. Beautiful states that's just in the United States alone. We have to keep it that way. We have to let everyone know we are. Here to fight. And we will do it. Right now. My rent is like minded dollars. My Social Security is 1120 $8. This I'm like, okay, fine, because I have a little bit of net debt somewhere. I don't know all it's going to last, but I make it. But I want you just make sure that you whatever you can do. If it's lawyers, judges, your friends, please talk to him. Make sure. That we get read the. Control that you will put it on the ballot and we see who want to hold us. I want to thank you very much. Have a good one. Thank you very much. All right. Next week, a peace treaty. Honorable Mayor Eric Garcia, members of the City Council. And ladies and. Gentlemen, my name is Paul Harrison. I'm 67 years old and I've been arrested in Long Beach since I moved here. In 1962 with my parents. I grew up here. I went to school here. I married here and raised my family here. I'm a retired nurse after. Working in the field for 55 years. I'm currently active in my church and when my boys were younger, I was active in the Boy Scouts of America, the Long Beach Area Council. I am currently working to vote and probably voted for some of you in this chamber today. I currently live at 41 West Sixth Street at the Lexington Apartments. And I've lived there now for five years. I am here today to support your efforts. In providing funding for. More affordable housing for seniors. We baby boomers are the. Fastest growing segment of. This population as we plan for the future. Let's not ignore the housing problems of here and now. Today. Many seniors live at or below the poverty level. I currently bring. In 1100 a. Month. I am. Blessed to have Section. Eight housing. Other wise, I too would be homeless. As it is, it took me ten years to get on the housing waiting list to receive my voucher. Owners are becoming more and more reluctant to accept these vouchers. Now. What fewer affordable units there are out there. Now have a 4 to 5 year waiting list to get into them. I am here today supporting my neighbors to collect sound apartments. They have received a 30 to 50% rent increase. I have one neighbor who has lived there for 19 years who received a. $500. Rent increase. This neighbor became outspoken about this absorbing IT. Rate increase. And has. Received an. Eviction notice for his efforts. My neighbors living on fixed incomes cannot afford. To leave the U.S. apartment. I know of at least 15. People who are going to have to leave these apartments. If the situation continues. Some of them face becoming homeless. As was mentioned before, we have asked to meet with the owner, Mr. Kenneth Boyd. But to no avail. All of our police have fallen on deaf ears. Long Beach has plans for the future. We must also look. At giving tenants. Some basic rights. Thank you very much. Now some. Safeguards. It will be a revolving door and rents will rise uncontrollably. Natural evictions will go on unchecked. Thank you very much for your time today. Thank you very much for speaking to the next speaker, please. Hello, council members. My name is Ruben Lopez. I'm a Vietnam vet with PTSD. I live in Long Beach at LAX and apartments with all my other neighbors. On June 12th, I rent was substantially increased and most of us can afford the increase and we are all at risk. Of being homeless. We have tried to contact our owner, Kenneth Boyd, to discuss the possibility that some type of. Solution through HUD and we had no luck. So far. Me and my neighbor have had many ups and downs in our lives and we are in the. Process. Of being homeless. All of us are. Most of us. I served my country and now we need your help to contact our landlord, to sit down with us. And try to discuss a solution. To our rent control. People say that Vietnam. Vets are tough. They don't ask. For help or. Cry. But we need your help. Desperately. Really, desperately. Thank you. And God. Bless America. Thank you. Very good due to two suggestions. One, to engender cash monies for homeless people. One of the things that could tried is to eliminate a full time mayor and his staff instead of having what we have now. I don't know how many millions it's costing us and put that toward housing. Number two, something I've referenced before in a very serious about this for our veterans. There was an article posted and there have been several articles posted in the paper. They're called pod houses. They were very impressive from the outside and from the inside. I think I've sent some some of you pictures of them. And what I'm suggesting the city do is down in the Marine Stadium just north of eight end, which is the building that is being rebuilt. It has the sign Marine Stadium. There's ample room to put there. Three of those pods were veterans. Who are currently undergoing treatment up at the VA hospital or at the point where they may be six months away from going out on their own. So that will be an excellent transition place for them. And it's easy to get to particularly those that have motorized vehicles to bus stops are relatively close by. But I think that's something the city should consider. And again, I'm very serious when I say we eliminate the costly full time mayor, his humongous staff, and the millions that are spent traveling back and forth here and there trying to build his political career. Long Beach survive very well without the full time paid mayor. Even when we had honest mayors. Thank you. Oh, Tokyo. Good evening. My name is over at Stewart. I live at the Lexington Apartments and I didn't pull it up. Good afternoon, Mayor. And Council people. Members. I'm sorry. I'm 86 years old. I've lived in Lexington Apartments at 41 West Sixth Street for the last six years. I retired from Lockheed after 38 years of service. Excuse me. Moving would be extremely difficult for me at my age and my physical condition. And if the rent has gone up, like the colleagues before me have said, you know, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. And the proposal that Guardsman Richard Husband award should be taken care of and done quickly. And I'm speaking a little bit off the topic now, because this is something that's been bothering me a little bit the last couple of months. But. The growing homeless population of the seniors or elderly. I don't know. Which do we use now? I'm elderly, so I'll say elderly, huh? The Social Security Administration Cost of Living Increase Research Estimate. In 2014, we received 1.7% increase. In 2015, we receive zero increase. In 2016, we received 2.3% increase. 2017 increase was 2%. 2%. The year 2014, there was a slight increase in our. Social Security. To 2016. The 2015 increase was zero, which means there no percentage increase. The next increase was the 2016 to .03 increase was taken up by Medicare. The 2017 increase, which showed that $24 was taken up by Medicare, leaving me with a whopping. $5 a year increase. If you think about it now, you're talking about 13, 14, 15, 16, 14, 15, 16, 17. In three years, Social Security had my part had an increase of a whopping $5. That's a lot of money. Thank you. You can almost buy a tank of gas. Thank you very much. I'm very sorry. Okay. I ran out of time. There's a couple more things, but thank you. Yes. My name is Reverend Leon Wood. I'm the pastor at Saint Mark Baptist Church. And I first want to compliment you on taking this effort and bringing it to the table, because the homeless effort is really a serious effort. And I should I compliment you all for taking this and bringing it to the table? The couple of things I wanted to add to this, though, the homelessness is a very serious, but it's a multifaceted issue. There's some people who have been homeless for a long time. There's the new homeless, the aged. There are those who have mental deficiencies as all kinds of things. And we cannot use one particular. We can address it with just one issue. We have to address this in a multifaceted phase. I would suggest that we really have a planning effort that includes the faith community. When I say the faith community, there's many churches in the community that have space that could be used temporarily until we get the other parts addressed. I know that they say St Mark's, they have this entire facility there that could probably house several people. But we have to do this as a joint effort in the community. Right now, it looks like we're still not using the total resources of our community to address this major issue. And I would like to suggest that we begin to expand the people that are coming to the table, bring the entire community together because it is a total community issue and really try to work this through it. And I include the university. I put all the mental resources that we have to address this issue because it's economic, it's spiritual, it has all facets and you can't just solve it would just providing some housing, it has to be addressed in a total sense to eradicate it totally if we can. That's how I would look at it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Honorable Council members. I'm Annette Mazo at the Hamilton Neighborhood Association. My address is on file. We support Councilmember Rex Richardson's advocacy regarding homeless solutions proposed here tonight. Additionally, the impacted areas proposed are currently crime ridden, including but not limited to drug dealing, illegal drug consumption and sex trafficking. Transitioning these locations to a solution to help homeless and create affordable housing feels like a win win to me. Thank you for your advocacy empathy regarding all the issues included in this proposed solution. Thank you. Hi, Mr. Vice Mayor. Right down to the council and staff. My name is Gary Shelton. Along with only on word. We're both past chairmen of the city's Homeless Services Advisory Committee. We've gone to the. Depths of this issue many times over the. Years. You're going to be hearing a lot more about the folks from 41 West Sixth Street, the likes of an apartment building, the 45 people that are not going to be able to live anywhere once they exhaust their funds and can't pay those rent increases anymore and then get another rent increase maybe next year. We'll be hearing more about them. But what I wanted to talk about. Was, was the emotion. Initially. We talked about the opportunities for getting out of homeless, the. Opportunities. For early prevention, and their brass rings. In many senses that. We could grab on the way around the carousel. But if you don't know that brass ring is there, then you're not going to reach out to grab it. And I think that's one of the problems we have, is people who are facing the onslaught of homelessness in their own lives don't know what there is. That they can do. And the information isn't there. The education isn't there. The other is the core causes of homelessness. You recited them. They're common. But not everybody goes. Through those. Core common causes of homelessness. And ends. Up homeless. You have folks like the people at LAX Honor Apartments who, for no fault of their own, simply will not be able to afford to live anywhere there or probably in Long Beach. But I want. To address the. One motion part of your motion that you made. Which was. On finding a location and beginning the purchase of a homeless shelter year round homeless shelter. That's a great idea. And we've been working on something like that for years, in fact. What I want you to be aware of is there are two places in town where by right a homeless shelter can be built. But the problem with. Those two places is one. Of them is along the corridor. On Anaheim Street, near the multi-service. Center. Between there. And Santa Fe. And the other is at the villages of Korea. The village is a Korean model of shelter, does not include what we think of as homeless shelter, where somebody can walk up to the thing. And say. At 430 in the afternoon, find a place to be that night because they're stuck. The other. Problem is along the corridor. In the court. There on Anaheim Street. There's nothing appropriate there. There's nothing available there. It's just not. Going to happen. But the thing that will be. Faced if there's no by right siting of a shelter is NIMBYism. And that's what this report I hope will also address, is how do we. Get rid of these really deep down inside those issues? We don't know what to do if we're going to become homeless. We pretend it's not going to happen. So we don't find out about things. You know, we don't know how to reach. Out to something at a brass. Ring. We don't know what the causes are because people go through all those causes and don't. Become homeless. In many, many. Ways. So something's different about that. And when it comes to NIMBYism. Why in the hell does that happen in this city? Thank you very much. Thank you. Good evening, members of the council. My name is Nina Dooley. I'm vice president at Link Housing. We're a nonprofit builder of affordable housing and permanent supportive housing for. People who've. Been homeless. Our headquarters is right here in Long Beach in the second District. We're statewide, but we care about our own hometown and would like to do more. I want to commend. Councilman Richardson and others on the council for bringing forth these four motions, which we think will really make impact. I'd like to address one in particular, and that is creating a local source of funding for housing, and that would. Help us tremendously because having a local source of funds will leverage other, larger sources to come into Long Beach and build that housing. But we need that local source to be competitive and win those other dollars. So thank you for your leadership on that. And we hope to go forward with the fund. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Phillip Holmes. I'm a 77 year old former member of The Hunting for his Airborne Division. I got my apartment in Alexandria nine years ago through the VA's Vash program. You see these. Three people over here in these chairs? They are all living in Lake Zana. There are three other people in chairs in the building. If we are forced to move, it's going to be too traumatic on all of us. We got to come up with the money to move. We got to either put our furniture in storage or we got to pay to move in. Man. We need some help. And we're asking for. Thank you. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Sonia Andrew. I live at 317 East 60th Street and I'm here to speak from various perspectives. I have experienced homelessness. My teenage daughter and I were homeless. And I can tell you that we went through the Multi-Service Center. We went through two, one, one. I have house on me because I had a college degree, I was professional. And it just so happened that the economy in 2007, 2008 and some health issues hit me at the same time. So I found myself having to tell my daughter that if we have to take showers in 24 hour fitness and sleep in our car, we're going to make it now. Language is a beautiful place, but what's not beautiful, no matter where you go in this country, is when you drive along the street and you see tarps and makeshift tents and people sleeping on the ground and shopping carts. That's not beautiful. So I am standing in support of this motion to say whatever efforts you have to do, please do them. I want to also speak on behalf of the homelessness, and I'm going to tell you that dorm style shelters are not working, and it's not because people don't want help. But having been there, you don't want to be somewhere where someone is restricting your ability to live, to be told that your child can't be in extracurricular activities, she has to come right home, fails that because if you're in that situation, you're doing everything you can to hustle, to get out of it . So when you get into facilities that lamport rules on you, it makes it impossible. My dada, because I didn't capitulate to those rules, ended up going to Duke University on an athletic scholarship. So that extracurricular that I had to fight for sleeping cars in parking lots while she was at a neighbor or friend's house. We were separated at times because I didn't want her in the car with me. She made it, but she made it because we had to do things out of the norm. So it isn't a one size fits all and it's not always everybody's going to go into a dormitory situation. So you do need to give people the. Respect. Housing first, treat people like they're human beings. Just because you're down on your hard times does not mean that you're less than or have equal rights. Thank you so much. Thank you. Before we have the next speaker, I'm going to close the speakers list. The gentleman that's at the at the end of of the of the line, sir, he's going to be our last speaker. The gentleman in the in the black shirt and the dark shirt. Oh, you spoke, please. Yes. Okay. So, yes. The lady that's coming to the end of the line will be our last speaker right now. So let me let me go ahead and close the speaker's list. And the speaker's list is close. Mr. Butler. All right. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council as a member of the Mayor's Affordable Housing Task Force. Well, the first installment, I did not make the sequel. I hope to be a recurring member of the cast, but I hope that the series does not go on long. The community needs solutions and we're getting tired of the script. We know things are bad there, worse than bad. And we need solutions now. Well, we're moving in the right direction. We're not moving fast enough. And it would be foolhardy to believe that this is the solution. If a single thing could solve the problem for Long Beach, that'd be great. But at this point, we need it all. Inclusionary housing, a permanent source of funding, not just a bond as well as rent control and just cause eviction. It's absolutely appalling to me that Long Beach has no amount protections. Working families, seniors, veterans and other vulnerable citizens, many of whom are here tonight, are being given 30 and 69 notices left and right. Rents have skyrocketed. Credit checks are expensive and nonrefundable. Applications require prospective tenants to make 2 to 4 times the monthly rent to even be considered. People being forced to live in overcrowded conditions and are too afraid to ask for the most basic repairs because they could be kicked out for it. The only response has been, but cities like Santa monica and San Francisco have rent control and they're even worse. Like we don't know about Costa Hawkins and the Ellis Act and other pro landlord legislation. Rent control is the only reason many low income residents are able to still live in those cities. I'm sure the lobbyists for the landlords will say how much they support this. I'm sure they do. They would support anything but rent control and they'd be happy to pass the cost on to US. Renters. As they normally and. Typically do. And will continue to do without rent control in place. We also can't keep doing this on a building by building basis, but if that's what it comes to, we will continue to bring residents down here. Other organizations will continue to bring residents down here in the meantime, on which residents are being forced out of here while we're having this conversation and doing studies, 1000 S.E. vouchers are in the hands of Long Beach resident or former Long Beach residents, and they are currently unused. One of those people was my aunt. She finally got her voucher after years of waiting, only to find that she could not find a place to live and has now left Long Beach. We have a councilmember bragging about how much affordable housing lies in the district without mentioning how many of her residents have been forced to leave the district because their buildings have been sold, and the naturally occurring affordable housing that we've relied upon for years has now disappeared. There is no plan to build 28,524 units in the next 20 years. We don't have funding to build over 1000 units a year. We don't have anywhere to put them. Thank you, Mr. Butler. There is no plan to stop the bleeding, and the residents who are here tonight don't have time. So we need a sense of urgency and some action right away. Thank you, Mr. Butler. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Good evening. My name is Lorena. Kim and I work on economic justice issues throughout the county. Went to school for urban planning. And anecdotally, I also have a dear childhood friend that's been trying to look for a place to rent in Long Beach since October and has been having to commute an hour and a half each way on public transit to get to his job. So this issue is very important to me. And we know, as the reverend mentioned, how complex these issues are and how complex a solution is required. We know that to address these crises, that we must both increase job quality and job opportunities, as Councilmember Richardson has highlighted, tackle social issues like domestic violence, find ways to increase supply, as well as ways to stabilize rents, and critically to explore funding opportunities for permanent supportive housing and affordable housing. Also, because I work a lot on job issues and with the building trades, I would like to just underscore the opportunity that new housing could create jobs, especially given the projects labor agreement that Long Beach has. And this could be good union jobs that go to local Long Beach residents hopefully. So I would like to just speaking to support and commend this effort to address this complicated and pressing issue, to apply Councilmember Richardson and his colleagues for bringing this forward and for starting to dig into this complex and critical life changing issue and looking, especially adding the pieces mentioned tonight around income discrimination and innovative opportunities such as nuisance hotels. I know that's something the city of Los Angeles is also looking into and it has a lot of support from housing advocates there. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, mayor. City Council staff. My name is Brian Deandra. I'm with Century Housing in Century Village that cabrio. I'd like to offer a little bit of a different perspective on the matter at hand. Later this evening you're going to hear from some of my colleagues about the successes at the village of the Cabrio over the past year. And the city really should be very proud of what's been created there and its role in standing behind that model. But those successes don't exist in a vacuum. They are the direct result. Of a series of choices and investments and conditions that exist in the city of Long. Beach that have applicability to the matter at hand. I want to take a moment to reflect on a few of those conditions and talk to you about how they relate. First, unlike neighboring jurisdictions, the city of Long Beach has its own health department, its own Health and Human Services Department that has a dedicated continuum of care contract with HUD. The city has its own unified funding agency status. We have a multi-service. Center that serves as a front door to persons. Experiencing homelessness. We have our own police and fire departments. We have our own housing authority. We have a local VA hospital. We have dedicated elected officials and talented city staff that are working on this issue. And we have leadership. We have leadership and we have alignment across all of these resources. These resources represent critical ingredients. To tackling this issue and speaking to the many needs you've heard about this evening from. From our fellow residents. We have a strong system locally, but what we're short on is resources. These elements are the critical. Ingredients to tackling this issue. They're the reason that establishing a local source of revenue for affordable housing can be immensely impactful. And Long Beach. I've had the honor of serving on the Mayor Study Group and on the current Everyone Home Task Force, and I'm very encouraged to see the dialog this evening. And we want you to know that you can count on us at century to stand behind these efforts. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council for carry that out with Libra. I want to thank. Rex Richardson for bringing forward this motion. And it's a bittersweet because we've been asking for this for years. So it's it's about time that it's finally coming due. I want to make three points around a. Local source of funding. One, definitely we need a robust funding source. And and this and two, it must be targeted and it must be dedicated funding targeted to those most in. Need, targeted to the. Extremely low and the very low income. If you look at the regional housing needs. Assessment and you look at the current development of the city, you'll see that there there. Is no equity in the development. That the city is doing. It's almost achieved over 80% of it's above moderate, moderate income level developments and about 15 or 20% of it's extremely low and very low income housing development. So this funding source. When it's when it's created, should be dedicated. So we are talking about equity here. We developed an Office of Equity. So I hope we're going to abide by that same. Sentiment and. Philosophy. And also, we shouldn't rush this. You you mentioned measure. Jason Measure H that that was a. Lengthy process and it was a very detailed. Measure and we should not rush this at all. We should do it right. We should include. Community. We should include the stakeholders. We should include everybody that we can so that we're making sure that we get this right. And as much as we need this boost in production housing and we know we cannot adequately address our houseless and precariously housed, we have to stop the bleeding. We have to stop the bleeding today. And there's ways that we can make it happen today. You introduced a suggestion Section eight discrimination would immediately house 600 people that are holding on to vouchers. That would end that would that can very well find themselves on the streets. So we're talking about prevention of homeless listeners. We're talking about prevention of people that don't have homes. These are the tenant protections that we've been asking for for years, just cause eviction and limits on annual rent increases. So, Mr. Mayor, you've come out publicly against that. So I want you to look these folks in the eye. I want you looked at the veterans, the seniors, the disabled, and tell them right. Now that limits on annual. Rent increases do not work. Tell them. Look him in the eye and tell them tell us that because those annual those annual limits on rent increases would be saving their lives right now and we wouldn't have to be fighting. So if you're not going to support that, I hope that your office at the very least. Can make. A call or send an email to the landlord, because we're already talking to HUD, we're already talking to the Housing Authority, even even nonprofit developers that are willing to buy that building. But we need to bring. That landlord to the table, and we need your help to do it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Next speaker, please. Mr. Murchison. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm going to take a different perspective on this tonight. You know, I haven't heard at. All from the business community. I haven't heard from the neighborhood associations across Long Beach. I haven't heard from the rental property owners. None of these groups that I'm aware of, some of them I represent. Some that I just. Know because I've lived in this community my entire life, are here tonight. The reason is, is that this I am just came up on the agenda. Yes. Councilmember Richardson mentioned that there's been long discussions. But it's the discussions. That have happened with other groups, not with the groups that ultimately are going to have to pay this revenue source that you all are asking for. Who are the who are the groups that we're talking about? You're going to be looking at a parcel tax. You're going to be looking at a property tax. You're going to be looking at uut tax night. I remind you that 40% of people that live in Long Beach are the ones that would have to pay that tax, not 60%. You take that into account. I want to give you some suggestions. Tonight to take a look at number one. Take your time in evaluating this. There's not a lot of time for city staff to take a look at this and come back. By the next counts mean August 7th, which happens to be the last council meeting that you can place an item on the November six ballot. That is not enough time to evaluate a tax that is going to impact 40% of the residents in Long Beach. So if you want to get creative with it, look at other taxes. I don't know. I'm not a tax expert, but how about a tax on movie tickets? How about entertainment tax? How about creating more tax on the airline tickets that you purchase? Something that doesn't get to the bottom line, which is a parcel tax or property tax on residents who have lived here their entire lives. Yes, I do. Understand what's. Going on with the homeless and yes, I'm with them to create more housing. I represent affordable housing developers. But what everybody is missing is. It's not a. Simple solution that can be done in. Ten days to determine. That you're going to put a tax on the residents of Long Beach that own their properties or the businesses that own their properties. We need to be very creative. We need to look at other options. That are out there. You have I am 16 on your agenda later on this evening. That's another personal tax that the County of Los Angeles is contemplating putting on November ballot. Need I remind you, residents of Long Beach that own their homes are going to have to pay that parcel tax. So it's just one thing after another of these taxes. Let's get creative. Let's look at different ways to approach this. It can't be done in the eight or ten days you have until August 2nd, August 7th. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor City Council. My name is Mark Garrison. I lived in Long Beach off and on most of my life. My brother and sister graduated from Long Beach, Jordan and in the nineties I went to school to become a EMT and worked at a local ambulance company, Bower's ambulance company that was off of PCH and Long Beach Boulevard. As an EMT, I felt like I want to help people. And I've been to many of the hospitals in the area, Long Beach Memorial Community Hospital, etc., etc. But now I'm in need of help. I'm an even helper from a predatory property management company. That predatory property management company is named West Star Property Management. They own many buildings in Los Angeles, I mean, and Long Beach, and they're kicking out all of the tenants. I myself had high hopes for this company. They come in, they do some light repairs, paying over some. Things, but they don't dress any issues whatsoever. This company ignores repair requests, ignores mold, ignores groundwater. And they don't want us to live there anymore. So in our 12 unit building are kicking everybody out. I've gotten a 60 day notice for my efforts. I've talked to code enforcement. I file complaints. And the action that they've taken have been retaliatory. I have my day in court. Most definitely I will. But I don't think that these shady property management companies should be able to treat tenants like that. They went in so far as to change the lock on my. Mailbox. To restrict my mail access. I know it's not legal, but like I said, I have my day in court. I just want to issue a warning to everyone that homelessness is going to continue. If you allow companies like West, our property management, to come in. Purchase properties in. Long Beach and evict tenants out. I know of. Tons of buildings. That they own and they're doing the same thing to them as well. They must be stopped. Or you're going to have an. Increased amount of homeless in Long Beach. Thanks for your time. Thank you very much. Speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and councilmembers. Why? I am passionate about this issue. I have moved to Long Beach six years ago. I was attracted to Long Beach for the diversity, the dynamic energy, the older architectural buildings and the affordable rent. We call 2014 Chestnut Avenue our home, and many have resided there for 5 to 12 years and we are being evicted from our homes. Please tell me how it is morally right to legally evict residents with a mere 60 day notice for no reason. Many residents in the Wrigley area of Long Beach and I'm sure around other parts of Long Beach live paycheck to paycheck and do not and cannot come up with available funds to move in 60 days while paying monthly expenses. West Our property management has taken over ten buildings that are known thus far. That is over 159 units, which is potentially 159 to 636 residents that have been or we will be evicted. And we are confident. More Long Beach residents and community members are facing the same situation and are not speaking up. If Long Beach Mayor Garcia and members of the Council do not see this as a growing problem in your city, then we challenge you to show your financials. Prove to us that your pockets are not being mined by these slumlord property flippers. Thank you so much for your time. Hello. City elected officials. My name is not Roberto Lopez. I'm a community organizer with Housing Long Beach, and I've been working with the Pacific residents and the theater residents. And to be honest with you, it's disappointing to see that the fact that there's no policy being introduced yet. I like the motion right that's being introduced by Rex Richardson. But just so you know, Teresa Harris spoke here and her daughter spoke here. Another homeless, Victor Chacon, is a week away from being. Homeless and the. City residents are going to court next week on Monday and my time working on housing Long Beach. I've been there for seven months and I've. Seen over. 100 families get evicted from their homes. And where are they going? Some of them are on the streets right now and nothing's been done. No policies being introduced, nothing's been done to save these people. Residents have been living in this neighborhood, in this city for the past 30 years, past 25 years. And yet they're being. Pushed out and. Nobody's doing anything for them. The organized effort only goes so far. We've been able to delay some of these evictions for four months, five months. But we need policy now. And we hope that, you know, as a city, elected officials do take action and defend these residents. Maybe it's not affecting your district right now, but as soon well people are going to your. Districts being pushed out from District. One to District nine, and that's what's happening with some of the city residents right now. Thank you. Good evening. Elected officials. My name's Edith. I was born and raised in Long Beach, specifically in District one, and I moved away a couple of years ago to complete my master's degree in business and public policy. And I was fortunate enough to have a fellowship, paid fellowship this summer with Housing Long Beach. And like Mayor Garcia, I, too, took a tour of Long Beach. But guess what? It wasn't the pictures he showed on Twitter, because I've been talking to my family, I've been talking to my neighbors. And what is happening here with this housing crisis? It's fucked up. It really is. It's messed up. It's immoral. I can't believe I was excited to come back to my city. But what I'm seeing, it's really sad hearing everybody here talk about the problems they're experiencing. I mean, I myself, I am fortunate that I got a stipend. And with that stipend, I'm helping my parents this summer pay for the rent because their rent has gone up almost 700 bucks in the past couple years. And that's just something that cannot continue. We can't be pushing families away. We can't be separating families. So I understand that this policy talking about year round homelessness, that's great, but that's a future thing. What are we doing now? We need a policy now that's going to prevent families from being separated, that's going to prevent families from keeping being pushed away. So that is what I what I am here to ask you, what are we going to do now? Because even students like myself who have gone away for a couple of years as a first generation student to complete a degree and now plan to come back to their town where they were born and so they can help their communities. I don't even know if I can come back and do the social justice work that I want to do in the city of Long Beach, where I was born and raised. So the question is, what are you doing now and not in the future? Thank you. Good evening. My name is Suzanne Brown. I'm a senior attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. We want to thank the council for considering this item. We strongly support a dedicated local source of revenue for affordable housing. As with any policy, details are critical. Therefore, we offer the following recommendations to the City Council. First, the city should identify a robust funding source. Our housing crisis is at an epic level. We have nearly 2000 homeless persons in our city, and the Southern California Association of Governments has calculated that we need nearly 3000 affordable units by 2021 to meet the housing needs of our extremely low, very low and low income residents. Second, any revenue source must be coupled with specific income targeting to ensure that it benefits those most in need. Many of the very people that you've heard from today, Long Beach, should look to the recently passed measures by the city and county of Los Angeles, measures H, H, H and H as models for income targeting and revenue creation. Long Beach should also be mindful of the immense opportunity to leverage the county's Measure H funds. Measure H includes $355 million over ten years to address homelessness and homelessness prevention through wraparound services, not construction. This money is largely targeted to extremely low and very low income households with a small portion for low income households. Third and finally, Long Beach should take the time to get this right. We do need action, but we need robust legislation that will address our needs and we need the right folks at the table to get the right policy for our city. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to partnering with you on this endeavor. Good evening, council members and everybody. Thank you. My name is Christine Pettit. I'm a sixth District resident and I'm the executive director of Long Beach Forward. I didn't plan to speak tonight, so my comments are more on the spirit of the matter rather than the technical details. But I really want to ground my words and the experience of the renters who spoke tonight and to the people whose names we heard, who came and spoke here, and our homeless and those who are on the verge of homelessness. Because to me, that's really the important message, is that we talk a lot about how we value our diversity in Long Beach, but what are we doing to really support that and to retain the heart of our community veterans, seniors, LGBTQ youth, people on fixed incomes, low income families, everybody who makes up the fabric of our community. I definitely want to support the efforts that were introduced tonight by Councilmember Richardson and your colleagues and just really want to reiterate reiterate the point about the local source of funds. We definitely need that we've been advocating for for a long time. It does need to be targeted to low income residents to ensure that if we're trying to address homelessness, we're really addressing homelessness. And also, I just want to encourage us to be real in our conversations. Addressing homelessness is an important step. We also need to prevent this. We also need to address homelessness prevention, and that includes tenant protections, protections for renters. And when I say we need to be real in these conversations, I'm saying that because I'm on the mayor's Everyone Home Task Force. And we were recently presented with a report looking at how cities have approached tenant protections beyond what is there in the law. And I was really happy to see things like just cause eviction in that report. But one thing that was missing and it was glaringly missing was limits to rent increases on an annual basis or rent control or rent stabilization that was missing. It wasn't discussed anywhere. And that's because I know there's opposition to that by our mayor, by the council. But we need to be able to have honest conversations, but look for everything on the table and say, hey, you know, if we're actually looking at this issue, this is one of the top issues, a top strategy is that cities are using to address tenant protections. And so we need to look at all of the information. I really just want to impress upon us that we need free democratic discussion of all of the issues. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and the City Council. For the record, I am a gentleman, in part because I grew up here in Long Beach. My name is Dave Chappelle and I'm a resident of the third. I'd like to counter the idea previously expressed that we haven't yet heard from the landlords, the people who are going to be bearing the unbearable costs of not having homeless people in our town. The issue isn't the 40% of folks like my parents and other people you don't speak for who aren't creating the problem. It's all the out-of-town capital or the out of town landlords, people who don't even bother to show up when there are hearings like this. Who are you speaking for, sir? Oh. We've heard plenty. From those landlords. These 30 and 60 day notices. On what basis? Retaliation. Pointing out code enforcement issues from a very old building. So seniors having to live in in, you know, I mean, we like to sell, you know, ourselves as all as, you know, people who come to this town on a vision of the city. But do we deliver on it? Do it. I mean, you know, it's the folks, you know, who came down the whole building came down to talk to you about something that's a result of policy measures that you didn't take up earlier and look like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, don't quit the club. This is not an easy job. I don't envy any of these people. I really don't. I mean, this is hard. And, you know, we're not going to penalize, you know, renters. We sure as hell shouldn't penalize them for trying to deal with the problem or, you know, landlords who seem to think that their freedom depends on someone else's unfreedom, which is a whole separate topic specifically for the dedicated local source of funding. It needs to be needs based. It can't just be. I mean, there are people who sleep in their Lexuses because they're homeless for a couple of months, you know, at the gym. I mean, we we need to deal with the enduring kind of roots of poverty. This has to have an equity focus. The process has got to be iterative. I mean, maybe putting it in front of the voters, maybe the whole idea all year of putting this behind the voters is an abdication of your responsibility, frankly. I mean, can't we have a rent freeze or something that you can just decide to do and just stop the bleeding? How hard would that be? I mean, what more data do you need and who do you need it from? I'll work for free and I'll get it for you. I'm serious. Put the RFP out tomorrow by ten. I'll fill it by four. I'll do it for free. What? Don't you know that you need to know to fix this? You've heard from me more than once. And I really don't like speaking here because I really don't think it's really my place. This doesn't directly affect me, but this is our city and it affects all of us. I mean, we see it, we drive by it. We have to live by we have to deal with the consequences of it every day. How much longer? My name is Tiffany. Davey and I live in the second district. I love the city and material in my daily life. I've had to speak here more often the past few years because of experiences I've endured in this great city. Not just in the past four years, actually, since I've been 18, I've worked really hard to take care of my family. I've been a caregiver for my mother for nearly a decade now. That was all of my youth. We faced homelessness many times. But one thing I have faced with the city more recently is when I've come to different points where I don't know who to speak with, they don't know who's listening. And folks can reach out to different departments and kind of end up in a circle for a very long time. And the city has been paying for something of mine for quite some time. And I feel bad actually for causing the city to pay more and more day by day, for what it had to endure. I've been a victim of violent crimes. I've said this many times, had to reiterate my story to many different folks, and it's something I haven't wanted to share with. My community have come up today because there's so many people here, especially who speak for other people who can't make it. Who don't know how they're going to make it through this moment. This is a very important time in history, and we all have responsibilities to each other and to these people who don't have many people showing up for them. I try to be a senior advocate, not just for my mother. But for people like me, just about every week who have new obstacles, they don't know where to go to, you know, close the resource. So there's. I'm grateful, you know, that we we seem to be moving forward. But history has done a number and it's taken much time and there's a lot of work that you all have to do. And there's going to be a lot more people who have many more issues than me. Growing up here, I have never seen this many people living on the street. I've I've been homeless twice now. I find myself in a precarious position as we speak. I just hope that when we do come to you and when we are seeking answers, you try your best to find them. I want to thank Patrick West's office for listening. I've had Janine so far. Listen, there's there's just more that we can do, because you're not the entire city. Thank you. Thanks. I'm trying to over to back to Councilman Richardson, then Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So first, I just wanted to thank everybody for the testimony and talking about these situations. Sometimes I get it. It can be difficult, but I appreciate all the different perspectives I hear on the topic. So I want to acknowledge a few things. So first, in terms of the timeline, so you know, everything, every example that we gave from those cities, those are comprehensive examples where policy meets revenue options. And they weren't rushed through. They were developed in a way that sort of people can come together and figure out what's right for that city. And for that to happen in Long Beach, you would need a long process like that. Now, somebody came up and mentioned, Oh, you're rushing something through. Well, in order for something to happen this November, let me just clarify. Number one, there would need to be a special meeting next week. That's not in my motion to have a special meeting. So unless someone here at the council asked for a special meeting, at that meeting, the council would direct. We would get the options at that meeting and then direct the city attorney to come up with a resolution, all these other documents to be voted on at the following meeting. That's not in this motion. So unless somebody here brings that forward, that's not in the motion. So in case there's some misinformed, very heated, misinformed people that think we're trying to sneak something in. No, we're trying to bring up a conversation that needs to happen immediately. That's what we're trying to do here. Next. This is a conversation that will happen next. I get it about the conversation around tax burden. I get it. The process in California. You know, sometimes education bonds or have a lower threshold to pass and sometimes local measures have a different threshold to pass. And it's been a lot of measures. I get that. I completely understand it. But our democratic process allows us the process to put certain questions to the people. And there are more than one option. It does not necessarily have to be a parcel tax, a bond. There are a number of revenue options. Well, we're asking city staff to come back, is present to us those options so we can begin the process of picking one and moving forward. All of those conversations will happen next. We don't have a date in front of us. That will happen next. So I want to I want to just just clarify that, you know, to do something like what we showed today, it would not be the 20 there would not be time to do that in the November ballot. If the council wants to choose to move forward with something, you still have that ability, which is why we did the timing here. You have that that ability. But I don't I don't you know, unless somebody makes a motion that's not that's not what's in front of you tonight. What's in front of you is what we talked about. Begin the conversation on revenue. Take a look at the shelter. Take a look at motel conversion and take a look at our anti-discrimination policy. That's what's in front of us tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you, Rex, for for clarifying that. And I want to thank you for also having the courage and thoughtfulness to bring this forward in the way you have. I will also want to thank the residents who spoke this evening, shared their perspectives and stories. They're very moving and touching, especially those affected by by, you know, major rent increases. Most recently, this this is the homelessness in our affordable housing, obviously still is the issue of the day. And for this council, I think it's it's our responsibility to have it at the top of the agenda and keep the conversation going and look toward policy solutions that make sense for our city. I want to just just really end with in terms of homelessness, we have been working and we we we we are looking for answers as a council. There's no nobody who has a silver bullet or a magic touch. The cities that have been identified that have made their made policies toward local funding sources are cities that still have serious homeless and affordable housing issues as well. The County of Los Angeles, the city of Los Angeles County of Los Angeles has over 50,000 homeless individuals, people facing homelessness. The city of Long Beach has 2000. We we still have effective programs in place. And obviously, one homeless person and one person facing facing housing insecurity is too many. Recently, the state legislature and the last hour, our advocacy on this council as well we were able to get those in the state budget when. Wall of how much money? 12.5 million. Approximately 12.3 million. 12.3 million. That was realized just a few weeks ago. Measure H was passed when? A little over a year ago. That is we'll get how many how much? KELLY It's currently about $3 million of services into Long Beach. $3 million in services in Long Beach. But I think there's a lot more that'll be coming behind that. But the point is, these moneys and these these dollars are have not had an opportunity to actually even hit the system yet. And there's still a lot I would just say to to I'm not going to say people be patient, but bear with the staff here, the city here. We are working to to end the council to to to get get those those resources where they need to be and to to to tackle this problem. That's several million dollars that that we have right now that we have to put to work the the the issue before us. An item being discussed is developing even another local source of funding that can be helpful, that can be leveraged to improve everything across the board. And I think it's one that we need to have, but I'm glad that we're also being realistic in terms of approach in that it may not make it to this this ballot. It may require a special election. It may require and is definitely going to require a lot more community input. The item before us asks staff to come up with a strategy. Right, and to come back in a week or two with the strategy. And that's going to be two weeks, I believe, with the strategy to do that. Now, I would say that they've been developing and working toward a strategy already. And so that will be unveiled and we'll have an opportunity to to hear about that strategy and discuss that the strategy and determine priorities as a city council. But this is a going to be a process, and this is what governing is. Nobody has the automatic answer I've heard from we've heard from many people here. If everybody if somebody here has the magic, magic answer, then then, you know, they should probably be sitting here. I don't think any of the policy solutions that have been thrown at us or this council have been criticized for for not moving forward with is the the panacea to the issue that we are facing. This is a challenging issue. And I appreciate Reverend Wood for his comments. We have had some some conversations with clergy and community around this. This is not something that anybody and I can tell you that myself, I'm not taking this lightly. Rex brought this issue to my attention a few days ago and asked me to sign on his support. And I'm absolutely happy to support this because this is a conversation that we need to be having and we need to be like I said, it needs to be on the forefront of every one of our city council members minds. And I can tell you that it probably is. You know, aside from the public comment members here today, we all hear from constituents on a daily basis. People are contacting our office with challenges and problems and we are challenged to to to come up with solutions and provide resources. And I can tell you that this issue is one that vexes me and causes me sleepless nights on a on a daily basis. This is something that is very important to me. So probably one of my script a little bit in saying that. But I think a local source will allow this this the city greater resources and the ability to help control his own destiny. When it comes to the issue of homelessness and housing insecurity, I'm glad that this conversation is is before us. And I am looking forward to hearing from a comprehensive strategies from from our city staff moving forward and in continuing this conversation, but also moving toward action and solutions. So thank you very much, Rex, for bringing this forward. Happy to cosign on this and look forward to working with everybody moving forward. Thank you, Councilman Austin. I do have a lot of folks that are queued up to speak, so I'm going to make a few comments and then turn it over to Councilwoman Price. So I want I really just thank the authors of the motion. Of course, I think this is important, and I want to just go back a couple of steps and then go over some of the items that are in front of us and then talk directly to a local revenue source as well. So the first thing which I think is important is and it was mentioned a few times today. Is the conversation of a local revenue source isn't a new conversation. In fact, it was first proposed by the Affordable Housing Study Group that proposed a variety of recommendations for the Council to consider there. I would say that most of those recommendations are all moving forward and we've been getting regular updates on the status of those. I think obviously people are aware of our community work right now with Airbnb process. I think the inclusionary zoning ordinance, which were I think a lot of us anxious to get in front of the council for a debate on that I know is being worked on and is currently in the process of being developed as well as other issues that are going to be before the Council in the next in the next few months. The bond the bond issue was clearly spelled out in that report as either a bond or a local revenue source to provide funding for affordable housing. That's something that was discussed with a lot of members in both, not just the advocacy community and the housing community, but also on the property owner and business community side. So I think a lot of people have talked about that, that funding piece. Let me also say that staff just a few months ago presented the council with a very lengthy report about what a bond could raise for the city and what other local revenue measures could impact the the ability for us to build more housing. I think we have to be very honest and remember that the city lost its main source of funding affordable housing. We used to have redevelopment that built a lot of affordable housing. We no longer have that. And I think at times asked, why isn't the city itself building more affordable housing? The city doesn't build housing. The city is not a home builder. Every unit of affordable housing that we build is subsidized by the city. The city subsidizing that, whether it's through local grant, federal grants or state grants. And so we build as much as we're able to get in subsidy. And so for every affordable unit that we build and all this and all the affordable units that we build are rent stabilized units. There are 7000 rent stabilized units in the city of Long Beach or rent controlled units or whatever you want to you want to call those units. Those units are are most of them in perpetuity or have long multi-decade covenants on them? Because we are we are paying an annual subsidy so that they stay and remain affordable. I think there is wide consensus that we need to have more rent stabilized units in Long Beach. Think most people have said that and we're working on expanding those types of units across the city and we build those and we're continuing to build. There's about a thousand of them right now that are under construction in and around the downtown and across the city. And so we work and continue to work on those on those units as it as it relates directly to should the city look and work with the community to find a local source of revenue to fund more affordable housing? I mean, the answer to that is my opinion is absolutely yes. And we should be working with everyone, all of the partners that came forward with us today, but also those that spoke. When you when you put measures like this in front of a community, you have to bring everybody to the table. You don't pass things without some kind of community conversation that involves all the all the effective people that are going to be part of this this type of campaign, an effort that would need to take place. I've heard from a couple of people that the city shouldn't, not tonight, but those that have some folks have called me that the city shouldn't pass on or the city should tax folks. And just a reminder, the city doesn't we don't tax anybody. The only the taxes that pass the city are voted on by the voters. And so this council doesn't go and increase someone's tax or or do a partial tax. There's only decided by by voters in the city. And the city continues to work on on a variety of items, particularly when it relates to homelessness. I want to mention, I think this is a good discussion. It's one that I that I completely support. But I want to also mention there's a lot of work happening in this area. And I know that for some folks, it's not fast enough and it's not I don't think it's fast enough for anybody on this council. But the work that's happening on the Everyone Home task force that have now met on a couple of occasions is going to produce, I believe and staff believes, some pretty significant recommendations for the city council and they are discussing issues around ensuring that people are able to stay in their homes. Issues on not just building affordable housing, but also issues around homelessness prevention. And we know that homeless homelessness prevention is is done first and foremost by ensuring that people that are on the verge of becoming homelessness have. Rent the ability to bridge that rent or to have rental assistance. They can stay in their homes and increase and to be able to increase the rent stabilized units that we discuss. So when it comes to the issue around tenant protections, that's something that staff have been researching for many months. They've been looking at best models from across the country. They're meeting and going to be meeting with with the with property owner groups. They have been meeting already with many of the housing advocacy groups. And that and that is going to continue. And those those recommendations are going to be in front of this body as the Everyone Home Task Force completes its work. And so I just want to make sure that we're all aware of that, as well as the funding that we just got from the state, which is a one time $12 million infusion to help us do the homelessness work. The we get annually, like Ms.. Colby said, about 3 million from Measure H. Is that right? Three and a half million? Yeah, it'll be about 3 million or so. So. So because of the the state funding, which was a piece of legislation that the the that the ten the mayors of the ten largest cities proposed to the legislature, that's an additional $12 million that we're going to get in one year, which is significantly more than we get annually from Measure H. So that's going to allow us to do some pretty exciting things like open the the permanent winter shelter, the permanent citywide annual shelter, do a bunch of other innovative projects around homelessness that this council has talked about. And I'm very excited about getting started on all those initiatives around homelessness. So we the last thing I'll say is one thing that we have charged, the Everyone Home Task Force is also identifying the amount of units that we need in Long Beach to create that are affordable and that are that that we have to create, that we can house every person that's experiencing homelessness in the city of Long Beach. And we know right now that's about 1800 people are experiencing homelessness in Long Beach and what that exact number is, so that we can actually set goals to build those amount of units annually. I think all those things will be will be important. And so I want to just take us through it because the staff's working really, really hard on this. And I want to ensure that to the staff that's here on this issue, that we appreciate the work and will continue working on this issue. That is the most serious issue that we face right now as a city. And so thank you. And Vice Mayor. Councilman Richardson, it's going to take me a while to adjust. Councilman Richardson, thank you for bringing this forward and the signers. And I want to turn this over to Councilwoman Price. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, for your comments. I agree with many of them and to Councilman Richardson for bringing this item forward and of course, to the Cosigners. I want to I want to thank everyone who came out tonight to talk on this topic. I think it's it's a really important one. But I'll be honest, I'm going to go into it a little bit more. I think there's two different issues here. And for whatever reason, they're merged together on this item. And I'm going to talk about why I think there are two different issues. Both issues are very important issues. But merging them together, I think, confuses the issue, albeit it might be politically advantageous to throw the word homelessness in there. I think the conversation we're having really should be about affordable housing and finding an ongoing, sustainable local source for affordable housing. That's a very separate conversation, in my opinion, than the very complex issue of homelessness, which I'll talk about in a minute. I want to thank Councilman Austin for pointing out the work that every single member of this body has done collectively and individually to try to address the issue of homelessness that we're seeing in our communities. We're all hearing from our residents in different ways. Residents and business owners, community leaders are coming at the issue of homelessness from very different perspectives. Some are concerned about the quality of life impacts they're witnessing. Some are concerned about the the the lack of opportunities or our ability to communicate those opportunities for services to the homeless. So together as a body, every single person behind this dais has been very, very actively engaged and involved in homelessness. It's this is a conversation about homelessness that started long before today. And one of the things that I think we've realized when we're looking at what's going on around the country and Councilman Austin said it beautifully, there is no silver bullet or magic bullet. I don't know the word he used, but there's been no answer that anyone has found. And every entity, every municipality is looking at homelessness and trying to chip away at the problem by looking at different long term solutions that we. Utilize. For example, one of the things this council studied was the possibility of implementing a social impact bond, which some cities have done, which is public private partnerships that invests in homeless individuals. Another is a homeless work programs that we're going to be implementing, hopefully in the near future in the city. But one thing that's for sure as we look throughout the country is that homelessness is such a complex problem that housing vacancy alone, free housing vacancy in the form of a shelter has not been proven to be a solution because you can't force people into a shelter. At some point there's got like, for example, in Orange County, they have homeless, really tent city type encampments that have developed all over. And yet some of their shelters, their free shelters still have vacancies because people aren't accepting the service of the shelter. Maybe the barrier to entry is too high. Maybe they're not at a place where they're looking for that. Even our own winter shelter here has vacancies and we have beds available. So sometimes the issue or many times the issue with homelessness is so complex and some of the speakers talked about it. Most often we're dealing with mental health issues. We're dealing with substance abuse issues. Many times when you survey the homeless population, for anyone who's gone on a homeless outreach right along, which I've had the opportunity to do several both here in L.A. County and also in Orange County, the individuals that you speak with will tell you that the impetus of their predicament started with mental illness or substance abuse, then loss of a job, then loss of housing or some variation of that. But it's never just an inability to pay rent, not never. Sometimes it's inability to pay rent. But a lot of the individuals that we see that are homeless today are suffering from a myriad of issues, one being the inability to pay for long term housing. So I think homelessness is a very complex issue and the shelter is one solution, but the shelter is not. The homeless shelter is not the same as affordable housing, affordable housing. And the city's commitment to affordable housing, especially in the area of loss of redevelopment funds, is a critical and very important issue, and it's an issue that I absolutely support. But to say that a local source is going to be dedicated to homelessness, but also to affordable housing, I think that needs to be clarified a little bit better if this is something that we're going to actually take out to the community and talk to the community about. My understanding, and this is really a question for staff, I heard Councilman Richardson direct staff to look for a permanent homeless shelter. But I swear, I've been having that conversation with staff for months. Staff is currently has been for months looking for a permanent homeless shelter. It's not an action that's being directed tonight, correct? Yes. That is something that we have been actively pursuing and something the council has been very active about and talking about. We had a very successful winter shelter program up on a on a site up in North Long Beach. I believe that's what he was referring to. So we interpret that as help understand how to move this item forward and get it funded. So do we have and I I'm grateful to have the opportunity to meet with our director of Health and Human Services for quarterly briefings. And I think at our last briefing, there was a discussion about as having funds available to purchase a site, as do we. Is that still the case? His term your maintenance. So we'll be coming back to it on the report on that. We do have some funds from the county to be able to to implement a shelter and do the operations. We are still putting together the final funding strategy on how to acquire the building. And then, of course, it's depending on what building we choose to acquire and at what price. So the state funding of the $12 million that's coming in, we think, will be a great funding source for a portion of that work in addition to other priorities. That's great. So when will we know whether or not the state funding that we've received will allow us to cover any funding gap that we have to acquire a building? Because operationally, the county is helping us implement the shelter. So purchasing a shelter we could theoretically do with the money we already have, right? Yes. It all comes down to really what building we're going to purchase and at what price, which is kind of part of a closed session discussion about, you know, those negotiations. So before we can say exactly here's how much we're going to be spending, you know, we want to make sure that we have an agreement on a property. Do you think that that's something that will be discussed by council in the next six months or so? Or do you think we're looking at a longer timeline just to kind of take a look at this item and how funds revenue sources would be utilized? We hope it will be much, much quicker than that. So we can as soon as we have some some news, we'll get into closed session and talk about, you know, specific parcels and properties. And at the next meeting, we can talk in general about, you know, some of the efforts that have been going on. Okay. Great. Thank you. I think a couple of my colleagues and some of the and the mayor certainly talked about several initiatives that have been passed in regards to homelessness specifically. And we are the beneficiaries of thanks in large part to the mayor's efforts and those of other mayors. We are the beneficiary of state funds. We're also the beneficiary of county funds through Measure H, which we've already touched upon. But I think the advantage that we have right now is we're able to implement some of these dollars and see what works and doesn't work before we come up with longer term proposals of where we want to invest money into solving the issue of homelessness. I think the Everyone Home initiative that the mayor initiated, that initiative is just now underway. I mean, this group is just now getting started. And I hope and I fully expect that they're going to come back to the table with some recommendations that are specific to homelessness, that address not just the housing gap, but also some of the other issues that make homelessness such a complex issue. Well, I think it's really important for us and I agree with George Rivera. I don't think he's in here anymore. But is he here? Yeah. One of the comments that he made is and I agree because I remember meeting with him about this early on when I took office about the need for local source, for affordable housing. And when we had that discussion, we didn't talk about specifically about homelessness because the issue of affordable housing is on its own. Absent the homeless crisis that we're experiencing as a state and as a nation, an issue that warrants its own consideration and its own deliberation and solution, and this is a conversation at least the entire time that I've been on council and many, many years before then, since redevelopment funds went away. I think it's important if we're going to have any sort of proposal about future revenue that we have. A very comprehensive and inclusive discussion that addresses all the different options and isn't something that is. I have to say this seems a little bit rushed and the part about it that seems rushed, as I thought and I've shared this with Councilman Richardson, that we were just going to be starting the discussion tonight. But when I look at the first paragraph of the item, it asks city staff. To report back at the next city council meeting on this very broad category, which is gaps in prevention, services and housing for individuals and families who. Are. Precariously housed or experiencing homelessness, as well as the costs and opportunities to address these needs. I guess my question would be for staff, because I myself have submitted items in the past around homelessness and been told that it's going to take many months to respond. Is this realistic for staff? Would you be able to come up with a comprehensive report that talks about gaps in prevention services and how housing for individuals and opportunities? And and how is that realistic in light in the context of all the other items that other council members have brought in the past? So. Councilmember that's a good question. We actually have been doing a lot of work in this area dating back to the Affordable Housing Task Force. We've been talking about the revenue sources for about 14 months when that first came up, and we've got some of that data already available. You know, we will do our best to come back on the seventh, at least to start that discussion. We think we can come back and talk about some potential funding strategies. We can give some sense of the need. I think you make a good point that to really dove deep into understand fully and, you know, the complexity of all of this is going to take some more time. But we understand the request is to start that discussion quickly. We have a lot of this information. It's a matter of compiling it, and then we'll let you know what we don't know and what we still need some additional time. And so this will certainly be a work in progress. We don't expect to have everything done by next Tuesday or the seventh by any means. Okay. And I guess my next question would be to my colleague, Councilman Richardson. Are you okay with that, knowing that there's probably going to be more information and we might have to flush out a little bit the issue of affordable housing versus homelessness? Absolutely. So. So, number one, I think they are linked. Affordable housing, particularly the lack of very low and extremely low income targeting. I think they are linked the three examples of revenue of options in those cities. Some of them have done a really good job at linking both policy to revenue, but it takes time. You know, in talking with city staff and preparing this, we knew that there was already sort of a number of sort of things prepared. But this type of report hasn't been requested to be heard in front of city council to start that comprehensive discussion. So I get it. If it seems like we're asking for a lot. No, we're asking for them to present what they've been working on for years and give them their day for us to talk about specifically. Revenue and revenue could address both affordable housing and homelessness, and I believe they're linked. We've seen examples that they're linked. There's ways to link them. There's ways to do dual measures. One addresses policy, one addresses revenue, and they sort of work together like Measure H and H in L.A. County, L.A. City work that way so we can have that conversation. So I think the timing, I think we're fine with in terms of this this conversation, there was I want to just say something about the shelter conversation. Yeah. Every year, the winter shelter, it's an emergency. And every year, at least the last like nine years it's been between District nine, District eight. And so with that history, there needs to be a little bit of buy in before council can for city staff can even really move forward on some of those conversations. So they haven't gotten that sort of direction from us before. And hearing that from me personally and specifically talking about evaluating former winter shelter sites, I think that needed to come out and be heard, particularly in front of, you know, North Long Beach residents, which, you know, I know that with sort of this history of NIMBYism Council offices really haven't been willing to step up and say, hey , I'll take on this fight, I'll take on that conversation. So so it comes with a little bit of experience in doing that. So I think that should be respected a little bit in this conversation. Absolutely. And the record should reflect you are very respected and I that that I appreciate you clarifying that. And just so everyone's clear, very respectful of the efforts of the districts that are willing to take this on. But, you know, I think it's important also, I've been telling my residents for about eight months now that we're looking for a permanent shelter site. So I just wanted to make sure that tonight wasn't the start of that conversation, which I'm glad that it's not. And I'm grateful that that you've brought that item forward and we're moving it even one step forward. I think that's fantastic. I do have a question, though, about the proposed revenue sources. I know council is going to come. Our staff is going to come back with something. Other than a bond is has staff thought about general fund allocation? Has that been something that's been discussed? So as we understand the item and really to combat an issue of this magnitude, we're really focusing on additional revenue. As you know, we go through budget processes every single year and there's a lot of things that need to get funded. And so in order to do something of this magnitude that we believe the issue is we we really think we should be focusing on new sources. We provided some information to the council in the past, and I think the last one was probably 2016, where we kind of did a PowerPoint and went through what are all the options, you know, what are the things that could be considered. And we actually went through that process of identifying those measures for the measure, and obviously we settled on a sales tax measure. So we are prepared to come back and show what some of those are. And and because of the magnitude of the issue, there's the ones that generate the largest amounts will be likely at the top of the list. Okay. And I appreciate that. And I know I know staff is going to go back and give it a really hard look and come back with different revenue options. It seems like we've done nothing but go to the voters with tax increases and additional revenue sources that are impacting them. I cannot imagine a situation where I would personally or that my residents would be looking favorably upon any additional revenue source that's going to cause an additional tax at this juncture. So to the extent that staff can be looking at things that don't impact residents in terms of an additional tax on property sales tax, anything that's going to hit people even harder, I think that would be very welcomed and a conversation that I think we could meaningfully have with our residents. But beyond that, if we're looking just on the heels of all the different increases that we have passed and asked voters to support, I personally, I don't want to be in a position where we're asking them to pay more into something, especially something that is really. Very. Preliminary at this juncture and won't alleviate a lot of. The concerns we have on some of the more complex issues that need more a more holistic look and development. So again, I thank you, Councilwoman Richardson, for starting this discussion and for allowing us to have an honest discussion where we are representing our thoughts, viewpoints and those of our residents in a meaningful way. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. Kelly, you had mentioned I've actually seen you at some of the county homeless meetings or your staff actually. And I really appreciate taking part in that. I think that one of the things that's really important to recognize is that the measure H is a local tax levied upon the entire region. And I think that earlier in the discussion we talked about that L.A. County is providing us $3 million. Yes. And that's this year's allocation, is that correct? Well, it's essentially it's essentially our annual allocation. They will go back and revisit. They're very specific to certain strategies. So just for people to understand the measure, H is not, you know, 3 to $3.5 million that that sort of is handed to the city to spend as we wish. There are very specific strategies in which it is which has to be spent, which include prevention, outreach, rapid rehousing. We also have funding coming in to the to the housing authority and then also to Pacific Gateway. And then we also have a $14 million grant that I read that we received for homelessness. Now we have five we have 12.3 million coming from the state of which about two and a half million of that goes directly to the city. And the remainder of it goes to the continuum of care, the city. Which is the city. But it has to be it has to it has to be engaged with community partners and others as part of the continuum of care and to a direct allocation. And that's separate from the other 25 million. But other 25 million, the. 25 million mentioned a minute ago, because I hadn't heard about that before. And that's that there's no 25 million or so that total a total amount. So this year a one time is 12.3 million, which is the 2.5 plus. The remaining nine is coming in from us, from the state and then from the county. We're getting between three and three and a half million dollars direct to the city for specific strategies. But we also can engage in other services with the county that they're providing through other through other resources. So those are the primary. And then every year through the in the continuum of care funding, we just received just a little over $8 million. And then we received other funding from the ISG and other sources that bring it to somewhere between ten and $12 million. Wonderful. And then have you attended some of those countywide meetings? It sounds like within the total pot of annual revenue for homelessness, the annual expectation is how many millions? 3.50 million is the total amount that measure eight is expected to generate annually. Annually, so 355 million. And of the 355 million. Not all of it has been set aside, but a large chunk of it has been set aside for housing. Is that. Correct? No. The measure h funding, actually only a very small amount is set aside for housing and is very much focused on services. Okay. So as a percentage, a small amount, but how much has been set aside for $15 million? Okay. 15 million. And is that concentrated right now? Because none of it is local? It's up in. I don't know whether significant. They're really focused on not buying it or not. They're really not using that funding specific to that. I don't know what that means. I don't know where that's being spent. But Measure H is very is housing funding that is passed by L.A. City and very specifically Daly City. And that one we're not a part of of don't contributing. To contribute to nor receiving benefit from act. But H eventually when measure A falls off, we will be a contributor to. H. Yes, in year seven through ten we will be contributing a half a percentage. And when we have a percentage. And when we become a contributor, we still won't have any formal say except for through the whole county process, we don't have any ability to navigate that and kind of pull it off to ourselves. We will continue to receive our current allocation moving forward with this, we originally sat on the measure h i, I remember meetings around and they identified 29 very specific strategies that they're not funding anything outside of those 29 strategies. And we're receiving all those funds that come through Continuum of Care, Housing Authority and Pacific Gateway are different amounts. The remaining is the work that we do as partnership with the county. And so that that. Clarification real quick it's pretty impressive important that language got any funding directly at all. So most cities in our county don't get any direct funding. There's a number of other funding sources. A lot of times they'll do, what, like a city revenue share. And this was not one of them. So Long Beach is receiving a direct allocation because of the continuum of care that we receive. We kind of wish it had been set up where every single city would get a portion of it, but it was really set up to be a a countywide structure and we were fortunate to get money out of that. And in those years that we become a bigger contributor, our. Local. Contribution will be approximately 25 million. A year. Because we're receiving 53 million on Missouri. A half of that percent would be 20 something million. So we'll be contributing. I see letter. Writing to calculate. It sounds. About right. So at the time there. Will be contributing 25 million receiving 3. Million. Well, I would say that would directly we're receiving for very specific service right there between three and a half million. We also are being supported for permanent supportive housing and all the other resources that they're providing as a regional as part of state. And so I have direct control over the 3 to 3 and a half million. We are benefiting a much larger share from the remaining resources around regional and local service provision. But where's that nearest local permanent housing available through that system? It's not permanent housing and that permanent supportive housing. So permanent supportive housing never and permanent supportive housing through the continuum of care. And then through that, we also have we also can participate in housing for health. They may or may not be work. They may or may not be housed in which they could be housed in other locations as well. Right. So it sounds like there are revenue streams coming in which kind of substantiates and talks through a little bit more of what Council and Price said and that each of these components of homelessness are still being tried and figured out and understood and. While I do look forward to hearing a more formal presentation from the city staff on all the things they have been working on, I also am very cognizant that in my meetings when I sit down with department heads, the long list of things that the council has asked for report back on this in 90 days, report back and this 120 days. Often those aren't even able to make deadline because the number of additional things that come up and the number of additional things we're asking for continues to grow. I've looked at that list before. I know that I've sat down with the city manager's office. I know that we're still waiting for some reports back from Councilwoman Gonzalez and Councilman Pierce's item related to our transportation options of letting people park overnight and the churches and all of these others. And so. Sometimes when I sit with individuals and talk through like I really want the council to address A or B or C, one of the things that I try to do is say, Well, here are the things that are in the queue for department or department B or Department C and where do we want to put this in terms of what's owed back to the council so that we can make good decisions? And so. While I do. Want to hear this, I don't know that there's an urgency for it to be. Next week. I would prefer. All the answers at the same time if that is possible. And so that would be my only comment. It is a large amount of complexity on multiple issues of homelessness and housing and all these different things. And I would love to have a full spectrum sit down of all of the different programs, including the ones that are not included in this item that have come to council already, that we're still waiting for reports back because those two are very complicated and complex issues. And so for. That, I look forward to. Hearing more from my colleagues on where to go from here. Thank you, councilwoman. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you, mayor. And thank you to the cosigners and leading on this, both mayor and and councilmember richardson. And it is i think what's happening tonight is that we all feel really frustrated. We all feel like it's time to stop the bleeding. I know that it feels like every two months we are tackling homelessness and we're tackling housing and it just feels like we're spinning our wheels. And it's unfortunately part of the challenge of this epidemic that we have. And that's what it is, not just for Long Beach, but for the region. And so, you know, I want to talk through a couple of things, and I think I, too, felt a little, you know, having to read through the item and say, okay, what are we talking about? Is it a dedicated source or are we talking about these other pieces? So I think it just raises that we do have a lot of pieces that need to come back. And to clarify what Councilmember Mongeau was talking about with Measure H, I think is really important for everybody to understand is that we don't pay into it now, but we do reap the benefits of it now. And it's not until the last three years of it that we would actually as Long Beach be paying in. And so while we have the 12.3 million, very small percentage of that in Long Beach goes towards developing housing. And so we absolutely need a dedicated source for affordable housing, for affordable housing. And that cannot mean that we to try to get something passed, that we deal with something that has moderate in there. We know in downtown Long Beach, we have the downtown plan and we've seen what that means. We've got 3000 new units coming on board and they're moderate. We've got 17 affordable out of that. And so we know that we as a city need to tackle this affordability issue. I know in my heart what we need to tackle is is renter protections. And I don't know what that looks like yet for us, but. I'm I. Feel exhausted and feeling like it's not going anywhere. And as some of you probably know, I'm a renter myself. I just moved. Trying to stay in my district is not easy. It wasn't cheap. It cost me $6,000 to move. And I don't have that kind of money. You know, it's I'm lucky that I had family to rely on to be able to do that move. And it's a month to month, you know. So hopefully this council lady doesn't have any crazy wild parties. We're going to tackle that later on. But I understand that struggle and my grandmother is 84 and she just got an eviction notice. Now this is in Texas, but I'm here feeling helpless and trying to help her maintain a home that we've had forever. And so these are real problems that have to be dealt with urgently. And I hope to have that conversation very soon, not just on the the general source, but what are we doing right away to try to stop that bleeding? And I expect, you know, the apartment association and everybody else to be at that table, but it's it's time to do something. I have a couple questions for a staff. We have talked about coming back with the motel item. I know that that was an item that Councilmember Richardson brought before this. I know that I have some of those motels in my district. I know we've had some conversation with the villages of Korea and their interest and that where are we with that report back or what was the next steps with that and the timing on that? Exactly. So we did a report roughly about two months ago, if memory serves out talking about the progress that we've made in in engaging the number of hotels and motels that were identified as the top priorities, we've done a lot of data analysis on, you know, to identify those five and starting to do strategies. One of the things that we're still working on is the amortization and kind of what that process looks like and how much would it cost or wouldn't it cost and and what are the options to do that? As we understand the motion today that was added, it's to look at a funding strategy. So we need to help identify, you know, if we were to get into the business of purchasing those, you know, what, what would that cost? And then how to turn those into permanent supportive housing. So that is something we'll do our best to calculate or at least give an update of where we are on the seventh with some more work to come after that. Great. Thank you for that. And then if staff could also give us a report on to know it's been a while and forgive us for not giving you a heads up, but the transitional parking item, we had brought that before council in my first year and we had a report back from you after the consultant. And I think there was a dollar amount tied to that, which was 200,000 or something like like that, if I'm correct. Do you recall. I think that's about right. It was it was it's very much connected to the ability to provide services and others within within that space. But I believe that's about right. Great. So we had to remind everybody of the process. We had brought together a group of clergy to sit down. They worked with our consultant that we brought on, and they were a group that was willing to open up their parking lots to what we called transitional parking instead of overnight parking as a way to make sure that we connect people that are sleeping out of their cars, which I have a family with a young boy, you know, a few blocks from my house is a grandfather and probably a seven year old that are sleeping in their cars. And we're out there trying to get them resources and they're parked on Broadway. And so to have a church that says We'll open up our lot as long as you're committed to being a part of the continuum of care is something that we don't have in the city. And we've had this conversation multiple times. So I would like to ask if when this item comes back, if we could identify also somewhere in our general founder in our budget that first 200,000 to make sure that we can move this along because it's been there and we've been waiting to try to find the other money outside of the general fund. But I think it's time that we pony up that money. So if there's a way for us to identify funds for that, I think that would be a great step in moving something urgently that can happen today instead of a few years down the road. Do I need to make a friendly for that for vice? I mean, councilmember, I. Support the item, but I'm unclear. Are you asking for them to put it in the budget? I'm asking for them when they come back with your item to it to see if there's some funds, if they can identify where some funds would come from for that 200,000. So everything that I made a motion on, I checked with them if this is something they can present. So I'm going to say the same thing. Is there something that you can deliver? Can you give us a status update on it? We can give you a status update. On the cost and the program. I think funding decisions would come at a later. Time budget. Deal with that. COUNCILMEMBER Thank you. Let me just make sure I'm done with my I mean, I think again, I think my last comment is, is on process and knowing that this is something that takes a lot of dialog behind the rail and asking my colleagues and the mayor to consider, you know, we've done a housing study before. When we've started at three are we started at four for us really to have those presentations and to understand what all the things are that we're talking about, similar to what Councilmember Price said, but that we aren't being rush to get to our next items. It's 930, almost 930, and we still have a council agenda in front of us. So to have a meeting where we're able and we're all settled in for the long haul to ask tough questions and what does inclusionary housing look like? How does that connect with our land use element? I, I added density on seventh street mainly to think about affordable housing and how do we get inclusionary housing there. And so how do these pieces fit together and what funding sources do we need? I think we're just having that conversation again really, really soon. And again, I think the renter conversation is something that I hope that my colleagues will join me in really tackling and not being scared of of of doing the right thing by our constituents. So thank you guys very much for coming out and participating and all the members that worked with Councilmember Richardson. We have a lot of work to do and it's going to take all of your guys help. Thank you. Thank you, councilman ringo. Thank you, marin. I want to thank my colleagues who have already spoken ahead of me. They brought out a lot of good ideas, a lot of good viewpoints and observations about this item. I think staff is being tasked to come up with a report fairly quickly. And so I think that whatever it came up with, it's going to be preliminary as I see it. And it's nice to see this whole issue. It's very, very complex, it's been said. But I look at it as from a perspective of being a holistic approach to dealing with with this whole issue of homelessness and affordable housing and as well as, you know, meals and all that. Bottom line is, is that we are in a in a crisis. And I think this is the first time that I can recall that we're having such a robust discussion on homelessness, whereas Ms.. Sherry Bruce Hart, we need her. You know, she's up here every every council meeting for the last couple of months. She's talking about that. We don't address homelessness here. We are. So in in her, surely we're talking about you. But at the same time, you know, we look at that at the fact that we we do have this crisis. About a month ago, I had a discussion in my district regarding homelessness. I had the the city prosecutor come in and make a presentation, as well as as representatives from our from our homeless bureau also came up and in and the question was asked all the answers questions was asked and the question was asked, well, what are we. Doing that is. Are we looking at other jurisdictions? Are we looking at other municipalities or are we looking at other counties to get their ideas in terms of what is cutting edge from them? And the response was, we are on the cutting edge. So Long Beach is ahead of the game in in a lot of respect. And I want to thank Brandy Diandra, who's here today and make a presentation and a little bit for what's happening in that village is at Cabrillo. I mean, that is a really a state of the art facility that is addressing homelessness from many different angles, not only in terms of housing, but in terms of services as well. Looking at that, again, that holistic approach of addressing this issue, because they provide not only housing, but they provide employment guidance, they provide personal counseling, they provide other types of guidance, as well as some mental health services to address these individuals who are not only experiencing homelessness, are about to experience homeless, but also for the chronic homeless and the and the mentally ill. Just next next week, we're going to be having a ribbon cutting for a behavioral health center that's going to be opening up here in Long Beach. So we're increasing we're addressing these issues about homelessness and mental housing and how they all relate. So it is a holistic approach that we're dealing with this. And I'm and I'm glad that we are finally having this very open, honest discussion about the whole issue of homelessness, because, I mean, it's been it's been the big elephant in the room for a long time. My colleagues, I know we are we've all been addressing that in our own way and in trying to respond to. The concerns of our constituents when they see homelessness over the freeways and the underpasses in their neighborhoods and in the parks. But we've been addressing it individually, too, and I think this discussion is really bringing it to roost in the sense that we really need to approach this issue from from a total totality of the perspective. And even if we have to bifurcate homelessness with affordable housing, we can do that at a certain time. But right now, I'm looking at it as part of a holistic approach that we need to address at all, all at one time, so that we can really, truly identify what are the issues that we're being faced with and how we can address it. We know that homelessness didn't have the homelessness issue that we have here today. Didn't happen overnight. It came. It's happened over a number of years because of what's going on in our economy, what's going on with our building, what's going on with with with our with our own city, in the fact that, you know, we're built out . There's no opportunity for a new land to to get some some some new housing. But we can build up and we can repurpose and re configure some properties that would be able to provide that opportunity for affordable housing. So I'm looking forward to to the report that stack comes up with. And of course, it all costs money. And so by finding those revenue streams as to how we can raise enough funds to to do that would be the that would be the key to this whole factor. So looking forward to report and I'm glad that the Councilmember Richardson brought this forward because we do need to finally come out in the open with this. Let's be honest to ourselves. Let's be honest with our residents in terms of what realistically we can do to to approach this problem and and and get people housed and properly serviced. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Spano. Thank you. I have a question about the PowerPoint presentation, and I don't believe it was part of the council agenda package unless I missed something. So when I first look at the item, that PowerPoint was not included. Okay. So I think I saw things in the PowerPoint specific to Seattle that are in the agenda item that I originally read in preparation for this. So it might be in the spirit of the motion, but I wanted to clarify it specifically, and that is, I think that one area where we can bifurcate the issues of affordable housing versus homeless housing would be in this need for mental health services and substance abuse. And well, that was specifically mentioned in the PowerPoint with Seattle. I think it's in the third paragraph under discussion in the agenda item. We lost several things on on on homelessness, you know, robust prevention strategy funding, training, employment opportunities, strengthening family dynamics, reducing domestic violence, ensuring greater access, connection to physical and behavioral health services, but nothing in there on substance abuse. So I don't know if that's a friendly if that was in the spirit of what you want included the maker of the motion. But that would be kind of a deal breaker for me if that's not included because I don't really think it needs to be included. Conversation is at the next conversation is when we start like this is the beginning of a larger conversation and the next meeting is where we can throw everything in. So thank you. So it was specifically mentioned in the PowerPoint, so we're not taking the PowerPoint. Literally, it's abuse. And I don't want honestly, we don't need to load up this motion with everything. So if it makes you feel better to say yes, homelessness and substance abuse, that's fine. Well, it's it's what's in your PowerPoint. So I'm just saying, if it's it's a contributor, like all these things contribute to homelessness, substance abuse, domestic violence. There could be a lot of things. I just don't think it needs to be loaded up in the motion. But if you want that to make sure we keep a lens on that, I'm fine with that. That's not a problem. Okay. Thank you. And I just want to clarify, behavioral health is mental health and substance use combined. So mental health issue. So whenever we talk about behavioral health, we we're talking about both as a common definition. Okay. Thank you. And what I was trying to say that it it appeared from the PowerPoint to the motion here that there's no commonality of there's different terminology use. So thank you for that communication my office put together. The PowerPoint is just examples of what other cities have. Not the prompt, but thanks. Give you a copy if you want one. Gonzalez. You're up. Thank you. I think this goes in the Guinness Book of World Records for one of the longest policy discussions. But it's a very good discussion. And I thank Councilman Richardson for bringing it forward and colleagues for signing on. I'm very interested to see where this goes in terms of the framework and the flexibility that we have as a locality to really articulate the critical needs that we have. And I know we know what those are, and I think Brian and Renee and all of the advocates for being here, because really it's it's your work that we amplify and we really appreciate you coming forward, showing us your social impact study, which you will be doing very soon in talking about the real needs that we have here in the city of Long Beach specifically. So I know we've kind of taken this in different directions, but I just want to hit one point, you know , in downtown and I've been you know, everyone says, oh, why do you always say 1800 units in in District one? Because it's true. We have 1800 units of affordable living in District one. And I make that point because as we talk about a housing fund or I'm sorry that a separate local resource for housing. Absolutely, District One will always be a yes to affordable housing. And when we say affordable, that's very low income. In fact, we have developers that are looking in central Long Beach, a portion of the district for homeless individuals, which I think is just fantastic. And the residents are excited for that because there's a new activation there. But specifically with the downtown, with 324 units of affordable and downtown, 214 of them are in District one, which is great. We're also home to the MHRA, the MSI, the COA, the second Samoan Church, First Congregational Long Beach Rescue Mission, Beacon of Hope. We've hosted the Winter Shelter. We have hosted location points for people who need shelter rides. And we're extremely welcome to to this conversation. But I also want to make sure that we have an equitable distribution of affordable housing throughout the city, because we know that it's very important that we do. And I hear today that my council colleagues are open to that challenge to ensure that we are extremely equitable in L.A.. I know Councilwoman Nury Martinez brought forward a they set a goal, very ambitious goal for 3300 by 2020, and that every single council could hopefully bring forward 220 and originate 220 affordable units. Now, might sound crazy, but it's just an idea to put out there because we do need to establish a local goal goal, and I think we need to be very aggressive with that. We have also put forward keeping senior covenants and especially covenants that are due to expire places like Plymouth West that we know are very vulnerable seniors in downtown that are scared of what, you know, that the new market is bringing. And we want to make sure that we're keeping that. And I know Patrick Carey has been helpful in making sure that we're moving and checking along in those on that issue. Another point I'll make, just to include perhaps and to think about, I don't think that we've clearly established this when it comes to affordable housing or just individuals experiencing homelessness. I know the other cities are looking at accessory dwelling units and incentivizing property owners for accessory dwelling units and perhaps providing another opportunity for people to to live there. So that's another thing that I will say lastly to the residents that were here. I know they just left for a one with sixth street Oxana into my office has actually been in contact with Jorge eight. Libra you forgot to mention us, but that's okay. We've been working with you. We also have been working on ninth and Pacific as well with housing Long Beach. We worked with them extensively as well. So I don't want to create a message that this office or my office or the city council is not willing to work with individuals. We know we don't have a a policy on tenant protections currently that is like stark that you can see that's tangible. But we are absolutely piece by piece, unfortunately at this time working very directly with residents to ensure that they know what their rights are and offering and working and trying to negotiate with property owners to the best of our ability to make it fair for for both sides. So we're doing what we can in the best way we can, and most importantly, with the best interests of our residents. So thank you all for being here. I love that this has been a comprehensive discussion and we look forward to more discussions on this. Thank you, vice mayor. Thank you, Mayor. You know, first of all, I'd like to thank Councilman Rich for bringing this item forward. But I believe that this is among the biggest challenges facing the city, and we cannot address this problem alone. This is a need for Washington, D.C., Sacramento, to help us create a solution to all of this. I think we need to build new housing that is affordable for our seniors, working people and people with special needs. I think the key to building new housing is how to bridge the financial gap. I think affordable housing development needs to see the path to build new housing. I think we as a city must eliminate that path. And I'm sitting and watching people and listening to you. And I know you were saying when? How soon? And that's. Are you here all night? And when we finish, we just. It was just a conversation. So where do we go from there? We'll be back again. You guys are looking for something. A place for me homeless to live on this day. And we can't do it by just talking. We got to start something and get it done now. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. Mr. Mayor is wanted to close it out with a couple comments. So so first thank you to the city council members for for speaking up and reminding everybody all the work that everybody's been doing on this. And and we do want acknowledge that work and it's important. The intention here just to refocus. You know, it doesn't take away from anything anyone else is doing. And we want and we like a lot of those ideas. But, you know, the conversation on revenue has been sort of absent on our side of the council. I know that the community, the Affordable Housing Task Force, has talked about it. A lot of folks have talked about it. But it's time for the city council to really talk about it. And talking about revenue is a conversation with the T word sometimes, and it's difficult for elected officials really have that conversation. So I'm proud that we were able to get through this first conversation about revenue. And I know it's difficult. We all have districts, we all have political leanings, but we have to have that difficult conversation about revenue. The other three pieces that were added in the idea here is we're moving from one place to the next. The hope is we move from one place to the next on the shelter. We you know, we've always dealt with this issue of, you know, leadership. Like, are we going to, you know, have that difficult conversation with our districts about, hey, someone's got to step up and have that conversation. So we're hopefully moving into that place. On the motels, we've had a conversation about the nuisance of them, the amortization of them, but we haven't integrated the the concept of converting them into permanent supportive housing. And hopefully we're moving into that conversation. On the housing choice vouchers, we put forth two different programs around landlord incentives to try to stem the issue of the low lease up. But the reality is our housing choice vouchers are at risk if we don't perform a certain at a certain rate. The federal government, HUD, could take that money away. And the reality is we've tried things and and the lease up numbers have not moved. So this is about progressing that conversation to policy. And so all of these things are not taking anything away from anything anyone has done. We support those things. It's not advancing it to the front of the line. What this is is sort of kicking off and bringing these important elements into the forefront of the conversation. And so that's what we're doing. I want to thank everybody and I encourage city council to vote. Yes, thank you. Thank you. There is a motion and a second, please. Members, cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you and thank you, everyone, for coming out. We're going to move on to item 11, please.

Recommendation to adopt resolution to approve eleven repaving/resurfacing projects proposed to receive Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Act funding totaling approximately $8,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2018-19: 15th Street between Lewis Avenue and Alamitos Avenue; 15th Street between Orange Avenue and Obispo Avenue; Anaheim Street between Pacific Avenue and Atlantic Avenue; Temple Avenue between 7th Street and 4th Street; Ximeno Avenue between 4th Street and 7th Street; Anaheim Street between Gardena Avenue and Temple Avenue; Carson Street between Clark Avenue and Bellflower Boulevard; Anaheim Street between Alamitos Avenue and Gardena Avenue; Long Beach Boulevard between 31st Street and Wardlow Avenue; Del Amo Boulevard between Atlantic Avenue to Orange Avenue; and, Artesia Boulevard between Cherry Avenue and Paramount Boulevard. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05222018_18-0447

Motion carries. 16. I am 16 is report from Public Works recommendation to adopt resolutions to approve 11 repaving resurfacing resurfacing projects proposed to receive road maintenance and we habilitation account act funding totaling approximately eight mil for fiscal year 2018 19 CDI. There's a motion in a second. Mr. West, you have any sort of short report on this? Sure. A lot of streets. It's a lot of streets. And I'll have Mr. Beck give a quick report. Thank you, Mayor. Mr.. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council tonight, what you have before you is simply a resolution that would authorize the city to spend future SB one gas tax funding that we anticipate to receive from the state fiscal year starting this July one. So it is the state's 1819 fiscal year. The state is requiring us to essentially identify streets where that money would go. And so this action tonight would allow us to both receive that money and then spend the money on this on the streets listed before you. This is separate and apart from our normal arterial and neighborhood paving program, which in Fy19 is anticipated to be roughly $42 million. That concludes my report. I'm available for questions. Thank you. There's a motion and a second baseman. Richardson pave baby pave councilmember repairs. Councilman Austin. Quick question. I know this is our SB one funding and there is a effort, as we know, to potentially repeal this. How would that impact this? These projects will be these these this project will be just questioning whether or not this project will be able to be finished prior to that or is the money already secured? Katherine Ross And answer your question, we're still working through those details with the state. Essentially, this is for money that we would receive in the future that we have yet to receive. So if in fact the repeal did go forward, we would likely not receive the full or any of the $8 million from the information that we have currently. And therefore, the streets listed before, you would not have the funding available to to be repaved and we would have to identify future ore and and other sources of revenue to be able to achieve the items that you have listed before you. Thank you for clarifying that. And I think that would be tragic. Thank you, Councilman Supernanny. Thank you. I just want to make a clerical adjustment here. The street is gardenia, as in the flower, not Gardena, as in the city. And since Councilman Andrews and I share the street, it is important to make that correction. My apologies. That is the street we meant to identify. Thank you. Any public comment on this? Seeing none. Please cast your vote as that's happening also. Just Mr.. Mr.. Beck, I want to make sure this is this is great. I see a lot of Anaheim on here, which I also think is great, is a major street, but it's also different chunks of Anaheim. And so I just want to just just as a gentle reminder that when we do these major streets, we need to make sure that we maximize the whole street and not have, you know, one a few blocks paved. And then you going to three blocks unpaved and then you go into two blocks paved. It needs to be a clean uniform look all the way. So just as we put together our pots of money into these streets and I think Anaheim to me is the one that's jumping out here as a lot of chunks. Just let's please focus on a straight, clean pave all the way through. Next item, please. Council. Council member. Super. Now can you vote? This motion carries. Second public comment period. Good evening. Diana Logins. I'm not only addressing the mayor and the council, but I'm also addressing the public. I'm talking about Measure M. That's coming up in the next election. It's real simple. Just vote no. I'm very ashamed of the mayor and the council members who have gone out and purposely misled the public, telling him this is

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving Resolution No. WD-1429, a resolution of the City of Long Beach Board of Water Commissioners establishing the rates and charges to be charged for water and sewer service and declaring the urgency thereof, and providing that this ordinance shall take effect at 12:01 am. on October 1, 2020, read and adopted as read. (Ordinance No. ORD-20-0033)

LongBeachCC_09152020_20-0869

Thank you. Next item 27. Report from Financial Management Recommendation of declare ordinance approving a resolution of the Board of Water Commissioners, establishing the rates and charges to be charged for water and sewer service, declaring the urgency thereof, and providing that this ordinance shall take effect on October 1st, 2020. Read and adopted as read. I have a motion to have a second motion by peers second by Sunday. Has any public comment? Yes, we have. Deve Shukla. Hello, Peter. Yes, we can you please begin? Thank you. Sorry. Very briefly. I'd like to state my ambivalence on this item, and I look forward to seeing in future budgets. For this department. More specifically on monitoring. Given how much we know not only about COVID, but about a lot of. Discuss on the air, for lack of a better term. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public. Comment. Roll call vote, please. District one. All right. District two. I District three. I'm District four. All right. District five. District five. District six. All right. District seven. I. District eight. All right. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2014. [City Council] (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC_02172015_2015-1190

Or be recommendation to accept the Treasury report for the quarter ending December 31st, 2014. But evening, Madam Mayor and members of the city council. So. Oops. Oh, we've got to change. Change the scene over here. I'm going to talk with you about the quarterly investment report. All right. Faster than I could have done it. So as you will recall and we talked about last time, the government code requires that if the city council so directs that we are required to report to you on a quarterly basis and we must state that it complies with our investment policy and that there is cash coverage for the next six months. Those are the requirements in state law. Our investment policy was last updated in February of 2014. So it's coming back to you soon. It stresses safety, liquidity and yield. It provides limitations on the type credit, credit, quality and duration of investments as outlined in state law. And the policy itself is located on the Finance Department website. In case anyone is interested in reading all of the fine details included in that policy. All of these limitations are intended to preclude the misuse of public investments in risky investments over a long period of time. And the city's statement of investment policy is very typical and is in conformance with the State Treasurers Association. Last month we were asked the question about limiting losses. And Kevin Kennedy, our elected city treasurer, is going to speak to that issue when we address the update to the investment policy. The report contents are determined by state law as well. In the staff report. A short summary is of the portfolio is displayed. The investment types are listed from the most liquid to the least liquid. Market value is provided by the investment advisors and reflects the market on the final day of the quarter being reported. It is compared to the cost or book value for review purposes only. Every negative number indicates that the market value is less than the book value. The average duration is the average age of the investment. To measure the performance of the portfolio, the two year U.S. Treasury bill rate is used as the comparison. In this case, the portfolio performed at about 2.28%, better than the two year Treasury bill rate. And the exhibit contains the detailed investments by INSTRUMENT, and the advisory firms report on the credit quality and the return for their individual portions of the portfolio. Most of the portfolio is in restricted in its uses. The majority of this is debt service funds or other special revenue funds. Those funds are not totally restricted, are in the general fund and in the internal service service funds. Cash is managed on a daily basis with the goal of making certain that six months of need payroll accounts payable, debt service will be met. Historically, Alameda has had two investment advisory firms. The 1 to 3 year portfolio is managed by public financial management. And the 3 to 5 year portfolio was managed by Chandler Asset Management. Both firms must, must comply with the investment policy, and the policy also prohibits investment in companies which receive more than 51% of the gross revenues from cigarets alcohol or other gambling products. And again, elected city treasurer Kevin Kennedy will speak to the issue of socially responsible investing when we address the investment policy. This is a summary of the investment portfolio as of December 30th. Investments with bond trustees. Are those funds required to be held by the trustee by bond covenants? A duration less than 3030 days indicates that they are very liquid and the local agency investment fund is managed by the State Treasurer's office. The maximum that we are allowed to invest is $50 million. Between these funds and cash on deposit. The six month cash needs are met. The certificates of deposit are safe instruments for holding small amounts required to be maintained for a variety of purposes. The remainder are instrument instruments managed by PFM and CAM two investment advisory firms. The quick thumbnail gives the reader a quick view of the elements of the portfolio how the book and market value compare and the duration and average yield. Last quarter, the average will yield was 0.35% and the total total portfolio was about 157 million. This this increase in cash is due to the closing of the 2014 refunding bonds sold on December 23rd, 2014. And that concludes my report. Thank you. Counsel, do you have any questions? I have a comment. I have a comment. I just wanted to share that the second page of the Treasury report provides that Kevin Kennedy, our city treasurer, has reviewed the City Values Treasury report for this quarter ending December 31st, 2014, and found that it complies with the investment policy established by his office. We have a motion. M.A. I'd like to move approval of the staff recommendation to accept the Treasurer report for the quarter ending December 31st, 2014. A second. All those in favor. I oppose none. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. And our next item is for C. Recommendation to accept the second quarter financial report for the period ending December 31st, 2014.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Fourth Quarter 2018 Employment Ordinance; designating positions as exempt from the civil service system; and amending Sections 4.13.010 and 4.24.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_12172018_CB 119421

Agenda item two Council Bill 119421. An ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the fourth quarter 2018 Employment Ordinance. The committee recommends the bill pass transparent back. Thank you. This is another one of those items that comes before us regularly. This time we're designating nine positions as exempt from the civil service system. A number of those positions have already been filled and multiples in our OSCE, we talked about during budget, the Human Resources Department, a couple of the strategic advisors are already filled and we recommend do pass. Okay, good. Any questions or comments that please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. Right. Bakeshop. Hi. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi. Johnson President Herrell I six in favor and unopposed. Bill passes and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number three. You can shorten the title if you like.

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 simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties designated as needed for the Federal Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Improvements. Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation of all or any portion of any property interest as needed in support of the Federal Boulevard Pedestrian Right-of-Way Safety Improvement Project in Council District 1, including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, permits and other appurtenances. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-8-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-5-22.

DenverCityCouncil_07182022_22-0791

Lebanese Lebanese Council Resolution 22 zero 42 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Bill 791 on the floor for publication? Thank you, Madam President. I move the council bill 20 2-0791 be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Black, your motion to amend. Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 20 2-0791 be amended for the. Following particulars page one. Strike lines six through ten and replace with four an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition. There. Of by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of B simple. Easement and other. Interests, including any rights and interests related to a pertinent to properties designated as needed for the Federal Boulevard. Pedestrian Safety Improvements. Thank you. It has been. Has it been moved and seconded? Yes. Comments by members of Council Councilmember Black. Thank you. Council President. This amendment replaces an incorrect title to match the bill description used as it passed through committee. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment to the 791. Black. I see. Tobacco. Clark. I. When I. Gillmor i Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman can each i. Ortega, Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 3939. The Council bill 20 20791 has been amended. Council member for immediate a new motion to publish as amended. Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move the council bill 20 20791 be ordered published as amended. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council and Council Bill 20 20791 as amended. Seeing no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 20791 as amended. Black Sky. CdeBaca. Clark. I. Flynn II. Gilmore I. Herndon Hines. High Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes counts at a 22 dash, 0791 has been ordered published as amended. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you'll need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes. Thank you. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a blog for the following items. All series of 22 771 773 741 752 772 776 777 778 779 781 782 786 795 796 797 774 843 732 737 738 746 646, seven, 30 and 695. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. CdeBaca I. Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Gillmor, I. Herndon, I. Hines All right. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 3939 As the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 20477 changing the zoning classification for multiple properties in the Regis neighborhood.

AN ORDINANCE relating to notices to residential rental tenants; requiring certain notices to contain a reference to City landlord-tenant information and resources; and amending Section 22.206.180 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_CB 119619

Agenda item for Council Bill 119 619 relating to notices of Residential Rental Tenants Committee Recommends Eagle Pass. Because remember Herbold. Thank you so much. So this bill is important because of one of the goals identified again in the losing home report of increasing tenant knowledge of the rights and resources that are available to represent themselves is a key strategy. The Seattle Department of Construction Inspection named the this. This is a response to statement of legislative intent 30 35a2 that I sponsored equipping, recommending that we identify ways to equip tenants to understand their rights early as a strategy to manage escalating issues between tenants and landlords. And it's important to name the Residential Landlord Tenant Act is primarily a self-help tool and can only be as effective as tenants are able to advocate and represent themselves. So this legislation itself would not only identify the right that the tenant has when they're when they receive a notice to terminate tenancy, when they receive a notice to increase their rent or they receive a notice from their landlord to that they the landlord intends to enter their unit. The notice will notify the tenant what their rights are and instance instances when resources need to be available to address those rights. It will notify the tenant of those resources as well. Thank you, César. Remember Herbold, any questions or comments on this bill that please call the role on the passage of the bill? Mosquera I O'Brien Pacheco. I so want I make sure I Herbold whereas I'm President Harrell I hate in favor and unopposed. Bill passenger of assignment please read the next agenda.

A resolution approving a proposed Emergency Occupancy Agreement between the City and County of Denver and MHF Denver Manager V, LLC as agent for MHF Denver Operating V, LLC d/b/a Hampton Inn & Suites Denver-Downtown, to provide housing for individuals experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 health crisis. Approves an emergency occupancy agreement with MHF Denver Manager V, LLC as agent for MHF Denver Operating V, LLC for $1,625,280 and through the emergency with rolling one-month options through 8-31-20 to provide 151 rooms to people experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 crisis, in Council District 10 (FINAN-202054346). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-4-20. Councilmember Black approved direct filing this item on 4-9-20.

DenverCityCouncil_04132020_20-0342

, four and under bills for introduction. No items have been brought out under bills for final consideration. Councilmember Clinton's called out Bill 286 for questions and a vote, and Councilmember Marquez called Article 262 for a vote on pending no items, although conceptually complete with the first item up on our screens will. I remember. Of course. Thank you, Mr. President. I have three questions that I sent through to the administration, and I just wanted to read, recap. What. Those were and what the responses were from my colleagues in public. One And the satellite thing to do with the accessibility question number one was over 151 rooms. How many are accessible? Responsive Nexus seven. Two was How will individuals be identified for placement in this location and how we will ensure the 88 compliant units will be allocated to folks with mobility needs. The response to this was the contract we reviewed tonight is the first one slated for rooms from protective action. Generally speaking, we are prioritizing people. At high. Risk to COVID 19 for these rooms. There's an intake form that is utilized for prioritizing access to rooms, and that form includes identifying needs of people with disabilities. People are then connected to the appropriate resource based on their needs. We know that we have more folks at high risk than we have rooms until we can provide our resources and personnel for more. So we are working with our public. Health. And health partners as well as service and shelter providers to get into that process for how to prioritize people entering these firms. A third question was for those occupying a room at this location, are their personal belongings being kept at a separate storage facility? The answer was Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Staff are currently managing the intake process, so we're checking with them on how belongings are being handled. The response later to. That. Question was folks are able to take their personal. Belongings with them at this time. Thank you, Mr. President.

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on the status of the implementation of the Long Beach Animal Care Services’ Compassion Saves approach; and Request City Attorney to prepare ordinances amending Chapter 21.51.210 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC), increasing the number of pets from four to six for each household, and amending Chapter 6.04 of the LBMC, regulating the adoption of dogs and cats originating from outside Long Beach. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01212020_20-0021

Okay, fine. Okay, let's vote on that. Yeah. Okay, fine. No comments. Fine. Well, now we're going to move to item number 28, please, with item. Item 28 is a report from Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to receive a presentation on the status of the implementation of the Long Beach Animal Care Services. Compassion saves approach and requested authority to prepare ordinances amending the Long Beach Municipal Code, increasing the number of pets from 4 to 6 for each household citywide. Everyone's got a second in that. Madam Clerk, is it possible to have Councilwoman Mongo be the most winner? And I can be the second her because she doesn't have a computer that works. Why? One Mongo. I think we'd like to start with the staff report and then public comment and then comments on the day. Sounds good. Okay, please. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. So we had published some information. This has been an ongoing discussion about compassion save. So back in November, there was a two from four to the Council on the Public about some various follow up from Compassion Saves. We're here to present that report and some other concepts and ideas as well. So I will turn this over to her. Our two most, our director of Parks Rec and Marine. Thank you. An honorable vice mayor and city council. It is a pleasure to present to you. Compassion saves next steps. Next to me is our Animal Service Bureau manager, Ms.. Stacey Danes, that helped prepare this report and is here to help answer any questions you may have after the presentation. It's like, oh, I'm sorry. When I arrived here a year and a half ago, phase one of the city audit on L.A. backs had been completed. Phase two was then completed in August 2018. The mayor then appointed 20 members of the community to the Animal Care Visioning Task Force to help develop the all back strategic plan that is called for in phase one of the audit. Ms.. Daines and I then help facilitate your study session on April 16th, 2019 on the proposed Compassion Saves model. This was followed by the May 7th, 2019 City Council direction to staff to implement the compassion savings model and to make sure that it is reflected in the development of the strategic plan. Council's direction was also to come back with recommendations and how best to improve operation relationship with SB Clay. You will note that this presentation will also provide you with remarkable key progress on the statistics showing results this past year, especially as they compared to previous years. The presentation will also provide you with an update on camel management fundraising for all our plans to enhance our max adoption messaging and greater adoption opportunities, and the recommendation on to ordnance to help manage dog and cat population growth. As you can see in this slide, there is a remarkable decrease in cat and dog admissions of 46% when you compare 2010 to 2019. It is interesting to note that the pattern of admissions by month as shown in the chart on the right on on the right side, you can see that the peak season that challenges our capacity at L banks is from May to September. Thank. This slide shows the impressive library lease rate progress in 2019. Of the 2106, 169 dogs admitted into banks, 94% were library leases where cats in 2019. Of the 3210 cats admitted, 83% were library leases. Again we can see here the remarkable progress in ah euthanasia in died in Care's statistics in 2010 5559 dogs and cats were euthanized or died in care. In 2019, that number is the smallest we have ever had at 665. That is an 88% improvement rate. Our adoption numbers are particularly impressive. In 2010, we only adopted 146 animals, and in 2019 we adopted the highest we ever we have ever had at 995. That is an 85% improvement rate. These 985 animals that were adopted does not include any transfers to SPCA or any other rescue partner. Though, we still have a lot of challenges and opportunities. Ella Banks Achievements in 2019 are something to be very proud of. How we make these achievements are due to key. How we made these achievements are due to key factors. Stacey Daines was hired in February 2019. We increase community engagement through foster care, adoption and volunteerism. We expanded opportunities for veterinary care and treatment and behavioral support for animals, especially during peak summer season. With your approval of budget enhancements in fiscal year 19 and fiscal 20. In fiscal year 20, we are able to hire a full time veterinarian and an additional full time adoption and volunteer coordinator. We were able to foster nearly 200 animals in 2019 and also delivered with an all time high in our adoption rates. We could not have achieved these results without our volunteers. We increased our volunteer involvement by 73%. We now process volunteers faster and train them better. We also established a special group of trained volunteers to assist in our behavior program. We also launched a web portal that volunteers use for scheduling opportunities. This efficiency ensures that volunteers come in to help when they are needed. As I mentioned earlier, Elba is challenged with a rise of admissions of dogs and cats from May to September. It is the increase in cat admissions during this time period that is that it has become quite challenging. This 2019 season we came up with a creative solution. El Bax, as you know, is in the pitch. The Pitchford companion, Animal Village. The village is configured with dedicated areas for SPCA, play a dedicated area for backs and the common area to be used by both partners. We rented three mini pods that were climate controlled to house the large intake of cats that were that we experienced during this peak season. And we were very grateful to the city of Los Angeles, who loaned us their mighty mover, which is a unit that is climate controlled and can be easily moved to different locations. The mighty mover was also used to house the large intakes of cats. We placed these mobile units in the bank's dedicated footprint where we have an area for bags, parking needs, staff's hard work in collaboration with local rescue groups, volunteers and increased medical services. We were because of these efforts, we were able to overcome the challenges of this peak high cat admission season. Compassion saves us working. We saved more lives through a combination of foster care, adoption, help from rescue groups and our volunteers. These efforts increase the animals that need our care by 30%, which challenged our ability on our animal care duties. We were taking the opportunity. We are taking the opportunity to improve our ability to deal with this challenge with by pulling staff from different assignments for animal care. When the challenge is there better use of volunteers. And most importantly, we are restructuring the cleaning assignments to ensure feeding occurs before cleaning. These efforts are increasing tailbacks, efficiency and animal care. In addition, tomorrow, one new part time employee will start working at old backs to join the team to keep the kennels clean and ensure a healthy environment for dogs is provided. A second new part time employee will also be joining the ranks to help us with this challenge very soon. The Mayor's Animal Care Visioning Task Force began meeting in October 2018 and has provided very valuable feedback to the BAX team in order to improve its effectiveness. The task force members have been working hard in helping develop the strategic plan, which is a key deliverable and will be presented to the City Council in March, April. We're also excited to announce that Partners of Parks has agreed to work with our backs in raising private monies for our backs. The 100,000 of one time fiscal year 20 addition to the IBEX budget is meant to spearhead these fundraising fundraising efforts and to enhance the outback social media presence. A web portal in partnership with partners with Parks is currently being developed. We're also excited that we have begun planning a large annual fundraising event to help raise money for Outback's. With the generous approval of the City Council's $450,000 of Measure a moneys l banks will be improving its signs and ability to deal signs and ability to deal with high peak admissions season and also to taking to take our art and in to enhance adoption opportunities to areas that are further distant, that are that that are farther away from the Outback's campus facility. We plan to enhance our signs around the village that lead to the public, that lead the public to the campus and purchase up to three mighty movers. You can see on this slide an example of one of the old signs that we will be changing with a new design and messaging. The picture below is an example of a mighty mover that can be custom ordered with specific message ram so that we can be more effective in taking adoption opportunities to the people. Staff work with deputy city with deputy city attorney Art Sanchez to review the four existing agreements with SPC L.A.. The first agreement is for construction. The second one is the lease. The third is the lease back, and the fourth is a permit that allows SPC, L.A. to park vehicles at the city's Park Maintenance Operation Yard. A special L.A.X. team has met with Speaker Lee twice and made it clear that the city is requesting the establishment of an operating agreement. Other specific issues that we have been discussing that the city intends to make part of the operating agreement is to clarify is clarity of what is and what is not common areas and how best to respectfully use these areas in order to benefit both parties when their needs require it. This includes adding clarity and writing on how best the VACC will manage our footprint areas that corresponds to our leaseback areas, shared keys for the common areas and signs and common areas that are alabang specific. Last Friday we placed three banners and Stacy will briefly show you two of those banners that we placed them in and around our village. This is one of the banners that has also is introducing to the public our new album logo. And then we had. And then we have a larger banner that we're placing in front. Of the village that has been placed already in front of the village. And it shows some of our happy animals. We're also excited to continue working on the further development on best practices to operate the Joint One-Stop Adoption Desk and have been developing a mutual adoption questionnaire aimed on decreasing confusion from members of the public looking to adopt Long Beach animals from from the village. Staff recommends the city council request the city attorney to prepare Long Beach Dogs to prepare Long Beach Dog and cat ordinance to help manage population growth. We believe these two ordinance will be ready in March. Or April, the first ordinance will focus on on increasing the household limit from pets from 4 to 6 pets. The second ordinance will be to provide all banks the authority to regulate nonprofit organizations that bring 300 or more dogs and cats from outside Long Beach. L Banks will in February and early March, outreach to the rescue groups and to the public to receive their input on both the ordinances. You should know that the pet limit is currently, as described in Chapter 11 of the municipal code. Includes dogs, cats, caged birds and rabbits. Next steps bring back to the City Council the O back strategic plan in March, April, also at the same time bring back the ordinance on dog and cat population control to City Council. And also in March, April, we proposed to bring back a progress report on the ongoing meetings that we have started with SPCA, LA. That concludes the presentation. Be happy to take any questions. Thank you. I know I want to hear from our public, but I want to start by setting the tone. I want to thank a lot of people who did a lot of work, and most of them are sitting in the audience. We talk a little bit about the reduction in admissions, and I know a lot of us give that credit to the community and the Spaniard's program that has been out in the community and helped to get the number of animals from having unwanted litters down. I want to thank the rescuers for contributing and helping with the number of animals released alive from the shelter. That work is a lot, to your credit. Many of you are constantly posting. We appreciate it. While I know that once compassion saves one enacted, a number of our posters moved on to shelters that still have high kill rates. Our animals still need to be posted often. And I know that Stacy Danes is doing a great job by posting a lot of our animals in Lost and Found, but we still need all the help we can get. And I know there are shelters that are far worse than us, and I appreciate that there are a lot of love going to those animals, but we still need to get our numbers even more improved. I want to I want to thank Stacy for what she has been able to do in the months that she has been here. However, I think there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered. You said that we have one new part time staff member starting tomorrow. Is this to replace the retiree from like six months ago that we lost? No councilmember. That particular recruitment is set to open soon. So this is a recruitment that has already been conducted. So let me be clear that this council has already been clear with the city staff that our recruitment is take too long and there's been an audit and a review of the onboarding process and. When we know a person is going to be retiring out of a staff or a department that is so small, the recruitment should probably start before they retire. And so my next question is to City Manager Modica, because I know Hiroto is leaving any day now. We said the second part timer will start soon. What could we do as a line in the sand date that we can check back in? So that my staff will know. I believe actually two people are starting tomorrow. Is that not correct? The report said one. Yeah, the one is starting tomorrow, Mr. City Manager, and the second one is going through the process. It has been selected but is going through the process. Stacy, is there anything more on on the second one? The second individual. Is still in the medical screening process but has been, which is the last hurdle. Already done backgrounds and all that. Okay. Correct. And is it my understanding, Mr. Modica, that once they pass that they can start immediately? So once we make a hire, we have to get them cleared by the FBI through the scam process, and we have to do the occupational health. So this person's the first one's already been done. So now it's just occupational health on this person. That's what I'm seeing. So if they're ready to go, then they're ready to go. And occupational health is actually something that we're taking a very close look at. We hope by February to have a list of positions that won't need to go through occupational health anymore. And some are still going to depending on physical duties. But that should be we are starting that very soon. Thank you for that. And when the retiree that needs to be replaced, can you remind me what position that was? That position as a maintenance assistant. Three. So they clean the kennels, correct? They're animal care. And do we not have an active list for maintenance? Assistant three. There is a recruitment that is going to open soon that will provide us with a list and that is a city wide. Mr. MODICA Is there a maintenance assistant one, two or three list available? What can we. It's been six months and the person's been gone. And I know we hadn't had a director of. So then. Those go to civil. Service. Thank you. Yes. So what can we do about that? I'll raise that with the civil service director. We clearly want to get either an unofficial or something into that position. If we have to take something to the Civil Service Commission to change things or ask for a provisional appointment, we can do that. That would be great. I would love to hear back on a provisional appointment. A couple of things about the proposal tonight. So first and foremost, this says animal care's next steps. I think that this is animal care's proposed next steps. This council tonight will make the decision on what those are. And I'd like to make a couple of modifications out of the gate. So I know we talk about a memorandum of understanding with SPCA, L.A.. I don't feel that that's strong enough. I think that in a lot of our other reports that we've talked about, the consistent terminology that Mr. Modica has used and has agreed is necessary in all of our agreements is an operating agreement. So Mr. Modica, can you give us a little bit of information about what the timeline might be for such an operating agreement? It's not. So yes, in our original item that we brought forward, we were calling it a memorandum of understanding. We are changing that a little bit more to a formal agreement of what we call an operating agreement. I think that better clarifies what we're looking to do, that we want to outline all of the different provisions and really write down the stuff that is currently happening out there and also clarify things that are not happening out there that we would like to happen out there. I will ask Rado and Stacy to give us a more concise, more precise estimate of when we'd come back. My sense is we want to make a lot of progress in the next two months and really align this with the strategic plan. So when we're hearing back from the from the task force and are hearing back from the strategic plan that we come back, this is, of course, a negotiation. They are not under any requirement to actually enter into an operating agreement with us. We have started those discussions with SPCA and we hope with the next 2 to 3 months, that will have a lot to report back on. Wonderful. I'd also like to modify the motion tonight to include a time certain to bring back a ordinance. We kind of talked about in the presentation a February or March date. I recognize that this council often is expected to have an ordinance that's so perfect that only ministerial changes could be proposed on the night the ordinance returns . I'm not looking for that. I'm okay with it being a draft that we can make significant changes to. But I'd like to ask if the city attorney could, at research, if possible, to have that ordinance back by February 24th. He said February or March. That's the last Tuesday meeting in February. If that's possible, that would be great. If it's not. Please let me know. And then the strategic plan. It was a broad date, if I know that's kind of based on a consultant. So if you could tell me a specific time certain that we could count on, that would be helpful. And then I'm just going to close with one last thing before we go to public comment, if possible. In 2015, I asked for our live releases to be a part of our open data portal. This is not something that needs to be created. L.A. County Animal Control already has an internal open data portal. I specifically drew that to the bar graph that's possible that links directly to Chameleon, and the data can be drawn on a daily basis and it shows the number of live animal in LBS and then it shows the animal outcomes in a bar graph. And that bar graph is a stacked graph that has this many animals where live animal outcomes by either being transferred to a rescue or being transferred to a or being adopted or they're in the foster program or they were whatever their live release category and you can click on those bars and they change on a daily basis because they pull directly from Chameleon. And this is not anything that needs to be created. It's all open to the public because it was created with government money. And here we are four years later and we don't have it. And I know at the time we went through two different IT directors, but I'd like as a part of the. If there's more to from Forbes, I'd like a date that our live release rates will be a part of the open data portal. And I don't know if it's here, but I want a date that that's possible if it's six months from now, tell me that. But I'd like to know when that's going to happen, and I want that to be a part of the motion with that councilmember. Mr. White, remember. I know you've asked for the February 24th date on the ordinance. The one of the ordinances that changes the number of animals has to go to a planning commission. So I don't think there's any way that we can bring this back to you on the 24th. It has to go to Planning Commission first. Would we be able to do the part of the ordinance? The other two components that they're they're proposing. We could certainly attempt to bring back part of the audiences that don't have to go to a planning commission by the 24th. Yes. That would be fantastic. And with that, Mr. Vice Mayor, I'd be open to either hearing from Councilman Price my co motion or hearing from the public eye. Is there anyone I would like to speak? I think I have. Uh. How many names you have? We have 19 that sign up for the public comments for this item. Can he go? Yes, go ahead. I just want to add one more piece to the conversation. And I thought maybe doing it before a public comment might be more productive so that if members of the public want this particular issue addressed, perhaps it's going to get addressed right now. But I don't know. So, first of all, I want to thank our Parks Rec and Marine Department and specifically Stacey Daines. You have been a great addition to the team. I'm so grateful you're here. I'm grateful for your transparency, your authenticity, your willingness to work hard and truly your love for animals, which can be faked to some extent. But you it's real with you. I mean, it's it's genuinely real for you. This is not a job. You're not doing it because it's a job. You're doing it because you care. And that's that comes across clearly, I think, to any of us who work with you. So thank you for that. And I want to thank my colleague, Stacey Mungo for her comments. She's been very engaged on this topic, and I agree with everything she just said wholeheartedly. I know that I have met with many of the advocates. Several of them live in my district and are my constituents, and I've had the pleasure and the opportunity to be able to sit with them on a number of occasions to talk about this specific issue. And I know that one of the biggest concerns for them and it makes a lot of sense to me and perhaps they brought it up to me because I'm an attorney, I don't know. But it's the terms of the lease. The terms of the lease are a major concern for me, and I agree. We need to look at an operating agreement. We need to look at an emotive issue. But I think we have a lease in place and my concern is that there are practices that have been developed over time that are outside the scope of the lease and outside the scope of the intent of the lease. So as part of this item, if it's okay with Councilmember Mungo, she's amenable to this, I would like to request the following. I'd like to request that the city attorney review the current lease between the City of Long Beach and SPCA, L.A., and meet with the SPCA, LA management team, the Lubbock's management team, and any other persons deemed by the staff or management team of either entity who have credible, relevant information to contribute to determine whether the current lease terms have been followed, whether they have been violations of the lease, and whether those violations warrant a modification or termination of the lease or. All conversations shall be protected as privileged communications and every effort shall be made to protect the identity of those who are expressing accounts or concerns regarding events and practices. And that provision, I'm not sure if it can legally be upheld, but I really want to protect. The individuals who might share concern from being. Retaliated against in some way. I just I want to make sure they're protected. So I appreciate your comments. And I would like to adopt some form of that. I know that. Sorry. Sorry. The report that also on the lease. Yes. The report shall be deemed a priority and which should return back to council within 30 days in order to cease all practices and operations that are deemed to be non-compliant and or detrimental to the operations and functions of Al Bax. So I do know that in meeting with Art Cox in advance of this meeting, that they've reviewed the lease and started through a process of noticing. Is that something we can comment on at this time, or is that something that's under negotiations? Could. Mr.. MODICA Well. That's something that Heard can give you an update on. He has been actively doing that work with with the SPCA. But I think that the component of Miss Price and my I'm sorry, Councilwoman Price and my comments both now and then when I met with you previously, was the legal components that Mr. Cox is involved in. Mr. Tan. Sorry, Cock Sanchez. Okay. Yes, we can talk about that. The one of the issues that has been addressed is potential violations of the lease. And you only have a violation of the lease if the city were requested or the in this case wrote to the director of Parks and Marine. What's the other side on notice and under the lease, they have 30 days to cure that default or potential violation of the lease. To my knowledge, we've never put them on a notice for those type of incidents. So and some of the incidents that have been raised, the statute of limitations probably has run on some of the if they were light violations at that time in 2005 or, you know, more than four years ago under the contract. So if there is an ongoing issue that staff believes they can't work out with our our tenant, in this case the SPCA, we could certainly work with them to write a notice. But before we get to that, obviously, we'd want to have negotiations with them to see if we could resolve it. Short of implementing the legal system, I don't not sure we could terminate the lease under anything I've seen so far. We don't have any grounds that I'd been put aware or made aware of that would result in some sort of termination. We have a I think a lease is in place till 2053. And so it is a long term partnership that we have with SPCA. And but that said, we could certainly clarify some of the issues that have been raised and we would meet with SPCA and do that. And I think what has recently happened and Mr. Modica was present was that there were concerns about violations of the lease that were brought forward by the community, that were both brought to the attention of the Parks and Rec director, the assistant city manager. And there was a discussion about making sure that if there were violations, they were put on notice. So I guess, Mr. Modica, where any of the claims brought forward deemed to be founded and were they cured or was there a noticing that will need to take place or has taken place? So the director of Parks and Rec has brought those up to the attention of SPCA last week. We also put those in writing to them and and were at this point dealing with it through negotiation, saying here are things that we want to hear where we're proposing this operating agreement, because we think that is really the best way to address these going forward. We can look further at actual lease violations at this point. The things that have been raised to our attention, such as, you know, not being provided keys, those are getting addressed. And we have we have assurance from SPCA that they will give us keys to the to the common areas that is clearly in the lease. That is not under dispute. They owe us keys and we've asked for those and we will receive those. And if we don't, we would take that to the next level. I'd like Corrado to jump in and talk a little bit about the discussion that we had with SPCA and what specifically we have noticed them on. And I think it's important to to kind of let the community know how many meetings there have been with SPCA. With regards to these issues of concern. There's been to sit down meetings, very lengthy meetings, and such as as the city manager just mentioned, mentioning on our request. And then also it was put in writing that we going that develop an operating agreement. And then we brought up the issue of the keys, the shared keys in the common areas. We also brought up the issue of needing to have a mutual understanding on the placement of signs in common areas and also in the areas that is our bank specific footprint. And then we also how we need to have a really good, clear understanding because there have been instances there where there wasn't and how best to use the common areas as well as what are the common areas. So that needs to be clarified. That was brought up as well. And and then the effective programing of a joint One-Stop Adoption Desk, the adoption questionnaire was brought up with specific it has to be a jointly developed and owned document and. And and then not just even more clarity on, for example, during the summer season when we used the Benee pods and the mighty mover in our area, there were concerns about whether we had the right to do so. We we did so. But we need to make sure that that gets established in writing so that there is no tensions with regards to using our footprint to the best of our ability when we have the needs to save our animals . And from Long Beach. Thank you. I appreciate your discussion related to the one stop. Many know that that's something that I'm very passionate about, that people would have the opportunity to know that they can adopt from Long Beach. I appreciate that you're addressing the adoption form. I think those are all things that have been brought to our attention by the community. I know Councilman Price said 30 days. I'd like to include the. Operation of the one stop launch and the adoption form. And with that, I'd like to open it up to potentially being 60 days. That's fine. And so those would be included as well. Great. And then if we can, Mr. Vice Mayor, hear from the public and then potentially bring back to add additional. Opportunities to improve the recommendation. All right. Thank you. The public place will call you names off and please come up. And you have 90 seconds. Thank you. Well, the next five public comments. Could you please do mine up in the podium? Beverly Leifer, Joanne Quartz. Excuse me. Excuse me 1/2. I'm sorry. Councilwoman Patricia. Okay. Okay, fine. Beverly Reliever Joanne Coates, Laura, Selma, Alex Armstrong and Wang. Can you please come up and stand by the podium, please? Do we only have one minute, 30 seconds. Yes. Okay. I'm Beverly Lifer. And first, I want to thank council members Pryce and Mungo for wanting the lease and potential violations to be investigated. This needs to be done prior to an operating agreement or ammonia or whatever you call it. I organize and peacefully demonstrate outside the State of the City event with a group of other animal advocates last Tuesday, like I did at last year's event, with no trouble. However, this year I was told by the head of security at this public event on public property that you, city council and the mayor stated that no signs were allowed within the security perimeter outside the building. Even the police agree that we were allowed and so were our signs. I checked before we even showed up. Unfortunately, the mayor's not here to the address, but the mayor and city council members have a history of restricting the public's comments and thoughts, as seen in the mayor's deletion of criticism of him on Facebook, limiting the time for public comments and now trying to remove people and their signs from a public event. Well, you can't and won't stop us from an acting our freedoms of assembly and speech. And you will never silence me or others from advocating for our city's pets. We demand that this city's animal shelter operate autonomously. All decision making should be made by the shelter manager or its city management. No private organization, including SPCA, L.A. should have unmitigated power to control. Thank you, Agency. Yes, thank you. I don't know. Hi, my name is Joanne Frost. Thank you for your increased attention to Long Beach Animal Care stories. This past year. I've been advocating for Outback's reform for over 12 years, and after all these years, I finally feel a glimmer of hope today. Thanks to many of you recently meeting with me and patient and listening to the unfortunate complex issue. So thank you very, very much. I am the family against entering into any additional agreements with SPCA until the violations and the current lease agreements are remedied. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. We do. You all have a letter at your desk from Best Friends Animal Society. They are a leading national welfare organization. They're dedicated to ending the killing of dogs and cats in America by 2025. They have written, commending us for our work this year. And they also noted that to have continued progress, our. Municipal shelter needs autonomy and self-determination. They made note that our backs must be freely, must be free to choose the type of collaborations that save the most limited animals. As Ella Max is in the current state of evolution. Now maybe the time to review current partnerships to ensure alignment of goals and purpose. Meet the Compassion Saves Initiative. They believe independence is a logical next step to its long term success and sustainability. And then the last thing I have is a visual that you may have in your doc, in your this is the main building of the common area. There's these pink areas that are highlighted. They we consider the valued space where animals can be housed and the veterinary areas. You'll see those pink arrows are all owned. Thank you. They are all taken over by SPCA. That's what we really need to get back as part of the lease. We don't need an operating agreement to get that taken care of. Thank you. My name is Laura Selmer, vice mayor and council. Thank you for the leadership. With the animal care services last year, having the lowest euthanasia rate in our history was a true accomplishment. I want to give a shout out to Stacy Danes and her team. You are saving lives. Another deserving Shoutout goes to Hiroto Mourad for his insightful decision to bring Stacy here. You knew what we needed. Thank you. Next is looking ahead. I urge the council to have the city evaluate and remedy the ongoing violations of the lease agreement between the city and SPCA. We have some information about your seats by addressing these violations. The dominoes will fall. The city might not even need or want an operational agreement. Please enforced release before attempting to negotiate an operating agreement on top of a lease agreement that is already being violated. Thank you for your service to Long Beach. And I also want to appreciate that the words of the voice of confidentiality, because there are some animal advocates in the community who are who are not free to speak because of fear of retaliation. So thank you for that. Thank you. Hey, guys. Thank you. Stacy. Stacy Mungo, Janine Peterson, Susie Price for what you've been helping Stacy Dance accomplished this year. It has improved in regards to the SPCA. We are asking our city council mayor not to not to approve the move or any operation agreement. We already, as you guys said, we already have a legal document that needs to be enforced. And that's really where we need to stand is on the lease. It's a violation of the lease, too, to change door locks. It's a violation of the lease to not allow our city animals in the shared part of the facility. These things are continually going on and the lease, it's a violation of the lease. So whatever needs to happen to save more lives is really on you guys to make that happen for us, and we keep asking you to do so. I think it's also disgusting that the Spca's Le's ethics are not being challenged here, that it's unethical for them to have the first pick of puppies or dogs that come into our city shelter over our Long Beach residence. How the hell does that work? I mean, no, that's just the these things that are going on there. It's ridiculous. It doesn't happen anywhere else. And Madeline Brunson needs to be accountable for what she's doing. She is responsible for the deaths of many animals. And it's got to change in our city. Thank you. I also want to echo my thanks to Councilmember Pearce, Price and Margo for your movement. Forward with Compassion Saves. I am more encouraged than I have ever been. Tonight, hearing Susie Price and Stacy Mongo backing very strongly what we all have wanted. So thank you. I want to make it real clear that Mr. Perkins Perkins, we do not have a partnership with SPCA. If you look on page 19 of the book that you were given, it very clearly states in the lease, this is not a partnership, so please make sure you guys review that. Secondly, I also want to concur that I do not support animal you or any kind of agreement until and if all violations committed against the L backs against the shelters by the SPCA, which I have personally seen myself. I was there the day. Those animals were tossed out of the small animal room. I saw it with my eyes. That can never, ever happen. Lastly, I'm asking you to hold off on any type of vote or consideration for Part six Chapter 6.04 with regards to the ordinance bringing in animals from other areas. This is punitive to rescuers who operate and pull many, many animals from the shelter and off of the streets and needs to be strongly reconsidered before it is even looked at by council. Thank you. Could you please stop the next slide, please? 1/2. Next, guys, please come up to the podium. Candice Lawrence, Carole Peterson, Kristi Mammoliti, Adam R and Fernando Collado. I thank you. Go ahead, Mr.. Could you. Yes, I think the record will show me that. I'm embarrassed to say this is the first time I've ever spoken on this issue. This is really nothing more than a 32nd conversation. There should be no killing. Of any dog or a cat. Figure out how to do it. It should end tonight. Nothing. Nothing should be killed. Figure it out. That's what you're there for. Thank you. Right now, I, too, would like to thank the two, Stacey's and Councilwoman Price, for the work that they've been doing. And it's wonderful to hear that there is some attempt at improving our relationship with SPCA, L.A., which we've all been crying for for years. I was brought up to believe that there is no such thing as government money. It's taxpayers money. And I want to know why my taxpayer's money, instead of going to our shelter where we get pleas for kitten food, where we hear that there's no heat and the animals are cold, where there are no spay and vouchers, there are no spay neuter vouchers available, not even for, God forbid, language, but form where we have our spaying and neutering done. San Pedro. This is insane in a city of our size and our financial acumen. I don't appreciate that my pet taxpayer money is being spent on things like roundabouts landscaped roundabouts that everyone hates and nobody knows how to manipulate them. The signage is insane. I've killed practically killed about ten people so far. Not to mention how many people tried to kill me. And it's just not workable. They're in residential neighborhoods and they're not necessary. I'm not interested in my taxpayer money going for rainbow colored walkways. I'm not interested in my taxpayer money going for bike paths all over the city. I've seen exactly one biker on my street in the 20 years that I've lived on Pacific Avenue. So let's get the priorities here, people. Let's let's do something for the animals. The big thing that was in that order over and over again, obliquely. Thank you, young lady. Thank you. Was money. We need money. Hi. So the only menu I would accept is one that grants complete independence from SPCA. I have yet to find any evidence at all backs of the an innovative and life preserving care that was promised in that formation of this public private union years ago. In fact, SPCA has been a great obstacle in the operations and services provided to animals that backs the thousands upon thousands of animals killed can attest to that. So unless the AMA you give the autonomy to L backs, I would urge you to reject it. At the State of the City address last week, the mayor shared numbers from animal care services. Adoptions were up, euthanasia were down. But these two categories combined represent only a portion of the 5000 plus animals who come into our backs. So what happened to the rest? Well, a large number of them went to SPCA, L.A. And then what happened? Nobody knows, because there's no transparency coming from SPCA. The public is kept in the dark as to how many animals it kills and adopts without transparency. And with a CEO who has openly come out against no kill, it makes it kind of hard to trust this society. I would also think twice about regulating the animals coming in to Long Beach to adopt from other places. The last thing I want is more animals to go to SPCA because I don't know what happens to them. And if we free up cages that SPCA, LA is going to send more over. And of course, this will increase Long Beach's save rate and it will look good. But here's the thing. Not only will we not know what happens to these animals. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms.. But there will be no incentive for Long Beaches Own Adoption program. Good evening. I'm Christine family and it's nice to see you all again this first time I've been here at the new facility. Quite expensive facility. We spent a lot of money. We've spent a lot of time. But the bottom line is that our city's animal shelter is still killing healthy and treatable pets. Public record requests about those killed have shown this. You've been announcing a great save rate at our city shelter, but that save rate does not include in the numbers that SPCA transfers or kills. We do not know what they do with them. And SPCA is adamant about not being no kill on their website about not. Having no kill around our shelter, hands over up to 25% of the pets. To them, that SPCA is not transparent about what they do with them. How do we know what that number is? How can we even estimate what our save rate is? When. SPCA. L.A. is a care facility. You cannot even guess. Please stop telling the public how great you think the save rate has become until you get their facts. Let's be transparent. Our city shelter needs autonomy from especially in order to function as an adoption facility and SPCA. L.A. is toxic to that end. Let's keep this train moving forward like it is tonight. But no agreements with SPCA, L.A.. Thank you very much. Next. Hello. I usually want to start off with a little refresher, and I had needed one for autonomy. Apparently it's in developmental psychology and moral, political and bioethical philosophy. Autonomy is the capacity to make an informed, unconscious decision. And basically what we're trying to get is we want Long Beach Animal Care Services to operate as a separate shelter from SPCA. Due to the reasons I addressed earlier, since they're not transparent and we don't not know what happens to our pets once they take them to their facility, they can't be counted as adopted. So therefore it's not what it is meant to be. They can't be. If UCLA kills any of them, the same way for Long Beach should represent what they do with our animals. Thank you. Thank you. Next, before we get started, can we call up the next slide, please? Wendy Aragon. Sherry Stamp which. Ronnie Nakano. Diane Cliche. Kate Karp. Would you please come up by the story? Line up by the podium, please. Einstein, sir. Thank you. The council members don't agree that we want Long Beach Animal Care Services to offer you a separate shelters from SPCA. Since they do not represent Transparent and we do not know what happens to our pets once they take them to the facility. They cannot be counted as adopted at SPCA. They killed any of them. They saved me for long pieces that represent. What they do with. Our animals. Thank you. This make Long Beach shelter in Tokyo. Thank you very much. Next. Wendy Aragon, president of Pain Assistance Foundation. We've helped to spay and neuter many Long Beach pets over. Over six decades. We have concerns about the proposed changes to the number to the proposed changes. Mentioned tonight to the ordinance. Regarding the number of pets strongly recommend that rabbits be included in the six animals allowed and that they be required to be spay and neuter like dogs. And cats. There's more prolific than cats. And subject to a lot of abuse. Neglect, abandonment. And we would really like to see this edition. We also in general regarding changes to the ordinance or change the proposed changes tonight, I just want to say that every animal advocate longs for the day when all healthy, adoptable animals find a quality, loving home. However, we cannot adopt our way out of the pet overpopulation problem. It exists. We cannot depend simply on the live release rate. Pet overpopulation is a complex social problem and it requires complex solutions. One Increased public education about responsible pet care. Humane education in our schools. Increase spay and neuter. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms.. Next. Hi. First off, thank you for allowing us to speak. So I've never done this before. So it's a little a little intimidating. So anyhow, I run Zaza Cat's Kitty Rescue. We are a street cat rescue based rescue. We save probably about a thousand kitty cats off the streets last year. Probably 80% of them are from the city of Long Beach. And out of that, 80%, probably 80% of them are adopted outside of the city of Long Beach. My fear or whatever is if you put limitations on the adoptable kitty cats we are able to adopt in Long Beach outside of Long Beach, it will actually cause us not to be able to save the amount of lives that we do. Say, if all cities were to put an ordinance out there that I'm sorry, but you can't adopt out your Long Beach kitty cats in Whittier, that is going to decrease the amount of cats that we can actually save because we do, like I said, about a thousand cats a year. We are on average 500 adoptions a year, just our rescue, not to mention what everybody else here does. So I fully support Stacy and I love what she's doing at the shelter. And I would love to be able to help the shelter out more by saving more animals and by doing so. If you tie our hands with where we can and cannot adopt our kitty cats out at. Thank you. Thank you very much. Animal. Hi. I was going to talk about partnerships tonight. Thank you very much, Gerardo, for clarifying. Step number two, because I was very concerned about that. Partnerships, it's become clearer and clearer by what I've heard and what I've seen. That SPCA play, no matter how many animals they take, is not a partner. The ones the ones who are partners are the independent rescuers, like the ones you just saw, Ronnie. They spend their own money and they scramble for more trying to save and adopt out as many pets as they possibly can. And we worry that step two is going to affect their ability to rescue, and it'll also isolate them from the rescue community at large outside the city. And as for business, they, with their own rescues, bring business in to the pet stores where they have the rescues on compassion saves and also knows no boundaries. And you and I all know that if any of these people find a box of kittens in a dumpster in Rancho Cucamonga or a dog by the freeway ramp, they take it in. And I'll bet. So would any of you. I think I'm Will. If you can get rid of that. I think it's ridiculous. I think that there's just a small number. Thank you. Thank you very. Much. You get it? Okay. Yeah. Hi, I'm Sherry. Say, go to the Sparky in the game. We do adoptions in Long Beach and SEAL Beach. I feel that that putting a pet limit on how many adoptable animals for small groups would really affect us. We do save animals from the Long Beach shelter, but unfortunately it's mostly the second injured. And just in the last eight months, we've racked up $28,000 in bills from animals that were not taken by the SPCA, which is very disappointing because when I moved to Long Beach, I was like, wow, we have SPCA here thinking that they have the funds to take the animals. So we do rescue animals for other shelters that offset the cost of our sick animals here. And we do a huge program of that. I feel like all of the rescue groups here do work together. The only group that doesn't work is the SPCA with all of us. I would also like to see that if a dog does get rescued off the street, that the general public gets first pick of the dog, which would which would be called a CTA, which means commitment to adopt so that they can do due diligence of rescuing the dog, getting into the shelter, and they get to adopt it from our shelter and collect license fees. And then from that point I would be interested party which would be like rescue groups or anybody else would like the dog and makes it simple, clean and clear where it's not like we're holding this dog for this group or that group. They get the dogs out as soon as they're available. They need to go. Also. Okay, I think that's. Fine. Thank you. Yes. Excuse me. Before the last go. We have three more. Mr. Vice Mayor? Yes? Linda montgomery. You please come up to the podium. Luis Montgomery and Jacqueline Case. Sorry. Good evening, honorable council members and vice mayor. I'm the executive director of Fixed Long Beach, so I know most of you and thank you for your past, present and continuing support. Since we have been in action, we've helped to fix over 8000 paths in and around Long Beach. So getting there, but not there yet. I would ask that with the 300 adoption pact limit that you include language to say those are pets adopted on city property. We as small rescuers and most people don't know about fix does rescue animals because we have them dumped at our events. We have them left behind. We have picked up animals off the freeway and off the street. And yes, sometimes we do get an easily adoptable animal that is surrendered to us and we can adopt out. But it takes 20 of those to offset one medical case. So when we take we have taken a dog from the shelter. We were told it would have a surgery. Money ran out. That dog ended up costing us $3,000. So limiting what. We're able to do and the pets that we can get and adopt out. It's it's going to be very detrimental to all of the small rescues and it's going to give the SPCA way too much authority, and they're just going to continue doing what they're doing then and. BOWLIN So please consider that. Thank you. Thank you for your time. My name is Louise Montgomery. I'd like to address the increase of pets from 4 to 6. I think it's a great idea. However, the wording, I believe, needs to be for pets to six licensed pets. While volunteering at the city of Long Beach. I personally experience the frustration of the staff and the thousands of hours spent addressing barking dogs, roaming cat complaints from irresponsible citizens who do not supervise their animals. With the mandatory licensing, spay neuter and breeding laws we have in the city. It's very difficult for animal control to even enforce this. Now, we have very low licensing rates now, and I'd like to council to consider increased funding to address that for the staff of the city. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Hi. My name is Linda montgomery. As my sister just said, we do have a lot of dogs in Long Beach that are still not neutered and they're not to go to Dog Beach. A lot of those dogs should be in Speedos. It's crazy. So the city is having a hard enough time enforcing a lot of the rules that we have now and spay and neuter. And also, one of the things that I was concerned about and I was interested in when you showed the chart, was that there are so many dogs that come in in the summertime. And one of the things that may seem irrelevant, but it really is a big deal and there's no transparency on it, is fireworks. The day before 4th of July, they empty out the shelter. A lot of dogs are put to sleep that day because they have to make room for the dogs that are coming in the next day because the police are not enforcing our fireworks. And people, if they knew that fireworks harmed as many dogs as that as they do. Maybe if we did a campaign with posters showing that's why we have them illegal, or at least letting people know how many dogs get out, get hit by cars, owners having to go back into the shelter to claim their dogs the next day. It's a program that might help with that. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. Hi. My name's Jacqueline Keith. I'm from District eight and I'm also a member of the Animal Task Force as as an alum. So as of March 2019, our box has shifted its model from animal control to compassion saves providing animal care and placing greater emphasis on saving healthy and treatable animals and providing life saving programs. So we had an audit back in 2018. And so during that, and I'm grateful that you guys are getting more staff, but we still are lacking. The funding programing has expanded to saving healthy and treatable animals remaining in. Open intake and shelter. And yet our budget for 2020 was less than the previous year. So although we've added a new staff member and we're going to add a second one back in 2018, we were told that we need eight additional staff. If you read the. Audit in 2018, it says in two sections that we need 12 part. Time, we need eight full time, and then we also need 12 additional. So the problem is, is we're still in I'm grateful for this for this report that you provided being a task force member. Some of the stuff is the first time I'm hearing it, which I'm grateful for. The people we have, they know I support Stacy and the staff in itself. I also am against the MRU. I think the list stands on itself. We should have more transparency. You should also investigate the fact that why does SPCA have keys to our shelter, our kennels? Why do they take our animals? And the joint documentation for presentation? Thank you. Thank you very. Much. Because at the bottom. Of the application, it states that my information is going to be. Advertised with SPCA. And I didn't ask for that. I voted. I wanted a dog or a cat from our shelter. I didn't want to be advertised from them. Thank you. Yeah. And. That is the end of public comment. Now we're going to back behind the diocese. Okay. So I have a bunch of things I'm going to try to remember to hit every single thing that came up during that time. It's. Because you already got to speak. I believe it's my turn. The vice mayor called on me. I don't think the chairs discussion. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Okay. So just to get through a couple of the things that were said in the audience, the budget of animal control has never gone down. What you're looking at in the budget book and I've gone through this with some of you, but obviously I haven't met with all of you. I try to make order as city attorney. Could you clarify the. Process for us. The maker of the motion you had commented before, and then it went to the second year of the motion. Then you went to public comment and then the councilmember appears was cued up next that if you're going in the order, it should be the councilmember from the second district at this time. And you're free to recue. I understand that's the process. I'm just following the chair's discretion. Does he have discretion? And the chair could call on someone else. But that's been your form and your order that's been followed. I don't think it's to me. Well, that's up to Councilwoman Pierce, but I think we're going to get through this no matter how we look at it. So I was cued up to second and I was asked to step off of the second. Okay, well, fine. Then you go. And I don't allow it. Okay, good. Thank you. Yes. I am excited that we are here today and that we have great leadership coming from both Stacie and Councilmember Price. And so it's it's wonderful to know that that we have many people on this council that today really care about our shelter. So I want to thank all the staff. Thank give them a round of applause. I want to thank our staff, as we already have, not only Stacey Daines, but the staff that's been in the shelter for a long time. I understand that it's about ten years is the average length of stay, length of stay for a staff member in our animal shelter. And I think that that says a lot about how much our staff really care about our animals in that shelter. I'm going to try to get through this quickly because I know we've got a long agenda when it comes to the lease in the MCU. I think absolutely. We've already really looked at the lease. We need to continue that. Our staff is asking for an IMO you. And from my understanding they're asking for an IMU because and I hate to kind of put it out there, but we have a hostile workplace and between our shelter and the SPCA and so they're asking for an IMO you to really put process into place to hold accountable the things that we believe we have laid out in our lease. STAFF Can you answer just a few questions in the lease? Does it lay out how to handle keys, how to handle meeting room request? I, I understand there's meeting spaces that we haven't been able to reserve just how we access pet food. That's a shared space. Does it lay out all of those pieces in the lease? Those items are not spoken about in the lease. Right. So it's my understanding that over the last several years that practices have been put into place just as a nobody called that person on it. And so we continue to get ourselves in a hostile work environment. I was there Friday for almost 2 hours and being able to see the space and really understand, understand what the shared space was and what our team had access to was really disheartening, not only as somebody who cares about animals, but as somebody that's responsible for our city budget. So my next question is. It's. When I'm standing in the adoption center, there are beautiful rooms that the little kitty corners, there's additional cages and there's a shared desk in the very back. It's my understanding that there have been times whenever there's been space available, but we haven't been allowed to put our animals in that space. Is that true? It's true. I'm saying I had not. That's true. And it's it's my understanding that on some of the the way that the bills are set up, do we pay the water bill for the entire property? At this time we are operating expenses are split 5050, including water. Including split 5050. So and I don't believe that the audit did this. Do we have an assessment of how much space we actually have access to and how much of the resources have been split? My question is getting out, do we have an issue where we're overpaying and maybe there's a government gift? That we're giving the SPCA that we're not accounting for because we don't have access to the space or we're paying for more water and things that that we don't use. Have we done that analysis? So I don't think that we have taken a look. At percentages. And square footage and allotment. That's not something that was evaluated in the audit. Okay. I ask that because I think when we say that the lease is enough, it's really important for us to really consider how much of our city resources are going to support a nonprofit whenever we are not supporting those organizations that really carry the heaviest load. As was mentioned here earlier. I support the council comments so far and really making sure that we're putting a lot of teeth to it. I want to make sure, though, that we don't wait to get to the process of of an IMO you because I worry that we might lose staff, we might lose support, we might lose funding if that is not a space that is really being shared fully. I love the signs. I love the new logo. I love that when I pulled up at 9:00 on Friday, I saw the staff out there putting up the new signs. Do we have in our budget for permanent signage? Because I know our logos change and we have the spaces. It's a part of the. Mix that that was. I'm sorry. That was part of the city council approves measure a $450,000. We're going to end up putting new signs. There was a slide there, as well as up to three mighty movers. And when we talked about the permanent signs, we talked about signage inside the building and we talked about the sign right by the front gate, right above where we walk in. Is that part of the signage as well? That that is something that we're going to be that is our goal and that's something that we have to bring forth in our meetings with, especially because we would have to remove the existing signs. So, so I'd like to talk to you about that a little bit. So we've heard very clearly from people in the audience, from our stakeholders and from the council that signage is very important and we completely agree. So we have we do think that's a very good use of measure. There are certain signs that the city has for control over anything that is not within the facility, anything that is in the park, anything that is on the sign or on the freeway, on the roads leading up to it. So we've identified a number of signs. All of those are going to be switched out. Those will have our brand new lettering. They'll be able to clearly delineate where this where the city shelter is and anything else. Then the lease is very specific. When it deals with signage inside the facility, it actually says both groups have to agree on signage and then it has provisions on what happens if you if a city can remove a sign that goes up, it is not an agreement. It is not a very good, well, well-written lease. So it's that's part of the reason we're bringing forward operating agreement because we want to make sure that we clarify all this. I think people when they wrote this lease back, you know, 15, 20 years ago, didn't really contemplate the situation that we have today. So that is really why we're proposing these types of things. But we clearly want to replace signage. We want to have good, very clear signage. And we're going to make that a priority. Great. On 1/2. In all fairness for the public, just like we have behind the diocese, your time is up so you can keep back up. Mrs. most will go to you can keep back up to 5 minutes. Okay. Now, just mongo. You have 5 minutes. Thank you. I completely agree this is a lease that this council would never approve. And then I'll also comment that often in our current lease agreements, we also approve a lease and an operating agreement at the same time under current. Is that accurate? I feel like I just read a two from four where we're approving a lease and an operating agreement simultaneously. Could you go into that? Yes, that does happen from time to time. Great. So. A couple of things. The shared areas in this operating agreement, I would like to see an effort to utilize. As primary custody. I don't know any other words except for, like, divorce words, but we need primary custody of at least 50% of shared space. And if that means 100% of shared space 50% of the time, or every other Tuesday and every other weekend, whatever you work out. But. Shared again. I have a daughter. I try to teach that it doesn't always end up 5050, but sharing doesn't mean that you keep all the toys all the time. And so I'd love for there to be some understanding moved towards and the operating agreement that we should see in the next 60 days. I'm willing to work with someone on an animal ordinance for rabbits, but I don't want to hold up where we are today to make modifications on the rabbit side. 50%. Oh, CTAs. I want to talk about CTS. For those of you who aren't in the animal world, I know we have a lot of people here on short term rentals and other things. A commitment to adopt is a very serious thing and we need to have a process by which during the animal hold period for owner redemption, that means an animal is lost. It is brought into our shelter. There's an owner redemption period where we don't let other people adopt it out. We need to be able to have a commitment to adopt. And if someone signs up for that commitment to adopt, they have 24 hours from the date of which the animal becomes available before we even put it on the docket for SPCA or any other group. Quite honestly, I love our rescues, but the public needs that first opportunity. And where I come from, we have a very strong CTA policy. We're in Chameleon in the Notes section. You can have up to three CTAs. They're all called at the same time when the animal meets that requirement and or they can be present at 10 a.m. on the day that the animal becomes available and whichever one's there first gets to adopt whatever you want to work out that doesn't result in fistfights at the shelter. We need that. And there have been fistfights at the shelters around the region over puppies. Budget. Going back to budget, what you're looking at in the budget book is not that their budget has ever been cut. It's that in previous years, as the year goes on, when we know that there's a certain need and Parks and Rec might be able to underspend in an area, they allow animal care to overspend on a one time basis. But the budget from year to year has not gone down. The budget are the things that you have, the ongoing costs of staffing and food and things like that. So I just wanted to be clear on that and then I'll recue for additional comments. I thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. It's. Yes, yes. Okay. Councilman Soprano. I see it. But he was. Gear. I saw supernovas was up earlier, but I wanted to to ask the question one more time on the signage. So we have it has to be shared and agreed upon inside, but not outside. We'll have to get you the details. I believe it's the premises that are under the lease. I don't have it in front of me what exact premises they're talking about. But the lease specifically says signage governed under the lease has to be jointly approved. So when I was there, I saw many doors that were in the shared space that had sparkly names plastered on the doors and said sparkly stuff only in our shared spaces. And it's my understanding we didn't have a process to agree for that. So when we're talking about the menu, I want to make sure that we come back with what is the process that we approve, not only shared space signage, what is the process where we approve meeting space rooms, what's the process for putting our pets into the adoption place but that there is a process and that not one person can say no, we might need to use that tomorrow or next day. To is is I wanted to ask what happens if they do not sign the MCU and we find that in the lease there's nothing too egregious because it's not clear enough in the lease. What happens if she says, no, we're not going to sign that? No, you. I might be a city attorney. Question. As everyone's mentioned, this would be a operating agreement. Operating agreement without an operating agreement or a memorandum of understanding is also an agreement. Right. So they could that is a distinct possibility that the SPC, LA would not execute that agreement and then we would revert back to the existing lease, which is the governing document for the property . And when when does the word cease and desist come into play? I just had somebody ask and I had to make sure I asked. Well, it it probably wouldn't come into play with this lease. We probably send them a notice of violation of the lease under the lease and the then they would have a cure period, I believe is 30 days to cure whatever the violation is. So if they are inappropriately locking out the city from shared space area, we would send them a notice and they would have 30 days to do that. Prior to doing that, I would hope that the director of Parks and Record and staff would have a conversation with the SPCA to try and resolve that short of involving the city attorney's office and and enforcing the terms of the lease through the legal process. But that's certainly an option that we have. Right. I just wanted that kind of mapped out for folks. My last part is around the 300 number. I don't think anybody in the city wants to deter people from rescuing animals. And it's my understanding that this is not saying that you cannot, you know, rescue animals and work with us at the 300 level, but that it's more regulating. Can you tease it out just a little bit more on the intent behind that 300 number? Yeah. So in the presentation, you'll note that we are suggesting that the bank's banks team is going to do outreach to the rescue groups as well as to the public about the 300. To be clear, the 300 number is regulating nonprofit organizations that bring 300 animals or more from the outside and Long Beach. It's not adopting Long Beach animals outside of Long Beach. That's not the intent. The intent is to regulate nonprofit organizations that have higher numbers than 300. And we're going to have a discussion with the rescue groups and the public on whether that's the right number before it comes back to you so that it doesn't negatively impact those rescue groups. And that's that's the intent. And Councilmember, I think we would also ask for some flexibility in this ordinance. We would also request and we've seen this in other places where the director of Parks Rec, a marine, can request a waiver of the ordinance under certain circumstances. So if there was a rescue group that somehow was at 301 or whatever it is, that if there's a partnership, if things are working well, we're able to say, Yep, absolutely. If things are not working well, we're able to say, I'm sorry, the ordinance does not allow that. So we are asking for some flexibility to recognize the effort of those groups that really do do very good work in the city. That's exactly what I was I was hoping to hear again. Guys, I think you've done a great job, Stacy. I look forward to many years of continuing to improve our shelter with you. So thank you, guys. Contribution? No. Thank you. Thanks to PRM for a great presentation. Thanks to all the speakers tonight and special thanks to those of you who reached out to our office prior to tonight's meeting. I was most struck by the comments about some of the behaviors out out at the Animal Care Services Center. And it was touched on here. Hostility in Stacy Mungo just mentioned, fistfights breaking up. I'm reminded of that famous line from the movie Dr. Strangelove. You can't fight in here. This is the war room. If you can't fight in the war room, I don't think you should be able to fight in a room where volunteers are trying to help cats and dogs. And I think you're trying to address that by the signage, internal signage within the facility explaining what the rules are. But I think based on one thing that Laura Selma said, that a lot of people are reluctant to come forward for fear of retaliation. So I think I have a friendly amendment that might address that. And that is I think we could set up, for lack of a better term, a separate portal where reports can be made anonymously as they see the behaviors or see violations that we can have some type of hotline. So if the if the maker of the motion would accept that, that's that's my amendment. I think that would be great. I think having some kind of email address that allows people to anonymously make a report that can be looked into and given the proper timeliness, that would be very much appreciated. So if I could we think that's a great suggestion. I'd suggest that we use what we have in place, which is the city auditor's fraud hotline. It is completely anonymous. It has the ability to go directly to the auditor, and then she has a process to forward those things to us for investigation without any attribution. So we will work with her on on getting that available if, if that meets the need. Thank you. Councilman Orson. Thank you very much. I'll be very short. I needed some clarification, first of all, to staff. I want to say a great report and to our our city team, great work just over the last ten years. The numbers speak for themselves. We are definitely headed in the right direction when it comes to euthanasia rates being reduced and adoption rates being increased. And I know that you guys don't share that credit alone. It is as a result of a lot of the great groups that are working in our city to work to make that happen. And so they are. Congratulations to everybody for the work so far. Thus far, we're not perfect, obviously, but I think we're definitely headed in the right direction. As a result, I wanted to add to the to the it's an emotion on the floor. There's been a lot said about operating agreement and memorandum of understanding. And I want to get some clarification from city staff on what's the difference. Legally they're probably no difference. The IMO you is is also a contract. The operating agreement would be a contract. You would have terms and conditions in both of the operating agreement and the IMO you that would hopefully clarify and add to the existing lease. I think that's the intention here. Either one of those documents is capable of doing that. And from city perspective, the reason for the change in terminology is just to communicate a little bit better. You know, there was some mistake, there is some confusion about memorandum of understanding. You know, sometimes that term is not well recognized outside of government speak. So operating agreement is really our way of saying it's supposed to be very clear who does what, how are we going to operate it? The facility was a way to better communicate to the public. So how long has SBC, L.A. been our partner? Well. Since 98 is when the lease was established in 1998. And what were the terms and how are we operating today? How did how do we get to this point? I mean, how has there never been a sit down to agree on how. Dog food is dispensed. And what? What areas are our city of a Long Beach versus SPCA, L.A.? I mean, has there been none of that whatsoever in the 30 years? I can't speak for the entire 30 years. But during my my being present there, we have been, you know, before Stacy with Ted Stevens, we have been bringing these issues up. And now they have pretty much come to a point where they're now much more serious with regards to changing behavior and ensuring that the the terms of the existing agreements are enforced. And also more added detail is added to an operating agreement. And how many years are left on the existing lease agreement. The lease expires in July 2053. So that tells me that there's going to have to be some some significant work from staff to to work together with all of the stakeholders to try to find a way to co-exist and operate together. Well, I. And so, I mean, I do like I'm going to support what's on the floor here today. But I'm I'm concerned that when, you know, you already have a lease agreement, there's not a whole lot of incentive to come to the table to an agreement if both parties are not willing to get there. Right. And so how we get them there is is is a concern of mine right now and to some of the tone around this issue. And to me, there's that there should be more and more collaboration moving forward that with that kind of a tone. So I want to support this. And then my last question is the I know the city auditor did a they did an audit of our animal care services. And what authority, if any, does a city auditor have to to look at this lease? But also the the the operations of SPCA. Because it is on city site. Councilmember. I believe that the other could look at the lease and the operations of our partner or speaker in this case under the lease, to see that both sides are operating as they would any other type of lease where we have an agreement. Queen Mary comes to mind right there. They're looking at the operations of our in that case, of our tenant. In this case, it would be looking at both the city and the SPCA. Or would you be open to a friendly amendment to asking the city auditor also take a look at. The lease as well as the operations of. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Fine. So one pair price. So I just want to go back to my friendly, which was very specific language directing the city attorney's office to review the lease. Note the violations. Seek out weather modification is necessary or termination is warranted. My concern with talking about operating agreements and may use whatever term we want to use is that we currently have an existing contract that I'm concerned is not being followed. So what I don't want to do is have us enter into another agreement with someone who might be in violation of the first agreement. So I know Councilmember Mungo accepted my friendly, but I just want to make sure that doesn't get lost here. I get that we're already doing that. But this is a formal request from the Council for the City Attorney's Office to take a look at the lease to provide provide us with information on what violations exist. I will tell you sometimes when we in the past, when we've heard about the relationship there, it has not seemed that violations are as prevalent as they might be. And so I don't know if that's because we've had this long term partnership and we're trying to support the partnership. But a partnership, a real partnership only exists when both of the partners are respectfully participating in the partnership with a spirit of trust, mutual respect, all of that. So I think that we have a legal partnership with this entity that should not be clouded by the term of the partnership, but rather by the terms of the lease. So I hope that my friendly was clear that I want to look at the terms of the lease. We can we can talk about operating agreements. But right now, I'm concerned that the first agreement we have in place isn't being followed. So I really hope that that message came through. I felt like I needed to reiterate it one more time because it's been a long conversation, and I'm happy to provide the city attorney with the specific language that I read into the record, or I'm sure the video is available to double check that. But that's that. That was my friendly. It was very specific. And Councilmember, thank you for that. If we can get a point of clarification that I understand that you want us to suspend any negotiations on a four operating agreement until that work is done or continue those discussions while we're doing that. And then the second part of that is just the role of the city auditor. So those you know, we welcome the auditor. If there's if there's a role for her and the council wants to do that, it's just to be clear. What is the attorney doing? What is staff doing and what is the city auditors? Sure. And I know Councilmember Mungo wants to speak on this, but what where my intent is that is that. The city manager hears very clearly that we're concerned that we have a lease that's not being followed in the manner that it was intended when it was entered upon, that that should be a priority for us to determine what provisions of the lease are being violated and to correct those those violations as soon as possible. We should not be entering into a new lease or new agreement. Sorry, not no lease, new agreement with someone who is already in violation of an agreement we have with them. So I would I think continuing the conversations is great. We can talk all day long, but we shouldn't put pen to paper on any agreement until we've determined. Whether the first. Agreement we have in place is already working or not. Thank you. That's clear. Okay. So just as a comment to reinforce, I'm responding to the friendly discussion. All right, please. Okay. So in what you had originally asked in my response, I just wanted to clarify what I had stated. So what I had stated is I received a manila envelope. From no name that had a bunch of potential violations on it. It's this does not have to it's from my vanilla folder did not have who it was from. I met with the city attorney, the city manager, and he wrote him what? And in those cases, we went line by line through it was not this thick. So there may be additional violations in here that were not in the manila envelope provided to my office with no name on it. And we went line by line through every. I don't know, exhortation from the person who provided an anonymous folder of every potential violation. Many of those are in this folder that I received today, and many of them the city attorney looked into. And the statute of limitations has either already passed or they were notified at the time of our meeting. To the to SBC Ala. And they have 30 days to cure. However. In addition to that packet that I provided to the city manager, I'm happy to add any of the materials submitted by the community today to add to that, and I am supportive of the city attorney and the city auditor working together in addition to the in the light of the friendly amendment also provided by Councilman Austin. If she's agreeable because she's not here to agree. And I think that that's an important part. If she doesn't have the resources, I don't want to hold it up. Antoine Monger That makes sense that time is up and now we're going to move to Councilwoman. Is that agreeable, Miss Price? Of course. Okay, great. So we're all on the same page. Councilwoman Pugh. Thank you. And I want to thank Councilmember Price for for clarifying that. I agree and support that. And I just didn't expect I don't expect that that will take too long because we've already been doing that process, which is why I went into the conversation about the operating agreement, because our staff really does need to be supported in that process. So my one question that I have two quick things. When the SPCA takes a pet, they come over, they take a pet. We don't know if that pet gets adopted or euthanized. Is that correct? Thank you, guys. Let's. So the assumption is that the pet is placed. The SPCA takes animals from us that are extremely highly adoptable and so would not. Have a reason to take an animal that wasn't. There have been times where. An animal. Maybe falls outside of their adoption program after they have taken it and they have returned it to the shelter. Okay. I wanted to ask if there was a process for that, just to make sure as we're going through the conversations with process and M.O., you if there was an opportunity to say if you guys take a pet that perhaps you can't adopt, that the first place would be our animal shelter, that it could come back to just because I know that that's been a question out there. And then I did want to just clarify, since we're having the conversation today so we don't have to have it again, it looks like in the lease that says any signs are not mutually agreed on, may be removed by the SPCA, by the city at the speaker's cost. And so any signs that we just don't agree on? There is a process in that lease. So I just echo that to make sure that we're not you know, we have our signage in the appropriate places so people can adopt from us and that there are signage in other places that might not be appropriate that we address that. And the last thing I'll say is that I, again, really proud. And the difference in between ten years ago and today and this is a difficult part, I think, for the SPCA, is that we used to be the facility that euthanized all the animals. We were animal control. We were not designed to be an adoption facility. And what we're doing right now is we're changing the model to compassion phase. And so it's going to take time to figure out the space in the process and that they really understand that, too. Is that yeah, it might have always operated a different way, but we as a council are setting the tone to say we want to make sure that the city is participating in saving lives instead of euthanizing them. So, again, thank you. That's one. Mango. Thank you. I was going through my notes. One of the things I have here is I was contacted by a reporter last week and again today that they've had a public records request in on our animal outcomes for months. So I guess I have a question related to. What is the challenge with running a critical report from Chameleon to get the media the information that they're asking for? Thank you, Stacy Mungo. There should be no challenge. If that is happening, I'm I'm going to guess that that is some sort of clerical error. Statistical data is readily available at a moment's notice and can be sent very, very quickly and easily. So it sounds like from talking to a reporter today that in December they requested the number of animals whose animal outcome was transferred to SPCA, and they're still waiting on that. Is there a reason why they cannot have that by Friday? No. There's no reason. Wonderful if you cannot find said public order requests. If you could just email the answer to the council, then we will make sure they get it. Okay. I think that will help. So just to kind of wrap up, thank you to the community for coming. Thank you. For those of you who responded to our Facebook and actually did the sit down dialogs with us in advance of the meeting, I think we got a lot of things handled in advance of the meeting related to potential violations. For those of you who are scared to come forward and. Put envelopes into my field office mailbox that we read and get everything. And we appreciate you. And I look forward to. If you have any other violations you're concerned about, please email the fraud hotline the city auditor immediately so that those can be handled as a part of this process. We'd like to move forward quickly, and we don't want to wait three weeks for more things and more things and more things to come up. And then please also be specific. Make sure that they have dates, make sure that they have the things that are necessary for them to either be notified or cured so that we can move forward. Thank you to my colleagues for all the time that all of us have spent in reading the many, many emails and better digging into and understanding. And thank you to my many colleagues who have visited the shelter over the last six months that may have not had another opportunity. And I'll end with. With relation to the 300 animals. I would really like us to look at a monthly limit versus an annual limit because animals are seasonal and kitten season and all these. If you're talking about 300 animals, maybe you just want to limit it by 25 a month because then during the peak seasons it's easier to monitor. And then a rescue that gets an exception is on an exception on a month to month basis. You'll notice that that's something I do in the budget as well. I like monthly limits and I hope that my colleagues are in agreement with that. I don't hear any objections. So let's look at that to make sure it's a better. Thank you, everyone, for all of your input. And I hope that everyone will support this motion. I. It's a good package. We had three motions all do it. We have a motion that's been extensively amended and that's on the floor to be voted on at this point. So with that, could we come up with a vote? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Next item.

Recommendation to request City Manager to explore the feasibility of realigning the initiatives of the City's Safe Long Beach Violence Prevention Plan as well as the Language Access Program into the Department of Health and Human Services; and Evaluate the feasibility and benefits of establishing a new "Office of Equity, Access, and Prevention," or similar title, which aligns these critical initiatives with other key city programs and initiatives, and report back to the City Council within 90 days.

LongBeachCC_07052016_16-0603

Perfect. Now back to you. Item 12. I know the clerk already read the item. So we're on item 12. I'm going to turn this over to Council Member Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So tonight, I'm proud to begin a discussion about taking our commitment to equity to the next level as a city. I want to thank my co-sponsors, Councilwoman Gonzalez and Councilmember Durango Ranga. I just want to acknowledge Vice Mayor Lowenthal, who couldn't be be here. But she she was well aware that this is she signed on more so in the second District as the incoming second District council member is very active on this issue as well and has committed to take this up and and move forward on it. I want to thank the community members and the entire council who have sort of put Long Beach in a position to lead around work work like this. We wouldn't be able to have this conversation if it weren't for the groundwork being laid over the years. So we kicked off this conversation last Monday where members of the community came together to explore some new or innovative approaches that cities have taken across the country to address issues of equity. So I want to start with a recap of last week's community meeting right now. Welcome. Welcome to our community conversation. And our theme today is Innovating for Equity. I am council member Rex Richards. Thank you all for joining joining us here this evening. And we're going to have a very interesting conversation that will hopefully turn into a good dialog of it actually works as a community. We are here to talk about equity. Talk about social justice and ways that we can innovate to do better as a community and achieve those things. We know that violence is now considered a public health problem. So we've established a citywide violence prevention plan to address a broad safety agenda. We know that boys and men of color need a greater focus. So we created My Brother's Keeper and recently launched our local action plan. We know that we're the second most culturally diverse city. So we created a language access plan. We know these things, and we're taking steps in our city to address these things. But what do these things have in common? They all help to achieve equity. They all have a common denominator. But are we doing all that we can to make sure that we speak the same language? And are we doing everything we can to innovate, better achieve equity, and to make sure that we connect all the dots and. We're talking about equity. There's a really large conversation right now going on at a national level around health equity. So everywhere that we stand, equity is the key focus of it. And so we start to think about what that really means. The things that really lead to health in our community is under social conditions over have 55% of health in a community is based on the social conditions in which you live. 30% are based on the behavior that you undertake. Only 10% is health care. When we're looking at this, we are looking at the entire area. We're looking at our air quality. We're looking at our crime rates or looking at our income. Everything matters. When you're looking at health, which is why I'm looking at all of it, if I don't look at all of it. I can't move a community forward, regardless of how. One might define. Equity. It is based. On the context in which you live in the life experiences of that, that guide you, that inform your view of the world. And when we think about equality, while everyone is given the exact same starting point, there's the assumption that we all will reach the same ending point. But it doesn't take. Into account those differences. That are inherent among us. There's a photo that has three. Individuals in. Varying heights who are. Attempting. To peer over a fence. Looking over into a baseball field. One is tall. One is of medium height, one is. Short, and a tall individual can already see over the fence. The median person. Medium height person, cannot buy the short person. Not at all. And so in the next frame, there is a photo with three boxes. Just three boxes. Tall person is already. Thank you and said the tall person is already able to see over there given a box they can see even further. Over the median person is able to see over the third. Person still cannot. It doesn't take into account the fundamental distinctions that people have. Oakland is a lot like Long Beach and so many of the issues that are confronting you here. We've also seen in Oakland. But I want to talk a little bit about the presentation that was made today, because I think that there is a critical component that needs to be said. You can now have a conversation about equity without talking about race. When you look at all the evidence. Presented with respect to the health department. The social conditions are really euphemisms for race. When you look at all of the data, if I looked at your city and I look at the data, white population is doing pretty well. People of color are not. And so you have to have an intentional conversation about race in order to get to equity. There's an intersection in just about each and every one of the issues that were presented. And it is race. When you talk about. And we talk about it every day when you talk about educational disparities. When you talk about health disparities, when you talk about the technology gap and all of those gaps, those are euphemisms. We're talking about communities of color. And they've somehow made us believe that that there is something deficient in us and that if we only found. The right program, if we only found the right program. That somehow we would change the outcomes when in reality, there is a systemic culture. A systemic culture that has to be changed. Privilege of leading the for the city of Seattle, what we call the Race and Social Justice Initiative. It's 12 years old. It was the first in the country. And its premise is, is that we are working to dismantle institutional and structural barriers in order to achieve racial equity within city government and across our communities in Seattle. You can imagine that 12 years ago that was a mighty vision, and it still is today, because despite all of our effort, despite all of our work, we are still struggling with what's racism and how it impacts every area of our life. And we heard about health disparities just a moment ago. But there's health disparities. There's criminal justice disparities. There's educational equity disparities. And what I have found in my two and a half years of being in this position is that people love to talk about equity. People love to talk about how equity is within our grasp. But what people do not like to talk about is racism. And if we don't talk about racism, we will never achieve racial equity. Thank you. So the idea tonight. Thanks a lot. The idea tonight around equity is that equity involves attempting to better understand the context, the systems, the barriers that prevent an individual from enjoying full and healthy lives. It means acknowledging that while there are a number of factors that contribute to inequity, systems do in fact play a role as well. And we are in a direct position to do something about that. So why is it important that we place a greater focus on equity here in Long Beach? First, let's take a quick look at a few different statistics by zip code in Long Beach. The first slide shows the poverty rates across 11 zip codes. The right side of the graph shows a much different picture than the left side of the graph. The highest poverty rates can be found in a number of zip codes with upwards of 46%, while the lowest are as low as 5%. So that's over 40% disparity. Then if you look at life expectancy for one year old in different zip codes across Long Beach, again, this graph shows a tale of two very different communities in Long Beach. Among these Long Beach zip codes, there's a seven year difference between them. When we look at the two zip add to zip codes that are very different side by side, the disparities are even more apparent. Take a look at some of the indicators in one in one zip code, 106 people out of 10,000 are likely to be victims of violent crime, while only 13 in another zip code are in one zip code. There are only 0.26 acres of open space per 1000 residents, while there's 8.774 thousand 8000 residents in the other zip code. So why are these statistics so different? What makes our what makes some of our neighborhoods healthier than others? These conditions, these statistics are all tied to what's known as social determinants of health. These are complex social and economic circumstances in which people are born. They grow up in, they live in, they work in. These circumstances are shaped by a wider set of forces, including economics, social policies, politics. You can see from this slide that among the social determinants of health are public safety, violence and trauma, which are not always thought of as health issues. But some of you, as some of you and most of the people in this audience might know, the CDC and many large public health institutions now categorize violence as one of the major public health issues facing our nation in modern times. And while crime increase increasing while crime is increasing across the state of California and recent reforms to the criminal justice system such as realignment, now is the time for local cities like Long Beach to double down on violence prevention and treat violence as a public health epidemic . Epidemic that it is. And by giving it a permanent home in our health department and establishing a dedicated office in our city, we're doing just that. Now, we as a city are already tackling many of these issues. We're one of only three cities in California with our own public health department that has 30 programs working with community partners focused on improving the health of people in Long Beach, including equity work. We just adopted a comprehensive My Brother's Keeper Local Action Plan that addresses disparities of boys and young men of color. We have a commitment to violence prevention with our comprehensive, safe Long Beach violence prevention plan, which we've adopted in 2014 and the cities. And as as the second most culturally diverse city in the nation, we've adopted a language access policy to make our City Hall more accessible to all communities. And we are a city who values human dignity, equality and civil rights. So what does all of this vital work have in common? Like I said, they place a lens on equity for our city, and equity is there is all of their common denominator. So while Long Beach has had a commitment to preventing violence and creating better outcomes for our residents, the efforts are fragmented across departments. My proposal tonight is demonstrate that Long Beach is serious about equity, violence, prevention and diversity. By taking the natural next step of providing these critical areas of focus, a real home in our city, realignment of our realigning our complementary initiatives and creating one central office and health department will bring a number of benefits to our city, including expanding our capacity to serve our residents, allowing for more coordination of efforts, and increasing our ability to leverage our limited resources for grant and philanthropic dollars. If we truly believe that Long Beach is a city where all of its constituents of any race, gender, age, sexual orientation deserve to live in a community that is healthy, safe and thriving, that we should take this natural next step. We've passed resolutions. We've crafted programs. We've written grants. But the next critical step to making this commitment is by reorganizing our government and establishing to an office dedicated to placing an ongoing focus on these issues. So while I'm taking the privilege of making the motion tonight, I want to clear clarify some direction to staff. So, number one, the focus of the proposal is to is to realign existing funded programs into one central office. This includes our safe Long Beach work, which includes My Brother's Keeper. This includes our language access work and much of the health equity work that's already taking place in our health department. In second, with respect to timing, I would amend the motion to say that the fiscal evaluation we want that is completed in the next 60 days so we can evaluate any potential budget considerations through the FY17 budget discussions. In terms of actual implementation, it would be unreasonable for this report, for this new office to be established by the beginning of FY17. So I would like for the visit feasibility report to provide an implementation timeline based on implementation sometime within the period of the entire FY17 fiscal year. So that's it. That's my my motion and I urge a yes vote. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. There is a second I'm going to turn to Councilmember Ringa. Thank you. I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for inviting me to participate in this and this motion more than 18 hours. I think equity has been a very important conversation that we've had for a very long time here. And aligning these programs excuse me, in one office, I think makes sense. It certainly makes sense to include it in the health department. They certainly are very adept and well versed and capable of maintaining many of the grants that will be going in there, as well as being able to apply for others. So I totally agree with the motion and I hope that I can get the support of my council colleagues as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Yes. I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for bringing a well-researched and thought out item to council. I think that there are a lot of efficiencies in our government that we have not yet explored. And I think that having this young and innovative council that has a new look on the way things are operating really has been a big asset to the city. I think that looking at specifically the social, social determinants of health, no matter where you are, no matter what you believe, everyone knows and understands that public health and the health of our communities is the top priority. There is nothing more important than health and safety of the communities. And so I think that this is a great step in the right direction. I think that we will be better able to leverage federal and state grant funds when we consolidate. And so I look forward to hearing what the proposal looks like and I look forward to staff spending some good time on it. I know that there's a small revision to the 60 days. I know our staff is miracle workers and I wish them the best of luck with that and I hope that it comes back as well thought out as the Councilmember intends. And if there are additional components that take more time, that at least we have a timeline for that, because I know we've had a couple of 60 day turnarounds, 120 day turnarounds that we've kind of. Made the mark, but we could have done a bit more. And I know that summer's challenging, but I think that this is something worth the time and effort. So I look forward to seeing what that looks like and I'm very supportive of this item. Thank you. And thank you all for being here. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. I just also want to say thank you to Councilmember Richardson for bringing this forward. I think it's certainly long overdue. As he mentioned, the city is doing so many different things and we're really piece mealing a lot of this. So we've we've worked on language access, we worked on LGBT issues and and rights, and we work to push women's issues. We've done a lot of symbolic gestures to remain in support of many of these things. And now to have these condensed and consolidated into one office is really a really great step in the right direction, in my opinion. I'll look forward to see what this report will bring. I know that this could only do nothing but positivity for us here in Long Beach in of Austin is doing it. Portland is doing it. Seattle is doing it. These are all cities that really in many cases, we're at the forefront. We're actually doing a lot of things that mirror what they're doing, but they're actually doing a lot of things that we're doing as well, a lot of things and having the opportunity. And I think Councilmember Richardson, again, for bringing potential counterparts from Seattle and from Oakland to Long Beach to talk about how their office looks like was a really great option, an opportunity for many of us to to see what we can do here in Long Beach. So I look forward to this coming back, I think every single one of you for the work that you do every day, because I know that once if this does pass down the line and we do get this office, that many of you will be working very closely with us. So thank you so much. Thank you. Councilman Andrews. Thank you, Mayor. I would also like to thank Councilman Richardson for bringing this item forward. You know, the idea of having one office with all of these resources and services available to the community I think is wonderful. And I would also look forward to seeing the magnificent work of the Department of Health and Human Services. It's going to bring to our community hope that the office, you know, also and truly I'm seeing this in all honesty, that the office also at Aging can be implemented as well, because I think that's very important. And thank you again, you know, Councilman Richardson, for this item. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. I also want to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward. I believe that equity should be part of our core mission. And as a city and in public safety is what we do as a government. We should that should be a priority, the health and safety of our residents. But hopefully this this office will be looking at housing access and education and access to public services and jobs and aging and understanding that it's going to be a big job. It's going to be a big job. And I think it's going to require more than one person to actually accomplish this and do it well. One thing that I'd like to just just. Ask our council to do is is focusing on doing something. Well within the last few months we've. Brought forward the violence prevention plan. We brought forth My Brother's Keeper. We brought forth a language access program that that has not a lot of those programs have even had an opportunity to work yet. And so I like to make sure that that in doing this, that, that it makes a lot of sense to realign and in focus. But I'd also like just to ask the maker of the motion as well as the rest of the council to to look at not just prescribing necessarily maybe one position or one office, but look at realigning and allow our city staff to to come back with some options. I remember very vividly when the City of Long Beach established its Citizen Police Complaint Commission. That was a charter in our city charter. It was a it was a bold move that that that went to the voters and the voters in the city approved that. That that commission had made it part of our charter, but they put it under the office of the city manager to give it a lot more robustness, strength. And I think some of the issues and not to be critical of it, but some of the issues that that could be facing the the the implementation of these these programs in a department could also be challenged in another department outside of the office of the city manager. And so I'd just like to say take that into consideration. And of course, I'll be supporting this. Okay. Thank you very much. With that, I'm going to go to public comment on the item and then we'll come back to council. So if you have public comment, please come forward and line up. Make sure you say your name, please, and your address or residence for the record and we'll begin. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council, we want to really think. Well, my name is. Renee Castro, and I live in the third district. I want to thank Councilman Rich Richardson for bringing this forward. I think this is a really innovative idea. I appreciate the research that's gone into it, particularly the fact that there are areas of the city, obviously, that have very different health outcomes. And I appreciate the focus on. Prevention and access as well. I think that's really forward thinking. I work with a lot of foundations, both locally, as well. As national funders like Kresge for others. And as Kelly Colby said in in the video, I mean, this is where all funding is moving, both at a government level as well as foundations are looking. At access equity prevention. So it really. Allows us to become more. Eligible for a lot of funding as well. So and I also just want. To speak as the chair for the Long Beach Gang Resistance. Intervention and Prevention Program that, you know, as was said in the video, violence is a public health issue. And I think placing it in the health department is the right thing to do. So thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, honorable mayor and council jeanine pearce and I am councilmember elect in the second district and I was asked to speak tonight by my soon to be colleague. I want to thank everybody for your hard work. But I first want to ask everybody in the audience that supporting this item to stand up. Stand up, everyone. Because you guys are the ones that have been on the front line every day for the last several years, working on these issues of equity, working on these issues of violence prevention, making sure that we're working with our council members on on issues of immigration, women's status, raising the wage. And I know that this office, while it's one office that we're hopefully getting to and that it's going to be housed under the health department, which I'm. Hugely supportive of. Gives us the opportunity to have one lens as to which how we close that gap. In my district, the two zip. Codes that I have in my. District are that zip codes, those zip codes that have the highest life expectancy and the lowest life expectancy with that seven year difference in between. And so it is a great honor today to be speaking. In support. Of this. I was at the table with the California Endowment in 2013 when we started having this conversation. We looked ahead and said, Do we think we could ever do this in Long Beach? Could we ever have an Office of Equity in Long Beach? We thought, sure, it's going to be a while. And so you guys beat us to it. I definitely am inspired by the work that you guys are doing today, and I hope that we move with a thought about every single person that could be impacted, whether it's around youth, whether it's around violence, sexual assault, immigration, wage theft . All of these issues are things that we can have a a lens which we are asking questions about equity. And that's the first step. If we can ask questions and have a shared definition, we can get a lot of things done together. And so thank you guys very much for your leadership. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good evening. Dr. Jane Galloway, Third, Third District. Good evening to all of you. I'm happy to speak to this measure. When I was teaching victimology in the 1990s at Cypress College, we learned from both L.A. and Orange County sheriff's departments that the policy of rehabilitation had officially been replaced with one of punishment, and that this spanned the lifecycle from children and parents finding themselves engaged with child's product protective services to middle school, dropping out housing, food scarcity issues and the myriad elder concerns. Nothing happens in a vacuum. We're all products of our environment, and the consequences of economic inequality are graphically detailed in that really great Health and Human Services presentation. I have a concern when when symptoms are criminalized and causes seemingly not connected to outcomes. We aren't getting at the root of human suffering. And this is tragic and less than who we are capable of being as the human family. Combining the strong teams who are already working on elements of the larger challenge under one umbrella as an Office of Equity is a great move toward a holistic solution that is up to the standard of our great city. I strongly support the measure. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Karen replied. I live at 714 Pacific Avenue and I'm a community activist and I want to commend you all for taking the foresight to bring this forward and have this community discussion. It's way past time that we break down the barriers for all of our community and not just afford certain aspects privilege of living in a clean air environment and having healthy housing. I'm. The conversation about race and social justice needs to happen as well as the ageism. And I support wholeheartedly this movement to bring all of these humanistic functions under the health department where they really belong. And it's going to be really important, the people that work on these issues that they understand and care about our community and about people as individuals. So, again, thank you for bringing that discussion forward. Councilman Richardson and the supporters look forward to continuing the dialog. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. Good evening. Dr. Ilene Bernal. 1364 Grand Avenue. I live in the fourth district. I know the new doctor. She just she actually just defended her dissertation a few months ago. Yes. Thank you. And and my my degree literally just. Posted like two weeks ago. Yeah. I hate to embarrass you, but Dr. Bernal is one of the new leading people in science to I mean, I love seeing a woman in science in what you're doing teaching chem and so many folks at Cal State Long Beach. So congratulations. It was a big deal for you. So thank you. Thank you. And a fourth district. Yes. Go forth. Thank you. So I teach at Cal State Long Beach, and I'm also a commissioner. And thank you for having me here this evening. And I fully support the establishment of the Office of Equity, Access and Prevention. And what I look forward to in the creation of this office is the coordination of multiple commissions currently in the city of Portland. You have the Disability and Human Rights Commission working together, and in Seattle you have LGBT disabilities, human rights as well as and women commissions, all working together within the same office. And with that, and I think when you assemble a team with that common purpose, there is a level of accountability involved in making sure that we have the feedback that we need from our constituents to better inform us of what we can do to ensure that we are all serving everyone equitably. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Sabrina Sanders. I've moved to Long Beach because it was such a diverse city. I value ethnic, cultural, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, socioeconomic, and so many other diverse characteristics that make our community so special and sometimes so complex. Having lived in various parts of Long Beach, the sixth District in central Long Beach, the ninth District in Lawrence and North Long Beach, and in the historical California Heights area and engaging the broader city, I've also seen the disproportionate level of access to resources and services by the city in these communities. Past conversations like The Atlantic Corridor Project Rethinking Greater Long Beach in the State of Black Long Beach by Building Health Healthy Communities, highlighted these disparities throughout, highlighting the data, the disparity found through the data as it relates to health, violence, employment opportunities, education and poverty can be delineated in citywide presentations. Some of these disparities are so significant it can be considered a crisis leading to a civil rights issue. As a community, we need to be accountable to these issues of equity in our city. As we look at economic development opportunities, we're at a crossroads of a perfect storm to acknowledge, embrace and call them out or to turn a blind eye. We know that we're addressing them all in all the ways that we work and manage our city. But the mentality that all boats will rise in addressing an issue does not address the specific communities that are facing the fortunate treatment and the issues of equity. I think back to when the city passed the Office of Sustainability and I mean, we all should be saving water planning, planting drought tolerant plants, looking at our behaviors as it relates to sustainability as a city. But until we moved forward with an office that brought together all these departments that was specifically accountable for this mission with strong leadership support and a team of community leaders financed by the city, did it change the mentality and significant change take place in our city? We see this affects in the change of culture and our priorities as a sustainable city all around us. This is why I'm committed to the commitment of the Office of Equity and Access and Prevention and commend you for this discussion today. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Sanders. Next speaker. Hi. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. City council members. My name is Nicole Ababa. I'm actually on the Human Relations Commission and I'm also a community organizer with the Filipino Migrant Center, as well as the Coalition to End Wage Theft. And I to I would like to applaud our city council members, particularly Councilmember Richardson, Gonzalez Lowenthal in your UNGA for taking this initiative on this issue around equity. When we assess how our resources are distributed in the city, we need only travel from the south end of Ocean Boulevard and Alamitos, Martin Luther King Avenue, which changes into California Avenue, Bixby Knolls, or even go from the west side of Willow to the east side of Willow towards Studebaker, and really see the disparities for ourselves, our neighborhoods and the health of our city are really largely shaped by our local economy and the local policies that are passed here. The heart of our economy is really the workforce, the working families that make this city run. But what we continue to see today is an inequitable economy, a tale of two cities where poverty, unemployment and wage theft is a daily reality for local residents, particularly in communities of color. For women, the formerly incarcerated and immigrants, equity is about social justice. It's about fairness. And what's unfair is to let workers get robbed of their wages every single day from their employers who face little, if any, consequences to endure a state process that takes 1 to 2 years and still to come out empty handed. 83% of people who actually win their wage theft cases never see a dime. And Long Beach can and must do better. And this is an opportunity, I think today is very much so a positive step forward in considering this Office of Equity. But we also have to consider that workers every single day are denied their meal and rest breaks, denied their overtime, denied payment at all. And so while we applaud this positive, positive step forward, we know that early January, the city council made a commitment to ensuring local strong wage enforcement. And we expect that the City of Long Beach will continue to pass more equitable policies to ensure workers collect the money that's owed to them, protect workers that are actually retaliated against, and to also invest in fully funding a wage enforcement officer bureau. If we want the city to really take equity, public health and violence prevention seriously, we also need the city to partner with local residents, community based organizations and consider policies that lift up all workers and all families. And together we can really create and shape that equitable city that we're talking about. Thank you. Good evening. Council members. Dr. Garcia was here a second ago. Sorry. My name's Stella Su, second district resident president at Green Education. I chair the neighborhood's workgroup for building healthy communities. And I'm a member of a board member of the LGBT center of Long Beach. Thank you for this opportunity. On all of these roles, I have been part of an effort to create healthier communities, environmentally healthy neighborhoods, good jobs, and a city that lifts up working class families. So thank you, Councilmember Richardson, and all the council members that are in support of this recommendation for producing the recent Community Conversation Forum, innovating for equity, and for bringing these subject matter experts from Oakland, Seattle and our own Health and Human Services Department to talk about an issue that is so broad, yet so critical to creating a vibrant and equitable city. In the presentation, we learned about the serious disparities between zip codes, between neighborhoods in education, health care, life expectancy, open space, poverty for the LGBT community. We are really excited about this recommendation because LGBT community members face more barriers to accessing services due to existing existing discrimination. LGBT people of color face higher rates of violence. Trans women of color experience higher, highest possibilities of hate, motivated homicide. Homeless homelessness, HIV and poverty. Affect LGBT. Folks at a disproportionately. Higher rate for LGBT older adults, a lifetime of employment, discrimination and other factors have contributed to disproportionately higher poverty rates. Seniors in the LGBT community sometimes do not have support systems access to family members due to not having children themselves or longstanding issues with coming out. We need to ensure that our burgeoning senior community is safe, has access to equitable and affordable housing and medical services. And for all of these reasons, we believe that Councilmember Richardson Richardson's recommendation is a very timely one, and we wholeheartedly support this effort. And like any great organization, we need to ensure that our city's values are supported by sound systems processes, and that each department and employee understands their role in creating equity across the city. Thank you so much. Good evening. Excuse me. Council members. My name is Kimmy Monica's, and I am associate executive director of the California Conference for Equality and Justice. And my family and I are also residents of the Sixth District as well. On behalf of CCJ, I would like to thank Council Member Richardson and the other council members who are supporting this initiative for taking positive steps in the direction of consolidating funding and implementing steps toward a robust equity and violence prevention program in the city of Long Beach. CCJ has served as a partner with the City of Long Beach for over 50 years in promoting equity and preventing violence in our communities through our programs with youth, adults, police officers, businesses and city departments. Most notably, CCJ CO staffed the city's Human Dignity Program and provided training to city departments on an as requested basis. Currently, CCJ serves on multiple committees and Task Force Task Forces through safe Long Beach, My Brother's Keeper and Grip. The need for United, concerted, organized and well supported office that will tackle the complicated issues of equity and violence prevention in our city cannot be overstated. Racism and inequality will not go away unless, unless and until we specifically work to dismantle them. That cannot be done without an organized effort by the city. We strongly support Councilmember Richardson's proposal to look forward and look forward to continuing the partnership with the city and create a place where equity and justice are real and not just ideals for all the residents of Long Beach. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council Members Derek Simpson, executive director of the Long Beach Language Communication Partnership. I want to begin by thanking Councilman Richardson for bringing in content experts. Last week, which I've been. Working in the community. For many years, really opened my eyes to the issues and differences between what we speak to as equality and what we speak to as equity, and that indeed, we need to have a common definition of what equity is that transcends not only into the community, but up and down the ranks of our city leaders as well. So that we all speak the same language. We often speak of Long Beach being a very diverse city, and we're very proud of that diversity. And I believe that by establishing an Office of Equity, Access and Prevention, it demonstrates a commitment to what we speak to every day as a source of pride in our community. Not only do the socioeconomic equality issues need to be addressed, but also the equitable access issues need to be addressed. Just as importantly, it demonstrates a real and relevant commitment to the success of programs that we've spoken about already tonight, such as My Brother's Keeper, Safe, Long Beach and Language Access. Violence is indeed a public health issue. As I read the papers and looked at the news to see, a former student in our lab program was killed just last week. It reminds me of just how real and just how close these issues are and just how much more we need to do as a community. And we believe that working at it as a public health issue in a unified department will give us a much more laser focus. And I am 100% behind it, because we work in this community every day, as you do, and we see the need and we thank you for your support. Good evening, members of the City Council, and thank you, Councilmember Richardson, for bringing this item forward. The city of Seattle, in their analysis, they have here the equity analysis, page two of the equity analysis. They talk about working to enact policies and programs that allow marginalized populations to stay in their communities. So for the city of Seattle, it goes beyond just, you know, police and violence prevention and language access actually goes to preserving our communities and preserving our diversity. They claim to be the second most diverse community in the United States, and I think that we want to work to maintain that. The Office of Equity is a great idea. Housing justice. Housing Justice should be included in the conversation. The cities that were cited, the cities of Seattle and Oakland have included housing within their agendas for achieving their equity. In fact, on page two of Seattle's equity analysis. They have a displacement risk index and they've been tracking their displacement that has disproportionately impacted communities of color. Long Beach is no different. A displacement that our community has been experiencing has also been impacting our low income communities of color, our Cambodian community, our Filipino community, African-American community. And that is why today, housing Long Beach put a call out for just cause eviction protections in the name of a responsible renters ordinance so that we can work on maintaining our diversity as a community. We can start working to prevent displacement from occurring. All the great things that have occurred in our city are wonderful. But when we're standing in front of a building of tenants who've been kicked out for no fault of their own, and the building next door to them has been sold and they're going to be kicked out for no fault of their own. These are these are people of color who are being impacted in our downtown area. So if we're truly committed to being equal and creating a diversity in our community, then we need to maintain that diversity. So we encourage you to include housing justice in this conversation when we have an Office of Equity. And again, thank you very much for bringing this forward and hope that you'll consider passing it tonight. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. City Council, city staff in our impressive and dedicated audience. My name is Laura Merrifield and I'm a second district resident. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of my organization, Building Healthy Communities, Long Beach. Our mission is to reduce health disparities and improve overall community health through policy and systems change. We are very happy that this important conversation around equity is happening, and we appreciate the Council's leadership on this. In conversations that have led us here tonight, it's been very helpful to hear leaders from Seattle and Oakland share about the work done in their cities and to learn about similar efforts happening across the nation. Building Healthy communities. Long Beach is happy to support the realignment of safe Long Beach and the language access policy into an Office of Equity to be housed in the Department of Health and Human Services. Equity for long beaches, diverse communities is a common thread that connects these programs, and equity should be at the center of our decision making as a city. With the realignment of these programs. We want to ensure that their reach remains citywide and that all departments of the city continue to work collaboratively on their implementation. Equity and programs to better achieve it cannot be compartmentalized. In order to make this work meaningful, we need to be explicit about how race shapes the inequities we see in our city. As we heard at last week's community conversations and referenced in tonight's video. Leaders from Oakland and Seattle said You can't have a conversation about equity without talking about race. And also people love to talk about equity. But what people don't want to talk about is racism. Similarly, in Long Beach, we love to celebrate our diversity, but we shy away from talking about the racial disparities around us. We talk about the seven year life expectancy gap between zip codes, but we rarely talk about how race directly links to that gap. We don't talk about how that division of zip code breaks down to a West Long Beach that's predominantly people of color and an East Long Beach, predominantly white, that enjoys about seven more years of life. We cannot ignore racial disparities as we strive for an equitable city. We also need to be serious about the change we want to see. As this work moves into the Health Department. We need to ensure that we set goals and measure the progress of our efforts. We need the health department, but also you as a city council, as our mayor, as our city manager, as heads of our departments to establish concrete goals for moving towards equity and to track our progress each year. I heard from the dias tonight calls to do this well, to do this thoroughly and that I fully support building healthy communities. Longreach is excited to continue partnering with you to create an equitable city for all Long Beach residents. We look forward to the staff report in 90 days and the fiscal report even sooner to help move Long Beach forward as a model for language violence prevention, inclusive language access and the promotion of equity. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Honorable mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Myles McNeely and I'm. A city commissioner, a Long Beach native and a resident of the second district. I wanted to offer my strong support for this office and thank Council and Richardson and the rest of the Council for their supportive comments about this item this evening. I wanted to help highlight the point that there are numerous disparities in Long Beach when we look at poverty, education, health and a number of other quality of life indicators. And as mentioned in the video presentation, we can't ignore that these disparities are not only associated with race, but are rooted in historical and systemic racism. It's not easy for everyone, but we must try to develop our sense of comfort in talking about race in this context and establishing this office is a huge step in bringing this dialog to the surface. As Long Beach continues to develop. It is more crucial than ever that we enact policy that ensures that everyone has a fair opportunity to be part of the city's growth. It's up to us to act locally, take responsibility and demonstrate that Long Beach can be a little more just fair and equitable. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Shane Devins, and I'm the first District Commissioner for the Human Relations Commission. A number of my fellow commissioners have already spoken, so I'll keep this very brief. But I wanted to just urge the support of this and thank you all for bringing it. And I believe that this the coordination of these programs and initiatives will let us address further address the disparities in our city. Thanks. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. Mayor Garcia, members of the city council. My name is Jessica Quintana and I'm the executive director of Central Cha and also a long time resident of the city of Long Beach. I'm so glad that we have a young city council because I think if folks remember in 2012 when we were trying to move the violence prevention safety plan and the implementation, it started out in the health department. And so I'm so glad today Councilman Richardson and other council members are bringing this forward. But, you know, the need for a reinvestment in our communities to boost health equity is the common thread. Binding the city and community and faith based organizations endeavors to provide equality will realize when all of us have access to opportunities necessary to satisfy their essential basic needs, advance and well-being, and achieve their full potential. For over 15 years, Central CHA has served as as a violence prevention leader, engaged in a number of areas important to Long Beach, such as addressing and preventing community trauma by creating safer communities through reentry job training. Be Safe, formerly known as the Summer Night Lights, implementing youth and parent development initiatives in a walkable West Side Safe Passage program. We have engaged multiple sectors in effective prevention, including community and business sector, and delivering community centered programs and advocacy. Taking Action to prevent violence injury. Our injuries are responsible for countless lost lives, which we've had too many of those here in the city of Long Beach decreased quality of life and substantial health costs. While injuries affect everyone, people of color and low income populations are partly vulnerable. Quality injury prevention is essential to closing the health equity gap and improving wellness outcomes for all. Center Child Bloods Councilman Rex Richardson Gonzalez Roberto Franca for the leadership and supports the establishment of an Office of Equity, Access and Prevention and Strategic Alignment of violence prevention efforts under the umbrella of the Health Department. These efforts under their belt of the Health Department to better align resources and funding opportunities to support better life and health outcomes for all residents in the city of Long Beach. I just especially want to acknowledge my councilman in the eighth District and and, you know, the note that he said in regards to, you know, we can develop these initiatives, but they're as good as they are as if they have teeth into the action. And so it's very important. And, you know, I truly appreciate all the expertize that has been brought to our city from other areas. But it's important that, you know, we really look to partner with community based organizations and really learn to see what some organizations are doing in the city as well. You know, I think what's been missed over and over again is that true partnership with with faith based and community based organizations and the residents and the youth and families who are most impacted by violence in our community. So I really, truly look forward to a meaningful conversation. It's been said over and over again about race. Sometimes we talk about gangs, but the issues that we really, truly have in our city is race. And it's systemic for a very long time. Thank you. Thank you so much. Speaker, please. So. Good evening, city council and Mayor. I would just first say that, oh, my name is Christopher and I would first like to say that I strongly support the city's. State Long Beach violence prevention plan because. Just today I was almost robbed of my wallet, but we luckily got it back. And I come from a north Long Beach and immigrant background, so I notice a lot of these violences and things happening in our city. I have a lot of experience in the melting pot that is our city, and I believe that this is a great step towards making it so that our youth, both ethnic and not, can have equal chances and make it so that we can create a greater, always improving city. Thank you. Thank you. Inexplicably. Good evening. My name is Sonia Sanchez. I'm 74 years old. I attended in high school, and I live in North Beach. I. I. I'm sorry. The people. Long Beach is made of people from different race cultures and genders, which makes it more diverse and more open. I prefer the youths perspective, which is most likely similar to mine due to the amount of open mindedness that is my generation. I believe the community should come as one to help each other to make things more fair for everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker for you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. And members of the Council. Friends and staff. My name is John Taylor. Effie and I am here to speak on two matters. But tonight for this for this item, I want to speak on the matter of the Pacific Islander Caucus, of which I am the chair, including the area of the Pacific of Melanesia , Micronesia and Polynesia. And so part of our charter and part of our agenda is to support social justice. And this item speaks to the fact of humanity. And so I want to commend Councilman Rex Richardson for having brought this forward. For the record, I'd like to say that we as a Pacific Islander community wholly support this and hopefully to come out will be wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Peter, please. Mayor. Councilman, I just want to say that I my name is Danny Gamboa, and I live at 5437 Cherry Avenue in North Long Beach. I'm wearing multiple hats, but I'm representing the Coalition for Healthy North Long Beach, which is a grant based and Long Beach Health Department based organization as well, also Empower Communities. And I'm also a board chairman, co-chair of the Walk Bike Long Beach Coalition. I support the creation of the Office of Equity because it is an opportunity to leverage the power of City of Long Beach with community based organizations like myself and our people. Our residents. I think. To do more to do most good. When we examine the city's policies, practices and systems through the lens of equity, we are examining the root cause of health. So I support this and thank you, Chris Richardson, for bringing this up. Thank you. And we have our last speaker, actually, Mr. Goodhue, I guess, is our last speaker. So please come forward and close the speakers list. We can get it back to the deliberations. Thank you, Mr. Good. Here. You're the last speaker, correct? Okay, great. Go ahead. Shirley. You start. As I listened to the. All the persons who stood I saw the ones who stood and all the speakers who said that they were for this office. And it reminded me in 2012 when we were voting on the moratorium on cremate crematoriums mortuaries. And then we just had the residents who didn't want the planes flying over. Their airport, over their houses, because they live near the airport. But when they. Got on the plane, no one was concerned about how loud the plane was because they were on it. And as I listen to everyone tonight and I look to see who was being represented. And I thought, okay, this is the community. These these are we are the US. Our federal government has a fair housing. We have labor. Laws, we have. Discrimination laws and departments, we have EEOC, human relations departments, we have our police departments, we have violence prevention. We have neighborhood watch programs. Health and Human Services are in every city in the country. Homeless services is here and many churches on just about every corner. If without that department ever being implemented, each one of us are not willing to become the answer for this and other departments are going to do any good. If every white person in this room has never had dinner with an African American or a Spanish or an Asian person or an a Pacific Islander, a department won't help . This will just be adding a more budget would be adding more expenses to an existing exhausted budget. We have to become the change we want to see. Not ask the city for more money to open up another department to replicate a redundancy for something as individuals we don't want to do. If we won't step out of our doors and knock on house number five and say Hi, I live on house number two and I notice you're black and I'm white. I think we should have dinner because I don't know what pinto beans tastes like. And you may not have had a hog mog. We got to do that or we're just just bigger building, no more big business. Another department. I hate. To say this, Rex, but another. Department is not the answer for equity prevention. What? What? What is it? Equity. Access. We have a human resources department. We have a lot of representations of the problems that are in our city. But we don't have you. We don't have an individual. We got to get back to just being individual, committed neighbors. Times are a lot. Thank you so much. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. And our last speaker, Mr. Good here. Previous speaker made sense this evening. One of the downsides. This may not hurt the situation, but I really don't think that's going to help that much. So. Disparity in housing that will always exist. And quite frankly, it should exist. Otherwise it takes away the incentive. One of the biggest things that could be done is to. Disavow. And reversed the DNC is de facto policy. You want more kids or you want more money? Pop out a kid. You traced those numbers back, and that's probably the greatest single problem this or any major city faces. You just stated what the facts were in terms of where the where the crime goes. I've lived in the city since 1977 and I have never seen a there's a council that had a direct policy of excluding anybody. They did the. Best they could. There will always be disparities. When you take your kid to the hospital, you're not interested in diversity. You'll want the best there is. Same thing with your pet. If you take the dog to the hospital. You want that? There is. I see this as becoming another political. Debacle, pitting one group against the other. I'd give it some thought. I don't think it'll help. I'm not so sure it's going to hurt. I mean, I'm not sure it's going to help. And I don't know what his total impact will be, but I just think. You're going down the wrong tree. You're the wrong path. If you want to have a real impact on crime in this city, start listening tonight. Every council meeting, the number of people that are shot or killed from now until this new city hall is built. Urinating away $93 million on that. And as a reminder. Take the names of those people who were shot or killed. And put them outside the city hall. I just think it's poor policy. You're not thinking you're use. This is a policy that will be designed to pit one group against another, in my view. Thank you. I hate to. Please forgive me. Please. That's okay. Just come down. But it'll be your last speaker. Close the speakers list. But the last speaker should force me to address. I'm Leon Wood. I live in the. 36 or to break down venue. The thing that bothers me so much, I think that what is being done, our councilman is attempting to give us some options to do what has not been done, and that is bring programs together so that we can actually begin to assess our effectiveness. And also that office could work with the other local agencies and programs of the community programs so that we could actually build a team, a community team. And I think that's what they're trying to do. I think what we also have to understand, as I just heard from the person just spoke, that kind of thinking people need employment. People need an opportunity. Crime goes down when people start working. Crime. Health improves when people are working. So anything that you can do to help improve those conditions, I applaud you for trying to do it. And I think we have a fantastic city council who are coming together trying to new ideas and new and new and new avenues for things. And I think you're doing the right thing. It may not always be the most ideal, but it's a start and it's better than waiting and doing nothing. So this is an opportunity that we can that we can try to look forward to, and it can always be improved. And if it doesn't work, we just stop it and start over and do something else, because that's what this is all about. We keep trying until we finally get it right. We have to change the lives of people who are suffering, and we have to begin to help those people who are trying to make it. And there's a lot of men in this city who want to work but do not have a job. So they are angry and we must do something about that. So I thank you very much, Councilman, for making an effort. And I think Olive was supporting him. And thank you, Mayor, for this opportunity that I'm sorry for. I just couldn't hold it in long. No problem. You should see how I feel every Tuesday afternoon. I just a constant. Thank you. I want to go back to the council. Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm glad I had a chance to hear public comment on this. And I want to thank Councilman Richardson and the coauthors of this item for bringing this forward. I think with many of the issues facing the city, having a better coordinated effort and a central location is important because a lot of times we have different departments, different community based organizations and different faith based partners all doing work. And we're not doing the best coordination together to try to make sure we don't duplicate things or that we're complementing the work of others. And I think that that's the great opportunity I see with this, is aligning all of the efforts so that we're able to build upon the work of other organizations and actually complement each other in moving agenda items forward for each of these organizations. And if each of these entities and I appreciate, Jessica, what you said, because I think working with our partners in the community is a huge resource to us that as a city, sometimes we think about how limited our resources are. But we have a lot of resources out there through nonprofits and community volunteers that we could take advantage of and really put into play in a way that's a very efficient use of those resources. And we haven't been doing that. We're probably not alone in that. It's it's hard to coordinate. So I think that the opportunity to better coordinate is great. I will say, you know, there was some discussion tonight regarding this area or this zip code versus another. I choose to live in Long Beach because I believe it's incredibly diverse. I live on the east side. My kids go to school on the east side. True, they are children of immigrants and they are, you know, only half white. And they have a mother who learned to speak English at the age of seven. But I don't think they see themselves as different than anyone else, and I don't think they see their classmates as different. It's just something that is such a norm in the way that we're trying to raise them. And I hope that that's the case for many families in Long Beach, because it is what makes us unique. And I think hearing some of the comments tonight about diversity and in parts of Long Beach as opposed to others, I think there would be many, many East Side residents who would say that one of the things they love about living on the east side along which is its diversity now, is it as diverse as other parts? No, but it is a very diverse community in terms of just everything race, ethnicity, religion, lifestyle, all of that. And that's a beautiful thing. So we can have a department that's focused on bringing in grant money to address these issues. And violence prevention knows no zip codes. Violence knows no zip codes. We have issues like bullying. We have issues with people feeling displaced and not feeling like they fit in and lashing out in communities where they look just like the people all around them. But they're lashing out because of other issues that might be going on. So raising awareness and providing whatever resources we as a city get citywide to raise awareness for things that cause violence and cause the root of violence is something I'm 100% in favor of. So I think this opportunity to be more efficient with our structuring in the city is is a welcomed opportunity. And I thank my colleagues for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilman. Super now. Thank you. As usual, my esteemed colleague to my right is a tough act to follow. But she used the word alignment, and I think that's what I would like to address. The third, the last speaker, Shirley Rizzo, mentioned possibly a lot of money being poured into this. I and staff can correct me, but I don't think we're talking about a brand new office. We're talking about aligning existing resources for greater efficiency and to council member Osment's point about we haven't decided which department this is going to go into. That's what this study is for, I believe. I think only I only counted 25% of the speakers who mentioned the health department. Everyone else just wants a solution, I believe, independent of what department we end up in. Also, I'll just briefly mentioned about the zip code issue. I have the great privilege of representing a district that runs on the far eastern border of Long Beach to Cambodia town. So diversity is all part of what we do. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, let me just add a couple comments. I think we've had a really, really good discussion by the council. I want to obviously thank everyone that came out and spoke. A lot of people have been involved in the community. Community work for a long time. I wanted to just use this opportunity, obviously, to to thank everyone that's been involved in the work, especially in the last few years, whether it's been through the Building Healthy Communities Network of organizations and certainly all the other non-profits and faith groups and Central Cha and so many other organizations that have been very involved. But I wanted to take a moment because we don't get to do it often. To think also the city staff that have been tasked with this work for the last few years, we have very few resources within the city to actually do a lot of this work. And I want to just give you a sampling of what we've added to to our goals in the last few years as a council, we have launched Violence Prevention Plan, which a lot of you were involved with, My Brother's Keeper, which the city is very committed to now, the language access policy, which is incredibly important, you know , minimum wage has been important to this body and moving that that issue forward, including local hiring, which was an ordinance as council discussed the PATH program, which our city prosecutor and also Councilman Richardson were very, very involved in that. So that's just a sampling of the new initiatives that our team has been incredibly involved with. And I'm talking about folks in the prosecutor's office, in the health department, Tracy Kohanga and her team, the health the health folks throughout the city. And so if we can just give them a round of applause, first of all, for for doing all that incredible work, the Parks Department, it goes on and on, because they're there on the they're there, like all of you are also on the front line of some of that work. And I know that there's a lot of interest from them. The other thing I will I will add is as this work continues, because we're all involved in it constantly to make sure that the two key I heard the faith community tonight and that's important I heard from our nonprofit community and the partnerships there are incredibly important . But the other key key important institution in this is our education system partners. And those are folks in the K-12 system. Community college and the university system are incredibly important for this work to be successful because the access to a quality education, as we all know from the research is is incredibly important to the success. And so that that will continue, I know, to be a part of that of the conversation as well. And before we go to a vote, I just had a question because a couple of the councilors have brought it up. This will come back. Councilman, I know that. And I'm under the assumption that I know that the agenda item speaks to the health department is being an option or maybe the preferred option. But I'm assuming that the that city management staff will come back and kind of bring a menu of what are some of the some of the options, knowing that that is seems to be, at least right now, the preference by the agenda makers. Our preference is the health department. And we've been working with staff hand-in-hand for about six months, just talking to everybody about what a motion might look like that is doable, frankly. And and so that said, you know, my preference is the health department. Now, should something come up, I'm not unreasonable here. If some if if something might come up that seems more prudent or reasonable, then I'm okay with that as well. But I think from a public health standpoint, it makes sense for violence prevention, all these things to be centrally located and looked at from a health lens. And I would agree, I think I think public health is and certainly there's a be consensus here, but I'm just hearing from some of the some of the folks on the council. I think we want to make sure we do give our staff the flexibility to bring back some some options. Right. I mean, maybe health is the centerpiece, but we certainly want to make sure that there are key connection points, whether it's the city manager's office or the work happening in other departments. So what we think the creativity of option is in. Absolutely what we did talk about, we had some conversations early on about things like KPCC, you know, I sat down and interviewed the executive director, fact finding myself, and I think there are some limitations to aligning everything, but I certainly would want to see a relationship between this new office and some of these other other offices like KPCC or work that's being done in the city manager's office. And frankly, it's important to make sure that this isn't buried somewhere right in some other office. So I'm totally okay with that. And the city manager, we've talked about this already, so I'm 100% okay. Great. Perfect. We have a motion and a second on the floor. And if members, we can please cast your votes. And thanks again to everyone that that came tonight. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. We're going to now move on to public comment and we're going to use this opportunity as we set up to transition. If you're here for the last item, you can quietly if you're planning on exiting, that would be a good time as we set up for public comment.

A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Dominica Myers to the King County 4Culture task force, as the district one representative.

KingCountyCC_07252018_2018-0334

I see 33, 34, 33, 60. We're going to have one consolidated motion on this if we get there. Yes, sir. All right. Go, Mary. So again, Mary Bergen on. For the record, the materials begin on page 73 of your packet. There are 27 motions earlier this year when the council approved Ordinance 1868 for restructuring for culture, the Council requested the executive to help establish a task force to study four cultures practices with a particular focus on equity and social justice. The ordinance required that the task force be made up of at least 14 members, and you can see the makeup of the required membership. On page 73, the executive has responded with a proposal for 27 members. There are members who represent the executive, members representing for culture the council in Carolyn Bush, your chief of Staff, Arts, Cultural Access, Washington Sound City is a member and an alternate and then a number of representatives of cultural organizations from around the county, including at least one from each council district. You can see the list of appointed members beginning on page 75 of the packet. And Mr. Chair, if you'd like to have people come up maybe in groups of three, since we have three chairs, they can introduce themselves and then you can take a motion on the motions. And we do have a couple of amendments. Sure. That would work for me. Does that work for all I'm saying? Nods. So will you help us facilitate? I am. Not sure. Exactly. Here is here. So I'm going to call out names of people I believe are in the audience by threes. And then if we get beyond that, there are more people here, we'll bring them. That's a lot of names because twice. So the one folks just come on, come on, come on up and we'll take the first three to fill the chairs while you introduce yourselves. Yeah. And then good idea. Then we'll have you sit back down there. We'll just do it real quick. Let me say that. Go on up there. Thank you for being here and for sitting sticking with us through those first two items. And we'll start with you. Just give us a brief introduction, your name and what you do and why you're interested in serving on the panel. Well, good afternoon. Thank you for the Opportunity County Council. My name is Julie Ziegler. I am Executive Director of Humanities Washington. We're a statewide organization that provides cultural programing to underserved areas across the state, including many unincorporated areas across King County and and beyond. We work in both the arts and heritage sectors, the all encompassing humanities. And so if asked to serve and if approved, I would look forward to bringing our our values of geographic, social and cultural equity to the fore culture process of resource that I think is incredibly important and valuable to our county. Thank you, Julie. All right. All the way from Reno, Ga. Good afternoon. I'm Patricia Cosgrove. I work for the city of Auburn, where I am the director at the White River Valley Museum and the historic Mary Olson farm. And I've also had the pleasure of serving on four cultures board and writing many, many, many grants to them. So I know them from both directions and I would be honored to serve on this committee. Thank you, Patricia. I thank you very much. King County members. And my name is letters Amber Murti. I'm Washington State Arts Commissioner. And I also serve on different boards like Northwest Folklife Center for Washington, Traditional Arts, Upper Cochrane Performance Center, one, Redmond and Asian Cultural Center, Seattle Latino Film Festival and so on. And I'm an artist myself and I'm also an artistic as well, outreach, outreach and development director of various large scale festivals that happen around King County area and one such festival, Ireland. The Mela means joyous festival happening in the city of Redmond campus this weekend. And we are going to get our lieutenant governor as our special guest inaugurate the festival and. Also, we are going to get our federal congresswoman, Susan DelBene, as a chief guest, also among others, like State Senator Patrick Yoder and others. And our council member Claudia Bellotti knows very much about my involvement with arts, culture, heritage and traditions of this place. And and I also was on the Advisory Committee of for Culture and also so on the panels and also go on reviews to different events all around that is funded by for culture. So I'm here and I am very, very fortunate to have been selected to serve on this task force. And I will do my best bringing my knowledge, my connections and my experience. And of course, I learned a lot when I was serving on the Advisory Committee of for Culture and when I served on panels with such wonderful , experienced people who have been serving here to our culture, tradition and heritage. So thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. Thank you. Locked up, Dominica. Thank you, Chair Dombrowski. My name is Dominica Myers. I'm the board president of the Shoreline Lake Forest Park Arts Council. And in addition, I'm on the on the Board of Cultural Access Washington. And I am a born and raised Seattle Light from King County. I've lived and I've lived in Woodinville. Obviously, I'm currently living in Shoreline. I've lived in Woodinville. I've spent my adolescent years in Councilmember Upper Grove's district. And in addition, I've also served on one of the individual artists grants, funding panels for for culture. So have a little bit of insight on, on how that works. And I also work for Seattle Opera. So I'm, you know, in terms of my my own. My grand slam home run right. Here. So, you know, I have, you know, kind of the outlook of the larger organizations, the smaller community based organizations, and also just being a longtime resident of King County. And so looking forward to the process. Thank you so much. Going. Good afternoon. My name is Manny Cowling. I am the executive director for Youth Theater Northwest on Mercer Island. I also have called King County home for many, many years. My family has. Lived in Larry Garcia's district for. 80 years. I am the central area. Long. A year ago. My father was born over there. Yes. So my passion, of course. Is theater heritage. Performance. And community organizing around the arts. I have a rich experience in theater education. I certainly. Understand the role that small to. Midsize arts organizations play in communities throughout King County to provide valuable education and opportunities to develop 21st century skills. I also have a background in Heritage, having worked at the Wing Luke Asian Museum as their exhibit developer and manager, as well as participating in a variety of different heritage program that specifically work with communities with a special emphasis on immigrant and refugee communities. I am also a board member of Cultural Access Washington because I. Believe. That individuals and communities across King County deserve much more equitable service in arts and cultural activities. So I'm very excited to be on this task force. I've also served as a commissioner for the Seattle Center, as well as served on a variety of panels for a for Culture and Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs. And I thank you for this opportunity. You all are busy. Julianna, how are you? Hi. Good, thank you. I'm Julianna Ross. I'm a huge fan of the work of for culture, both as a regular citizen and an arts administrator. My day job is with Seattle City Light working on restoration and activation of the Georgetown Steam Plant and national historic landmark built in 1906. My other day job is an executive Taser's executive director of Sandpoint Arts and Cultural Exchange Space in Magnuson Park. There we operate the Magnuson Park Gallery and a new low power FM radio station. Space 1 to 1.1 FM space has a long history of working in partnership with the Parks Department to preserve buildings and provide arts programing in the park. This is important because not only is Northeast Seattle a cultural desert compared to the rest of Seattle, but we will also have approximately 1000 people living in Magnuson Park by the end of next year, many of them low income and immigrant families. All our services are free and open to the public. Thank you for the chance to serve on this task force. I look forward to working with people from all over the county and my fellow colleagues in District one. Thank you. All right. Are there other folks who want to introduce themselves on this item? I think we did that real expeditiously. Impressive sampling, very impressive group. Mary, lead us forward. Okay, sir, there are 27 motions. I don't know if you want to get a motion to put all of them on the floor. And then we have core amendments that maybe could be done with one vote. Let's see who would help us out with that motion. Councilmember Lambert, would you like to move motions? 334 to 360. Sure. Okay. I'm going to call them all out. So on the record is all right. I think you can just move them. 2018 334 through 360 consecutively. All right, that's what I'll do. I'd like to move. Proposed motions number 2018 033, four, two, three and 60 consecutively as listed items. Number ten, two items number 20, 36, 37. Thank you for the motion. Now, I believe Mary has identified a few spellings. So there were a couple of typographical errors in the motions as transmitted you'll have on your places of the dice. A little packet that says Amendment one. There is an amendment and a title amendment for three, three, four and three, three, six, just to correct the spelling in the appointees name. So if you want to just do one vote, I think you could do one vote on that amendment package. Thank you. All right. Would you put the amendment package before us? Councilmember Lambert, Amendment one? Yes. Thank you very much. I'd like to put amendment number one before us and it correct the names as a spoken. And also there's a title amendment later. To there's actually two amendment ones. To amendment ones to title amendment ones, therefore. All right. Three, three, four and three, three, six. All right. I have understood the motion to be to move Amendment one, two, three, three for Amendment one, two, three, three, six and the corresponding title amendment. All in favor. Say I I any oppose those carry. Now turning to the underlying motions as amended. Any comments on this. And top quality? We really appreciate your service. I'll just I'll just make a couple of remarks. Our earlier this year, there was legislation for the council to make some change. Is it for culture or cultural development authority, which has been a wonderful institution, and a number of our colleagues serve on the board there in an ex-officio capacity, I believe. And that process, which I would say was shown, showed that there was a number of interesting issues that folks thought could be explored. But we needed some help. We needed some expertize from the community to take a look at issues surrounding for culture and the county's partnership with it, and how we might be better responsive as we go forward or more responsive and not saying we're not responsive, but more responsive to needs and interests countywide. We're looking for this task force to help us address some of those issues and give us some recommendations in partnership with for culture. For culture is currently out in the community and engaged in a listening session. I know in the next week or so they've got one up in Shoreline, for example, and we are hoping that this can be a partnership with that work to come back late this year or early next year to see whether, whether and how we can continue to strengthen our tremendous cultural development authority. So and call the role on these items unless there are other comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell, Duty Icon. Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett. I. Council member. Calls I. Council member. Member. Councilmember McDermott, councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember one right there. Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Chair. The vote is ADA is no nos when excused. All right, we'll expedite those items to Monday's agenda and we'll put them on consent. Council member of the Grove Tribe. If we're able to hold off consent, may just have a minor technical correction to one item. Sure. Let's begin with desert specific. Well, okay. Can we can we put them on consent and then pull it. Or not. Pull it off because it's like. Well. 36 motion. Oh, yeah, yeah. You know, we've put it our consent, and if we don't figure it out by Monday. We can pull out. Okay. All right. So we'll do that. And it's a lot of signing to go on here. Thank you. Cosmo wrote The Grove for your help on that. All right, Mary. Now take us to our appointment. The appointment of Brian Carter is for culture executive director, and.

Recommendation to Create an Alameda Strong Community Relief Fund to Provide Grants or Other Types of Relief to Small Businesses, Non-profits and Residential Renters that have been Negatively Financially Impacted by the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Community Development 256)

AlamedaCC_05192020_2020-7964

Sorry. My mute was on recommendation to create a strong community relief fund to provide grants or other types of relief to small businesses, nonprofits and residential renters that have been negatively financially impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic. Thank you. And so this is is Lois Butler on or who's Sarah are you presenting? No. Who's presenting tonight? Uh. Miss Butler is scheduled to present. She's having the same difficulties as the last meeting, and I know she's on a phone line. And, Laura, it sounds like she's trying to communicate with you about her, her situation. But I am once again happy to wing this. Sarah. Sarah is here to help, too. It's a good thing we are a team. A team effort. Right? Right. Dalton suspenders. Yeah. I would send Shawn over to help low as he solves everything, but. Okay, I'm. Probably a little too far. If it's okay. Looks like I know that I could use that here. Yeah, I saved by the music. I love everything you guys were saying. So great. Hear? Do we not get to see your lovely face, Lois? You know this way. Okay. I saw you earlier today. I remember. What you. Okay, so here's another hardworking member of our economic development staff. She has been working with our businesses just about since day one of the shelter in place and has really been an invaluable member of the team and a big help to the local business community. So so, Lois, tell us what we need to know about this item, this fellow. Thank you. Honorable Mayor and members of city council. This read this report recommends the creation of an Alameda strong community relief fund to provide grants to small businesses, nonprofits, residential renters that all have been negatively impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic. And just I'm giving you some background. On the 21st of April, the city council approved $600,000 for a COVID small business relief grant. And this will provide 81 excuse me, 81 time grants of 70 $500 each and a total of 238 have applied for this grant program. You have a general summary of the applicants that I have applied in in exhibit one. I won't go through those staff is currently reviewing all the applications. We've actually made it through the application review the first round, and we need to go through a second round to make sure that everything is correct. We are expecting a delayed end review point of the end of the month. It was originally anticipated that we would complete this process by the 21st. UM, grants will be awarded thereafter. We're hoping that it'll be in the same amount of time, given that we are going to be asking applicants to submit information electronically so that we can get it out electronically to them. So that'll cut down on some time. On May the fifth, staff provide an update to City Council regarding the grant applications. We also received directions from the City Council to create a community relief fund and that's what we're going to be talking about tonight. The feedback from city council was as follows Given the number of applications, consider additional funding of 2 to 300000 for relief grants. Consider funding for residential rent relief. Explore a public excuse me public private partnership for raising funds. Work with the West Alameda Business Association, Waba and others who have expressed interest to set up a Go Fund Me fund campaign as soon as possible while still developing this Alameda Strong program on a parallel track. And this is to capture as many donations as possible and as quickly as possible and outreach to put potential applicants in the top three languages. As part of this new campaign and also as part of the new program, consider the following criteria perhaps have a greater loss than 20% due to. COVID provide additional consideration to businesses that are open or opened when they were allowed to open. Versus those who remain shuttered. Allow. More than one apple at one location if a business has more than one location, allowed them to have more than 25 employees across several locations. Allow grantees to give back a portion of their 70 $500 grant and then use the same pool of applicants for awarding nutrients from the GoFundMe they can claim. And then, per your direction, the city manager and staff have looked for additional sources to claim additional grant, and on June 2nd, staff will present a recommendation to the City Council for approximately $600,000, just slightly less than that in emergency relief grant funding for low income tenants. And this would come from the Community Development BLOCK Grant Program CARES Act funds. And if that is approved, then City Council would have allocated $1.2 million towards relief grants. So that will be a recommendation of ours at your lot, at your next meeting. And then City Council also directed staff to look at the $2 million allocated from reserves to add to authorized relief. Expenses. And then you asked us to look at reprograming existing budget funds. You also suggested. Thank you. So excuse me. Of the $2 million that you you've allocated and you suggested 200 to $300000, staff is not recommending that to the council. Use any of these funds for this program at this time, given that you will have funded $1.2 million. We. We feel that that. There are still a lot of issues ahead of us in terms of the city budget needs. And so we suggest that we reevaluate this in December and or the Fall City Council also previously approved through the budget process, $200,000 for branding, for economic development. And you asked us to also looked at that. We have looked at that, those fundings. And we're not recommending that either, because we are. We're looking to use that if if approved for recovery efforts related to our long term recovery plan. And this would help to provide for consulting resources and support of a task for which the Council was notified of through through another process within the city, the EDA panel process. So staff recommend that the additional funding be the funding that is coming through the CDBG funds. Regarding the Alameda Strong Community Relief Fund, you asked us to create a public private partnership. And so based on that, we met with the the Business Association to wow the Gabba Gabba and the Alameda Chamber of Commerce downtown. This is downtown Alameda Business Association with Alameda Business Association and the Greater Alameda Business Association and the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. And we talked with them about the Alameda Strong campaign and they had some suggestions. Their three primary concerns were that the goals of the program be clearly defined, that there be a separate fund for both residential and business, and that there would be some urgency and establishing the fund, even if it means setting up a go fund me fund prior to setting up the fund that we're recommending. I will talk about that a little bit later. The Gulf and the U.S.. They also discussed the eligibility and structure of the community fund. And there was general consensus among the following points the number of employees, they agreed that that could remain the same at 25, that the grant size could remain the same or should remain the same. They did also say that recipients, they could apply for a lesser amount and the remaining funds could be used to support other businesses within the fund. And they they wanted to have an inclusive public support marketing component to it, which would include T-shirts and Windows signs and a message of unity. And they also and and people would pay for some of this, like the t shirt if they put so much money in. But they also wanted it to be inclusive in that if people can't afford to pay for anything, that there be a component developed. Even if you didn't make a donation that showed that we're we're absolutely too strong, we're one. We were supporting each other. And one example was to have a poster that people could print on a printer and then a child perhaps could color it and stick it up in a window. And they also thought that kicking it off with a community fund and having a virtual town hall meeting would be great. We're proposing that this community fund is set up through the East Bay Community Foundation and that they be the fiscal agent and all of that people who are donating could get a tax deduction. A tax deduction. And East Bay Community Foundation, they worked with Berkeley on on a fund similar to the one that we are are asking you to approve. And one of the things that they believe in is that government partners that are working with them should be bold, courageous and innovative in their actions. And I think that this is an apt description of what the city council is doing through this whole process. Poor grant administration. This has been a lot of work. Staff is working all hours of the day and night through the morning, in some cases trying trying to process the applications. And so we're recommending. That that we work with working solutions. They work directly with the community foundation. I mean, they would be associated with them, but we would also work with them. The legal arrangement will be through the foundation, but we would have to approve them. They are a U.S. Treasury Certified Community Development Financial institution, and they they recently worked with Oakland, with their with their grants, and they established the grant program and implement it within a two year time frame. And we think that they would be good for us to to get their money out quickly as well. The cost of working with those there is their community foundation and the working solutions is between 14 and 16% of the funding. 1% to East Bay Community Foundation and then 13 to 15% to Working Solutions. The Butler. I I'm sorry to interrupt your presentation, but I have a question now. I was kind of hoping when I read that in the staff report there was a typo. Is 13%. Yeah. That's that would be the time that it would take to administer the program. If you don't want to do that, we could do what we've been doing and process everything internally. Well, we'll have a, we'll have a, uh, council discussion about it. Um, the, in the staff report, it says they would take 13 to 15% and, um. Okay. Uh, my clarifying question was, please tell me that was a typo and maybe it was 1.3 to 1.5. But saying that it's not a typo, let's well, we'll hold that from when the council is having its discussion. At least one of the members of the council wants to probe that some alternatives. Okay. I'm sorry. So you were saying you're getting, I think, toward the end, right? Yes, I'm getting towards the end. I know it's a long report that I know it makes sense that I considering very important. I'm really excited about this. And and then there's the community relief fund itself which it staff recommendation staff recommends that the the grants being split 60% to the small businesses 20% to nonprofits since they can participate last time have that designated amount to nonprofits, 20% to renters. And this would be renters that showed needs not just low income renters, as will be reported. And that's next at the next meeting that the amount of the grants remain the same for small businesses and then for nonprofits as well at 7500 2500 max for renters. And that we we still have the following requirement applicant must show a 50% up from 20% loss as recommended by several community members and one member of the um, the business association. And this is as of the application date and that additional consideration be given to those that opened and this is a council recommendation versus those that remain closed when allowed to open that the small businesses have up to 25 employees. No, no limit to the number of employees. Um, if they are a restaurant and that 50 employees be allowed if the business has more than one location, this would mean including sole proprietors without employees as well. And also we're recommending also proprietors, even those who are in residential units that. The grantee could apply for 70 $500 or less. It would be up to them. The applicant must have a physical establishment in Alameda and physical meaning any any type home based or one that is in brick and mortar or office building, etc. and then the business must have a current business license and have paid their business improvement assessment. If in fact they're in a business improvement area by the application date and then the applicant must have a W-9 and apply online. And so staff is. Require requesting that the following be were renters. They they must have a residential lease. They must have had suffered a 20% loss. The applicant must verify that the that the tenant's rent was current to proceed into the date of March 4th. And that's consistent with the staff report that we're going to bring forward. The applicant cannot have received a CDBG grant, so we would coordinate that and provide documentation from the landlord to confirm the amount of unpaid rent and then payments must be made directly to the landlord. So once they qualify for the grant, the check would be cut to the landlord and then applications must be submitted in the online portal there. There has been a a committee set up for the alameda strong campaign in anticipation of it being approved. And it consists of wapa darbar and the chamber and the city's pio sarah henry. And together they have put together and are putting together a program. And if you'd like to hear from Sarah, she's here to talk to to that. Regarding the Go Fund Me campaign, one has not yet been set up. However, the group is saying that if in fact, we can't get the community foundation piece set up quickly, that they're they're willing to pursue setting up a go fund me program alternatives are as follows approve the report as is, modify any aspect of it direct staff to use all or any portion of the $200,000 budgeted for the rebranding campaign. Direct staff to create and implement a loan program in lieu of a grant program decided not to establish the Alameda Strong Community Relief Program. That is my report. Thank you, Ms.. Butler. I appreciate that. Um, Counsel, do we have any clarifying questions on the staff report? Um, I know I do. Who else does? And then we'll go to for that public comment. Councilmember Odie. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Butler. So quick question. Couple of quick questions on the renter side. So the applicant is the tenant, right? Yes. And then if the landlord gets this, then there's no other obligation for the tenant to pay rent for that particular dollar amount, right? Correct. Okay. So if they're there, they could be right now two months in arrears. And so this would only pay up to one month. Right. But, you know, up to 25. So, yeah. I didn't say their rent is 3000. They get 2500. They still owe the 500. Right. They would still owe at the time. Correct. Okay. And then when we did the. The 600,000 we excluded publicly traded companies. Was there a discussion about excluding publicly traded companies for the Strong Community Belief Grant? Yes. I assume that that would be in this. This was more to clarify some of the points that that the council made and some of the points that the that Darva and Wahba made regarding amounts. But we would still exclude publicly traded company. And then if somebody received one of these these grants, the process that we're currently wrapping up, would they still be eligible for one of these two strong community relief grants or. No, they would not be eligible. Okay. All those are my questions. Thank you for clarification about the publicly traded companies, as I recall. And it came up before the example was made. If someone might be a franchisee holder of, say, I don't know, Burger King or something, which is probably a publicly traded company, but if they weren't getting any form of assistance from their, you know, the franchisee, the franchise, then why would we why would we exclude that small business person or would we go more by the size of the business? I mean, we don't want them to be gay if they've avail themselves of other assistance. And that's not what this is intended for. But I just hold that. That's I guess that's something we'll come back to when we do counsel discussion. Any other clarifying questions? Councilmember Vela. I thank you, Miss Butler. And a couple of questions. One was for the sole proprietors. Is it a single? It's the same amount that a sole proprietor would be eligible for as a business with 25 or 50 employees. Yes. Currently, yes. And is there a reasoning for that or. While we do the process, we came across a few sole proprietors. Well, there's two issues. There's the sole proprietor that has employee. So we're not talking about that. The other issue is we have families who have their children and everybody in their business, and there's a lot of them. And they they take a draw from the business instead of paying individually and putting people on the payroll. So there are a lot of instances of that. So that sounds like something for council to discuss and decide on because we're going to we're going to refine our suggested criteria so further. Councilmember Adobe. Another question I had is the 20 $500. What is that amount based off of for the tenants, residential tenants. So they speak to this one. Whatever what I'm told. Debbie, why don't we go? We need to move this along a little bit because we haven't even gotten to public comment or council comment, so we don't need to deliberate. Just, you know, if you've got the answer. So, Miss Potter. If she's not answering. I'm. She's. You're on me. You're muted still. Laura, let me let me give you the best answer I have so we can move along. It was based on the average grant, to my knowledge, in Academy this year. And and there's a is there again, it's not based off of the number of tenants living at a given property. So it's not based off of like a like a person that lives, for instance, in a studio isn't going to get a low. It's is up to. Up to. So what do we mean by sort of just up to 2500? If your rent was 1300 dollars, you only get 1300 dollars a month. I don't think you. That's what I was getting at. And then finally, are landlords available able to some landlords that landlords also have to pay for business license here in Alameda. Are they able to get qualify for the 70 $500 grant? And then would they also be able to get paid through rent relief? So landlords would not be able to get paid through rent relief, except if a tenant within their building is qualified for it and it's only for residential rent relief. And then secondly, we don't have landlords coming in as a qualifier. So even though they pull business licenses, they're still not part of the recommendation to say yes. Okay. Thank you. Offer you Councilmember Gill. Yes. Okay. Any other clarifying questions for here next week? Thank you. I have two questions and I'll ask them both. Then you can answer them both. Can you speak a little bit to the I understand the need to have a physical establishment, but the home based business is a single, single sole proprietor working out of their out of their house. I'm a little curious how that decision was made and what the thinking was there. And similarly, I'm curious about the conversation that had that was had around showing 50% loss of income versus the last program. 20%. And and obviously, I understand that the. Likely thinking was, Oh, we should help people who have lost more money. But if we thought about whether or not the impact that the money that's being received in terms of bringing people back and then keeping them moving forward is the same. Okay. So the physical establishment we do we we found that people who have sole proprietorship proprietors, they are sole proprietors and then working out of their home, a lot of them are not able to work any longer and they have no source of income at all except, you know, the ones that that that businesses that are in established locations have. And so there there really wasn't. If we're going to bring sole proprietors, then there wasn't any difference between them and and the folks working out of their home. Both of them have like mortgages or rent to pay. And so so we didn't find that there was a good reason to exclude them. And then with regards to the 50% versus 20%, it was it was a consideration that council asked us to come back with not the amount, but with a higher amount other than 20%. And in in conversations with with people that have called the city and emailed the city, a number of them asked for higher amounts. And in our webinars, a number of people asked for higher amounts. And so we, we, we went with the 50% amount because it was the amount that was most asked for. Thank you to all of you, Vice Mayor. Yes. So asking me a follow up in a couple of the answers you gave Miss Butler. So on the home based business, um, I understand that your home based business might be out of business and you're not making income, but I wrote in my notes. But you don't have the overhead that a commercial business who has to rent their space would have. And then you you mentioned whether they have mortgages to pay. But are we also looking at this program to provide mortgage assistance? Because I. A, I think there are federal programs if you have a federally backed mortgage that you can apply for. So, um, I, this doesn't also include general mortgage assistance, doesn't it's butler. Well, it includes operating costs. So somebody with a business, even if they're looking at what this is, if this is similar to the last grant where you can pay employees operating expenses, etc. a little bit. So okay, but just a homeowner who's having a trouble paying their mortgage, we're not providing relief under this program for that. Right. It's for their business. It's for their business. All right. Um, let me get to my other clarifying questions that I have. Thank you. Um, let's see here. Um, I. Uh, um, in the staff report on page three and this is kind of the middle of the page and it's under the section on city funding. And the last paragraph is staff recommends, given the anticipated $1.2 million in direct funding for small businesses and tenant relief. And that's the, you know, putting, I think, CDBG money into it. And our previous 600,000 or maybe it's the additional 600 you were talking about that the city used this use its resources to leverage this commitment with a community wide effort to support local businesses and neighbors through a foundation led drive to raise money from residents. What what are we talking about? How are the how is the city going to leverage its resources? So it would be like staff time, for example. Okay. We're we're spending we're spending a ton of time. We're not we're not asking consultants to spend that time to help with the development of this program. Okay. I understand. Thank you. And then on the, um, this group Working Solutions. So we ultimately administer the moneys raised. I guess if we approve them, are there are they the only fish in the sea or are there other other entities that do this sort of thing? Do we do comparison shopping only because that 13 to 15% of the money raised takes my breath away. Did did we have the opportunity to. Look at it? I, I, I have tried to find others that do similar work, but this report was doing in a short period of time. Quick turnaround. Okay. So I didn't I didn't find anyone. I'm sure there's others out there. Oh, right. That's that's certainly a fair answer. And then a couple other questions. The, um, so I understand that you met with all these representatives of the business associations and consulted with Ms.. Potter about the rent relief. I think, you know, she's certainly knowledgeable from her vantage point. What about nonprofits? How were they represented in the discussion? Unfortunately they weren't. They had two days from the time, took the last meeting. That's adequate answer. And I just want to say, um, this is just my, um, editorial comment for those who are urging the city to move quickly and don't hesitate, people. We brought this to you. The city council moved really quickly and staff is multitasking like there's no tomorrow. We are moving quickly. If if any business association wants to go out and do their own go fund me campaign. We are stopping you. But thank you. Okay. With that. Those are all my questions. But there's another one. Sorry, Tony. I'm sorry. Just a quick question on the $600,000 for rent relief that's I guess, funded in part by the CDBG dollars. And I think there's an expectation that this will be for low income tenants. How are we going to do that? Let's say for a particular example, if there are three people who are unrelated and they're sharing a unit, are we going to have because that that by definition, even though they're unrelated, they were a household. Are we going to take all of their their income data or are we just taking the income data of the leaseholder? So how are we going to account for household income? Because I think that's what. Yeah, I can, Potter. You want to take that? Yeah. I think I'll take a run at this one. So an interesting question. The staff report that will be published later this week is going to talk about the program, which is CDBG funded. And we're proposing to contract with building futures to run the program. They did a similar they ran a similar program for us back in the days of the Obama administration, the RCN, when we got rapid rehousing money. And we will work with them so that we all have an answer for you at the next meeting about how a household would be defined. You can appreciate. It. All right. To be continued, Councilman Brody. So just a couple of questions that popped up. So the 600,000 CDBG that you're proposing the city put into this fund, is that subject to this 13 to 15% cert or administrative charge? So yeah. Just to go back to the leveraging the question about the leveraging. I think what we're saying is that the council has independently approved the small business, the COVID grant relief program, and then we will be bringing a rent relief program to you for low income tenants. And the two programs in combination add up to a $1.2 million funding commitment by the city that we then can go to the community and say the city has stepped up with 1.2 million in programs. Here's an opportunity for you to match that to exceed that. But it'll be its own program. Okay. Well, thank you. And then, I mean, if someone maybe a landlord, but they're also have a property management business, I mean, they would be eligible, right. Because, you know, they're not technically I mean, that's not their only line of work. I believe rent. Oh, yes. A property management firm would be eligible. Okay, good. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any further clarifying questions? Do we have any public speakers, Madam Clerk? We have no one that has submitted anything to be read into the record. But at this time, we can ask any attendees who would like to comment on this agenda item, which is just to remind everybody the Community Relief Fund. Anybody who wants to speak on this. There's two who have raised their hand. And we will meet them in time them. And if they're only two, then they would each be eligible for 3 minutes of. Am I on? Yes. I mean, if you want to call that for a speaker. Ron Muni, I appreciate the count, but thank you. Madam Mayor. Council I appreciate the council and staff's quick. Work to assist our community in this trying time. I support the creation of funds to assist the community to raise needed moneys for residents and businesses. I do believe that the funds should be split though, so potential donors may donate to a residential fund and a separate business nonprofit fund. I would say nonprofits probably can do their own fundraising, but I don't think they should be excluded. I would hate to see someone not donate if they objected to either receiving funds from the percentages described or revised. I also believe that what is normally considered confidential information by those requesting the grant should not be made public. For example, a business's exact income and expense figures should not be released publicly. Likewise, whatever personal income residents should have would not be released if they request the grant. The city needs to protect the residents and private businesses. Confidential information. And finally, I don't understand the mayor's comment. I believe we're all trying to work together quickly to help our community members. Thank you. Okay. Our next public speaker. Felix Diaz. Yes. You're on. High. Hi. Yes, we can hear you, sir. Hi. My name is Felicia. I licensed massage therapy and working for the office. So my question is due to the situation with the coronavirus pandemic. So we a has been has been big affect a little bit more and with with our business. So my question is am I going to be how the city of the what and I doing really well no. So what my I am wondering if I if I can. Come come back to work in the. Chiropractor office. So I'm just going to make a statement. And Madam Clerk, I shouldn't be timed on this. Mr. Diaz, this is simply public speaking where we hear public comment. But I will tell you that in answer to your question, because I want you to receive assistance as a small business person, you should go to the website of the Alameda County Public Health Department that has updated information about what what businesses are open and that that email address is a c. T. H d dot org crate. Correct. So a. C, p, h d or gets the initials for Alameda County Public Health Department. Talk. Right. Thank you. All right. Thank. Bye bye. Okay. All right. And that was the extent of our public speakers. Correct? All right. So I will close public comment and I will open counsel discussions. Who wants to to lead us? Councilmember De Foxx. I just want to say I just want to say thank you very much. When I in reading the staff report and the reference to looking at CDBG. I really appreciate that you guys turned as much stones as possible in looking for possible source of funds for for these programs. Thank you. That was it. Now that. Certain sweet. Okay friends merry next. Right then Councilmember Odie. So I had a quick question. The first half that related to the EDC, uh, the community fund, how quickly can they solve it? Other communities already have these set up. How long do we expect if this is we gave direction four weeks ago. How long do we think this is going to be before we have something set up? We're hoping to have it set up by the end of the week. There's there there's a back and forth with community. Is there community foundation? And hopefully we will have terms by the end of the week. Excellent. Thank you very much. So I think my my comments did, I think play on some things that the vice vice mayor the other council member Vela still vice mayor in my heart. Uh the is Mr. Mooney mentioned separate funds for residential and, and business. And I think that I would like to hear a little bit more thought on that. I personally, I think most people who want to help our community are going to be happy to help our community. And it might just be easier to have one place to put the money. If this is if this is the proposal that came out of the discussion with Waba and Darva and the folks who who were engaged. I think I'm comfortable with that. But I do think that there's I'm uncomfortable with the sole proprietor in House proposal. I, I want to make sure that we are that that what we move forward here is attacking the the problem or the, you know, providing the solution for what we want to achieve. So whether or not this is to just provide debate, I think at least in the original round, we really wanted to make sure that we were providing support that would continue the viability and the strength of our community, business districts and whatnot. Which isn't just to say that there aren't people that are hurting who could use help as well. But I think we just want to think about whether or not that, you know, we are this this is a big shift. We're going to be, you know, I mean, CPA's could be getting money who are working in their in their office or or whatnot. I'm not confident that. I'd like to I'd like to make sure that we're being mindful that that that is that is what we are aiming to do. I as as I was to you two weeks ago, I am a little concerned about the 50%, the shift towards making a lot of money, a threshold here. I think that there are probably businesses that will receive the 70 $500 and never come back because they have lost too much, too much money and they have had to come back. Whereas I think that there are businesses that may be struggling very greatly who have lost 20% and for whom this could be the lifeline that continues allows them to continue. I don't you know, I don't know what that analysis looks like that would need to be done if we're going to drop this 50%. But I would want to make sure that we're not providing money to businesses that may have been so harmed that they are not going to come back. Because I think really what we're trying to do is, is I see this as this program. The previous program is really about that, like that lifeline that serves to really help people stay afloat while we get to a place where they can reopen and and continue to be strong. Other than that, I do appreciate there's a lot of work that went into this. And I appreciate how knowing that this is going to could be set up and working. And on Friday, I think it's a it's a fine model. I you know, my experience, which is somewhat limited, but I have worked with a number of foundations, 13 to 15%. Administrative costs is not anywhere near unheard of. In fact, I would say it's fairly standard for managing funds. And so I wouldn't want to lose weeks trying to you know, I think we should should see what we can do to negotiate that down. But, you know, my interest is in seeing this getting out there so that we can actually start collecting donations from our community and getting them where it needs to go. So thank you. And before I call on Councilmember Odia, I will just in response. I do think we have a fiscal duty to at least explore more than one option for administrative. It might be that 13 to 15% is just standard in the industry. I have no experience with that. But you stop and think about if this is a fund that raises $1,000,000, that's money that if if if it's the going rate, it's the going rate. But that's money that isn't going to help the people we're trying to help. And then I would just question how much administration it's requiring, but we can further discuss that. Councilmember two You had your hand up next. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thanks to Lois, Ms.. Butler and Ms.. Potter for that presentation. And I think the mayor had mentioned it earlier. You know, we have been moving really quickly, and I know you guys are running on fumes, so I appreciate it. Just to pick up on the mayor's point, I mean, that that is a big chunk of money. I mean, everyone is taking, you know, a literal haircut of sorts, you know, in their businesses. I don't have my real one, but that's my first world problem. I mean, maybe some of these people that are managing this, you know, should also take a little bit of a haircut and, you know, lower their rates for us because, you know, this is something that we're doing to help all of our businesses and our tenants and our nonprofits. And, you know, to the mayor's point earlier, also, I mean, we are in this together. So I hope that we can we can work on getting that number lowered a bit. I I'm glad we have the, you know, landlords that are property managers because, you know, they're business people, too. And, you know, I know we've asked a lot of them recently, and so we should allow them to be treated as business people. You know, the one thing I district we did in the staff report, I do think we should consider adding another 300,000 to the grant program. I realize that's a big chunk of money. But, you know, to me, it's not spending as much as it is investing because if it is, the difference is that the vice mayor said and the mayor said between going out of business and surviving, you know, these are the businesses that are actually going to generate tax sales tax revenue in the future. These are the businesses that will be paying workers who will be spending money is money and other stores. So, I mean, to me, it's worth an investment of 300,000. You know, if if, for example, if we don't spend it and we lose another, you know, 2 million in sales tax revenue, you know, then we, you know, we're kind of pennywise pound foolish. So I'd like to see us augment that that fund and the home based businesses. I mean, I know a lot of them have recurring expenses that are just not related to their mortgage. They can have their business insurance, they could have utilities, you know, they could have their licenses. And I thought it was instructive that I assumed the person that came on, Mr. Deeds, was a massage therapist. You know, that's a business that, you know, a lot of people run out of their home and, you know, they're not able to do their job. So, I mean, I I'm glad that we're we're looking at sole proprietorships and and helping out some of these sole proprietors because, you know, they're really struggling. And if you cut hair, you know, in your in your spare in your garage or something, and you can't do that. I mean, that's something that, you know, people need to be able to be, uh, eligible for assistance. You know, I'm, you know, attorneys and accountants and other professionals, you know, they're probably facing a loss of work too, so I don't have any problem adding them to the list. And, you know, I'm the mayor. I mean, I go on the Tuesday afternoon call and there always seems to be a discussion about how sole proprietors have been left out of the programs that we've done so far. So, you know, these people help move our economy and our city as well. So I'd like to see them involved. I think that was all I had. Yeah. I mean, my colleagues are interested in, you know, awarding more grants out of the original 600,000. That's something I think is is money well spent? And all for you, Mr. Modi? Yes. Councilmember Vela. Thank you. One thought that I had was relative to administering the fund or fund is whether or not we could have an Alameda business actually apply to do that. Maybe this isn't, you know, could could we perhaps that's one way that we help a business out is to give them that business so that the percentage is actually going to them. So it's just the thought that I had. I wouldn't want that process to be too encumbered in terms of causing an unnecessary delay. But I know that staff was trying to turn this around in a in a quick timeframe, but it seems to me that maybe some of these individuals who are looking for work and have some experience administering funds, we could we could get it out to them or a couple of people that could work on it, maybe somebody doing the accounting side of it and something else doing the other administration in terms of the residential, I actually think that we need to increase it. I have a problem saying this is the average. I worry about our families that are perhaps paying a little more in rent to the money is going to go a longer way in keeping a larger group of people housed and also who have a higher held to to climb in terms of coming back from, you know, perhaps having a loss of income and being unable to pay. So I would actually consider increasing the amount to residential to up to 3000 or 3500 based off of whatever a single month's rent is. And then obviously you might have some people who have substantially less. And I think we could make up the difference. But I just to me, if we're only going to be paying a portion of one month's rent and it seems like we're hurting people who might have more bedrooms and that means hurting families. I think in terms of the strategy for all of this, I do I do want to prioritize. DICKERSON Brody's point that, you know, there are some businesses that generate sales tax, that there will be some businesses that don't generate sales tax. And I do think that when we're looking at this and we tried to be kind of mindful, but there are some businesses that are going to be really necessary to and helping other businesses get back to work and things like that. And I think that we need to maybe think about how we can go about prioritizing that. Childcare, for instance, is going to have to completely change how they operate, which could impact their ability to operate if they aren't getting assistance because they can only have 12 children together. There's different requirements now that are in place that might make it harder for them to operate. And that's going to mean it's harder for people to get back to work because they don't have childcare. In terms of the sole proprietors, I would want to reduce the amount. I'm not saying that they are valuable, but part of the intent of establishing the grants was to help as many people as possible and to have that down to helping workers. I'm sorry. Hold on. I am concerned that if we if we have it where we aren't going to cap the amount for sole proprietors, potentially we're giving a lot of money to one individual and one individual's overhead is substantially less than somebody who is employing a number of different people. And I've been on those calls, too, and I know that people support sole proprietors are getting left out. One thing that I will remind my colleagues is that they're now also included in the pandemic unemployment assistance and can can now recoup through that which which hadn't been established when we started these calls. So I'm willing to help them, but I do want to cap that and I do want to cap the number of sole proprietors that we would ultimately help as well. So I'd be interested in saying a sole proprietor could maybe get up to half of what we're offering the other grantees and that only so many sole proprietors. And we would only be giving out so many to so many sole proprietors because I really do want to, you know, hopefully we get to a place where we can help everybody that applies. But I do. And I would be interested in kind of cheering things to say kind of in the first round that we're including them. We're only going to help this money and then we'll expand it after we've helped the first wave of people. And then the other question that I had was, is there a difference of cost or for some time involved in administering two funds versus one fund? So we had a residential rent fund versus a commercial business fund. Does that increase the amount of work that goes into actually administering? And if so, is that worth the cost of having the two separate funds? And that and that's something that I just would need a little more information on before I make that decision. I will also say that the other thing that that happened before was, you know, originally back this is weeks ago, I had had some conversations that they would start a go, fund me, let's help our businesses. And some of the pushback that I actually got from one of our business associations was, well, different businesses have different followings with each business, have their own go fund me. And, you know, some businesses don't necessarily have that fund fund following. And so I'm a little concerned, again, about kind of further separating. I think that. But now now people are saying, let's have this go fund me. I think it's easier, administration wise to just have one fund and then go from there rather than the two. And to the vice mayor's point that I think people who are willing to help are willing to help regardless of who's included. But I happen to think you. Thank you. So I really go last. And I actually do think that we should follow the model of other cities and make the pots separate. It's kind of like when I'm donating to one of the different educational institutions I've attended. You can donate to the the general fund and that institution, or even like Doctors Without Borders, you could say, Oh, I wanted to go to this country or just put it where you need it. But I do think it respects the donor. And and I and other cities are doing that. They're having the separate parts. And as far as the cost of administration and administration itself, I am I'm concerned. I like the idea of supporting Alameda business by bringing the work to them. But this is very specialized business. And if a firm had not done something similar working with the city fund like this, then I don't think this is the time to try out something new. I think it's and probably staff has even done this. It reached out to Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, seeing who they're using, what percentage are you paying? I liked whoever it was who suggested maybe it's this is the time to negotiate a little. Let's be bold and courageous. But I would say. But the donors decide where they want to put their money. And I think we'll get some pretty generous philanthropy and also just, you know, everyday individuals. I I'm having a real hard time with the sole proprietor, and I just want to make sure we understand there's a difference between being a sole proprietor and being home based sole proprietor. I'm not sure. The gentleman who is the massage therapist told us he was home based. I might have missed it, but. But I just think if we had nothing but money to disperse, I would look at this differently. But I do believe that we're trying to help our business districts and and then the various institutions that help support our community, and that includes nonprofits. And so I just think that we should really give thought. I mean, we saw how many grant applications we got for a limited amount of grant funding, and we weren't even I don't think doing home based, I don't think we were doing home based sole proprietors then. Um, and then I like the suggestion that Councilmember Vela just made about increasing the amount of available rent because again, you can only get one month's rent. It's not like you're going to make a windfall, but this actually has a double impact because it helps that family or individual or what have you stay in their home and it's paying that landlord who would be out of their income. So so let's do that. I also would like council to consider maybe shifting the percentage of these pots just a little, because right now it is 60% to the small businesses and then 20% renters, 20% not nonprofits, I would say maybe 50% of the fund to small businesses, 25 renters, 25 nonprofits. But I'm that's just, you know, my my thinking. And I and I do think we've got a lot of nonprofits out there that are are serving our community in in many different ways. I think that we also go into my notes really quickly. Um, I'm a little concerned with just transferring over all of our applicants from the grant program into this Alameda strong program because it might give the impression that some people are getting a head start when this is a new program where we're introducing. But consider that. And then, um, I, um, I think that that is, oh, should we require a minimum time of business has been established something to consider. Um, and then I do want to just give profuse thanks to not only the amount of work you've done to bring this forward to us, but the short time in which you did it, given the length of time that a staff report has to be submitted ahead of time. So. Yeah. Mr. Potter. Yes. Hi. I just wanted to clarify. Vice Mayor Knox White had said I'm okay with these percentages since they've been vetted with the business community. And I just wanted to clarify that. I think the business community, they are primarily interested in seeing all of the funds go to the small business community. However, staff, based on the comments we heard from council at the May 5th meeting, there was interest in making these funds available to renters as well as to nonprofits. So this is staff. Dation. We have input from the business community, but the six 2020 was staff recommendation. But I will say if there's a consensus on the council that the parts be separate and people can select. You don't really need those percentages at that point because then you would just be designating where you would want your funding to go. So it would probably be helpful for us to have some consensus direction from Council on on that issue. So I'll put in my $0.02 worth. Ooh, I think I need a motion to have a couple more minutes. It's always tricky when you're running the meeting because some of your time gets there. May I have, uh, Councilmember Vela? I'll move to add 2 minutes time. Is that sufficient or. 3 minutes. Is good. Okay, 2 minutes for the second. Second. Who is that? Councilmen. Vice mayor. Vice mayor. Okay. A roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Knox Light. I. Odie. Hi, Vella. I may or as he Ashcraft. I. That carries my faith. Thank you all. Last night and raising my hand. Hi. Lois and Isabella. Yes. I just wanted to clarify one point, and that was with regards to transferring all of the the applications to the new fund, we weren't recommending that. We were only recommending if there was a go fund me set up ahead of time. The business associations had indicated that they would use the same the same applications, but for the new fund that we weren't recommending to do it the same way. I see. Thanks. Thank you for that clarification, Mayor. As you said, it's the city clerk and we have an attendee who keeps raising and lowering his hand to try and get our attention. But you have closed public comment, so we just need to announce that anyone with a raised hand public comment on this item is closed and therefore will not be heard. Thank you. Yes. And it goes the same way it does in a regular council meeting. We we hear the folks who have their hand up or have seen their comments and we ask if there are any more. There were. And then I close public comment. So my concern is that we might lose some donors if we said, you donate to this and we'll decide where it goes. But I also want to be able to help our businesses so council come up with a solution. I'm delegating. Councilmember Vela. I don't have a problem having the two funds or the would the nonprofits be in the fund with the businesses or would they be in the fund with the residential? Well. I think I think we had, at least in the staff report, that the non-profits would be their own fund at 20% residential assistance. So three training and then 63 fund. And I just wanted to clarify, because we've been we've been talking about it as if the two funds that I just wanted to go. No, I was going by the percentage breakdown and just suggesting we shifted a little over. I'm a little. Cautious. I know our businesses have huge needs, but there was no representation from the nonprofit community. And, you know, I'm thinking of we could name a whole list of them in our community. And so and I think I was making the analogy that say you donate to Doctors Without Borders, you could say, I want to donate to the efforts in X country or region. But you can also say, I just donate to you and put it where you need it. And I think it's possible to do this sort of thing. At least the gentleman who approached me about starting this indicated that it was so in that. In that instance that a mayor would have been if I gave, let's say, $100, $50 would be given or it would be distributed based off of the percentages of funds. In that case, if I was a general donor. These are good questions that were down there. Yes. Ms.. Potter. Ms.. Butler. Yes, yes. Yes. Okay. Butler And if you didn't wanted to do it that way, I guess you could designate your percentages. Correct. I want to donate $50 to the renters and $50 to nonprofits or. Something. And then I did have another. Sorry. Someone's going to clarify, Miss Butler. I was going to clarify that. I didn't ask them that, but I'm sure that we could work something out. Okay. Missoula. Councilmember Vela My other question was, if we have a fund that gets substantially funded and we have one or two other funds that is substantially underfunded, and is there an ability then to move the money or is it then stuck in that one fund. That's sort of seen as like a legal as well as procedural answer? As a city attorney, do you want to weigh in? I realize why it might be too strong a verb, but would. I don't I mean, I don't. I think there are a lot of flexibility in how the council would direct us to set up these funds. And depending upon your direction, we won't do it, given the flexibility possible. But I do believe that once you give people the option to pick, I don't think you would want to go back if there was an under-funded fund and move money around, because I think that then that's not the spirit of you you're allowed to select. Mhm. Right. And so to add to Miss Hunter's point, if, if the council's interested to have funds shipped around, we would have to advertise that early on to say that funds might get moved depending upon a certain threshold. So it will largely depend on where your direction is as to how we do it. Well, Mr. Shand, wouldn't it also be possible that the shifted funds would come from the donors who just said put it wherever the need is? Sure. Sure. Okay. Vice Mayor, you had your hand up. I think. I think this conversation is. In the weeds. Well, no, I was going to say is moving me toward supporting the idea of separate funds. I think I feel like I. I was a little surprised to see when we came back that there was a single fund for three different uses. I think when you're going out and asking people to contribute to things, they are more likely to contribute to things. If they, you know, if it if it's really clear what it what it is, they're they're doing it and I think fund a mix of different things in Alameda is a less successful pitch then help me help renters in need help nonprofits in need help businesses in need. I do think with the businesses and nonprofits, I think we should look at possibly three. I think if we can always have a submittal form that says, would you like to add money for renters or nonprofits as well so that you can ask people to donate to all three at the same time? Um, but I think if, if we are going to do that, I think, you know, I know we had a number of nonprofits that were successful in getting PPE funds and so making sure that we are if we're going to, if we're going to do nonprofits and if we're going to do businesses, maybe we're helping people who are not successful in those other programs. And I do believe that's a criteria, isn't it? Yeah. And then I think. Did I see Councilmember? No. No, it's. Uh, it's. Um, it. Was a criteria that they had to have applied for it in the last round of. My career. Well, well, wouldn't it. Would it not be something you'd consider when you were looking at income? You know, losses and an income. Um, it's, it's not something that we consider for the last round, but it is something that we could consider for this round. Okay. All right, counselor Brody. Thank you. And I neglected when I talked earlier to recognize Sara Henry Arpaio, who's also done a great job on this and many other things. It was nice to have her have a Saturday off. As you can see, she's in the EEOC right now. You know, I worry about whether, you know, I like the allocation of staff here, but I worry that if you know. One of these funds may get nothing. And, you know, in the end, I know it's for rent, but in the end, that rent is going to go to property owners who are basically business people. Nonprofits hire people and get out money in the community. And small businesses are small businesses. So, I mean, it's not like you're you're giving money to a tenant. It's actually going to be used to pay rent. And I worry about it being super complicated by splitting it up. And I also worry about if it's more complicated, is it going to be more costly? Um, you know, I'm not sure. Yeah, I'm just not sure I'm there yet. Well, I'll tell you, we need to we need to wrap this up because we've got a number of other items to cover, and we want to move this forward so we can start getting the money out. I, I don't think it's so terribly complicated. As I've said before, um, other, other charities do this sort of thing on a regular basis. And you know what I think? I think at the end of the day, people are generous. I've been very moved by just the stories of people coming forward, businesses, the things they've done to help other people. Right now, even businesses, even restaurants who are operating at a loss are helping provide meals for people who are hungry. So, you know, at some point, I don't know. I think you've you've got to see, um, the, the good in human nature. And I, I feel like I'm seeing more of the positives and the negatives through all these hard times. I would like to really see this move forward so we can start getting we have people lining up, wanting to donate to this fund. So, um, Councilman Brody. I may be in the minority on that issue anyway, but was there any other folks that would support the idea of, um, awarding more grant money? Oh, could I just address that really quickly? I in my notes, I said, could we wait until the budget hearing to decide on that? Just learn a little bit more about our finances. But. And do we need to know that to move this element a strong program forward? I know, but I guess it's not on the agenda for the budget meeting tomorrow and if the awardees are going to be announced by Friday. Um, you know, I don't know how long would I get if, if there was a sense that folks wanted to do that, how long it would delay getting money into the hands of our businesses? I don't know. Does the city manager want to address that again? I use the term loosely. Liberally. Hi. So we gave the council some options. You could do a couple items if you wanted to talk about tomorrow. I don't know. Can you continue this this item to following the meeting tomorrow? I don't know. I'm asking even on that. So that would be one option if you want to look at it after the budget to continue this item to, I guess, the council meeting and just this item to after the budget meeting so that you could make that decision. The other thing is we could come back on June 2nd. So if you're talking about adding money to this program, Alameda Strong, you could come back to June 2nd. But what I think Councilmember OTE is talking about is actually adding. To the. $600,000 grant program itself. Is that. Correct? Councilman Rudy. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, is it possible to just continue that discussion on possibly augmenting the grant fund to tomorrow and move forward today on the Alameda strong portion? Um. City attorney. So, Madam Mayor, I'm my city councilmember. It's my. Recommendation. Would be that you just simply continue the item so that you have a complete agenda item for discussion. You could certainly give direction on the item today. But. Nonetheless continue. The entire item till. Tomorrow. I would like to find a way to move forward on the Alameda Strong Program Community Relief Fund now, because I think it's we're really pushing staff to get this pulled together. And I and we've got a lot to talk about tomorrow to Councilmember Odie. Any other way you can seek and let's hear from the vice mayor. We'll hear a different from a different person right now. What I heard the city attorney say is that we could get very strong direction tonight to move forward in a very particular way with the community fund and then just delay the action along with the the other funding issue, too, after the budget hearing tomorrow, so that the staff would know exactly what we were directing them to do tonight. And it wouldn't delay it. It would it just wouldn't be the formal vote until tomorrow night. Is that correct, Mr. Chan? Yes. All I'm saying is that you don't bifurcate this item into smaller slices and continue the item. But yes, you could even take votes on this item tonight. It just that. You give yourself. The option to reverse yourself tomorrow night. Got it. Councilmember Vela, any thoughts? Councilmember de Thug Councilmember Vela. I'd like to wait and just take up the the conversation about potentially putting in more grant money, more money into the grant program with the budget. I also would like to focus on just getting this project off and launched. I think that if we if we could give money later, but hopefully we can focus our efforts on getting others to contribute now, which might actually reduce the need for more funds from the general fund, which is, I think, the goal. I am a little wary of kind of making it overly complex in terms of administering. So I defer to staff or whoever is going to administer about the number of funds. We can also just have one fund that people can earmark what they put in. That's another way people do it. Can they get a little less complex of administering multiple funds and you can market it to say, look, this gives to this. I just wonder if there's different nonprofits or grant making places out there who will only give to certain things like they won't give to businesses, but they'll give to a fund to support nonprofits. And that's why I think there would be a value in kind of allowing nonprofits to have their own funding. If that's the case, I'm out of time. But I think we voted to give everyone every. 20 minute minutes. Okay, so this. Is good for the gander. Yeah. And then, you know, so I think, you know, I defer to them, but I would like us since we are setting this up, since we really only went to one person. I if there is somebody in Alameda who has experience administering funds and I think there are because the city's office and yeah right but but there might be somebody I would like us to see if there's an Alameda business that has done that or a professional that has done that. And there may be somebody. And then at least where we're giving back to an Alameda an Alameda business. Okay. And I would want it to be I would want it to be anybody who has experience administering any public fund because their cities, their special districts, their school districts. But if you have that sort of experience, I would want to consider them at least. Okay. Ms.. Potter, then Mr. Odey. Did you have your hand at my left? Yes. Thank you. I was just going to say that I fortunately the budget workshop is tomorrow evening. So I think that staff is fully able to keep moving on, setting up the foundation and can then incorporate any decision that might be provided tomorrow night regarding funding. So I feel that we can absolutely move forward with the direction we proceed tonight. If it's at all possible to move this item tonight, I would like to do that. Councilmember Brody, you've got your hand up, sir. I would also like to move it forward, but I'd also like to have the option to consider the additional funding tomorrow as part of this. Plan and. Make a motion. Is there a way to do that? I mean, I got like a fuzzy maybe you shouldn't, but I didn't get like, well, you can do this if you do X, Y and Z. And if you can tell me what X, Y, and Z is, I'll make that motion. Um, who are you referring that to? The city attorney. Yes. And so, Councilmember. Odom, my recommendation would be that you. Make a motion. I got it right there. Go ahead. Mr. Shinn? Yes. And Councilmember o.T. My recommendation is that you make whatever substantive motions you want to make tonight and then make a motion to continue this item along with the special meeting until the conclusion of the budget hearing tomorrow night for a time, certainly you can set it at, let's say 7 p.m. and you start when you can start. And then this item will. Again be called. The special meeting. And the I, along with this item will be called after the budget item. And then at that moment you can add whatever. Other funding. Or anything else you use that makes sense. Well, that is a recommendation. Is there anything preventing us from doing it the other way? Approving because this was multiple parts. You know, it wasn't just one one item. We can sign off on the alameda strong portion and then defer the discussion on the, um, whether or not we agree with staff's recommendation to not provide more money until tomorrow. So essentially the bifurcate is. What you're saying is, is that not permitted? Or is it just your recommendation? Because can you get us to. Yes. Here and as far before we go back to city, no. And then before we go back, the vice mayor has had his hand up. And I want to I want to. Well, I guess I believe we've been given that direction. Direction? Why did we not vote on how we would like to move forward with Alameda Strong and take that vote tonight and then continue the item for future discussion at which we can have the discussion about the funding tomorrow night and the vote perhaps for the motion. I'll make the motion. Let's just set the vice mayor just said. All right. And well, I'll just it doesn't really matter to me. I will put in a recommendation for multiple funds. Okay. Okay. So you've made the motion. You made the motion, Councilmember Odie. I will second that motion. I'm going to ask it if I can just make a couple friendly, just clarifications of things I heard. But I would would that in their motion include restricting grantees who got previously received keep funds which would be a would which would be different than the last one so that we're funding people who were unsuccessful in past grant applications so giving. Staff. The leeway. Is that what you're saying? Well, I don't want to get the leeway I want to give. Okay. Personally? Okay. Councilor Brody, that's your motion. What's your thought? Um, so they didn't receive the 7500? That that that's what you're suggesting? No. P federal grants. There are. There are there are nonprofits that have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in Alameda. But my feeling is they shouldn't be competing with other nonprofits that have not received any funds but. Saying, I'm okay with it, I'm okay with that. I just think our staff's not administering this, though, right? Isn't either Ebix and working solutions administering it it. Once the payments are made. But as far as the decision of who's getting the money right and the list of applicants and then just the distinction, as I understand about the PGP, is a payroll protection program. It starts out as a loan that needs to be repaid unless you retain 100% of your workforce for a certain period of time. But, you know, if if you're saying you would like receipt of those funds to be a criteria that would wait against you receiving our fans, is that what you're asking? No, I would say if you've received them, you cannot apply. You do not qualify for these funds that I would prefer to. I would prefer to expand the number of businesses and nonprofits in Alameda who receive support rather than allow some people to receive double support and others receive zero. Okay, that's fair. I mean, I would agree to that. Okay. Okay. And then my other my other clarification, Jim, is just just because we had a lot of conversation, but I don't know that we ever heard consensus around the sole proprietor in-home issue and what your intent was there. I, I, I'm not overly supportive of that, but, but I wanted to find out. It was in the staff recommendation. So I would, I was going to suggest keeping it in there. Council has got to hand it. Can I. Yes. Okay. So two things. One, with the maker of the motion, be willing to at least limit the sole proprietors to 50% of the the grant amount, because that's a significant amount of money to give to one person who can also qualify for the federal payments, the federal pandemic assistance, which means that they can get unemployment plus $600 a week. And again. I'm sorry. Inside America, sorry. This is a distinction between I heard home based business sole proprietors and sole proprietors. Do you do you see a distinction there, Councilmember Avella? To me, I there is. But maybe too far in the weeds. Okay. Okay. Again, I mean, so I want to get clarification on that. And then I also wanted to find out if that's because if that's not to me, that's a significant thing because then we'll get we could give out more money to more people. If we if we are limiting that and I would hate for, for instance, a bunch of people that are sole proprietors who are working out of their house are the ones that end up getting all of these grants or a substantial portion of them. So I was also interested in perhaps giving some direction to staff to limit the number that we would be giving out. So can somebody make. Sure. That they are lowest? I mean, that sounds reasonable. I have no problem with it. But that just whenever your take. So from staff's perspective, if the council wants to say sole proprietors would be eligible up to half of the 7500, which is like 4750 or something like that. I don't have a problem with that. And if we want to cap the number or make it a percentage of what we receive, I think we're fine with that, too . And I would just add back to the p p issue. I would just say that the reason that we are asking that people have applied is because there was discussion previously by the council that we don't want to be the funder of first resort. Right. So I guess policy direction on that is helpful for us. Mm. But we can make the full propriety of one work at a reduced formula. Council member Villa. And then the other two clarifications that I wanted to see if they were included as if if we could increase the residential rent relief to 30 $500 still at the one month cap. Quickly, you just ran out of time. Make your second. And then the second point was on the TPP. If that's limited just to the not the larger nonprofits that have qualified for it, I would be fine with limiting it. And if that's part of the motion. Okay for me if that works for the vice mayor who made that suggestion. I will. I will. I will. If that if that's what gets us to moving this forward. Great. Great. Okay. And Madam Clerk and staff, do you have any information on the residential? Everything that's in it. Yes. And on the residential, I think we would say one month's rent not to exceed 3500. And that's how we would address that issue. Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. We have a motion by Councilmember Otis, a second by Vice Mayor Knox. Let me we have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Mayor. As the Ashcraft high that carries by five days. Good work, everybody. The second motion. Are in effect. A motion? Yes. Councilor Rody. I guess I'll make that second motion to continue the discussion on whether or not to accept the test recommendation to not provide additional funding for the grant program until after the budget meeting tomorrow. A motion to have a second. If we can amend the motion, just be continue this item to include that conversation to the next, which is the advice we got. I would be happy to. Second and I think you need a time specific in there. Just 7 p.m.. Yeah. Okay. Sure. But I don't really want to rehash this motion. We just passed. It. We all get that. Come on, guys. We got it. We're going to move this along. So you're okay with that amendment? Yeah. Okay. Move by Odie, seconded by Inox. Right. Draw cover, please. Roadside guy. Right. Hi. Hi. I. Mayor has the Ashcroft. Eye. Carries by five eyes. Very good. All right. We're moving on to item to see. Madam, would you introduce that item, please? Recommendation to authorize the city manager to opt for commercial tenants in city owned properties. A loan conversion and forgiveness assistance program in response to the COVID 19 pandemic. Thank you. Okay. And this is being presented by his presenting. Hi. And I'm going to ask for brevity. This was not a long staff report, and our council members read their materials and the public is always capable of going to the website and reading too.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning, amending Section 23.47A.004 of the Seattle Municipal Code to allow for the expansion of up to 20,000 square feet of existing medical services uses in Neighborhood Commercial 1 zones.

SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CB 118548

Agenda item for council bill 118548 relating to land use and zoning amending section to 3.478.04 of the Seattle Municipal Code to allow for the expansion of up to 20,000 square feet of existing medical services uses in neighborhood commercial ones zones. The committee recommends the bill pass. This bill amends the Seattle Municipal Code to allow transfer of funds from the construction and land use if authorized by ordinance. Among other things, the construction and land use fine receives revenue. Actually, Councilmember Lucado, we're on agenda item four right now. I thought I don't have one. My mistake. That's all right. Good, good, good practice. You're coming up. Very good. I'm all ready for that. Agenda item four. And I'm speaking to this on behalf of Councilmember O'Brien, whose excuse today this bill would amend the land use code to allow medical facilities that serve low income patients to expand in neighborhood commercial one zones. If they are located within urban centers or urban villages, the existing facilities would be permitted to expand from 10,000 square feet to a maximum of 20,000 square feet. And this is for medical facilities serving low income patients that are in existence today. Any questions or comments on agenda item four, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Back Shot by garden by Gonzalez Harrell Licata. I. Rasmussen I am president Burgess High seven in favor nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read him. Agenda Read Agenda Item five.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing regarding an economic subsidy in connection with a Transient Occupancy Tax Sharing Agreement with Breakers Development, LLC, a California limited liability company, for the property at 210 East Ocean Boulevard, Assessor Parcel Number 7278-007-034, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, Transient Occupancy Tax Sharing Agreement, with Breakers Development, LLC, a California limited liability company, or assignee, for the development of an upscale independent boutique hotel. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_10012019_19-0939

Thank you. That concludes our presentations. We have two hearings today. We're going to go into our first hearing, which is hearing item number one, and then we'll have our second hearing. So let me turn this over. How can I have a clerk? Please read the hearing, please. Hearing item. Once a report from economic development recommendations received supporting documentation into the record conclude the public hearing regarding an economic subsidy in connection with a transient occupancy tax sharing agreement with breakers development for the property at 210 East Ocean Boulevard and authorize city manager to execute a transient occupancy tax sharing agreement with breakers development for the development of an upscale independent boutique hotel. District two and this item requires north. We go ahead and do the oath, please, Madam Court. You stand and raise your right hand. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the court now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Okay. Thank you very much. So let me go ahead and begin by having our assistant city manager, interim city manager, Tom Modica. Go ahead and do the presentation to me. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We will have Sergio Ramirez, our deputy director of economic development, give a presentation about this proposal. Thank you, Tom. Good evening, honorable mayor. Council members. The item before you is a transit agency tax sharing agreement for probably one of the most iconic properties on Ocean Boulevard, a property that almost a century ago opened its doors here in Long Beach and as a luxury hotel. But over the years kind of fell on hard times. This item before you tonight is is an opportunity for a new chapter for this property. I have a quick presentation for you. So the subject property is located at 210 East Ocean Boulevard. It's a 14 story building situated on approximately 1.15 acre parcel. So by way of background, the Historic Breakers Hotel opened its doors in 1926 as a luxury oceanfront resort. Over the years, the hotel experienced changes, changes to the name of the property ownership changes, physical changes, and changes to the use. From 1990, up until 2015, the property was operated as a congregate care senior facility. And as I mentioned, the property over the years experienced deferred maintenance and dilapidation. In 2017, Breakers Development LLC, a subsidiary of Pacific Six, a local development company here in Long Beach, purchased the property. The developer would like to reposition the property back to a luxury hotel, the Breakers Hotel and Spa. The proposed development project would include conversion of the existing historic breakers building into a luxury hotel, which would accommodate 185 well-appointed rooms, averaging approximately 400 square feet. The property would be a full service hotel with a spa, dining and entertainment. There would be over 10,000 square feet of meeting and ballroom space over ten that I'm sorry, over 10,000 square feet of meeting and ballroom space over 12,000 square feet of food and beverage would would provide space for a new full service restaurant and bar remodel and reopening of the doors of the famed Sky Room, a new signature rooftop bar and terrace, new ground floor coffee shop along Ocean Boulevard and a brand new destination jazz club venue. The project would also include a new beauty salon spa and a new pool deck would be constructed on the third floor along with a fitness center. As part of the Devon project, the developer will be constructing approximately $1 million in improvements to Victory Park, which will include new landscaping and reconfiguring of vehicle access. The proposed project will create approximately 500 new construction jobs and approximately 240 permanent jobs. Now, I'd like to just quickly take a moment to share with you some of the renderings of the proposed development project. The rendering before you on screen is an image of the new lobby. So this will greet visitors when they come and check into the new hotel. This is a typical guestroom of the new hotel. The image. Here is a picture of the new restaurant in the lobby dining area. This is the picture of the new spa. And this is the pool deck which will be constructed on the third floor overlooking the Terrace Theater and Pacific Ocean. And finally, the new and improved Sky Room, which will reopen upon the completion of this project. And the new feature, of course, the rooftop bar in and Terrace, which will have views of from Pacific Power. I'm sorry, Palos Verdes to Laguna Beach. The developers proposing a total development cost of approximately $135 million. The high cost of development is due to adaptive reuse of the historic building. The city engaged an economic consultant outside party Kaiser Morton Associates, to conduct an independent analysis of the construction costs and projected operating income. Kaiser Marson had determined there was an economic feasibility gap of approximately $37.7 million. The developer has requested a share of the projected transit occupancy tax or what the city would receive. The project is completed. Projected totals to the city because of the construction of the project is expected to be approximately 42 million in 20 years and 73.5 million in three years. Under the proposed TOT sharing agreement, the developer has asked to receive approximately 13 million over nine years. That would translate to approximately 34% of the feasibility gap. During that period, the city would the developer would save 80% of the total and the city would receive approximately 20%. During the nine year period and the assistance would be capped at $13 million. The developer would be required to make a minimum investment of $7.7 million and operate a four diamond rated triple triple A for diamond rated hotel for a period of 20 years. And certify annually under eight and have to operate a preferred hotel flag or better hotel. And the subsidy is similar to the same deal that we did for American Life Hotels back in 2017. Staff recommends that city approve the transit occupancy tax sharing agreement received the supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing regarding the economic subsidy in connection with transit occupancy. Tech Sharing Agreement with Breakers Development LLC, a California limited liability company for the property at 210 East Ocean Boulevard. Assessor Parcel Number 7278007034 pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083 and authorizes the city manager or designee to execute any and all documents necessary to approve transit occupancy tax sharing agreement with Breakers Development LLC, a California limited liability company or city for the development of an upscale, independent boutique hotel that concludes staff's presentation. Would you be happy to answer any questions? Thank you. We're going to do public comment next as part of the hearing order. And so if I call you or your name, please come forward. The first speakers are Jose Soto. Can you stamp's Anna Evans, Goldstein and Jeremy Arnold? Those speakers could please come forward as a sotto can you stamps Anna Evans Goldstein and Jeremy Arnold, please come forward. Please. Thank you. The City Council. Hello. My name is Jose Soda. I work at Hyatt Centric here in downtown Long Beach. I'm here to encourage you to vote for the 13 million for the Breakfast Hotel Project. However, I have a question about why they have not received a similar amount to the American Life Project. I'm happy to learn about the project the developer has worked on to make sure that the hotel will include benefits to the environment and community. I am happy about the proposed parking plan that the developer has made and effort to increase. Also parks space in the city. The new Tanaka Park and the work being put into the Victory Park will be a great place for my family and me to visit and spend time. The efforts being made to preserve this historic building are good and will be a benefit to our city. We need more projects to include community benefits such as these and hope you will accept the 13 million. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and city council members. My name is Kenya Stamps and I am the associate vice president of sales at the Long Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau. And I'm here along with my senior vice president of sales, Joseph Genesee, on behalf of Steve Goodling. He would like to be here tonight, but he had a previous engagement and could not be here. And we wanted to express our support of this project as it as it relates to the city being able to I'm sorry, the convention and visitors bureau being able to acquire more groups, especially citywide. We have run into situations where because we don't have an upscale boutique project like this, we are not able to speak with certain groups. And so this is a super important project for us. It will open doors for us that we initially couldn't get into and it's a great project for the city. And honestly, we couldn't find a better group of owners that are in full support of the city as well as as their own project. So again, we're just here to express support for this Breakers project. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Anna Evans Goldstein and I am here on behalf of Unite Here Local 11. I'm here to voice support for the 13 million total in total for the Breakers Hotel. Pacific six has made strong commitments to a variety of environmental protections and community serving uses, including mitigating greenhouse gas and noise impacts related to both operation and construction. Their commitment to the community has already been realized through partial funding for a newly permanent public park in a park deprived area of the city. The project also includes renovations to Victory Park and as an excellent. Example of. An adaptive reuse of an historically preserved building. However, I want to raise a concern over the process. The proposal for the Breakers Hotel does not seem in line with previous top agreements the city has negotiated mystifying the process by which the amount before you is reached. The American Life Project received an agreement in 2017 of 28. Million to close a. Feasibility gap of 47 million, making their rebate roughly 57% of the gap. The Breakers Agreement is proposing a cap of 13 million for a 37 million feasibility gap, which is only 34% of what is needed to close the gap significantly less than the American Life Project. These two projects are one block away from each other and both slated to be upper scale hotels. If the Breakers Hotel rebate were calculated similarly to American life, the full rebate would be capped at 21 million. So we ask that you approve the 13 million total for this project today, but we urge that this matter is brought back before the Council with a more in-depth analysis for the amount being recommended and to award the missing 7 million. The process must be more transparent. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker and then creative, carelessly. And tonight can be also. Please come up carelessly and to me. Can you please come up? Good evening. My name is Jeremy Arnold. I live in District one. I want to say I'm in favor of the $30 million total t0t for breakers. However, like Mr. Soto, Ms.. Evans. Goldstein, I am curious as to why they are not being offered a similar amount to the American Life Project. There's no explanation in the staff report of how the decision was made to determine the cap of $30 million. There are no indications that breakers should be receiving or sorry. There are indications on that staff report that Breakers should be receiving more in 2017. Long Beach Engage BRT Urban Economics to prepare a hotel incentive program. Study notes in its survey of California hotel development subsidies that, quote, subsidies for four diamond hotels are typically much higher than for three diamond hotels. These subsidies range from 15% to 40% of the total development costs. If we are to take the lowest percentages of this range at 15% of the total development costs of the Breakers Hotel, which is $135 million, the total subsidy would equal 20 and a quarter million dollars in order to be on par with the standard for the state. I'm a huge proponent of environmental protections for our city when it comes to development, and I'm happy to see the numerous mitigations. Pacific says six has put in place the on demand energy management system to reduce energy and greenhouse gas impacts. The additional employee parking spaces and on site information about transit and ride sharing services to reduce traffic and greenhouse gas emissions and the construction related measures to reduce air quality and noise impacts during the construction phase are strong commitments. I urge you to approve. The $13 million. In total now, but leave you with my question about why they're not being offered a similar amount of totty that was offered to the American. Life Project slated. To be built only one block away. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. So. I carelessly here. I love this project. That building is wonderful. And I'm delighted to see that we're going to invest in that hotel. The economic development subsidy does seem like it's a lot. 80% of the transient occupancy tax. I don't object to a businessman wanting to make a reasonable return on investment. I always compare this to my own era in business, and I can tell you that if Boeing couldn't find 10% on their money, it was a no bid. So this particular business is looking for 8%, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me. But what I would ask is if the numbers are not as anticipated and if they make more than the assessed calculations that we just went through, can we somewhere in the deal have the ability to recalculate and bring money back to the city? So I'd hate to give them a giant windfall profit at our expense. Thank you. Thank you. Your last speaker, please. So I can face success for president. There's a developing trend across the country with. The matter of. Boutique hotels. Uh, I actually, uh, work at one in downtown L.A. and I have to say. But there is an interesting trend in which. The rise. Of boutique hotels, you know, young hip millennials and maybe older generations that want proximity to millennials, you know, so this is the boutique hotel. Thing. And I think it's great. The issue is, is when they don't work, because what often happens is a partnership with entities like Airbnb, where they convert hotel rooms into apartment hotels. This is happening currently in, uh, in southern. San Diego County as well as Sacramento, Oakland and San. Francisco. This isn't a by chance or a coincidence. This is a clearly a, uh, a business tactic used by a lot. Of major. Developers when the hotels don't work. They do this? Personally, I'm indifferent towards this project as a whole. I think 80% is inappropriate. But for me, if, let's say. Karma, I read. The report that they had and you know, there's certain stipulations which I think, uh, it goes without saying, the diamond, uh, the rating is that's imperative. But for me, if we going to invest public funds. Coming out of Missouri. Uh, which was supposedly supposed to be used to maintain a certain number of firefighters and police officers, if we're going to dedicate that money and to. Making sure this development occurs. I think that there should be some kind of, uh, agreement with, uh, Pacific six that. Uh, they can't turn any of these hotel. Rooms that they can't fill into Airbnbs. Or if there is the case. That they are going to uh. Designate a certain percentage of the rooms into Airbnbs. That they should also pay an annual. Permit per room like any, any other. Provider Airbnbs do for the city in addition to the taxes that they're going to pay as a hotel provider. Outside of that, you know, you could do more with the. Community benefits, but we'll take what we can. Get. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have Ms.. Control signed up, but I will please come forward and speak. And we just need a please sign up for the council, so please go ahead. Thank you. I'm. Curious as to why. This is being done that the developer claims he needs money for historical restoration of this hotel when they're adding a swimming pool, which was never there before. A rooftop bar and a large circular driveway which is taking part of Victory Park. True and true they are. Putting. A new park in another part of town. But the. Coastal Act requires that if you take park land from the coastal zone, it has to serve the people that are in that zone. So any restoration of Victory Park should have been in downtown. My biggest concern about this is when the nine years is going to start. If it starts next year, 2020. We are having the Olympics here in 2028. That's eight years. So I'm assuming we're expecting a lot of people to come and stay in our hotels during the Olympics, will be losing all of that hotel tax or at least 80% of it. During the Olympics and you're shaking your head. Council member Mungo. I hope you'll explain how this doesn't affect the Olympics. I feel that we bend over backwards to help John Molino. Restore the breakers. We've already. Signed a contract with him, and now he wants more. He got part of Victory Park. We are subsidizing him to. For seismic. Repairs for community hospital, which he will profit from. I am against taxpayers subsidizing this project. Thank you. Thank you. With that, we will conclude public comment and I will move on now to a deliberation from the council council member Pearce. Thank you. I want to thank staff a great deal for their work on this. I know that this has been a topic since the company decided to to purchase this building for, I believe, $40 million. Correct. $40 million. And so I want to thank staff. I know that they've done a lot of hard work. I want to thank Pacific Six for really being a community partner. And I want to address some of the community concerns and really talk about why this project is a historic moment for this council. My work before I got on council was around community benefits. It was around responsible development. The organization I worked for put out a report about subsidies to hotels in particular. We subsidize the Hyatt on city land for $76 million with no strings attached, with no community benefits, with no worker standards, with none of that. In about 20 years, the city gave away nearly $1,000,000,000 to developers that weren't based in the city of Long Beach. What we have here is a project that is a cornerstone of our downtown. We have here a project that is a historic building that is gorgeous, that everybody that drives by it wants to go inside. They want to experience it. They want to go to the rooftop nest that's been up there. Now we have a developer that not only wants to really invest in it and really protect it and make it shine, but those developers are Long Beach based that we're keeping Capital Local, that we're saying for every dollar we invest in our local community, we're going to get a return on that investment for every good job we create that has a living wage. We know we get $3 back in our community for every dollar of that living wage. So what I see here is a project that is invested in parks, that's invested in historic preservation, that's invested in its workers, to say we have 200 workers that are going to have standards and a seat at the table. And those workers will likely come from Long Beach community. We know about 90% of Long Beach hotel workers live in Long Beach. And so for me, the idea of a community benefit is exactly that. And it is having a partner that is based here that's willing to give back. This isn't a giveaway, though, because this building for many years wasn't a hotel. We didn't get any tax dollars returned on that. We didn't get a total return returned on that. So by year 13, we are going to have a return on our investment is not the right number. I know that we've got. Yes. By year 13, we will have received back our 13 million that we gave up in the beginning. And so that again is a return back on our investment. I support this project. I do have a couple of questions. I know that we have struggled as a city to try to figure out how we wanted to do a total plan, how we wanted to address this, because we know that in other cities they don't just do a T or T share deal. They give away the whole house, they give away everything just to try to bring people in without community benefits. So understanding the difference between the American life deal, which I believe was 57% of the gap versus the 34% of the gap. Can you explain on that, please, John? Or Sergio. Certainly a council member. Yeah. So so the deals are essentially the same from a percentage basis, 80% of TOTY over the first nine years of of the 20 year deal. But when we look at a project like American Life, which estimates to cost a total of 262 million, versus a project that is estimated to cost a total of 135 million. The percentages what you put in leads to a different outcome. So ultimately, between these two projects, it's a matter of scale. And so 80% of a much larger number is going to yield a much larger number. And in this case, the American life deal will return up to 28 million over that nine year period. The minimum level of construction or investment is 230 million. And as a comparison in this deal, the total over the nine years is 13 million because the minimum level of investment is 70 million. So these are vastly different projects in terms of scale, and as a result, they're going to return a different number in terms of subsidy. And so in looking at that difference in between the gap, did you guys consider that? Did you have conversations about that, that it wasn't as much as American life? I'm just definitely so one of the things originally the developer had requested 80% of total for a 20 year period. And so I think what we had said, because we didn't have doesn't have a policy regarding due to subsidies. We looked at the most recent deal the American be that being the American life and and structured RDL based on that framework. Okay. As I mentioned, I support this project. I know John and I, we don't always see eye to eye on everything on this project. I wear eye to eye and I really respect the level of community engagement you've brought to it. I do want to hear from my colleagues if there's an interest in exploring that next piece of the conversation. But I would encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this tonight. It's a great project and it's a historic moment for the residents, as well as the city of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Romney. If you could take a few if you'd like. Did you want to make some comments or three questions? Okay. Let me go to Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I, too, am supportive of this item. I do have a few questions. The first is, did I read it correctly that there's a 20 year minimum operating period that's required pursuant to this agreement? That is correct, Councilwoman. I'm sorry. I may have missed that during my comments during the presentation. That is correct. There is a requirement for the an operating period, a minimum 20 years. Typically, the life of hotels is about 25 to 30 years. But essentially what we've done is required a 20 year requirement period for operation to ensure that we're able to recoup our investment, but plus the latter years, which is where we really see kind of the return on investment. Okay. And the $70.7 million investment that is part of this agreement on behalf of the developer, is that is there a timeline for that when that investment has to happen? Does it happen before the the occupancy permit does, or is it through the life of the contract? No, that that's a great question. And yes, that happens before the occupancy. Once the project construction period is completed, those numbers are certified by an independent third party to ensure that that level of investment has occurred. Okay. What happens then at year 15 on in terms of a requirement for ongoing maintenance by the operators to ensure that at that time, when the city is receiving the full top contribution, the hotel is at optimum condition to be able to attract customers. Great question. Again. Again, part of the requirements that will be built into the agreement is a requirement for an annual certification of Tripoli's for Diamond certification, Triple A. The Automobile Club has a kind of rates, hotels and whether it's year one or year 30, there's a minimum standard that requires kind of certain level of detail from everything from guest experience, service, food and condition of the physical, physical condition of the hotel. If something is off in see, for example, the towels aren't soft enough or you know, the, you know, for maintenance they don't receive that rating of like for diamond. And so that is going to be built into our requirement of our hotel, of our of our agreement to ensure that from day 1 to 30. I'm sorry, you're 30. The condition of the hotel is of that of for for for Diamond. And and I don't know this because I'm not in the hotel industry, but do they have like an annual audit of the correct regulatory agency? But I guess the the certifying agencies to determine whether they're at that. So so Tripoli actually sends out certification. There's a certification that Tripoli conducts. The folks from Tripoli come out and the experience, the hotel, walk through it and experience it and provide that certification and that know whenever you go to a hotel, you'll see kind of at the entrance or lobby it's presented and it's in a prominent location . And that certification is what we will require to make sure that we are able to then provide our reimbursement of the total. Okay. That's great. And I think that the I wanted to some assurance on that because I do know that there are folks who are interested in this high end type of hotel will be will look to resources that will list the hotels in the different parts of the region that are part of a particular hotel group. So it's important for me, if we're going to invest in this, that at the time the city is going to take over the full totti, that the hotel continues to be in the condition where people would want to stay in it. I'm very excited about this project. I think the fact that it's a historical preservation but yet an update and improvement project is huge for the city. This is definitely an area where we're lacking in the city in terms of services that we offer to visitors. And I think we've made so much progress in the city in terms of development and businesses that we're trying to attract to the city that we really need this this type of a hotel. To give folks yet another option for visiting the city. I'm very excited about it. I think, you know, historical preservation is important, but also updating the services, the look and what people and meeting the needs of what consumers want is critical for success. So at some point you have to merge historical preservation with reality. And I think this this project is going to do that. So I'm grateful for the partnership and I thank staff for your thorough job. And I know several of us reached out today for additional information on this item. So I want to thank you for all the work that you did behind the scenes to get us briefed for tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I will echo Councilwoman Price's comments related to preparation. I appreciate city staff providing the report that was detailed with all the addendums. I think that it's important for us to recognize that investments such as these are also a risk. And so we appreciate Mr. Molina taking a risk on Long Beach. He has a track record of being successful here. We appreciate that as well. I really appreciate the detail that we went into related to knowing and understanding the 80% sharing. I know I've shared my thoughts with staff, but in the future, as we look towards these opportunities, when you go year by year through the investment to MBS controls question the um, the number could be reached earlier than nine years and the project could cap off because the $13 Million cap could mean that it is achieved in five years. It just depends on the success of the hotel. And so with that, we would still be sharing in those revenues. Once that cap is reached, they would all come to the city, and that's a benefit. The other benefit is the property is getting significant improvements and those significant improvements show up on our property tax rolls . And while we do not get the lion's share of property tax, the County of Los Angeles does. And those are still programs that are are universal to the region. And then a percentage of that, a small percentage of that does come to the city of Long Beach, and we will benefit from that. And so if not, but for Mr. Molina's investment, we would be receiving zero. We would just be receiving the old property tax value, which is less than the current property tax value, significantly less should that property not have been purchased. So we are already in a better position today than we were under the previous operators and now we have a new revenue source that was not available when it was a senior care facility. And this is just a turning of the time, but with a elegant look back at our history. And for that I am thankful and just once again, I appreciate my colleagues and the amount of work that went into this. I know that it is not easy to bring together all these moving parts in a successful way and to do it and to do it in a way that is meaningful for workers. The community and history is is really remarkable. Thank you. Thank you, councilwoman. Councilman, super now. Thank you. Vice Mayor De Andrews could not be here tonight, so he asked me to read a couple of comments on his behalf. So this is from D. Andrews. I support the request of the Breakers Development LLC to be granted a subsidy in the form of a TOT sharing agreement. The revitalization and renewal of the Breakers into a luxury boutique, hotel and spa will transform a property that has lagged behind the rest of downtown Long Beach development. This new development will be generating millions of dollars of new TOTTY and creating hundreds of new jobs. These are new revenues and jobs the city would not get if the breakers were not redeveloped. I believe that we I believe that we are if we are asked by the developer for assistance in financing and revenues of this project, it is incumbent on the City Council to respond favorably to that request, for it will still guarantee US revenue that we would not ordinarily get if this project was not built. And he concludes by saying, I ask for my colleagues support. I'd just like to say that community hospital or Miss Maryland is an investment community hospital was mentioned that got my attention that's in the fourth council district. But I'd like to remind everyone that community hospital was built in 1924 and the Breakers was built in 1926. So I'd like to commend Mr. Molina for investing in one of our newer properties. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'll be quick. I love this building. I love this project ever since I first heard about this project. I think with our beautiful downtown, we do not have enough rooftop lounges and rooftop venues. And this from these renderings, it looks amazing. The pool looks fantastic. But my favorite part is going to the jazz club, and I'm surprised it hasn't come up as much. We love live music. We will be active patrons of this jazz club. Separately from that, I like. There's a lot to like about the project and I think we should lift up some of those things. So I know that there's a lot of focus on TLT and Council among them interest in property taxes also. There's also sales tax. There's a lot of good things about this. So, Mr. Chrysler, so quickly, could we summarize what is the full picture of new revenue for this that the city will realize on this project? Council member, if I may have me answer for Mr. Kessler in your one kind of new revenue, even with the share of total subsidy to the developer, the city is going to be receiving just under 400 $400,000. And then, of course, it escalates in the when once the subsidy burns off, the city will jump to the subsidy . I'm sorry, the revenue to the city will jump to $2.2 million. Overall, total kind of revenue to the city will be approximately $66.8 million from this property. Even with the subsidy. And aside from your staff time to negotiate. This was the city's investment that that. It was a number $66 million over three. I'm sorry. It was the city's investment. Aside from your staff. I think it's just staff time, a consultant staff time to review this and to make sure. And, of course, legal legal costs to review this. So aside from soft costs of staff, this this is a strategic investment. It makes a lot of sense over the long term for the city. And is projects like this that we are able to balance our budget, advance more city services, police officers, firefighters, parks, libraries. It's because of projects like this. I commend you also commend the developer and everyone who has been involved in this. I also want to say it's great to see that, you know, a lot you know, Councilman Pierce mentioned it. This wasn't the way the development took place in the past. You've got business and labor together. The community is happy endorsing a solid project. It makes the choice very, very easy for me. Was that you're going to say no? Councilmember One thing I want to mention is that one thing I would just want to clarify that this isn't money that we're actually kind of paying the developer. This is new revenue that is generated from this development. It exists clear on that. We've all it cost us nothing, relatively nothing. And this is almost $77 million in revenue over three. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ringa. Thank you, Mayor. Just one quick question. Is there any part of this project that touches the coastal the coastal line, the coastline? It was mentioned before. Well. I don't believe this requires a course of development permit. It's just on the outside of the course of development permit area. Exactly. Well, thank you. But I you know, I have to agree with everybody who's spoken so far, because this meets a lot of criteria. It's a remodel, rebuild. It's bringing in revenue will eventually. It creates jobs. And it has a community benefit. What else could we want? Plus, no expense to the city. So I think that when it comes to this project, it's it has a lot more pluses and minuses and I'm told, in support of this project. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Yes, Rex, Councilmember Richardson reminded me you guys have a great music program. Was that in the presentation? I missed it. Did you talk about it? We talked a little bit about the jazz club and of course, the venues, but maybe the developer would like to maybe talk touch upon the. He's like, I don't want to. I don't want to. I'll just be a having having a Long Beach based company come in and do this means that we're going to have local musicians come in, not only in the jazz venue. Right. But throughout. And that we're going to have a connection with our schools. They're going to bring in the high school music guys and come in and they're going to jam for us. I mean, there is a great synergy that we don't have anywhere else in downtown. I just want to make sure that that's lifted up so that the press can come and bug you about it later on. It's great to hear my council colleagues thoughts. I'd like to to move forward with the motion. Could you also come back with just a deeper dove on the total? So we have an understanding. You can do that. Awesome. Great. That's right. Thank you. That concludes council comments. I just want to just add that just more broadly speaking, I've I've obviously been I've encouraged us to think about our TOTTY as a way of attracting and ensuring that big projects and projects of significance could get built within our downtown. And I'm really glad that over the last few years, the city has begun using that as a as a mechanism for attracting quality projects. There are cities, some that are just a few miles from here that will provide 100% of Totti to build projects. And essentially that's that's not uncommon. And so I think and in some cases not get much out of that for the community or for labor standards. And so I think that to have a project of this significance that would not be happening if it wasn't for the commitment of the team involved. And I just want to thank the team for working with us, working with the team to ensure that we not only end up with what is really going to be a spectacular regional draw, but also one that provides support for our environmental goals and certainly our goals as it relate to worker standards and representation for those that are working there. So I think those are all things that are very important and I do want to thank the team for for doing that. And the last thing I'll say is there are there are hotel projects in L.A. in the broader state that literally that the hotel just alone, that one project brings in folks from across the state and the region because of the quality of the project. That's, for example, it's like the Ace Inn in downtown L.A. And this this project has the potential of being a a a hotel destination, where I think people are going to come in from across the state to visit this this location and enjoy the amenities and all the of the experiences that people can have in this space. So congratulations to the team and with that, members will go ahead and Castro votes. Motion carries.

Council Land Use Action to approve a temporary expansion of the North Seattle Precinct located at 10049 College Way North (project No. 3031508, Type V).

SeattleCityCouncil_06242019_CF 314413

Bill passed show saying please read the third agenda item. Agenda item three quick file 314413. Council on U.S. to approve a temporary expansion of the North Seattle precinct located at 10049 college way north. The committee recommends that the City Council approve the project as a condition of its modifications of development standards. Customer Pacheco This clerk files an application by phase for approval of a temporary improvement and expansion of the North Seattle precinct. The temporary expansion would involve adding three portables on the site, which will contain a community room, storage and break room. These spaces currently exist within the main structure, so moving them outside will free up additional space inside for operational purposes. The plan would also reconfigure parking lots and add a small number of additional spaces for fleet parking. This application requires council approval because it modifies one development standard to allow surface parking in required front yard along one relatively small stretch of the lot. We received comments from the surrounding community about this application and Speedy and has responded to many of those concerns at the Pledge Committee, Phase and SPDR are taking steps to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood, including protecting trees, making landscaping and irrigation improvements and limiting parking to protect some of the green space. Thank you, Councilman Pacheco. Any questions or comments on this file? Okay. So this is a file. So those in favor of approving the project as conditions with modifications of development standards, please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the chair was signed. The findings, conclusions and the decision of the City Council. Please read the read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee Agenda and for Accountable 119 531 relating to housing for low income households. Adopting the Housing Levy, Administrative and Financial Plan for Program Years 2018 and 2020, the committee recommends the bill passes amended.

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on Mr. Randy Bowden in commemoration of his impact on our community and benefit to generations of students as a teacher at Wilson High School for 46 years.

LongBeachCC_06122018_18-0489

Okay. Thank you. Motion is carried. Next up is we are doing we've had a couple. We've had a couple of requests to move some items up. So let me start with item 25. Communication from Councilwoman Pryce recommendation to receive and file a presentation on Mr. Randy Bowden in commemoration of his impact on our community and benefit to generations of students as a teacher at Wilson High School for 46 years. Gave. So I know that there are a lot of people here to honor and show appreciation for Mr. Bowden. And I'm just going to say a few words, and if anyone wants to come up and say anything after I speak regarding his service and what he's done for our children, our youth and our community, please feel free to do so. Of course, all teachers have the unique ability to shape lives, influence our communities, and impact our future leaders. But when someone has had a career that has spanned 46 years, dedicated to teaching generations of students, inspiring them and empowering them for their future, that has to be recognized. For those of you here tonight to recognize Mr. Bowden, you've all seen the amazing work that he has done. And I especially want to thank our city auditor, Laura dowd, because she brought this item to my attention, has a personal relationship with Mr. Bowden, and felt very strongly about the recognition tonight. So thank you to Laura. I think she's going to say a few words. The role he played as a trauma teacher working in the arts, a field that is often underrecognized for the important place. It has an education. Today, we thank you for the work that you have done for the time and energy you've committed to our city, to our community, and to our students. Your career has touched so many lives, and that is clearly evident with the outpouring of love and the opportunity to show appreciation to you for the honor that you're receiving. Thank you for making Long Beach and Wilson High School. It's a great day to be a Bruin. A better place. And for caring as deeply as you have throughout your amazing career. Having a child that's going to be entering Wilson next year. I'm grateful that we have teachers like you who are inspiring them to be the best people that they can be. Thank you. And you deserve every bit of this honor and so much more. Laura I'm going to invite our city auditor up to say a few words and then if anyone else would like to say a few words, and once we're all done with that, we have a certificate and we'd invite Mr. Bowden down. Great. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce, thank you very much for sponsoring this item and bringing our attention and special recognition to a very special teacher, Mr. Bowden, who has, as been mentioned, 46 years of complete devotion and dedication to teaching. When you think about 46 years, I know some of you weren't even born. 46 years ago, so that he was that he was started to teach people. And this isn't to make you feel bad, but, you know, when you think about that 46 years of what what a legacy, what a. What an era, very difficult to put into just a few words and few minutes here the impact that he really has had on so many students and this community. And when you think about 700 productions. Wow. The the time, the energy, the blood, sweat and tears to just put nothing but the best forward in the production. As a student at Wilson, I also had the privilege of being his drama student for the three years that I was there and the the blessing, the gift of so many qualities that he helped me develop, especially that of confidence and helping me in my role today as the city auditor to be able to get up and to speak. And, you know, when you think of the thousands and upon thousands of students that has had him. Collectively, it seems. Overwhelming. But when you. Were with. Mr. Bowden, he made you feel like you were the only student, the only one, the most important one. His passion and his love and concern for each individual student is something that really impressed me as a student, as I have observed him, and also with. All how how he worked so hard. We all know that he was always at the Rainbow Playhouse, the the the. House. He built for the students to come to feel welcome to. To be accepted for who they are. For the hours. That he worked there, it never seemed like a job to him. It was just who he was. And living out his his his passion and his love and I, on behalf of the thousands of students who had the pleasure and honor of of being one of his students, I want to thank him for going into the profession of teaching for the selfless acts of service that he. Provided for over these. 46 years and whether they were drama students or not. All were always welcome and he was always available for us. And we want to thank him for his service, for his kind acts, for the memories that will always last. With us, and we wish him the very best in his retirement. We love you, Mr. Mode, Mr. Vogt, and thank you very much. Trulieve. They're just a couple other students that like faith. Just a few words. Yeah. Please, please come down to the to the microphone. If you are making some comments, now would be the time. Oh. What happened after the public comment and public comment. My folks. We're live on Facebook right now. Okay. All right. So can we look at alumni? So. Yes. We love that. We. Hello? Go Bruins. Oh. Well, I'll start. I'm Janet Jarrod Wilson, class of 78. We're heading our 40 year class reunion. And I was back at Wilson when it was the three year school. I had Mr. Bowden for three years. He was the best teacher I've ever had. He was very impactful on my life. I've been in many situations where I've had to do public speaking and thank goodness for my experiences at Wilson. I appreciate all of what he did for all of his students. For me personally, the time that he put in to his job, when I think about how many hours went into that after school and all the time and putting together so many plays each year, my mind boggles at it. As a kid, I didn't appreciate it quite as much. But as an adult, I think being at your job, not only the 9 to 5, but the ten, the 11, the 12, the 13 to 14, the 15 and sometimes to 24. And that was what Mr. Bowden has done for so many years, and I can't thank them enough. And I wish him the best on his retirement. Thank you so much. Next week or please, please come forward next speaker. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And City Council. My name is Sheri Diamond. I am a graduate. Of Wilson High School, class. Of 1979. Mr. Bowden was my drama teacher from 1976 through 1979. I echo Auditor Dowd's words when she said that he he taught his classes and he lived his life in a way for us with complete and utter devotion, but made himself available to each of us as if we were the only one who existed. I think the best teachers know that every student walks into their classroom with a story, a story of their own, a story that doesn't usually get told whether it's having to be their grandmother. And that's why they were late or they didn't have breakfast, or there was. Violence in the home. Or other kinds of trauma and duress. The Rainbow Playhouse was more than a classroom. It was our safe haven. It was where we could go and know we would be okay until the end of the day. And many of us stayed even beyond that because we were at home in the playhouse, more so than we were in our own living rooms. And I think, again, echoing Laura's words. On behalf of the thousands and thousands. Of students for whom he provided that refuge, we want to express our gratitude, Randi. We are alive. Today. Many of us. Because of you, simply and solely because of you. And we owe you an enormous debt of gratitude, because we've. I hope, in Your Honor. Modeled and lived. The life that you showed us was possible. And so, again. We take a bow. Our curtain call to you, sir. Thank you so much for everything. And thank you for the counsel today. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next week at least. And make sure you say your name for the record. And I'm here. Council members. My name is Logan Montaigne. And on behalf of the Class of 2017, we would like to thank Mr. Byrne for everything that he did for us with a plaque. I'd just like to read what it says. 46 years. 8280 school days. 66240 hours. 3974400 minutes. 828 weeks of rehearsal. 1656 hours of rehearsal. Over 8000 students. One man who made an impact on countless. Lives. Loved the class of 2017. Congratulations, Mr.. Bowen. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. City Council members and Mayor Robert Garcia. My name is Pablo Moraga. I graduated from Wilson High School last year, and I would just like to say a few things about Mr. Bowden given by his vast experience. Mr. Bowden is extremely talented in an art and a very important note, which is how to act and how to be people. I came into his classroom as a really awkward little freshman, and I did it. I had no self-confidence whatsoever, but he taught me and that. And in the Playhouse, which is a safe haven to express ourselves and experiment with all types of ways of speaking and mannerisms and how we posture ourselves. We can learn how to be people, how to be whatever we want. And that has given me and many, many, many, many students the confidence to do whatever they please. And that gave me the confidence to to go to UC Berkeley, major in political science, to pursue my dreams of becoming a politician, and to one day maybe sit on this council table like you guys are, and to now work for Congressman Ron Paul and be able to present this certificate on behalf of Representative Lowenthal to Mr. Bowden. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. Hi, everyone. My name is. Emily Rodriguez, and. I am a student right. Now with Mr.. Bowden. He has been my teacher since. Freshman year and I am. Currently a junior and coming into my freshman year. I used to be a straight off student. I had no. Motivation for anything, and. I thought by my junior year I would have been a dropout. But because of Mr. B, because of how much he inspired me to just keep being in drama. He really did save me and saved me so much trouble, you know, because of him. I tried harder in school and I even made it on the principal's honor roll. So thank you, Mr. B and C, and because of him, I want to go to college now. I want to be a teacher. I want to inspire just like him. And if it wasn't for Mr. Bowden, I don't know where I would be. So thank you, Mr. Bowden. Thank you. And our final speaker. Thank you all. My name is Morris Smith. I'm again currently a junior under Mr. B. Unfortunately, I won't have him next year as a senior, but I know that in his retirement he'll again touch as many lives as he had the past 47 years. 46, 46 years. I just wanted to say that Mr. B gives everything he has, his his emotions, his passion to help his students pursue whatever they want to, whether that be performing or coming out of their shell or even making them better people. Like just this year he had us perform a play about homeless people and took us to the homeless shelter. He didn't just have us perform on stage as people we didn't know, but he had us meet these people and understand what they were really going through and decide not to just pass over them on the street, but to give them a smile and, you know, be better people. And he does this every single day in class and he pushes us to do better and be better and change the world around us. And I hope someday I can be a drama teacher, just like Mr. B, and follow in his footsteps, which is pretty hard. But he has inspired so many people, including me, and he's changed countless lives. Thank you so much, Mr. B. We owe. You everything. Thank you, sir. Counsel My name is. Ken Schlesinger, and I'm going to go off script and I. Proudly live in the third district. Susie Price We love you. We love what you do for our neighborhoods. You're welcome here any time. Thank you. I've lived in the district for 45 years. I've lived in Long Beach for 55 years. This is a great place to be. I've got something that was sent to me earlier today that probably will summarize how many of us feel. And that is there are people that teach you the world through different eyes, that allow you to encourage, to be who you truly are and the strength to continue forward despite any obstacles you may encounter, there are people in life that ultimately define your path. Mr. Bowden For myself and literally thousands of students, that person is you. Your classes rose above the scope of just drama classes. Of course you did teach us acting method versus technical. We learned how to create a. Character, how to analyze scenes in plays. But you also taught us how to critique without criticizing. How to work with an ensemble, how. To trust your fellow. Actors, how to be trustworthy. You taught us to follow our dreams, to believe in ourselves, and to never give up. Even with the number of years that are passed, many of us are as close as we were back then. You created a bond between us thicker than blood, because of the values instilled in us by you as adults, we continue to be advocates for the arts. Mr. Bowden. You were the catalyst for the passion in. US, which is theater. You taught us about the powerful. Impact that a. Performance can have and how to create a platform for truth and justice and build a community in which equality is not just an essential element but an absolute. Necessity. As Helen Keller said. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. To keep our faces towards change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate. Is strength undefeatable? That undefeatable strength is what you ingrained in all of us those years ago. Thank you, Mr. B, for your dedication to teaching, your passion for advocacy, for your love of the theater, and your never wavering enthusiasm throughout 45 years of teaching theater. Thank you for being a part of our journey, and thank you for allowing us to celebrate your legacy. This was written by. My good friend Carys Gonzales, graduated in 1978, who is teaching. She's a performing arts teacher in the San Francisco Unified School District. In 1975, my own story. When I came to Wilson, I was bullied and it wasn't my dream to be in Randi's class. Initially, I was in a second period German class. I weighed over £300, and the desk that I sat in that first week of school had to be there, built at 1925. I wound up breaking that desk and was quite ashamed and embarrassed and I ran to my counselor's office asking to be released and he couldn't do anything for me. He said, You have to sit it out for a week. And for that week I got bullied and tortured by my classmates. Finally, the following week, he said, We have an opening and you're going to second period drama with Mr. Boden. The rest is history for me. You've heard it before. I'll say it again. He created a safe harbor where there was none. He taught me an appreciation of live theater. The spoken word, great playwright Neil Simon, Edward Albee, who I actually had an opportunity to meet. I stand here in complete gratitude. I know I've taken up an awful lot of time, but I would be remiss if I didn't. As a gay man living in the city of Long Beach, talk about diversity and the fact that in 1970 576, it was racy to do the Children's Hour. We were sweating bullets. What a proud moment to go back last year and see Randy produce The Laramie Project. For me, that was groundbreaking. It was unbelievable. And this year, Randy produced a show called Careers and he sent me a note. I actually sent some money to help support it. And we have to. I'm so sorry to wrap it up, so. Okay. Very good. Let's go ahead. Thank you so much. Next speaker. Yes, this will be my name is Sasha Boden. This will be short and sweet. I'm not the drama daughter there. I'm one of four children. I'm Randy Boden's daughter. And I pretty much grew up in the Rainbow Playhouse since I was little rifling through his candy in his office, sitting on stage. And then my kids came through, and they all went and saw Winnie the Pooh. And all four of us have been so proud of my dad and so proud to have this last name. And we pretty much can't go anywhere in Long Beach without hearing Mr.. Even at the airport, even at Second Street, for sure. And it's just been such an honor to watch so many students basically call him dad. Also, he has four of us, but he has hundreds of hundreds of children. So congratulations, Dad. I'm super stoked. We're going to spend so much time together now. Thank you. I think I'm officially the last. Okay, no problem. My name is Noel Parmentier. I'm class of 83, and I think Mr. Andrews was a teacher at Wilson when I was there. Am I right? Yes. I would really like Mr. Bowden to. Come on down. Come on down. I'm going to present him with this for a lay like a graduate. And here's a little story. When I went to pick this up today at a store in Lakewood, the girl said, Oh, do you have a child graduating? I said, No. A friend of mine is retiring from teaching for 46 years. And she said, Who? And I said, Mr. Bowen. And she goes, I know, Mr. Bowden. I mean, I didn't even go to Wilson, but I totally know him. He's awesome. So you are just world renowned. So this is for you. Congratulations. And also, he was trying to be very sneaky with us by dropping the bomb of retirement last week so that we couldn't get it together for him to do any kind of celebration. But ha ha, we got you. Right. So social media was a flurry frenzy of all these secret websites trying to keep him off of it. And to make matters short, we set up a go fund me called Mr. Boden's retirement account. And in four days we've raised over 30 $200. So this is for you to have fun, to travel. Don't spend it all on pickled eggs and schooners. And yeah, a little advice about that. When you're at Jojo's maybe two years from now and you're still basking in the glow of retirement, I wouldn't engage those bartenders in a discussion about The Glass Menagerie. I don't think they're going to know about blue roses and gentleman callers, so that's our thing. But we just all want to say, thank you so much. You're a legend. We love you. This is the original life coach. To say drama teacher is a minimal part of it. And I'm so glad you all got to hear about the wonderful Mr. Bowden that we love. But just between you. And Mr. Bowden, did you want to say anything? It's up to you. That's your drama teacher. So come on. I know some. Make it. Short. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Price. Thank you, Laura. Thank all of you. That was very, very touching. Very, very moving, to say the least. I'm honored and thrilled to be here and incredibly humbled. Hey, good to see you again, buddy. It I've I've always felt whenever we have productions in the Playhouse at Wilson, I have always felt that not only is are the parents behind us, the siblings are behind us. The campus is behind us. I have always felt the Long Beach is behind us and all the shows that we do, I felt support all the way over there from here. And it's just wonderful because we can't succeed without standing on other shoulders. And thank you for helping to keep us up and keep it going. Keep us going. And it's wonderful. Mrs. B And I just love, love, love Long Beach. And it's wonderful to be a part of it and to be with these incredibly creative and wonderful and funny and alive and sensitive students who know that when they are performing among all the other things, that they are more than a test score, that they have all this great creativity, and to watch them absolutely lock into a character regardless of the show and absolutely take off. And ascend and become that. That I as the director and overeducated audience member watching them the thrill of that every teacher knows they see the light bulb come on but in the arts to see them take off and become is something so noble and so wonderful and so beautiful . And at a time when our humanity needs to be, in some cases, put back into us and reminded of how the wonderful things in us as human beings and in the world that we need to celebrate. They celebrate every performance, every performance. And just by being themselves, they are. Beauty. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Bowden. Congratulations. Those relations? Absolutely. We do have a couple. There's just a couple members that wanted to add some words from earlier. Councilman Super now. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and congratulations, Mr. Bowden. And since the third District was mentioned, I should mention that Mr. Bowden is a fourth District resident. In fact, I should speak to his patients, too. We just fixed some sidewalks on his street this year, and ironically, I think it's 46 years since the last infrastructure work was done. So thank you for your patience. But I did want to speak on behalf of Wilson High School staff. My wife happens to be the school secretary at Wilson. And I mentioned we are honoring Randi Bowden. She is. Oh, I just got flowers from him today. Wait a second. He's the guy retiring. She is now. He just sent flowers to the office staff and a nice card thanking them for their work for the year. So that tells you what kind of guy he is. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yeah. Real quick, I just want to say I'm 73 to 84. Yeah, I hate to delay. Probably don't get me wrong, but when they transferred me to Washington and I had a chance to meet this young man and you could only tell from his kids and from the students there. And I really thought I knew something until I met this individual, cause I wanted to be an entertainer. And I know if I were taking a class, by the way, older than you. So but the thing about it, Mr. Bowden, you have been a godsend. And you can always and I know you'll carry that with you, and your kids will see that. And I know your students, everyone who stood up and said things about you can be nothing but the truth. Godspeed. And I hope everything goes well for you and the family. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Burton, I mean, obviously, we don't know each other. I'm not one of your former students, but everything I've heard tonight, I just love as a drama kid myself in high school. I love everything that your students said. And thank you for, you know, your vision to really bring so much love to Long Beach. And I know I speak on behalf of the rest of the council as well, just excellent. Thank you for your service and for your kind heart. Thank you. Of course, those are brought this forward. There's a motion to receive and file the presentation council. Councilwoman Price? Yes. Thank you, everyone, for your beautiful words. I mean, sometimes I feel like things happen in a way that's unexpected but totally meant to be. And I feel like it was meant to be for me to hear from you tonight. I wish I could have been one of your students because it's clear that you are a life coach. And so thank you for everything. We're going to come down and take a photograph with you. And I'd love to invite my council colleagues to join us. It's not every day we have the OG of leadership, our life coaching here in House, so we'd love to have them all here so that we can not take a photo with you and make it extra special for you if everyone's willing. Thank you. Great. So please cast your vote and we'll come up and take a picture. I got to get. Yeah, exactly. But that's a lifetime. Let's just do it. On the. Stairs. Yeah. Is everything you want to prove. To. Stand on the stairs? Yeah. We'll do that so we can show modulations. Oh, thank you. Oh, I love it. So, my gym teacher, where she grew up and the whole. Thing, I think you. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Come on. Come on over there. Oh. Want everyone behind us? Yeah. Go. Going the steps. That was just ahead for you. You like what happened here? Yeah. Yeah, just right. Right next to that. You got this way and the house, right? Right. Yeah, right here. One, two, three. Right here, please. One, two, three. I'm right here. And one, two, three. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, I was so nervous. All right, here is a registration. I got it now I. Okay. Congratulations. Thank you. You know I. Wasn't. You. He is my focus today. Good for you. Thank you. I plays major and I got into it. It's okay. Brenda Killian. Congratulations. You're great. Another big round of applause for Mr. Bowden as we move onto the next item here. So thank you. Yeah. Also with the next two items, one has to move up. We have two parks related items, and we're going to do a public comment after that. So first one is item 12 and then we're going to do 26 and then public comment and the can and the consent can actually let me do the consent minus items 12 and 19 which have been pulled from consent consent minus consent calendar.

Chief of Police Audit Report of select files obtained through the Police Department’s membership in the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU) and the Western States Information Network (WSIN) maintained exclusively for confidential information; dated February 27, 2019, in accordance with Ordinance 108333 (Seattle Municipal Code 14.12).

SeattleCityCouncil_08052019_CF 314423

Ten dead in seven. Clark five, three, one, four, four, two, three. Chief of Police Audit Report of Select Files obtained through the Police Department's membership in the Law Enforcement Diligence Unit and the Western States Information Network maintained exclusively for confidential information dated February 27, 2018. Accordance with Ordinance 108333. The committee recommends that the file be placed on file. That's from Gonzales. Thank you, counsel. Present. This is the last of my very heavy law enforcement public safety items on the agenda. So this is also related to the previous agenda. Agenda item six Clark file 314, four, two, two, two. Excuse me, three, one, four, four, two, three is also a report that seeks to ensure compliance with ordinance 108333, which is the investigations ordinance. That ordinance requires that the chief police audit select police files maintained exclusively for confidential information. This information would have been obtained through the Police Department's membership in the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit and the Western States Information Network. The chief of Police Best has submitted her latest audit report as required by the ordinance, and that report indicates that she found no violations during the audit process, which she is required to do under the ordinance. So she has now filed a certification through this Clark file for the public record to certify the fact that the audit report was prepared by the chief and that she is certifying it as final. And and for those of you that didn't have time to go through the report, it appears that there were 30 administrative documents that were audited in the law enforcement section, and there were a lot more audited, about 230, 240 audited in the Western states information network files. And and only 176 audited items are currently being retained consistent with the ordinance under the confidentiality provisions. So with that being said, the committee considered this and was able to ask questions and received a briefing from council central staff and and voted to recommend that the city council file the Clark file. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez. I was trying to prolong it because you were gone. And so I can add a little bit more detail than I probably would have otherwise done. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Those in favor of filing the Clark file please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the Kirk file is placed on file. Please read the report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee.

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving Resolution No. WD-1369, a resolution of the City of Long Beach Board of Water Commissioners establishing the rates and charges to be charged for water and sewer service to all customers, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05092017_17-0359

Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 21 Please. Report from water. Recommendation to declare ordinance approving a resolution of the Long Beach Board of Water Commissioners. Establishing the rates and charges to be charged for water and sewer services to all customers. Read for the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. Is there a brief staff report? Chris Garner with a brief staff report. Thank you. Very briefly, as part of Proposition 218, we have to do a cost analysis study. We've spent the past year doing that with an expert analyst with us, and the result is what you have before you tonight. Well, what we do is we take our costs, we allocate them fairly to our customers among not only the customer classifications, but among the tiers. And for our residents, more than half of the customers will see no change or even lower monthly water and sewer bills under the new rates and structure when compared with the current rates . These customers are those that tend to use less water than the average customer, such as multi-family and duplex customers, as well as single family homes that use water efficiently. For those few residential customers that use much more water than the average resident. They will see higher monthly bills. This new rate structure will send the proper price signals to our customers to encourage the continued efficient use of our water supply. The new rates were approved by our Board of Water Commissioners. Interpretations of the proposed rate changes were made to each of our 90,000 customers. A public property rating hearing was held by the Water. Commission last Wednesday night to allow our customers an opportunity to voice their opinions. In regards to the rate changes. Prior to the hearing, the work program. Received six written letters of opposition. At the actual hearing, two customers attended, of which only one spoke in opposition. So before each night's request approved the resolution that the City of Long Beach Water Commissioners adjusting both the water and sewer rates and structures. Thank you. Thank you. And it's been moved and seconded. Any public comment on this item saying numbers, please cast your vote.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary agreements, and any subsequent amendments, between the City of Long Beach and the State of California Health Benefits Exchange (also known as “Covered California”) to accept funding in the amount of $225,267 for a nine month period from October 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015, to facilitate outreach, enrollment, and retention into the insurance programs offered through Covered California, with an option for a one-year renewal and cash bonus contingent upon achieving enrollment goals (Bonus Pool = $7,500 per 100 effectuated); and increase appropriations in the Health Fund (SR 130) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HE) by $225,267. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10142014_14-0831

Item 11 is a report from Health and Human Services recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an agreement with the State of California Health Benefits Exchange to accept funding in the amount of 225000 to 67, to facilitate outreach, enrollment and retention into the insurance programs offered through Calvert, California Citywide. So there's been a motion and a second. So any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 11 seeing none. Are there any questions for staff? Would anyone like a staff report? Yeah, I'd like a quick staff report, please. Council member Austin Kelly Colby. We return the microphone to Cheryl Barrett, who's the, ah, director of Bureau of Policy Prevention. And I'm just going to learn that now about policy funding and prevention. And she is the one who is leading this grant. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a brief staff report on this. So we're excited about this grant with Covered California. This strengthens our position as a certified enrollment entity in the city of Long Beach, but this actually provides us reimbursement for those enrollments under Covered California per say. So this is an effort of community as well as the Long Beach Health Department to work with the California Health Benefit Exchange to recognize local health departments as groups that should also get reimbursed for the work that we're doing. So in addition to the work that we're doing under Medi-Cal enrollment, we are now able to get recognized and also get reimbursed for the enrollment, retention and utilization work that we're doing for those eligible for subsidies. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Austin, is there any further discussion on item 11? Seeing nonmembers cast your vote, Madam Clerk. I'm a yes. Motion carry eight zero. Item 12. Item 12 is a report from Police and Financial Management recommendation to award a contract to legacy inmate communications to provide inmate telephone and video visitation services at the Long Beach City Jail.

Recommendation of the Budget Oversight Committee to approve the revised financial policy on fiscal impact statements.

LongBeachCC_12022014_14-0886

Item 21 is a communication from Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Lowenthal Chair, Budget Oversight Committee Recommendation to approve the revised Financial Policy on Fiscal Impact Statements. Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make the motion to move this item. And second, a couple of comments. Thank you. The Budget Oversight Committee felt that there was a need for more fiscal information when city council considers items from departments and council offices. We certainly try to impose that discipline on ourselves when we're bringing forward our own items to try and evaluate the fiscal impact. This does not include items deemed insignificant in terms of staff time or cost, but the Budget Oversight Committee felt there was a need to include year over year information and the standing financial position of the city to better equipped council members for its consideration. As Councilmember O'Donnell is now an Assembly member and no longer with us. I'd welcome any comments from my other be a key member Councilmember Mongo and financial management staff and I'd also like to thank the financial management staff for their efforts. Councilman Mongo. Several weeks ago on one of our agenda items, we had an item before council which stated an amount of money that the city would be obligated to for a particular item. But what that item did not disclose without questioning from council members was that the price of that item was $4 million over the prior year costs. And so I think it's important to have all of that information in advance, both for us and for the public to review those items. And so that in partnership with the discussions with some staff related to sometimes the significant amount of shift for resources and staff time to put together certain things. I just think we need to be cognizant of those items and be aware of it. Not saying that it's not appropriate because we absolutely need those items to come back and those reports are important. It's just important to be able to quantify it and to be honest with ourselves and each other about what that cost is. So I'm very supportive of the item and I look forward to increasing the fiscal discipline of the Board of the council and for our city staff as well. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I wonder if there's and I wasn't privy to the discussions that led to this item, but I wonder if there's a way to also amend our policy of writing no fiscal impact on agenda items when there in fact is either a fiscal impact or an unknown fiscal impact, because sometimes we'll get an agenda item and it says no fiscal impact. And it's very obvious that the item might have a fiscal impact. And then further, when you ask staff, is this going to have a fiscal impact? And they say, we don't know, and yet we're voting on an item that says no fiscal impact. I think if there was a way to add this within the spirit of this proposal, I'd be interested in doing that because I think we really need to be honest with the public when we put an item on the agenda that if we don't know what the impact is going to be, we should just say that. And that way we can vote on an item not knowing how much it's going to cost the city, if that's what we want to do. So that's merely one thought. The won't accept that. I do, and I wanted to seek some guidance from staff on how that wording would appear. For instance, I'm familiar with working with other cities where we don't actually put no fiscal impact unless it really does mean that if it's unknown, we're asked to put something akin to it is unknown at this time. But we do anticipate being able to evaluate the fiscal impact, something that states or at least acknowledges that there is a cost to it, even if it's just staff time. So, Mr. City Manager, I'm wondering what your suggestion is. I'm going to ask our finance director, John GROSS, to respond to that. Now this item, what you're seeing in front of you is an update to an existing fiscal impact statement, which existing fiscal impact policy, which requires all council matters that come before you to have a fiscal impact statement. What Councilwoman Brice, you are talking about is and Vice Mayor Lowenthal is making sure that the three items that the EEOC asks us to look at are included, and that includes the clarify that expenditure information is on there, particularly past expenditure information and resource utilization, including staff time as a fiscal impact, specifically as an impact. So those two items have been included and are in the current wording in the last item was to require EFM review, financial management department review and I think that addresses your last item and that that if an item if it comes before us and it says no fiscal impact, we as financial management are required to review that . And this document, as worded as we thought we had addressed, what the BOC asked for, would allow the financial management department to change that fiscal impact to better reflect what resources might be required or utilized. So I believe, subject to your review, that the wording has revised and as requested by the PRC, already incorporates a fix, so to speak, to an incorrect or what not might be totally correct. No fiscal impact. There will be some that have no fiscal impact. We will review it and we will change it if we believe it has a fiscal impact and its mark. No fiscal impact. Hope that answers your question. It does. Thank you. Okay for the comment on the item. Please come forward. Larry. Who do? Clark has the address. Do not have a statement of what? A project, let's say over $10,000 should cost is just inane. It's like the DNC policy pop out a kid. Don't worry about what it cost. We'll take care of that for you. There should be no project here. And you could I think it's it's fair to argue what the dollar amount should be. But once you establish that, then there should be no projects that are approved unless you know exactly where the dollar amount is going to be buried. Unless you've got a printing press downstairs to print the money. I don't know who came up with the idea of of having a policy that you should have no office, no statement of official impact. But that's clearly a disease thought in my view. Thank you. No more public comment. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I think that including financial, you know, fiscal impact statements are important. I think it's the right thing to do. However, there's a few things here that I'm certain frankly concerned about, particularly the EFM review. So there's a line in this policy that says if time is not sufficient enough for the required fiscal impact analysis, financial management may hold the item, provide for a preliminary fiscal impact analysis, or may indicate on the council letter, fiscal impact statement that additional analysis and information is recommended. So I'm concerned that I'm concerned that if we submit an item. It can be held up or delayed from a discussion here at the city council before that review has taken place. There is a number of examples tonight where sometimes you just want to have the discussion and it will. You know, obviously city staff will weigh in and say, you know, there are some you know, this is unfunded mandates on and so forth. You know, there was a there was a substitute motion on the floor about or friendly about expanding from 5 minutes to ten on parking meters. And they said very clearly, hey, this, you know, this, we haven't studied this. We haven't evaluated that. I thought that was fair. And I expect city staff to step up and let the council know. You know, just the last item on loops, we asked city staff to work on that. I think that's an appropriate way to go about it is to you know, I think the checks and balances are built in here in the fact that we all meet together and we catch things when they haven't been vetted appropriately. I think when we take that power away from ourselves and hand it over to city staff and say, you can unilaterally hold up an item, I think that creates some some problems for me and in the fact that our ability to serve as council members really rests on this and our ability to place a proposal on the on the city council agenda item and have a discussion. You know, I would also say that there are already tactics in place that are used, whether they're in writing or not. When a councilmember promote proposes an idea. You know, there are a number of city staff that will visit all the other council members and say, hey, I've got issues with this. This, you know, is going to cost us a million bucks, so on and so forth. And a lot of times our phones ring and it'll say, Hey, fix this. And a lot of times they get fixed. So I would say I'm not prepared tonight to hand over a hand over that ability for for city staff to unilaterally hold up or delay an item. So so that said, I'd like to see I mean, I appreciate the work that's been done. I certainly feel like the fiscal impact the three elements here. So the past expenditure information and staff time, I think those are important, but the require fiscal management review, I'd like to strike that. So my substitute motion would be to to approve the first two, but take out the required financial management review because I think that's going to happen anyway. And this goes to sort of the if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think we've acknowledged certain things that are broke, but I don't think the fact I don't think that element of bringing things to the city council that I'm prepared. I don't think we fix that by taking that entirely away from city council members. I think we we hope we should express to city staff that we expect them to catch things and inform the city council members. Given the fact that we don't have researchers on our staff and it's our job to really put our beliefs and our ideas out there. So that would be my substitute motion. Thank you. I have Councilman Ranga next, but I do I do have a question. Maybe it's to the the the chair of B of C. The way I understand it is the motion. And the item would give councilmembers options. So so option A would be this has been reviewed by by city staff on the on the fiscal impact. Option C is a councilmember could put that the fiscal impact has yet to be determined. That's still an option, right? Isn't that right? Okay. And then third option would be that there is no fiscal impact or that that it would require analysis. Is that right? Okay. So so the ability for so a councilmember could still bring something forward if there has not been a fiscal impact yet done on the item, it would just be noted that it hasn't been done yet. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify, Councilman Ringo. Thank you for bringing this up, because obviously transparency is a big issue with any elected body in regards to its budget and how things are brought forward and what the expectations are in terms of any reports. And if the expectations are, there's going to be a fiscal impact where no fiscal impact, I think obviously we should know know that in advance. But I have to agree with Councilmember Richardson in the fact that, you know, I don't have the type of staff to be able to do that kind of research. And if I want to bring something forward, how much of a delay am I going to have in putting that through the city council agenda because of the fact that I need to have the background done on that would when I would have to talk to our financial management people to get a background on how much of a physical impact would my ordinance or proposed ordinance would have on an idea or on a project that I want to put forward? And even if there's no fiscal impact, you know, they could probably tell me that, too. So I think that yeah, I know that this is an effort to streamline and to get our council agendas much more intact and much more efficient. But I also don't have an issue with the fact that I think it would be more time taken by each council office to bring something forward that can be done in, say, a month. It'll take two or three week to two or three months to get forward because of the background and the research that would need to be done on that. And that hasn't practical impact by that. So I mean, it's it's sort of it's sort of a disingenuous it goes sort of backwards. And I think at this point for what I see and Councilmember, it's that you took the words out of my mouth. You know, it's if it ain't broken waiting it waiting, need fixing cause all the wording is already there. We can as council members that we feel that there is going to be a fiscal impact. Then we asked staff, give us what the fiscal impact will be on this ordinance. So I think that that the the the the the semantics and the structure it's built in already and the way we present our agenda items for consideration by the full council. So I, I'd like to see maybe a substitute motion to, to substitute with a substitute substitute, okay. To receive and file this. And it does have some good stuff, but I would use to file a second. All right. There is a substitute substitute to receive and file and I'm gonna go to Charlie. Charlie partner, city attorney and then Councilwoman Price there. I'm sorry, was there a second? There was a second. Mayor. Or members of the council. Just for clarification, there currently exists in the Long Beach Municipal Code 2.03076. The requirement for fiscal impact statements by those items submitted by a council member requires the Council member to state the fiscal impact of the requested action, and it requires that the fiscal impact statement be prepared by such council member indicating the significance or whether it has a significant fiscal impact. No significant fiscal impact or no fiscal impact at all. So I think the policy and the from the. Policy is to help. Staff and council implement the a requirement that already exists for the council. And so or maybe, maybe not, maybe there's further direction. But currently there is a requirement under the. Municipal code that there's where this comes from. So I just I'm not sure we were discussing that in this context. Okay. So let me let me go back to where we are. I have Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilwoman Pryce and then Council member Austin. So, Mr. City Attorney, thank you for clarifying that, because in hearing this discussion, I realize that the item was not as clear and my comments were not as clear as they could have been. Those policies that Mr. Parkin stated, they exist for council members. We want them to exist and extend for staff. That was the budget oversight committees recommendation. We want the. Staff. When staff. So all the items that we consider are not just council member driven, we have staff items from different departments and department heads. City manager brings an item. Gas and oil brings an item. We want the same requirements for fiscal impact statement to apply to staff. So what we don't want as a council hopefully is for staff to bring forward an item like any item. And not let us know what it costs. So we sort of are blindly taking action based on the merit of the proposal without understanding the the cost. So as council members, when I bring forward an item, I have to I am required to state what the fiscal impact is. But according to those three items that Mr. Parkin mentioned. Hey, someone has a mic on if for I thank you. But staff doesn't have the same requirement. They may operate under the same metric, but it's not required. And so we're trying to align council member standards with staff standards extended to the staff. Is that? Mr. West, drop your career with that as well. Oh, we have no issues. Right. Okay. Everything is gets vetted from. It takes us about. Eight weeks to put an agenda item through because it goes through the city attorney's office. And that. Mr.. Parkin And you got your clearance on Vice President of the motion. And Mr. Mayor, if I might also address a salient point that Councilmember Richardson brought up, this would not allow staff to hold up a council member item. What we're asking through this item, and probably not as artfully stated as it could have and should have been, and I apologize for that. We are asking staff to make sure they're not bringing forward an item for our consideration where we don't know how much that's going to cost. The ideas could be fabulous, but we should know what it cost before we vote on it. Next nexus. Councilwoman Price Pryce. Thank you. I appreciate all of the conversation that we're having here. I do want to respond to Councilman Richardson regarding his comment about if it's not broke, why fix it? The problem is it is broke right now. It's broke. And I'll give you a classic I'll give you a classic example. We as council members can put an item on the agenda, either in the regular timeline or on the supplemental agenda. And we can request a staff report regarding the fiscal impact case in point looping system tonight. Okay. We can also put an item on the agenda, regular or supplemental, where we are directing staff to take an action, not study fiscal impact, but to take an action. And when we write on that supplemental agenda item, there is no fiscal impact. Where there might be a fiscal impact, then we've got a loophole in our responsibilities pursuant to the ordinance that the city attorney just specified. So I'll give you a classic example. On November 11th, we were at Halton Park and agenda item three, which was the plea, said there is no fiscal impact. That item was put on the supplemental agenda during the process of trying to educate myself at the council meeting. I asked. John GROSS whether or not we knew what the fiscal impact would be and staff specific. I watched the video like four times specifically said we do not yet know the fiscal impact because the item was filed on Friday. Something to that effect. And so we have a fiduciary duty to if we and I completely understand. Council Member You're on the statement about not having the staff for the resources to be able to do fiscal impact. Certainly that's way beyond something that my council office could do, although they're amazing, brilliant people. It's just they don't have the resources. So that's one of the reasons why most of our items usually request a staff analysis so that we as a body, all of us can have adequate information with which to carry out our fiduciary duty . So there's a loophole right now wherein we can say there is no like, for example, item number three had in it a proposal for a possible additional position. And yet it said there is no fiscal impact, not fiscal impact is unknown, not fiscal impact to be determined, not anticipated fiscal impact, but minimal. But it specifically says there is no fiscal impact. And so what I would like to see is something that allows for us to be able to have a fiscal impact. That is a reasonable fiscal impact. That's honest. What we think may not be 100%. It may be, you know, fiscal impact. The range is going to be somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 or something. But to say there is no fiscal impact when staff is telling us we don't know, I think that there's a little bit of a loophole there. And it it is in conflict, in my opinion, with. What the city attorney just read. So I think there was an issue there because we have a duty when we're filling out these agenda items to, you know, be answer the the required components, which fiscal impact is one. So that's where it's coming from. But you raise great points and I agree with you. I don't want items to be held up because of that. I really don't. I would hope staff wouldn't do that. But I think that's a great point. And I think, Councilman, you around those statements are really you know, I take those to heart as well. So thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you for clarifying, Vice Mayor, that the intent was for staff. I just see that it says originating department or elected or appointed offers or office must be reviewed by the financial management department. So that is, you know, that being called out is what concerned me. And then but I understand if that wasn't the intent and I get it, sometimes you have one expectation, but one lands is something else. And it seems like there are two understandings from multiple understandings here on the dais about what this policy actually does. Like so I just heard from Councilmember Price that it does it is expected that council this would apply to council people as well, which I get it. I'm I'm in a position where, you know, I think that we should have we should be responsible when we say there is no fiscal impact. But the check the accountability to that are the eight other people that you have to sell this to, as well as the city manager. They are expected to look at what they vote on. And so while, you know, my staff and myself, we try to try our best to do our diligence to really evaluate if there's an impact, because we know if there is is going to have a tough time getting through the council. I think we get that. And that's just the reality of, you know, this democratic process. Just one of the thing, the if it doesn't broke, don't fix it. I was talking about like a narrow version of that. Like, I know there are elements that are broken, but I'm talking about like our ability to put things on the agenda. That's what I'm talking about, because before it makes it to the agenda, the number of checks in place when it makes it to the agenda. If is late, you get two other people to sign on. If it makes it on time, they've got a week. Council's got a week to review it. You know, if it's flagged by city manager, he'll make it clear to everybody here there are some major problems with this, with this item. I've seen it as a chief. I've seen that councilmember. So there are mechanisms in place. So I'd say that's the if it isn't broke, don't fix it for me. However, we're discussing we're debating the substitute substitute right now, which is the the receiving file. So that said, I think if if this were to come back in some other form at some point that like calls out, hey, we're talking about specifically staff being held accountable to listing fiscal impacts. I'd be open to to entertain that discussion and and supporting that. But I think it's needs to come back in a different form. Okay. Councilmember Mongo. I am so appreciative of the healthy discussion here today. And I will start by saying that this item before Budget Oversight Committee came from several different discussions that have happened, both at Council and Bossie that got us here today. Specifically, as I mentioned in my opening comments, an item came before this body that was a $4 million annual increase to the city. And it was not listed for council review. And most specifically, the checks and balances that Councilmember Richardson talks about of having additional people sign on. The staff don't currently have that. So this is a comprehensive item that is both for staff and for electeds. And in that case, the staff put that item on. But in any item that comes in on a Friday, while you do get two other council members to sign to, agenda is the item. The public doesn't have that amount of time to review it, and nor does anyone put in place to, quote unquote, validate that there's no fiscal impact if an agenda item would like to come forward. I believe that under the way that the original motion was written that if you wrote fiscal impact is unknown at this time, you'd still agenda the item and it would not require that getting to that point. Instead, it would alert both the council and the public that there were still things to be determined in that process. And so with that, I would say that. In certain occasions, depending on which group of individuals you serve in front of. There are times where you might say this may include an impact of 700 hours of staff time, or this might include 600 hours of staff time. And while I appreciate that some of our staffs might not have financial analysts at the level of Mr. GROSS in our offices, we are all able to make general estimates of an average city employee who makes X dollars an hour plus 56% benefits times 20 hours a week for 16 weeks. My estimated impact would be etc. and these are easy to do. These are things we've all done in our home budgets, in our previous employment, in our campaign budgets. I mean, we know how to allocate resources or none of us would be here today. And so for that, I hope that we get back to the original motion and move it to protecting the financial, health and welfare of the city. I really appreciate the comments made by Councilmember. Price and Vice Mayor Lowenthal in trying to pull us together in where the intent of the item came from, because this did come from many discussions in front of this body, which is why healthy discussion is so important. So thank you to everyone. Councilman Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you. Yes, very healthy discussion, I think. I believe the intent of it all. Absolutely. I do agree that there needs to be more details when it comes to fiscal impact. And we we do need to do a better job at that. Some people are subjective and looking at that. Is it a fiscal impact in terms of staff time? Is it a fiscal fiscal impact in terms of, you know, do we still have time to come back and review that? Which oftentimes we do. And I know that the city manager in cases like the play did come back with memos that did include fiscal impact. You know, there's time to to be able to do that. I would say, you know, we need to look at perhaps a disclaimer, something that is pretty universal depending on what we're were putting out there. I think we've kind of discussed that. Something that would state, you know, what the general fiscal impact would be, not the intricacies. I think it's too detailed on the front end to do that, and I believe it would delay the process. So I would support a receiving file. Okay. Next is Vice Mayor Lowenthal. One. Excuse me. I wanted to ask the city attorney in the. Statement that Councilmember Richardson read about. Where are you reading this from, Councilmember Richardson, where it says the elected. So we're talking page two on the revised policy on impact statements. Yes. Top of the page. Oh, got it. Okay. Mr. City Attorney, is that the current policy? Or is that a combination of the current policy and what the new item is asking for? I think maybe I can ask answer that question. This is a council policy, and as such, it's not explicitly in code. It's adopted by resolution. And the current policy is on the last page of the attachment. It's not marked. It's page three. And the current policy is there. There have only been minor. I won't say minor, obviously not. But there are only been the changes requested by the BRC. So if I might understand the part that gives greatest concern to Councilmember Richardson specifically, is it the portion that it must be reviewed by financial management? So at the beginning of the paragraph, it said, it calls out those three departments elected or appointed office, and then it goes further in the third sentence to say, if time is not sufficient for the required fiscal impact analysis, financial management may hold the item. So it just continues. So it's the third sentence in the same paragraph, continuing that same discussion on this fiscal impact statement on that item. So the whole paragraph is problematic. The entire paragraph or the part about having it being held. Because. Currently we're required to provide a our policy is to provide a fiscal impact when we bring items forward that exists. Yes, I believe what I'm hearing you indicate is that. You're finding difficulty with financial management having the ability to hold the item. Yes. So it says. So here's where it's problematic. So on the second sentence, it says the proposed city council letter should be submitted in accordance with normal administrative timeframes to allow financial management departments review and comment if time is not sufficient for required fiscal impact analysis. So who's to say it's efficient or not? Like if. So, if we were to put something on that we think is a very basic standard item and someone takes issue with it and they haven't had an opportunity to do it. Like are we saying supplemental? Are we saying supplementals are not enough time for city staff to review so that that time frame brings up an issue that I have concerns about? Then it says that they may provide some options for them. They can hold the item. They can provide a preliminary fiscal impact analysis, or may indicate on the fiscal impact statement that additional analysis and information is recommended. It's saying that they would add that to our item. Fiscal financial management will add that statement to our item, not that we would. That's how I interpreted this. Whereas if I submit an item for discussion, I want that item to be presented as we presented it that. So I have an issue with that potentially being held up or altered by financial management. However, if. I mean. I mean, there are a few ways we could do this. No. And I'm and I'm I'm very appreciative of you explaining this, because I'm I'm able to hear what the concern is. And so I do think we can get there tonight. And that's why I'm thankful you're expressing your concerns. For instance, if I can just use an example, I have a council agenda item I'd like to bring forward. I'm aware that there is a fiscal impact, but I'm asking staff to come back with a recommendation. And so typically what I would do in my office is I would say there is no fiscal impact in requesting staff to come back with the item or a recommendation. But when they come back with the recommendation, we'd like them to identify what the fiscal impact might be so I could make that statement. We will still have the ability to do that. You will still have the ability. I will still have the ability. You will still have the ability all of us would to bring forward a supplemental item for consideration. That does not change. And if I can ask Mr. GROSS to weigh in on that. Yeah. The the item I'm happy to the statement may hold the item financial may hold the item was never intended to apply to elected officials. It was this is a generic fiscal policy. So it was intended to apply to city manager departments. So if I can suggest, at least in terms of what it was intended to say, adding a parenthetical after May hold the items put in parentheses only for city manager departments that would probably represent more accurately what was intended. And that is the intent. And so Councilmember Richardson, I'd like to add that on the floor in parentheses, parentheses, only city management items. City management department items. The intent of the committee was not to have financial management hold up council items. Again, this is really to temper and measure staff bringing forward their items without the proper fiscal impact. So in parentheses. So in parentheses I'd like to amend in there only city management department items. So that financial management, so that there is not misinterpreted, that they have the ability to hold up our own items. Being council items. So. So before I jump in, so I want to have that discussion. But before I do that point of order, are you allowed to change that? Because we've got to to. Well, prevailing motions. Absolutely. So there's a motion on the floor for receive and file. And prior to that, is is your substitute. And you'll have to remind me what your substitute. I mean. Let me. Let me. Mr. Parkin, I think that her being the maker of the original motion, she can certainly adjust her original motion. At this time. The discussion on a. Point of order should be. To the motion on the floor, which is the receive and file. The the ability to amend the original motion wouldn't return to the maker until the other two motions are dismissed. Okay. So as part of my comments, Mr. Mayor, I. Now that I fully understand what my colleagues were concerned about and I agree with you. If I if I could just state that unequivocally so I agree with you. I have the I would have the same concern. I'm willing to change the item on the floor, if you will, allow us to revert back to the original item and vote no. Either withdraw the received file and let's go back to the original item and give us an opportunity to amend it on the floor. Okay. I have a list. You want to respond that Councilmember Austin next cued up. So technically. It's Councilmember Rounds. That we got to respect. Councilmember Rein does most of the questions should be directed to him prior to. I'm sorry, I was I was looking his way while I was linking. To. Councilmember your NGO's is not removing his his motion right now, is that correct? Okay. Okay. So Vice Mayor Lowenthal, anything else? No. Then I would urge a no vote on receive and file so that we can have an opportunity to apply councilmember standards onto our own staff. Next is Councilman Braxton. So I've been sitting here patiently and I think this has been a very educational process. And in terms of our fiscal responsibility as a as a council. Our practices and protocols are policies. But I am I want to be clear about how staff items actually get to the agenda and what process they go through to get there . Because I am not aware of any any, any, any agenda items and none have been brought to to the floor in terms of examples where there is a real need, I believe, to to to modify that. I want to speak to Councilmember Richardson's point, meaning that these nine council members are service checks, as well as our budget oversight committee. There are there are so many mechanisms in place to keep us fiscally responsible. And so, Mr. City Manager, can you walk us through how our staff checks themselves in terms of fiscal responsibility, in terms of bringing agenda items forward, forward? I'm going to ask John GROSS to respond to that on how the Finance Department looks at all council letters done by departments. Wait, not all council letters. These are these are agenda items that are. Given what we call. Letters are agenda items. Okay. By depart by city manager. Department, I think. Correct. The the city management has a process by which all city manager council letters that are proposed to go to city council, go through the financial management department. We have a process to do that. The what this and we've been doing that for years so that what you see in front of you is is every every week are fiscal impacts that have been reviewed by the financial management department. What this strengthens and is makes required and currently isn't is that, for example, if public works or police department write their own fiscal impact, although they write it and we have a process to review it, this change in the policy explicitly allows the financial management department to make whatever changes are needed to make it clearer to City Council what the impacts are. And we do do that. And this makes that process that we use more clear, particularly when you have departments. It doesn't happen often, but occasionally those who who think they have written a good fiscal impact. But we believe that it isn't clear enough to city council and may not provide the information City Council wants this change to the policy, allows the financial management department to formally make that change. We actually do do that now. This makes it clear that it's authorized. So what I'm hearing is that you do do it already and that these these occurrences are few and far between. Is that correct? We do do that for city manager departments. Yes. And we do make changes. I won't say that's few and far between. We actually quite a few times make changes to the fiscal impact statements. Okay. So I'm troubled to understand why we need to move forward and set additional policy. I'm really concerned about over analyzing just about everything we do lately. And I do appreciate the robust conversation. I do appreciate council members interest in tweaking the system to make it make it better, because we should always look towards continuous improvement. But I don't think we get there by adding bureaucracy to policy making or or ignoring the checks and balances that are already in place. And so with that, I'm I'm open to receiving 2 to 2, supporting the motion to receive and follow. Councilwoman Price. Okay. Councilwoman, if Councilman Andrews, who hasn't spoke and then I'll go to Councilman Mongo. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. You know, since I started as a councilman, you know, I've made every effort to run, you know, my agenda item to the city staff so I can get their input from the various departments that might be involved in my agenda item. You know, this is a good practice for all council. Members to, you know, for the intact. But I just think at this point, if we're doing it the way we're doing it, I mean, this could be putting the cart before the horse. And I would also would recommend, you know, to receive and file. Okay. Councilman Mongo. Okay. Now what? On the agenda items 27 and 28 tonight. I think that there was extensive questions that I've received from the public. I feel that I've done my due diligence as a council member to speak with city management specifically on the 5.5 million a year for two years, etc.. But but the council but the item as recommended by development services, though thoughtful and I appreciate the way it is presented, it leaves out how much has been spent each year over the last five years. How does that compare? Are we spending more? Are we spending less? The same is true of the item from several weeks ago which spurred this discussion, which I won't call out my colleague, but I received a call at 10:00 at night thanking me for bringing the item to the attention and pulling the item and making thoughtful discussion about a $4.5 million annual increase. These are real dollars for real services. And to not have the discussion and to say that the stuff being brought forward already is clear. If it was clear, we wouldn't receive so many questions. And I think the intent is that it is clear in advance when being put on the agenda so that I know that my staff does do a lot of relaying back and forth between constituents and community members and the staff departments, as does Councilmember Price's constituency, to ensure that they have all the information so that they can submit comments in advance without coming all the way downtown several miles to make their comments. And so I think that there's a lot of value in this. And so I would prefer a friendly amendment to Councilmember Uranium's item to send to Bossi for revisions and more clarity to come back to this body more thorough. Is that something you'd consider? I think for the city attorney, we have to only speak. The only thing we can do right now is vote on the receiving file before we could do other amendments to other motions. Is that. Correct? Actually, this is this is directed to the. Maker of the motion that's on the floor at the time. The receiving file, I think, was a friendly amendment. Friendly amendments to. The. Friendly minimum standards to Bossi. Instead of receiving in file send received to Bossi. I believe that Councilmember Mongo has requested Councilmember Urunga to consider that as an amendment to his motion. Is that correct? That would be appropriate at this time, as discussion of the receiving file motion is a different. Well let's well council councilmember Ranka do on to respond to that. You missed your item. Well I appreciate the the effort I think that it. Changes my motion frankly. And I think I'll stick with what I get right now. Substitute substitute is receiving. Okay. And now we're back to the vice mayor. Thought they were going to go for a vote. So. So. First, Mary Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I. I think in the interest of what I've heard from our council colleagues, my council colleagues, not just tonight, but truly throughout the various meetings that we've had, the the better alternative would be to send it back to committee this. I acknowledge that this item is not worded, even reading parts of it with Councilmember Gonzalez, it's not worded exactly as it should be. Just in hearing the misunderstanding of what a council letter means as a staff member to another city council letter comes from staff. It's clear to me that all of us don't understand that to be the same because it sounds as though it's a council agenda item. This should be reworded. I do think it does speak to the spirit of what each of us wants, and receiving and filing doesn't provide that opportunity. I think sending it back to committee, I might humbly request that of Council Member your anger. I would appreciate that as chair of the Budget Oversight Committee, I think it's very important for us to at least have the opportunity to review these fiscal impact statements from from staff and look at a good policy that we would all agree on. Comes from Ringo. What I need at this point, I guess, is a clarification going, you know, say I'm old and I get sleepy in late. Perhaps I could get a read from the city attorney in terms of a definition and a clarification as to what it means to receive and file. From what I'm hearing, from what I'm hearing is that there is some issues with this as it is currently presented. There's a willingness by the EEOC to revisit it, reword it and bring it back. Does receive a file, provide that opportunity their counsel merry around the the answer would be it doesn't eliminate the ability of the EEOC to bring up an item again to discuss policy. What I think the the maker of the substitute or the request for the friendly amendment would be that this would be a more efficient way of directing the EEOC to revisit this issue. But either way, it could be revisited by the EEOC. Okay. So so Councilmember Turanga, is your is are you keeping your receiving information or are you accepting advice, Mary? And those the received information apparently brings it back eventually, later, when when the beauty has another opportunity to revisit this item. Okay. So I'll stay with the receiving file. Okay. I'm going to go back to Vice Marie Lowenthal and then we need to get to a vote soon. We have right now on the floor is the motion to receive and file Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank Mr. Parkin for his explanation. So, Councilmember Your Honor. What I want each committee chair has the authority to set an agenda for the committee, and. And that's clear. What I wanted to align with the committee agenda is, is really support from this body to consider this policy. We could still do it and we may still do it. In the spirit of collaboration, I'd prefer to do it knowing that our council members would like to have that discussion. And so do we have the authority as chairpersons to do that? Certainly I can set the agenda, I can do that, but I'd like to do that knowing that you'd be open to that conversation. And that's what I'm urging from you. I think I think Vice Mayor Lowenthal clearly would like to bring this back to the BRC. And that's that's a request. Certainly she could bring it back regardless. But I think she's asking that in this and in the spirit of of taking it back and collegiality. Councilmember. Go ahead. Well, I'll defer to if you if you drop your motion to. Accept this. And change your motion to take it back to the. EEOC. And I think I think if you accept the friendly amendment to take to go back to the U.S., that takes care of that. Well, then we're good. I just wanted you to be the author of that motion. We also need the second. Yeah. So is there a second to. Okay. Okay. So we have okay, everyone, we have a motion on the floor which is to send back to Bossie. That is the motion on the floor. Councilman Richardson. So I would I would just say and I'm going to support this motion. I'm going to say as another friendly that with this direction to the C, we're unequivocally clear that what should come back is this policy. But to address ensuring that what city staff do they have the same requirement that what we do as what city council does and that. You know, our city council items will not be delayed, tampered with, adjusted. Stamped anything before we actually placed them on the agenda. So I want to I want to make sure that that's protected in this recommendation. Guaranteed. I think it'll just be in plain English. This document is not in plain English. So. Okay, so there's. We have a friendly amendment. Did I. Did you even do public comment on this? Because I don't. I think we did. It's been such a long time ago. So great. We have it. We have a motion on the floor to send back to B or C. Please cast your vote. Councilmember Richardson. Bush and Kerry. Eight zero. Okay, next item. Item 23 is a report from the City Manager recommendation to execute an amended and restated lease with legacy partners. One. Long Beach Ocean Gate for the use of city owned property located under the Queensway Bridge along West Seas Highway District two.

Recommendation to receive and file a report on the cannabis non-storefront retail (delivery) and storefront retail (dispensary) feasibility analyses; Direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to allow cannabis delivery and equity dispensary facilities in Long Beach; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $325,000, offset by an increase in cannabis business license taxes, for software development to support the Cannabis Social Equity Program, and stakeholder engagement services and direct technical assistance funding for the equity dispensary licensing program. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10122021_21-1059

Right. Next item is item number 16. I'm sorry, item number 19. Report from City Manager Recommendation to receive and file a report on the cannabis delivery and dispensary feasibility analysis and direct city attorney to prepare an ordinance to allow cannabis delivery and equity dispensary facilities in. Long Beach Citywide. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Like the first go to staff or staff report each year. We do have a fairly lengthy staff report. That's a pretty complex issue and we'd like to go through some of the analysis that we've come up with. We also did a significant amount of community outreach that we'd like to share with you as well. So this is in response to a council request to look at can we increase the number of dispensaries from four equity applicants as well as delivery licenses? So I will turn it over to Kevin Jackson, our deputy city manager and the team. Thank you, Tom. And we're going to go ahead and jump right into the presentation. We're going to have Emily Armstrong, our cannabis program manager, who will be doing the presentation tonight. And as Tom indicated, if you can be patient with this is pretty lengthy presentation. We're reporting back on both initiatives and we want to make sure that we provide clarity to you as well as the listening public. Also, before I turn it over to Italy, I want to acknowledge that we have Art Sanchez, our deputy city attorney , who provides support to cannabis operations and policy. So with that, I'll turn it over to you, Emily, and if you can take us through the slides. All right. Thank you. Good evening. I know the mayor is not here, but members of the city council. Good evening. This item is a report back on the feasibility of allowing cannabis delivery businesses and additional equity dispensaries in the city. This report is a culmination of the work we've been doing in the city to improve the cannabis social equity program. For some background, the city council adopted the cannabis social equity program in 2018 alongside the Adult Use Cannabis Ordinance, with the goal of promoting opportunity in the cannabis industry for individuals and communities negatively impacted by the war on drugs. Through business ownership and employment. In a memo released on August 5th of 2020, staff detailed some of the challenges reported by equity applicants in opening a cannabis business. These challenges included a lack of available retail license types and others with low startup costs, the highest cost and need for capital with the license types that are currently available. Challenges with identifying and securing property in the city's eligible zone, known as the Green Zone. A lack of technical assistance to support equity applicants with their real estate, financial or legal needs, as well as the lack of community input in the design of the program. In response to these challenges, staff identified options in the memo for the City Council's consideration to reduce these barriers to entry, including allowing the shared youth manufacturing license type and increasing the availability of retail license types such as delivery and storefront retail for equity applicants. In January and March of this year, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance allowing shared use manufacturing in Long Beach to prepare a feasibility study on allowing delivery businesses in Long Beach with an emphasis on prioritizing equity applicants and exploring the feasibility of a cap on the number of delivery businesses. And to prepare a feasibility study on allowing up to eight additional dispensaries in Long Beach to be made available exclusively to equity applicants. This presentation outlines the recommendations in both the delivery feasibility study and Equity Dispensary Feasibility Study for the City Council's consideration. The first study being presented tonight is the delivery feasibility study. Cannabis delivery businesses, also known as non storefront retailers or businesses that sell cannabis goods to customers exclusively through delivery. For example, a customer goes online, places an order, and an employee of the delivery business drives to the customer's home and delivers the cannabis goods. Delivery businesses must have a commercial license premises, and that location must remain closed to the public at all times. Currently, delivery operations are allowed in Long Beach, but only by licensed dispensaries. Therefore, delivery of a standalone license type is not available for any other applicants, including equity applicants. When preparing to conduct the feasibility analysis, staff identified three policy areas that would need to be explored to have a significant impact on increasing equity business ownership. First was the issue of a licensing cap and how that would affect some of the predatory practices involving equity applicants. It was the issue of allowing equity applicants to have priority of this license type or to make these licenses exclusively available to equity applicants. And third was where delivery businesses could locate in the city to gain as much information around these policy areas as possible. Staff performed outreach to the community, contacted other jurisdictions to learn best practices, researched laws and regulations, and held internal discussions with city departments responsible for licensing and regulating cannabis facilities. As part of the Feasibility Study Council requested that staff explore the feasibility of a licensing cap on delivery businesses. A licensing cap would limit the number of businesses that could operate in the city at any given time. Similar to the licensing cap on dispensaries. One of the primary reasons the cap was placed on the number of dispensaries in the city was to limit any potential negative impacts from overconcentration of retailers in the city, while still providing consumers with sufficient access to cannabis. However, unlike dispensaries, delivery businesses must remain closed to the public. Similar to other non-retail cannabis business types, thus reducing the potential impact on the surrounding community associated with having customers frequent the establishment. When staff requested feedback from the community on a licensing cap for delivery businesses. 59% of respondents in a community survey did not agree that there should be a limit on the number of delivery businesses citywide. In addition, when we reviewed other jurisdictions policies, no other jurisdictions that a cap on the number of delivery licenses allowed in their city. Jurisdictions who have that caps for other license types exclusive to equity have experienced a high rate of predatory agreements and other unfair business practices utilized by individuals seeking to partner with equity applicants who would otherwise not qualify for a business license without that partnership. A way to avoid these challenges is to adopt a delivery program that does not place a cap on the number of available licenses, thus reducing the risk of individuals engaging in predatory practices. Under a licensing model that does not have a cap. The total number of businesses would be determined by property availability and local consumer demand for cannabis products purchased via a delivery business. Staff then explored the concept of prioritizing the delivery license plate for equity applicants or making the license type available exclusively to equity applicants by offering this license type exclusively to equity applicants. Equity applicants would be afforded an opportunity to gain access to the retail market with little to no competition from non equity businesses in Long Beach. However, restricting non-equity individuals from this license type does come at some risks of those individuals engaging in predatory practices against equity applicants. This is why staff has also researched ways to prevent and protect equity applicants from these practices, which will be explored further in this presentation. Although it does not come at no risk making delivery licenses, exclusive to equity applicants would provide the greatest opportunity to level the playing field and allow equity businesses to have a long term foothold in the cannabis market in Long Beach. The community also largely supports the concept of making delivery licenses available exclusively to equity. Lastly, staff explored the various requirements surrounding where delivery businesses would be able to locate in Long Beach. As we have heard over the years from equity applicants going through the city's licensing process. Identifying and securing property has been one of the most difficult barriers to overcome. Equity applicants have reported that there are overly restrictive zoning and buffer requirements, limited inventory of available and compliant properties, a lack of credit or lease history for equity applicants . A lack of education by the property owners of the equity program and predatory lease agreements or premiums charged to cannabis businesses, police space or staff is exploring ways to reduce some of these barriers to entry across all license types. When exploring the delivery license type staff first needs policy direction on the number of businesses that will be allowed before providing a recommendation regarding the zoning for this license type. The number of businesses allowed in the city will impact the zoning determination due to the level of impacts that could be experienced throughout the city. The common concerns around delivery that staff would need to address in a zoning determination are related to parking and traffic. For these reasons, staff proposes to explore the impact and make a determination regarding zoning during the ordinance drafting process. Although it was not included as a policy area under consideration, it is important to note the enforcement approach that can be taken regarding illicit delivery businesses. Currently, cannabis enforcement activities are conducted on a complaint basis. Therefore, if staff receives a complaint regarding a potential illegal cannabis facility, staff will investigate the complaint and take the appropriate enforcement action . However, the current enforcement model and the existing staffing capacity cannot effectively proactively detect or prevent illegal delivery businesses in Long Beach. What I mean by that is that if a delivery business advertises its services on an online platform, which they typically do, they do not indicate where their facility is located in the advertisement and pursuant to state law. Businesses can legally deliver across jurisdictional boundaries, meaning a delivery business operating in Los Angeles could technically legally sell to a Long Beach customer. Due to these challenges. We don't know the nature and extent of the illicit delivery market in Long Beach, which would be those businesses storing cannabis products and delivering from facilities located in Long Beach . If City Council were to desire a new approach to enforcement, $25,000 would be needed to hire a consultant to perform outreach and research on potential models of enforcement and best practices. The study would then outline an appropriate enforcement approach, along with any additional resource requirements, which would likely include a significant additional cost above what is currently budgeted . In conclusion, staff recommends that there be no licensing cap on delivery businesses and that delivery licenses be made available exclusively to equity applicants. These recommendations provide the greatest impact on equity ownership are consistent with community expectations, and although there is a moderate risk of predatory practices, staff are confident that we can put the necessary protections in place to reduce these practices from occurring. So the next study I would like to talk about is the equity dispensary feasibility study. To provide some background. There are currently 32 licensed cannabis dispensaries operating in the city today. None of the 32 dispensaries are owned by equity individuals, due in large part because the equity program did not exist at the time licenses were awarded. Therefore, equity applicants have been completely shut out of the retail market. Given the time, given the impact that new dispensary licenses would provide for the equity community, we really emphasize the importance of community feedback in this process. To solicit community feedback. Staff staff held a virtual community meeting open to the public, held virtual roundtables with well-known cannabis organizations and equity organizations in Long Beach, and provided a survey which was pushed out through email campaigns, various websites and social media. Staff identified four key policy areas for the equity dispensary study. First was the issue of what an appropriate number of equity dispensaries would be for the city. And although the motion requested up to eight counsel did request, we look into the appropriate number for the city during the study. Second was the issue of expanding the Green Zone, as this has been a primary barrier for most applicants. Third was the type of competitive application process that would be used to select the equity applicants to move forward in the dispensary licensing process. And last was how we could prevent or protect equity applicants from predatory practices in the future. Each of these policy areas was necessary to explore to ensure the success of the Equity Dispensary Licensing program. Each recommendation surrounding these policy areas was crafted very thoughtfully, with the goal of developing a program that would not only provide a pathway to licensure for these applicants, but to also ensure that they would be successful in obtaining a license and ultimately operating their business for years to come. Our first recommendation regarding licensing caps is to allow up to eight licenses or 20% of all dispensary licenses to be made available exclusively to equity applicants through the survey. Virtual meetings and roundtable discussions. We asked the community what they felt would be an appropriate number. The average response from the survey was that there should be 34 dispensaries for equity, in addition to the 32 dispensaries that exist today. What respondents reiterated in the meeting were that there should be a 5050 ratio for equity and on equity. In that instance, it would bring the total number of dispensaries in the city to 64. Although this was seen as an equitable number of businesses, there are some practical concerns. It is unclear if the market would sustain that many dispensaries, and there were concerns from the industry that that many additional dispensaries might impede. On the success of all the dispensaries in Long Beach. Participants believed that the number of businesses should be sustainable for not only the existing dispensaries, but also the new equity dispensaries opening their doors . When staff researched other jurisdictions, many jurisdictions are allocating between 20 to 50% of their dispensary licenses to equity. It's important to note the many jurisdictions with a higher allocation built that into their original dispensary licensing process. There were also practical implications when it came to the amount of assistance the city could provide through the form of direct grants and technical assistance. On average, it will cost the dispensary over $500,000 to become licensed and fully operational. Equity applicants are heavily reliant on the city to provide some of this capital to avoid them getting involved with an investor who might be predatory. Given the current level of grant funding. Eight businesses would be awarded around $126,000 in grant funds. This would also just be if grant funds were awarded to the dispensaries and no other equity businesses. While we are confident more grant funds will be received, grant funds are not guaranteed in order to provide the greatest level of support to these businesses. Staff recommends allowing up to eight equity dispensaries in the city, which would bring the total number of dispensaries to 40. Staff also recommends expanding the Green Zone in Long Beach to allow more opportunities to equity applicants so they can find viable locations to operate their dispensary. Properties that comply with all the current regulations are very limited in the city of most commercial corridors or within the buffers of schools, parks, daycare centers and or beaches. Staff identified that expanding the Green Zone would help alleviate some of the challenges with securing viable properties. Without an expanded Green Zone, it is possible some equity applicants will find no viable properties to conduct their cannabis business, or they will experience significant delays due to the extended search for a viable property to determine which changes would produce the greatest impact in expanding the Green Zone while also maintaining public health and safety. Staff conducted a spatial analysis, reviewed community feedback study buffers in other jurisdictions and discussed buffer amendments with internal city departments. Staff developed the following recommendations. Recommendations Should the City Council wish to allow additional dispensaries? First is to remove the park buffer and implement a 600 foot buffer from playgrounds and a 600 foot buffer from community centers. Currently, parks include all open space areas, including some areas that are not frequently used or are not traditionally viewed as parks, including medians, dog parks, marinas and waterways. Staff recommend focusing the buffers on those areas of the city that have large number of children present and or are predominantly patronized by minors, which typically include areas with playgrounds and community centers. The second is to reduce the school buffer to 600 feet to align with the state's requirement. Long Beach has over 145. Charter public and private schools, which is severely limited the amount of available property in Long Beach. Although there are some concerns over child access and exposure, there are reasonable protections in place to prevent this, including age requirements for individuals to enter the cannabis facility. Opaque exit packaging. When a customer leaves the facility with cannabis and the sale of prepackaged cannabis goods to reduce odor. Staff recommends aligning with the state's requirement to open additional space in Long Beach. And third is to remove the beach buffer. As we know, Long Beach is mainly bordered by a beach which does limit some commercial corridors of the city. Eliminating the beach buffer would have a significant impact on the Green Zone. In addition, protections would still be in place when children are present as any beaches that contain a playground or community center would continue to have a 600 foot buffer. In total, these changes would add an additional 3.1 miles to the Green Zone in Long Beach, which would provide significantly more opportunities for equity applicants to find viable properties. In terms of application processes to select these equity applicants for dispensary licenses, staff identified four options as found in other jurisdictions who have had similar dispensary licensing programs. Based on community feedback, a review of best practices and applying an equity lens to this analysis, staff recommends a hybrid application process that would include both a merit based review process and a lottery process. The merit based review process would include a full discretionary review of applications based on an applicant's fitness to become a cannabis business owner , as well as their experience during the War on Drugs and their history in the equity program. Unlike the city's last dispensary application process, which was also a hybrid model, this process would include a merit based process that includes the city's RFP process instead of just a simple point scoring criteria. And then the qualified pool would attend the lottery. There is proposed to be four phases of this hybrid model. Phase one involves review of pass fail eligibility criteria to determine if an applicant submitted all the appropriate paperwork, meets the requirements of the equity program or any other criteria to be eligible for this process. This phase is typically conducted by internal city staff. Then Phase two involves a review of evaluation criteria. This is part of the discretionary piece of the process similar to an RFP. Applications or proposals will be evaluated and scored by a panel of individuals looking at best practices in other cities. The panel will be scoring applications that are redacted for any identifying information to reduce bias. The panel is proposed to be a voluntary panel consisting of individuals with expertize in economic or business development, actively involved in social equity matters or cannabis regulators from another jurisdiction. To reduce bias, we recommend the panel should not be affiliated with the cannabis industry in the city of Long Beach. After the panels provide their scores, staff will tally up their scores and rank the application. Those that meet a certain threshold will move on to phase three or the interview phase of the application process similar to an RFP. This allows the individual to provide clarity or context to their proposal and give the panel an opportunity to determine the legitimacy of an applicant. Any individuals who are deemed to be part of the qualified pool by the panel will then be placed in a lottery to select the eight applicants awarded to move forward in the licensing process. It is important to note that the evaluation criteria has not yet been developed. Given the feedback from the community on wanting to really help shape the program. Staff is recommending hiring a consultant for $50,000 to conduct a co-designing process with the community to develop the criteria. This would give the community an opportunity to provide feedback on criteria they believe is important and necessary to ensure that equity applicants will be successful. Business Owners. Staff would then work with the consultant and the community's input to ultimately develop recommendations for the City Council's approval. Starting from today. This process would likely take a full year to draft the ordinance, develop and implement the application process, and ultimately select those businesses able to move forward in the licensing process. Should the city council move forward with directing staff to prepare an ordinance? It is anticipated that with current staffing levels it would take approximately three months to develop the ordinance. At the same time, staff would be conducting the RFP for the CO-DESIGNING consultant, as well as performing recruitments for additional staff. The ordinance would likely take effect in February, at which point shortly thereafter we would be continuing to work with awarding the contract to the consultant, as well as starting to license delivery and shared use manufacturing businesses in Long Beach. Once the consultant is selected, the Co-Designing process will take a couple of months, which would likely occur around April of next year. The dispensary application process would then open in May of 2022 and would likely be conducted over a period of five months, with applicant selected in November of 2022. Lastly, staff explored how to prevent or protect equity applicants from predatory practices. Which are those predatory agreements or other unfair business practices utilized by individuals seeking to partner with equity applicants who would otherwise not qualify for a license without that partnership, providing protections against these practices are absolutely necessary to ensure the success of the equity program. Without these protections, the integrity of the program is at risk. And ultimately these licenses could perhaps fall into the hands of a non equity individual, harming that equity individual's chance to build generational wealth. Staff identified two recommendations to assist with this effort. One is to strengthen equity provisions in the municipal code, and the other is to provide more education, training and direct technical assistance. There are many different options for municipal code protections that would need to be explored in further detail during the ordinance drafting process to consider which ones are the best fit for Long Beach and the equity program. Some examples include barring non-equity, individuals or entities from having an ownership interest in more than two equity cannabis permits setting a minimum time limit that a business must be equity owned. Setting a time limit before an equity business can transfer ownership. Or allowing multiple equity applicants to have a majority ownership in a license. When we asked equity applicants what they thought would assist them the most with this issue of predatory practices, we overwhelmingly heard about the need for more direct technical assistance and education. Although we are starting to provide some technical assistance to equity applicants, applicants have specifically voiced the need for training regarding owning and operating a dispensary business, as well as having attorneys on hand to assist in reviewing legal documents. Many times, equity applicants will enter into predatory agreements without knowing the harm done. We are hoping to prevent that by providing those resources to the applicants upfront before they sign on the dotted line. The recommendations as outlined in this presentation will require additional resources to implement. This slide represents all the resources that would be required for both the delivery license type and the equity dispensary license type. Staff is requesting $75,000 for a technology solution for the equity program. $50,000 in one time for the community engagement consultant, as well as an additional $200,000 to guarantee funding for the direct technical assistance needs of the program. Currently, the administration of the equity program is conducted using manual processes and outdated technology in order to streamline the review of applications, administer grant funding and provide reports on equity program statistics. $75,000 is needed to develop a software program that can accommodate these functions on an ongoing basis. In addition to the one time costs, staff is also requesting two full time employees to support the administration and expansion of the program. One of t would be to support the business license division in the Department of Financial Management, and the other would be to support the Office of Cannabis Oversight in the City Manager Department. The cost for the two structural activities is anticipated to be $230,000 annually. Staff is requesting to structural active as opposed to temporary staffing due to the increased workload of the cannabis program over the last few years. These two employees will not only support the implementation of these license types, but will also assist businesses through the licensing process , which could take years and provide ongoing regulatory support and work on future policy changes that would affect the cannabis program and equity program. Over the years, staffing has been reduced for the cannabis program across the city, and these staffing resources are necessary for any expansion of the cannabis program in Long Beach. To offset these one time and structural cost staff is recommending a tax increase on all cannabis businesses that pay a tax on gross receipts. This would include all delivery, dispensary, lab testing, manufacturing and distribution facilities inclusive of any equity businesses. Staff is recommending a point to 5% increase on the gross receipts tax, which would result in increased revenues of approximately $609,000 annually. This increase would be able to cover the costs of the one time needs and a portion of the cost of the empties in FY 22 and would be structurally incorporated into the NY 23 based budget . Through these policy recommendations in the work that we have been doing on an ongoing basis, we have addressed most of the challenges identified by equity applicants with becoming a cannabis business owner. We are increasing the availability of cannabis retail licenses. We have approved an ordinance allowing shared youth manufacturing in Long Beach. We continue to offer direct grants and loans to equity applicants throughout the licensing process. We are developing policies to help assist applicants with securing Green Zone property. We are expanding access to technical assistance and training programs and we have been involving the community in every step of the way. Although there is more work to be done, we are confident that the work we are doing and continue to do are further supporting the goals of the equity program. In conclusion, we are recommending to allow delivery with no licensing cap and make licenses available exclusively to equity applicants. Expand the Green Zone for dispensaries in Long Beach. Allocate eight new adult use dispensary licenses or 20% to verified equity applicants. Use a hybrid application process, including a merit based review and lottery to select which equity applicants can move forward in the dispensary licensing process. Strengthen the Long Beach Municipal Code and provide additional education, training and direct technical assistance to equity applicants. Add to of to Eve at an annual estimated cost of 230,001 time funds of 325,000. Increase the cannabis business license tax by 0.25% for all cannabis businesses, charged a percentage of gross receipts and report back on the status of these new equity license types in 24 months. Should the City Council wish to allow delivery in equity dispensaries in Long Beach? We request that Council direct the city attorney to prepare an ordinance as well as provide the appropriations for the one time funds and the approval for the ongoing structural costs of the two. These. Thank you. And I'll stand by for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That concludes that presentation. Thank you. Let me. Just go back. I go to public comment first. You know what? Okay. Let me first go to public comment and I'm going to read I have nine members of the public. Let me just read all nine members. If you want to just line up, please. And I can say Luis Carlos Zee, Matthew Souza may very well. Julian Xavier, Violeta Aguilar, Andrew Cruz and Derrick Smith of Common Names are in this order tonight. Ken Elliott Lewis Carroll Courtesy Matthew Souza May Burial. Julian Xavier. Violeta Aguilar, Andrew Cruz and Derrick Smith. The goal of social equity laws is to ensure that people from communities disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition and discriminatory law enforcement are included in the now legal marijuana industry. This is according to the National Cannabis Industry Industry Association. As it stands. The Bureau of Justice states blacks who compromise, who comprise 13% of the national population or 49% of people arrested for drug selling, and 36% of persons arrested for drug possession. And in the city of Long Beach, we make up 0% of the 32 holders of cannabis licenses. And without a local hire requirement of our presence, even as mere employees seems to be another element not to be tolerated. So who does the social equity share rates truly serve? Reserving eight new licenses for equity applicants through a program that has as of yet served zero of its clients toward obtaining a retail location is a doomed project from the very beginning. And looking at the feasibility report. Miss Armstrong, I read all 26 pages. I am ashamed to see an attempt to use a Trumpian economic empowerment zone, i.e. using capital to deprive neighborhoods, to create a shell, to funnel federal money into investment in what is still considered a Schedule one substance. That won't fly in court. Mr. City Attorney Now Solutions. I think Stash recommended the idea of time limits for transfer of equity ownership is a great equity protection. Let's put some teeth on it. Let's make it in perpetuity. In the state of New York, 50% of all cannabis licenses will go to social equity applicants. We're obviously better than the state and the city of New York. So the city of Long Beach should be 100% marginalized. Communities should not be combating of Big Pharma and private equity for capital investment, business licenses and real estate. There's a reason that the Green Zone is trying to be expanded today into East Long Beach, and not one measure in first came about in 2016. I got plenty of time on this. First time I wrote anything down. I think that I should do that more often. There probably is. There's a it's the irony of this is that the equal protection clause prevents us from making exclusively racial laws in relation to things like that. Okay. But property like this, expansion of the Green Zone. There's a racial element in it. If you couldn't afford the land in 2016, you got what you got in a lot of the central and western areas that you cannot afford to get today. It's becoming a feudal system with the delivery versus retail storefront. I think that the city needs to step in because we can't let the wolf who's in the henhouse regulate themselves. Thank you. My name's Elliott Lewis. I'm with the Catalyst Cannabis Co. First, I want to say, if you guys know me, I've been known to be critical of government from time to time here. I would take a very positive stance. I'm just really impressed with Emily and Ty have put together. They really put time and effort into hearing all the stakeholders, all the different opinions from the equity applicants to every stakeholder industry, different city. So I want to applaud them as well as city council members who have reached out and asked questions and been curious. And I'm just so proud that we're approaching this issue how we have and this is a broader discussion. You know, seeing the Latino Cultural Center and seeing the diversity of the people that were appointed to the commissions is just great. It makes me proud to be a Long Beach resident. So, you know, I want to come out and focus on the positive. You know, I'll be the first one when government does something that, you know, I disagree with to be outspoken. But I think it's important on this matter when it deserves praise, it gets it's it's praise. So I think it's a super nuanced issue. It's very difficult. And I'm very proud how the city's approached it. I will say I'm really vehemently opposed to the tax increase, so I'm not going to get into the rabbit hole of different industries that you could tax that are around town oil. But I will say that there's plenty of places and, you know, we're being utilized as a piggy bank. At the end of the day, three quarters of the market is illicit. If you want to create jobs, we have to reduce our tax rate. So it's not only a quarter point, but at some point, you know, you have to put down the line. The other thing that I would say is I'd like to go with full merit based. I think that's better. It's very important to take in the biography of somebody, you know, and then there's other things that go into that, like, is this person going to have high labor standards? I know some people in cities have signed up for union contracts. These costs 20, $25,000 more in order to run. And then really just see if this person has the hustle gene. Because at the end of the day, if you ain't got the hustle gene, you're just you're not going to make it. So we're trying to do a hand up, not a handout. And, you know, everybody wants to talk about barriers of entry being, you know, money and finance and the red tape and those are there. But the thing that I want to talk about that I think is important is the industry itself. And sometimes the political class holds down social equity through social equity from from from happening. And, you know, look, it's hard. I'm looking at the new map myself and I'm thinking, damn, another eight licenses. Well, I got shareholders, too. And we're all trying to make a profit. If I'm being honest with myself and I'm checking out the areas I understand, you know, sometimes where the industries coming from. Unfortunately, Councilman Richardson isn't here to respond to my remarks. But, you know, we brought this issue up with him many times and would influence what the industry does in the political class is they don't really address the issues. And his quote to me on several occasions, he must be hiding in the basement what his black and brown brothers and sisters aren't ready for social equity. And to me, that shows and that's a quote verbatim. And to me that shows the problem sometimes that the industry itself and the political class, they're engaged in pandering and gesturing but don't really want to get stuff done. But I would add on a positive note, great job staff. Great job, everybody. And city council that reached out. Thanks. Did any man, mayor and city council want to start off by saying that? I'm very disappointed with the recommendations being proposed by this report. First, this report is only recommending additional dispensary licenses to be made available to social equity applicants. Only if the Mayor and City Council move forward with this recommendation. Eight out of 40 dispensary licenses will be owned by social equity applicants. That is only 20%. 20% is really just the tip at a restaurant. It is an end, it is an afterthought and shows the lack of effort put in to create an equity in the cannabis space. Second, if the selection process includes any form of lottery, it is lazy and cheap. What a way to devalue and dehumanize the human experience by essentially putting this in a hat and drawing names at random. Moreover, don't use eight dispensaries, share manufacturing and delivery licenses as a distraction from truly resolving the issue. There is a lack of diversity in the cannabis sector, especially when it comes to dispensary ownership. For context and lobby, two 0% of dispensaries are owned by the black and brown community. Unfortunately, this is not unique to lobby. It is an endemic statewide black and brown dispensary. Ownership is pretty much nonexistent. Besides elected government, a government officials who determine who gets cannabis licenses. Licensed dispensary owners have the second most powerful position in the cannabis chain. Re Max y. Food for thought dispensary owners work as the gatekeepers into the cannabis space, meaning they determine what products hit the shelves, and most importantly, they can open up doors of opportunity. Obviously, the more diversity among dispensary owners, the more diversity in the cannabis space overall. The only time trickle down anything will work. I want to end with this. On July six, 2021, the last time I was here, we came together as a community to condemn the desecration of Martin Luther King statue. As a reminder, Martin Luther King Martin Luther King's versus was not just about racial justice. His message was also about the redistribution of wealth and power. Honoring and preserving his legacy is not simply about protecting the statue, but also about creating and implementing policies that will redistribute wealth and power in the indigenous, black and brown communities. As I stand in front of you, I can't help but notice that the city council's makeup is diverse. You all have directly benefited from our Luther King's work. Now you have a choice. Do you sit down and enjoy the benefits of Martin Luther King's work and an unfortunate death? Or do you pick up the baton and truly honor his legacy by creating and implementing policies that will redistribute wealth and power in communities of color that have been negatively impacted by the war on terror. Thank you. Great evening, everyone. With giving all glory and honor to God. My name is Muriel Burrell, also known as May, and I was born and raised in Long Beach, and now I am a verified social equity applicant. Mr.. I'm so sorry. We have to keep the mask on. Okay? It's hard to talk with this. I know. I'm so sorry. Currently there are 32 non equity owned dispensaries in operation within the city and they have been operating for years. Yet these next eight potential eight social equity owned stores that we discussed tonight patiently, impatiently wait for their chance to operate. I do ask tonight that you do your best to expedite this process. Also, as Emily mentioned, locating property is the biggest problem. But that problem could be solved if the city gave us access to its own properties, which would help us to avoid those predatory practices. Also, regarding the lottery choice, I do ask that you all do not allow the lottery choice of dispensaries where greedy snake investors seek to benefit. Instead, begin with the waiting list that the program already has in place, starting with applicant number one. Also, I do ask for an unlimited amount of delivery licenses, yet only awarded to 100% equity owned businesses. And regarding the stars that I saw tonight in wanting to employ new employees within the city. I was saddened to see that because we have less than a handful of social equity applicants that have successfully, successfully gone through the program. And yet you all are looking to employ more people when that money could go toward us in helping more applicants actually successfully go through the program instead of us sitting around talking about it. Thank you. Mr. Mayor and the Council. My name is Jillian Xavier. I am originally from the island of Trinidad Tobago. I have been this country for over 45 years. And I want to tell you, I can read from this, but I'm just annoyed. The lottery is not the way to go. I've been a social equity entrepreneur since the inception of the program. We've been sitting here looking for properties that don't exist at all. Right. Because you have this map with a bunch of dot. A couple of stars that says if they're approved, all the dots are just applications. Applications that went in. It's been sitting there for a year or two. But you have. For 20 properties and all these properties then yeah, we have some history to look at. You get over there and there's another applicant that's already, you know, sent in an application. They can't find the presenter. We send the application. We need help having a lottery. That's a lot. And then you're still asking for money to hire more people. Shared kitchens have been. Shared manufacturing had better access. July, what's going on with that? Have you reached out to anybody who's already in the manufacturing? I said, we want to work with social equity. There's no where that study we're sitting here frustrated. You're telling me to wait another 20, 22 to get in on a lottery that's just been sitting here since 2016? Like, what are you guys going to do to help us get into business? Help me help you get your taxes so I can help the community and I can bring people, these young people. And look, I'm a mother whose son was shot and killed at 18 years old. I will not be a grandmother. I'm in this business because I have a passion for it. Cannabis has helped me stay off pharmaceutical drugs when they would say, Oh, just take this Prozac. Well, but wait a minute, you might hallucinate. Cannabis has helped me. That's why I'm passionate. Talk to the passionate ones, not the ones just sitting here trying to cash a check. Now, was this trying to change the community, bring these young people off the street, show them how to be owners of their own business? That's what's important to me. And we need to do better. And I'm asking you guys to really not do this lottery thing because we have been here standing for a long time. My name is Joni and Lisa Xavier. I'm not going anywhere and I'm asking you guys to do better. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is Taylor with Catalyst Cannabis Co. And as you know, Catalyst is very proud to be here in Long Beach and who have four stores here in the city of Long Beach. We just opened our last location in downtown Long Beach, and it has been a great community effort to really revitalize the whole block. So this is what we believe cannabis can do for our communities. We have been advocating and. Working on port policy in. The city of Long Beach that provides actual opportunity for social equity applicants. Through this process, we have had the opportunity to closely work and collaborate and learn from folks that have gone through the social equity program here in the city of Long Beach. We have come to learn firsthand through our partnership with. Carlos from push and delivery. Of the barriers and. Challenges social equity businesses face. Even when they have all of that support. Including access to capital, including access to vendors. There's still many, many barriers that social equity applicants face. So that is. Why right here, we want to make sure. That those barriers are removed and that they. Are able to open business. So we are glad to see that the city has moved to add additional brick and mortar licenses as we see this as the real entry to the industry. We support this and we urge. Council. To support merit based. Process when selecting new applicants. We also support and really encourage the. City to really look at what are the. Like, what are the barriers and what are the processes that. We can implement to ensure that the technical. Assistance, training and education is a bit readily. Available for social equity applicants. And we reduce predatory. Practices. So as we continue this process, we are proud to be here. If we want to continue to be partners with the community, we want to continue to. Be part of this conversation with social equity applicants to ensure that the industry. Provides those opportunities. That we know are available in the industry for our communities. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. I like to think that first I'd like to take the opportunity to thank city staff and council for their hard work and dedication for social equity within this past couple of months or so, like a year now. It's been very frustrating for a lot of people, as you can see. So, you know, I really do appreciate your commitment to it. Emily Armstrong And kind of an oversight. I really do. Thank you guys for stepping up and moving forward with all these recommendations moving forward. I do have some. Give me 1/2 as I see recommendations being announced with the Agenda 19. I would also like to add some suggestions to city staff and council within our recommendations, given as we hope to move forward with adding to with annual estimated and one time calls and also increasing kind of effect licenses. I would suggest a community oversight committee that should be created and appointed to oversee the implementation of Long Beach Cannabis Regulation and Revenue Ordinance. The purpose of this committee is to convene representatives of the cannabis business operators, workers, patients and other key stakeholders in the cannabis industry to oversee the Cannabis Office of Cannabis Oversight Implementation by evaluating data on the industry's growth and also provide guidance and recommendations to the Board and counsel on amendments to local laws and regulations, including those governing the equity program to facilitate socially responsible growth of this new industry by creating living wage jobs and economic opportunities consistent with the city's intent to commit to the social equity and our minority community communities. Most importantly. As I said, we all know this is a frustrating task. Our goal is to all come together to try to reach these these endeavor, these milestones that both of us can, you know, get over when it comes to the RFP in a lot of respect. The lottery kind of impedes on an RFP. So like it would kind of be pointless to just do a RFP, do interviews, and then go with the lottery process out there. So thank you guys for your time and opportunity and I look forward to keep working with you guys. Good evening. I have a letter from my president, Andrew Zehnder, which I'm happy to give to you. But perhaps in the interest of brevity, I'll read you the highlights. My union. Yes. CW Local 324 represents 300 cannabis workers in the city. We appreciate the work of staff to craft a proposal that addresses the need for more social equity. Social justice is a core value of the CW, and we're pleased that Long Beach has taken the lead on this issue. In general, we approve the inclusion of labor peace and it remains an important tool for preserving job standards in the industry. We support the usage of merit based review during the application process. Collectively, we have sufficient experience assessing which operators are committed to upholding the letter and the spirit of the regulations that the city established. And we should draw from that experience and continue to promote businesses that play by the rules. We suggest the city delay the implementation of the tax increase of a quarter percent, although we recognize the value of a cost neutral program. We have to be mindful of the fact that the current legal industry only maintains about a 30% foothold in the city and that it's incumbent upon all of us to make every effort to increase that percentage if we have any hope of preserving a healthy industry. Increasing taxes will not accomplish that. And yes, UW continues its advocacy in this industry to ensure the promotion of the welfare of workers and the community in which they live. And we appreciate your consideration of our perspective. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Matthew Souza, and I'm actually going to allow Adam, the president of the LBC, to speak for me. Good evening. Sorry I didn't. Last time I was here, we were able to just walk up during the agenda item and talk. So I didn't lose a card, but. Good evening, Honorable Mayor City Council. My name's Ahmed Jazzy. I'm on the board of directors of the Long Beach Collective Association. You know, the BCA and other groups have been working for months to be able to craft and provide city staff and city council with recommendations to consider. I wanted to thank city staff's effort and the time that they spent to go through all the information that was provided not only from the local groups, but also from very from various cities in the state and nationwide. I wanted to highlight some important feedback that we received to date from many not only equity operators in other cities, but a diverse group of people that we've been talking to. Number one thing is there isn't really a social equity program in the state of California that actually in its entirety works. Right now, there's many holes in the various programs, and I think that we've been able to learn at least some of the things that have gone wrong, and we can successfully fix it here in the city of Long Beach. Time will tell the actual best direction for cannabis equity and all social justice efforts that are happening here in the city, state and nationwide. But there is some wrong steps to start going down this policy. First, raising taxes is not the right step to moving policy forward. Currently, the market today is a very intense market at overtaxed. We're paying taxes on taxes on taxes literally when it comes to the state and city. Some good things that are going to be key to a successful program is opening up the zoning for job applicants. That is definitely the right step. Also ensuring sustainability of the new and existing facilities to avoid overconcentration within the city. Everybody will have to actually operate and work within this industry once everybody is able to get included. Lastly, having a roadmap to education, training and the protections is going to be as important as any other policy item that we're deliberating over tonight. The ability for an applicant to get the proper training, education and having access at least to that is going to be paramount. Lastly, I want to say that timing is important. I think, you know, the process does take a long time and being able to streamline that process. What's happened in the city of Los Angeles is we have about three and a half, three years later, still waiting, only, barely, not even I don't even know how many have actually opened, but we have over 350 applicants are still waiting three years later. So I wanted to thank city council and I'm going to. Thank you. Thank you to all of our our speakers. We do have a motion on the second. I want to just read a quote from an owl in just a minute. I just want to quote Mr. Merkin. I might have some additional questions and comments. Just one clarification that I want to make sure that I that I heard I think I heard almost from from a few people, including you, CW. And I want to, of course. Reiterate what we said about labor peace provisions. I think most folks I've talked to in the industry, I've shared I'm sure that one of us I think I know it's difficult for some dispensaries, but one of the things that I really supported early on was the unionization of the workforce to me was incredibly important to for many of us that are familiar with the way unions operate. There was a sense of structure that was put in place and a sense of empowering the worker and the employer and the employee. That I think is really for many folks helped also add to the legitimacy of dispensaries and of the industry. And so I just want to thank you, UW, for all of their work. And I do want to also ask this question about the lottery versus the merit based system, because I've heard this a few times. What I want to understand, Mr. MARQUEZ So I have over the last few years, I have had a chance to, you know, run into or meet different folks that have been involved or been active in kind of a social equity process that obviously looking to open a dispensary and are trying to do it the right way. And and so my only concern about about the lottery system is that the folks that have been on the ground level then get left out of that process. And I'm not sure who's been there from the beginning or not exactly. But I just want to make sure that from what I understand, that what you're proposing is not a straight lottery, but some type of merit based lottery. Is that correct? It's you have a you have a merit based program and then the merit based program gets you into a lottery. Can you explain that? Yes, it's definitely a merit based program. First and foremost, you have to be merit based to get into it. I'll let Emily explain how the lottery would work after the merit based system and why we think that's a a reasonable approach. Yeah. So. So the intent is to go through a traditional kind of RFP process. And so that will involve evaluating proposals, determining fitness, determining their history with the equity program, their history with the war on drugs. And it's ultimately to get to a point where, let's say you have 100 applicants that apply for this. Maybe the panel ends up saying that 20 people could legitimately be cannabis business owners as equity applicants. They meet all the criteria. They have really great proposals. They have really great interviews. And then it really just comes down to how do you select eight? How do you select the top eight when they're all really great? And that would be the reason for the lottery. I see. I understand that. You know, my only thought, you know, my only thought as I think about that and and. Thinking about merit based program, particularly, you know, I you know, my experiences in like the college admissions world. And I think that that merit merit based programs work and they're the right approach. But we also look at not just who might appear on paper to be the exact perfect candidate, but also, you know, try to find those that have the potential and frankly, those that have been involved in the advocacy work and been part of our process now for many years. So what I just what I just hope you are taking into account and I'm not sure if it's part of the point system is if we have social equity folks that have been engaged with the city for years. And they qualify. Obviously, they have to qualify and meet all of your criteria. I think that's the most important thing. Right. And they qualify, meet the criteria. So that person have the same or or a better chance of being able to open a dispensary than an applicant that is just coming in. And so it is very it's part of the merit based program. Are there points awarded to two folks that have been kind of working with all of you now for for a few years in this process? Again, the criteria has not been developed and that is really the purpose of hiring the consultant. To do this kind of Co-Designing work around the criteria is to make sure that we are hearing that, and that's a part of the criteria and we have heard that. So the intent would be to hopefully prioritize those people that have been involved in this program for for a few years now. Okay. And then as far as it relates to the tax question. So I understand that the council recently obviously decreased the tax. That was something the council took action on recently. So not that I'm opposed to, you know, appropriately ensuring that things are taxed at an appropriate level. I think that's important. But it does seem a little bit counter to what we what we just did. And so I understand that it's to hire additional city staff, I think is two positions. Am I correct? But we there's no there's there is no other way to see. I mean, the when you open the turn of the century, we are going to see more tax revenue. Yeah. I'll jump in on that using that projection for the additional staffing. So we looked at that first. Can we use any of that money? We believe that that's not going to be available, at least structurally for at least several years, because we have to go through a process right now to bring on the staff, to do this work, to then work with everybody, to provide all the assistance. And then they're going to start opening probably two or three years down the road, maybe faster. Well, we did want to make this cost neutral. We did reduce the tax, but we reduced it in a in a specific area of cannabis. It wasn't on every single one, if I remember right, it was to specifically entice the manufacturing side of of the shop. And last year, when we were making our $18 million reductions out of a $30 million deficit, we looked first and foremost. And how do we not affect services? How do we not affect police and fire and parks and rec and libraries? And what we did first was to look at our cannabis group, which we had staffed up as we started this program. And then we felt we were kind of at the equilibrium where we could reduce that. We reduced in my office, we cut assistant to the city manager position, we reduced the are in business licensing with the idea and we discovered that to the Council that we couldn't take on new assignments if we got rid of that staff and then we kind of got this direction to go the other way. So that's what we're looking to do is to restore the staff that came up as part of the reductions last year. If we need to take on this additional work, there could certainly be other ways that you fund it. But then we'd be adding to the structural deficit and we'd have to come up with some other reductions in other departments. And what's it and what's the total amount? Uh, have you come to the 300 range? One option, which we have described is we do believe there are some grants out there that we can get some of this, uh, cost from like some of the technical assistance. What we don't think the grants will fund are the two administrative bodies. So we definitely need the two administrative bodies to move forward. It's potential you can get other state resources and then drop the tax a little bit so that it's not at the point five could be a little bit less if we get that direction too to look into that. Now, another thing, I think the council is been much more engaged, I think, and probably some members in the details of the proposal than I have. So I'm just kind of, you know, just chiming in on what I what I'm hearing. So I'll let the council, I think, ask they probably know more about about the the structure for the purpose for this funding or for the tax. I would just I would just say and then I'm interested in hearing what what others have to say is I'm wondering if and maybe this is not possible, but if before the actual tax was implemented, we could first go see if we can get grants and see how how the revenue actually starts coming in. Because that's my understanding that revenue has been performing fairly well on the cannabis side. Is that right? Yes, it has been going up and that's been part of our projections as well to help offset it hasn't has. And also the revenue has been in some cases higher than expected it has been. And those projections are part of our multiyear deficit. So, yes, they've been going up, but so have costs and other things. So those are included in there. I would just I would just, you know, in just in the discussions that the council has, I would just add that we interested to see if before we do the tax that we could look at first thing through our grants available that and I think that the the revenue we're seeing on the other end is is they're passing on expectations. So I think that's a very positive thing. Thanks to everyone that spoke today and the industry and and where things are headed. So I'll first of all, Councilman Allen and then kind of see where where I would comment on Councilman Allen. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to start by recognizing Emily and Ty for their hard work on this item. This is just a complex issue. And I know that you've been working on this for months, meeting with stakeholders, weighing options, and I appreciate how through these reports have been. So thank you very much. With respect to both delivery and dispensary retail license, I think that we have a real opportunity to expand the cannabis program and do it in a way that helps meet our social equity goals. This is a new industry and prior to we knew it was illegal. Many people suffered as a consequence of unfair drug policies. And I think it's really important that we do everything that we can to ensure that our social equity initiatives are robust and lead to a successful business. Regarding our delivery licenses, I fully support the staff's recommendation to pursue exclusive licensing for equity applicants with no caps on the number of licenses. This option, I think, has the most community support and the potential for the most impact as it provides an opportunity for equity applicant to obtain a delivery license. Regarding the retail dispensary license. I want to thank the staff for such a thorough report too. I do fully support the expansion of the Green Zone. Right now we're in a situation where there is not enough space for new businesses to set up shop. And without expanding the Green Zone, it's possible some equity applicants will not find a viable property to conduct their cannabis business. So I do support removing certain buffers and aligning with the state regulations to open up some space. I also appreciate the four option staff within it and how we might go about awarding retail licenses. While the staff did recommend the hybrid approach. I believe that the full merit based system is more appropriate. And I'll tell you why. I think the city and consultant, they can do a good job at categorizing and and awarding these contracts. I think that's important. And we do it that way because there are just equity applicants that have different stories. There's equity applicants that their lives and and lives of their children and grandchildren have been affected. And I think that we we can't we can't just pick from one on a lotto. I think that we have to. I think we need to do that on an RFP process. And I feel confident that that staff could do that. And then lastly, with regards to the proposed tax increase, I'm not fond of that either. I think right now the cannabis industry is taxed north of 30% and one of the most taxed industries. And and I think if we're ever going to expect these businesses to compete in the illicit market, the taxes should be lower. And so I'm not I'm not an advocate for for raising the taxes. And then lastly, I want to I think we need to expedite this process and whatever that looks like. I think we need to get this. Middle. On and long. And I agree with many of the speakers that we've been waiting a long time for for this to happen. Thank you. Well, thank you, Councilwoman Councilmember Renko. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank Councilmember Allen for her comments. There are a lot of them were right on with what I was thinking about. Well, the things that I that I like about the town, however, is the fact that the distance between businesses is smaller. I mean, it's gone from a thousand feet to 600 feet. Does that include a visit between within each other or is it just between like what the what the you mentioned about schools, parks and other only businesses. The 1000 feet between the dispensaries would still be maintained. Right. It's just one clarification on that. And then also when it comes to there was a commentary made earlier from one of the public speakers about lack of business, space, lack of building or other other opportunities to open a dispensary, perhaps even in the Green Zone. What about and we also just passed the law in its resolution a couple of weeks ago regarding the compensation for developers. For building affordable housing. I'm thinking about empty properties, empty lots. Those types of opportunities with that, would that come into play at all or were those properties stay available only for affordable housing and not and not to be able to not be eligible for a dispensary to be in that place. And obviously it would have to be away from from other houses and commercial areas. Yeah. So we haven't looked into that. But I will say we have looked into other ways to try to incentivize property owners to allow cannabis or use their spaces or use some of these vacant areas. I think there is still some legal challenges due to the fact that at the federal level cannabis is illegal and perhaps the money that we're using to incentivize it's federal funding that really can't be used for that purpose. And so we kind of have to be creative with the ideas, but that's definitely something that we can look into a little bit more. That's, I think. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Mr. Mayor. So I have a couple of questions about this. I want to thank staff for your work. You guys have done an excellent job on this and. I know that. At least I. Have. I have at least one current. Cannabis business owner. Here tonight. Who spoke and that's Elliott Lewis. And and I've said many times in the past, the council office has had a tremendous working relationship with that operator. And to the extent that he's going to be involved in the social equity program, I trust that he will honor his word in regards to what he's shared with me regarding the goals of the program. And so I support the work that staff has done. I support very much the process that the staff has undertaken. But still, I do have a concern about the green zones and also. The number of cannabis dispensaries we have in each council district understanding that our redistricting commission is going through a redistricting process right now. One of the things that we made abundantly clear in the discussions that we had about cannabis leading up to the voter initiative. And even beyond, was we did not want. Cannabis dispensaries to be concentrated in any one particular area. We wanted them spread out throughout the city. Because certainly it would not. Be fair for them to be concentrated in any one or more areas. And one of the reasons that you guys have modified the buffers is, I. Think, to allow for more opportunities. For the establishment of the brick and mortar shops, which I think is great in looking at the distribution of dispensaries throughout the city. There are some that have one. There are some that have two, and then there are some that have six. So what I'd like to do is make sure that we have some fairness in terms of where future dispensaries go. So I'd be interested in talking to my council colleagues about some sort of a density cap per district, whether that's a conversation we have. Tonight. Or whether that's a conversation we have in the future as the new district boundary lines are created. That probably makes a little bit more sense because I think that's a conversation we need to have. Obviously, access. To cannabis was something that. Was discussed as being very important before it went to the voter initiative. A lot of people came to council and talked about the medical needs and how important access was for that medical purpose. And we've talked a lot about health and wellness. And so we certainly want to make sure that everyone throughout the city has access to this medical or recreational option. And so we with the buffers are hopefully. Allowing for. That. So the increase of the buffer zones is that allowing. More. Sites to be developed, more businesses to be established throughout the city. Is there now more opportunity in every district? Where there is more opportunity in every district. You know, some districts will have more available space just due to the number of parks or the number of, you know, buffers, the schools, the things like that. So there is expansion in every district. It just it differs between districts. Okay. But but sitting here right now, there is capacity in every district right now to take on more than there was before the vote on whatever the maps are tonight. Bear there could be. Okay. And then having said that, I do have an issue with one of the areas that it now appears to be an eligible buffer, and that is in the peninsula in southeast Long Beach. It seems like we are trying to build the buffers around places where children would gather. And yet every summer we invite over 600 children. We specifically, in fact, you have to be a child to participate in this program. We invite them to the peninsula to run along the beaches and go back and forth between the bay and the ocean. 600 of them from all over. We're really proud of the equity program that we've built for the Junior Guards program. We've got to with it there. We've got a sailing center there. We actually go out of our way to attract children to this area. And yet that's not a buffer or that's not a prohibited area. It's a residential area that has a liquor store and a cafe. I just don't think we should be allowing. If the goal is to protect children from peripheral proliferation of marijuana dispensaries, then we should not. Be inviting 600. Of them. And let me not even touch upon the numerous beach camps that the City Parks Department sponsors at Bay Shore. So I really would like to ask staff to reconsider that. I don't know if that's a conversation we can have right now, but I don't understand why putting a dispensary in the middle of the Junior Lifeguard program is allowed. It seems I can't defend that position. So if we're not able to remove that or somehow move the Junior Lifeguard program, I can't support the current boundaries. And I hate to say that because I think the program and the policy, everything we've done is great. But I cannot knowingly say 600 children throughout the city who were trying to give access an opportunity to welcome. There's no other businesses here, but there is a dispensary. It just makes no sense to me, so I can't support that. But other than that. I think the program's great. And I want to do whatever I can to support you. And I want to support the program. I just I don't understand why we need to have one on 67th Street. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman, Mongo. I will try to get through so many of these comments. Great presentation staff. You guys have done excellent work. I'm really proud of being a part of this City Economic Development Committee and the work that has been brought forward. Special thanks to Councilmember Austin Councilwoman Allen. I think this has been just a great eye opening opportunity. I also am supportive of a full merit based system, but I would say that banding similar to how we band exams for being hired in the city is appropriate because when you have big money at stake, a half a point to make a mistake at that level and the liabilities that can be brought into that. I just think that we should be put together a building system that makes sense, but that is merit based. And I agree with. Elliot about the hustle. Gene, I don't know how you judge for that, but. Being one of a few members of this diet who's actually been an independent business owner, the hustle gene matters. And we want to give people with the highest likelihood of success the opportunity to be there. I've talked to a dispensary specifically in my district, and one of them had said to me, Man, I think the taxes are too high. However, if I couldn't have gotten through the process and the time that I did because of the excellent staff you have. It would have taken me a lot longer to get my business off the ground. So I think that it's a push pull, right? If you don't have the staff to support the program, then the equity program will take three years. But if we staff up quickly and we make the investment. You could get an equity program off the ground more quickly and have that focused staff attention. And so everyone knows me. I'm not a big supporter of raising taxes, but I am a supporter of paying for the things that we need. And at least in my discussions with dispensary owners who have needed handholding throughout the process, they have appreciated the staff that the city has provided immensely. And so I think that that's something to kind of talk about. I'm not sure who the interviewees were and how many there were in the surveys that you kind of discussed throughout the presentation. And I think that that's kind of an important component, right? Like you just survey, did you ask for respondents from 500 people in ten responded or was it 25? Were they from the same groups? I just don't know. So it's hard for me to validate the data and feel comfortable with it. So if staff to give us a little bit of input on that, that'd be helpful. Yeah. So is this specific to the dispensary survey or both? Actually, I'm going to go through all my questions because I realize my clock is ticking. But if you could answer my questions at the end because I know I have a limited time, but yeah, on both, I'm kind of interested just to know what that looks like. Issues about the zones and fairness. So I'm one of the councilmembers with six in my district. So as Councilmember Richardson, who's not here tonight, I've been at a budget meeting in his district where the community asked, why do we have six dispensaries and no one else does? And I was able to say, No, no, Mimi, I to do. And the reason that Councilmember Richardson and I both have the great blessing of more dispensaries is because we are adjacent to a number of cities that do not authorize cannabis sales. And so the borders of our city really have quite a number of dispensaries. Almost three of my borders to other cities have those have dispensaries and have quite great volumes because they're not really competing for the Long Beach market. They're really competing for the Orange County market or the Lakewood Market or the Signal Hill Market or not saying, oh, I'm sorry, Paramount Market, etc., etc.. So just something to think about. But in that discussion, a community member had specifically stated, What about all these other marijuana related businesses? What are the added risks? They had some specific data or concerns that they presented about the number of attempted break ins and so on and so forth that have happened. I've had several in my district. The dispensaries do an excellent job of preventing theft. I would even say in some of the cases better than the pharmacies are doing right now. But it is something that they think about. I would be interested because there are districts that only have one. Same idea with when you talk about districts versus development zones in the city. We have three major development areas. Maybe we do it by development areas since we know that those boundaries are going to be moving soon. And the specifics of being on the side of a council district or that side maybe isn't as important of making sure that the north piece of Long Beach, the downtown people love it. On the east piece of Long Beach, Equitable equitably have access in the area. But when push comes to shove, people are going to want to put in dispensaries where the demand is. Big companies like McDonald's don't go where there aren't people who want to buy McDonald's. Similarly, in the sophisticated industry of cannabis, the dispensaries need to be where the people want the marijuana. So. Eight more. I don't know how we equitably look at what that looks like and where we want them, as I mentioned, to be successful in placement. I'm out of time. But if you could answer that question and then based on my colleagues, I might queue up one more time with my last three questions next. Yeah. So in regards to the the survey question that you had posed, so for the delivery survey, there was a total of 79 respondents to that survey and we did send that out via email or website. I don't believe that one was on social media at the time, but we did get 79 total responses. 47% of the respondents were equity applicants or identified as equity applicants, 21% identified as Long Beach residents, 20% identified as cannabis business owners. 5% were potential equity applicants. 3% were just members of an LP, business or community organization, and then 4% were other. And then in terms of the Equity Dispensary survey, we did push that out on social media, which gave us a little bit more of a response rate. And so we we received 135 total responses, 43% were equity applicants, 23% cannabis business owners. And then or I'm sorry, 30, 43 were equity applicants, 23 cannabis business owners, 67 of those respondents were Long Beach residents. And then to identify those other. Thank you for that information. I think that one of the big challenges that I had, at least with the dispensary locations, was people don't realize how small a thousand feet is. And when you reduce that to 600 feet, I mean, we got a lot of complaints with that dispensary doesn't meet the rules. But when you look at the the measurement, it far exceeded the rules. People's perception of that that before is a lot different than the reality. And I think that's important. So I'm not real comfortable with the maps yet, but I'm comfortable and supporting, I don't think councilmember. So I'm okay. I'll take that. Well, first, I'd like to thank staff and our city's Office of Cannabis Oversight Team for really putting in the work for this feasibility report and the recommendations on top of all their other duties. I understand that they're split in time, and this is a real issue with staff capacity that we have to deliver cannabis oversight, but also add on new facets to add to this program. And I know it took a lot of effort and the report was very thorough. I want to appreciate my my colleague's comments as well. I'll just say that I generally support the recommendations, including the revised green zones, with the comments of my colleagues regarding the beaches and the children on the beaches. I think those are important points that need to be taken into consideration for any ordinance that we we may look at drafting. I think a dispensary licenses exclusively for cannabis equity applicants is a reasonable and manageable starting point. Right, for the market absorbing new businesses in the market. That was the number we threw out in March. It seemed to be a number that was. Settled upon by many of the respondents who have been engaged in the process. And so they got that part right for right now. But that doesn't mean that it's capped enough that it'll be over with. We can we can always look at doing more. I'd love to see us move faster and expedite the process. If if there's any way for us to do that. And I'm going to continue to push in that regard. But the idea of a 25 or point 25% tax is a little troubling for me as well. I've heard from a couple of my colleagues that that might be a dealbreaker. We want to we want to move this equity program forward. And I'd like to explore other ways, too, to getting there immediately. The financial needs to add staff and deal with the one time, as well as structural costs associated with building this program out . So later on tonight, we'll talk a little bit about what, a 21 budget performance report. And in that report, staff indicates that business license tax revenues are anticipated to outperform what was projected in the budget by $1.3 million. Right. Due to a surge in cannabis sales, as well as an extension of business hours that the council approved. So if we've been a partner, we've been proactive, we've done all we could to make this industry work and be profitable. And it looks like we exceeded our expectations. I guess I need to ask what that exceeded expectations were those revenues going in and world and can those revenues be used back into the program? So they are eligible youth. But if you look at the whole performance report, those are general fund dollars or measure em, but they essentially are general fund. And as you look at the whole of the general fund, we're only half a million dollars. Balance. We're essentially exactly balance. We don't have a structural surplus and we're going into a structural deficit. So while that specific revenue has gone up, others have gone down, other costs have gone up. So we are currently for this year's budget balanced and then for next year's budget, we're right now looking at a 36 to $38 million deficit. I'm hoping that'll come down as the economy continues to improve, but we'd be looking at reductions next year. I couldn't possibly be performing better than 1.3 million. And. It's possible. So I think we're hearing that from the council. What I'd like to suggest is that you don't take the tax completely off the table yet, but you consider other options if we can get additional state dollars. Give us a little bit of time to see what measure M revenues might do, what the state dollars would might be, and then what that delta is. And we'll bring you back some options, one of which could be a lower tax, one could be general fund and cutting something else, because we've got a little bit of time to develop the ordinance and come back to you with the staffing model. Well, I love that recommendation. I just want to figure out how to get out of tonight in terms of a vote to support moving forward with our campus equity program and then maybe leaving it open for staff to to figure out the financing without a text right away. I think that's the direction tonight instead is to give us more direction to come back with other options. And we'll bring that back. When we bring the ordinance back. When we bring back the appropriation increase, we'll bring back, you know, what our new funding strategy is going to be from June. So yeah, I'd like to move that into the record. And I really think that that's important because I don't I don't hear a consensus around moving forward with a quarter cent tax and and probably. Potentially crippling even those businesses that we are trying to lift up right at the same time. The fact that that my my really my my my real concern here on with that. If we can, we can do that. I think we are we're in a great place. I like the idea of looking at other grant funding opportunities. I know that there are opportunities from the state. I think that, you know, again, time the more time we we put into developing our social or cannabis equity program, it's potentially opportunity life. Um, and I will just say that, that the the ideal of, of. A merit based process is very, very important. Listening to the presentation. The ideal of a hybrid where we are doing an RFP, we're assessing qualifications. There's an interview process. I think that for me, the most important component is that it's a fair process that will get you better. But that tends to put a little bit more in terms of. Not for a little bit. Oh, man. I'm talking about Cuba. Cuba. Thank you. Councilman, sir. Thank you, Mayor. So I also want to express my appreciation for staff's hard work in making sure to get community input, equity applicant input, as well as those who are working in the cannabis business as well. And also appreciate all the questions and comments made by my colleagues. You know, one of the things that I want you to just comment on, well, it's taken time to get us to this point. It's something that's not been done. And we've worked kind of looking at other models of city have done what they've done right and what they didn't do right that we can learn from. So I also see that equity is going to be a process in development, right? So I see this as a pilot programing. Eight isn't I don't think it's right to say any number right now is the right number unless we do a little bit more piloting of how this program will work to making sure we even get eight. A total of eight. Ensuring they're successful. Right. That would be a success if it's 100% they're able to get their business running. So I feel like there's a lot of lessons that can be learned through this, what I would consider as a piling piloting phase of this equity program in Long Beach. One of the other things that I wanted to ask about, certainly I'm also concerned about this tax rate, which, in addition to the options that were the share that would be looked at, is where we find this funding is also looking at, well, what are the tax rates, what are the tax rate in the other cities and how have they explored ways to fund their program? I appreciate this exhibit. You know, at the very last page, exhibit H, a D attachment D here where you have lists a variety of cities that included, you know, looking at how they implement their program and their even their caps, as well as interested in seeing what their tax rates are and to ensure that we're kind of learning from them as well. The other thing that I. Wanted to talk about was also just this process of this these eligible applicants. It's really important to me that we also ensure there's a majority that are Long Beach residents, Long Beach resident, those who have been impacted by the war on drugs in Long Beach. I think we need to make sure that if there's a point system in the guideline, that we give them additional points. Because I think it's important that we lift up those who've experienced the various barriers here in the city. And then the other thing, too, is when you do get whatever your review process looks like, when you get your consultants together, or that's a consideration of how you find your consultant, I think it's really important that we also have variety of reviewers of these applicants, that it'll be people who are in the cannabis business, as well as those who understand equity that comes from that, have a background in understanding how do we approach using that lens in how you determine, you know, weighing in their experience, their life experience and also other other criteria as well that can be taken into consideration. So I'll say this again in that while it's it feels like it's taking a long time, I also think that we should also move forward a little quicker so that we can pilot this to see what we can do right and what we can do, you know, taking lessons learned from other city and what we can do . Well, right. So so I know that I value that. We we want to make sure there's fairness and all of that should be taken consideration. But we also want to make sure we get started sooner than later. I'm going to make sure I see all my questions here. So yeah. So I think that's all my question for now. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman. And they have. A thank you, mayor. And I also agree with my colleagues on all their previous comments and concerns as well. I'm glad that we're thinking about taking out the tax portion of this item or actually exploring other options, I should say. That would be great. I think that to me that's important because this is an equity program and I would hate for us to have and then turn the consequences here and be able to hurt the equity community, our cannabis community that we're literally trying to help and uplift. So so that's good. Another thing that I was wondering, just I was thinking about, you know, how things are across the city. And right now, the cannabis dispensaries have to be a thousand feet away from each other. And I was wondering what the feasibility of maybe increasing that to 1500 could be because of the fact that we that way it would be better city wide to be able to have that. And also it would help these equity applicants in being successful and not be overly concentrated in certain areas. And that way they can not only become successful but sustainable, which is what we want. We want them to be both a successful and sustainable. So with that said, I'm I'm so proud of us as a city that we're moving in the right direction. And I think that, you know, this has been long overdue. So I do also would like to see us move a little bit quicker on this. I know it's hard, especially if we don't have the staff. So I'm really hoping that we can together work something out and find funds so that we can bring on staff to really dedicate to this program. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Councilwoman Pryce. Mr. Mayor, I just want to follow up on some of the comments that I made. So I'm seeing here that we have added the community center buffer. So the area that I was referencing before on the peninsula, I believe there is at least one community center in that area. So I would like to make a friendly. That that buffer be reevaluated in regards to 32nd Street and the Leeway Center. The other. Point I wanted. To touch base on with the council and I haven't heard really anyone comment on it. So I'm thinking maybe there's not a whole lot of support for it, but I would love. To hear my council colleagues. Comments on the overconcentration of dispensaries in throughout the city and specific parts. So I'd like us to address that issue. Maybe it's not tonight. In the form of a motion. But I'd love to know what. My colleagues think about that, since this is an issue that is before us on an ongoing basis, I believe, at present. Really some Brown Act areas that I'm uncomfortable reaching out to colleagues to talk about when we have items like this on the agenda. I think it's a public conversation that we have to have that I would like to have publicly about whether there should. Be a limit on. The number. So we how many total will we have with this? Eight. I'm sorry, could you ask the question again? How many total will we have? I can do the math, you guys. I'm just trying to have a public. Equity hybrid with my colleagues. We would have 40, 40, but that number I can get. Okay, so if we have 40. And we have assuming we have nine council. Districts, which that's probably not going to change even with the redistricting. What what would what would that look like if we were to have an equitable distribution? So I will say that redistricting is the X factor. As you mentioned, we don't know what the boundaries are going to look like. We'll know what those will look like by December. And we're not planning to bring back with this ordinance before that time. So there will be time to, if you wanted to give a certain direction tonight to be able to look at the new boundaries when we bring something back. I think that would be great. I'd like to add as a friendly that after the redistricting information. Comes out, that council will have an opportunity. To have a discussion about the concentration or the distribution, I should say, of dispensaries throughout the city. And whether we want to consider a density cap or for lack of a better word. Because, you know, I think we should be all roughly around the same. And we should provide opportunities in the districts that are underrepresented in cannabis businesses. We should do whatever we can to help those businesses get those types of services for their residents as well, so that their residents because I recall that was a really big issue when we would debate this topic, is that people having to drive to other parts of the city to get access. So we want to make sure everyone has access. I think that would be a great conversation to have and I bring that as a friend like. A sentimental. Yes. And so on. Yeah, that definitely is accepted. One of the things that I wonder is I, you know, represent downtown. And so where we have a small area or dense or high, so there's not going to be as much availability and downtown as there might be and councilwoman among those district just because of the fact that she has a big footprint. So I accept that friendly and I want to make sure I want to clarify the motion. So my motion is that we do not raise the taxes, that we look at all other alternatives, that the application process is based on merit. And then Councilwoman Price's friendly. That's my emotion. Okay. So I didn't have speaker style, but that's the to clarify, the motion on the floor is the staff recommendation and with the addition of the Friendly's by Councilman Price removing the tax and looking for other alternatives and to go off of a merit, a stronger merit based system than the one proposed. I think what the motion is that is correct. Again, there's a second customer and get your supporters. Oh, really? Go ahead, Mr. Mayor, if I can make a suggestion, I heard from the council that you'd like to keep this moving forward. We haven't figured out how to pay for it because we kind of removed that option today. We need at least $50,000 to start the consultant to move that forward. So I'd like to just we'll find the resources for that or come out of, you know, something in the reserves or end of year fund balance. But that will allow us to at least take that next interim step if that's amenable. Okay, great. We'll wait for the customers on the way back. But let me just continue on the on the speaker's list, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. Just a question about the tax. Was the tax only going to be applied to recreational or medical as well? If it would have been in motion just cause I just didn't know, it would be to both. Okay. So one of the things that I would definitely recommend is for it not to be a part of the medical side, like we don't want to tax people's medicine if we can avoid it. In talking with. Dispensary owners, an average sale is $65. So we're talking about a dollar, a dollar, $52 per purchase. And while that is a lot of money on the recreational side, I'm not as concerned as I would be about the medical side, those who have cancer and need the medical treatment and all of those things. I think that's the number one concern for us. When looking at your revenue options for the future, obviously this council would prefer not to increase taxes. But when you do talk about. For me, I would like to not increase taxes and to get equity licenses available within six months. However, if I had to choose between a small tax of a dollar 50 a transaction and getting equity businesses off the ground in six months versus three years from now, I think I would choose getting them off the ground sooner because I think we've waited just far too long, and I think that our process to date has been very frustrating. And so I think that that's part of the. The weight of the options. Obviously not increasing taxes best, but if it means it's going to be a three and a half year delay because the two of you are going to have to singlehandedly lift eight dispensaries off the ground. I just don't know how it could be physically possible for you to do. There's just that amount of workload that's feasible and there's an amount of work that does not. I do recognize there's a national discussion going on with legalization and perhaps the grant funding will be available. And I think that would be an amazing opportunity. And if that is, I also think that there's potentially a lot of equity funding coming from major foundations. I just don't how we get that into the city because most of their grant requirements are that it goes through a nonprofit. I don't know how we're set up to make that happen, but when it comes to moving this program forward, I'm very passionate about making sure that that happens. And I support councilman. Price's comment regarding. It's trying to find a way to distribute these evenly across the city. And I do completely agree with Councilman Allen about the density issues. And even with as many parks as I have and of many non zones that I have, we still have a lot of zones and I think that in discussing with the community certain dispensaries as they were put in. If if we could be a part of those discussions. I think we know our communities pretty well. And there are some locations that literally across the street would have been acceptable. But where they are is just the foot traffic of the kindergarten or the. It's just it's not always just about a circle around the location that really makes sense. It's a path of travel. It's a lot of things. And when you talk to a dispensary owner, some of those other things are very valuable. So I haven't actually mentioned this to Eliot, but he's right off a freeway. Nobody's ever made a negative comment about his because it's kind of like tucked into a corner and people have easy access on and off of the freeway versus another dispensary that might have significantly less traffic that is 1000 feet from a high school. And that one is highly controversial and highly frustrating for the community. They have no parking. They're constantly impacting the neighborhood. I mean, everything about that dispensary is a struggle. And so when you kind of work through what that is, I think that there's a lot of contacts that we could help provide you with that mapping. But I also recognize that there's some legal components of just like. How you articulate that in working with development services to make sure that we're equitably applying rules across the city and there's not just one versus another, so. Very supportive of both of those. But I do want to just say that while I don't want to increase taxes, I don't want this program to take three years. So what is your timeline on coming up with a solution and or bringing back? A temporary solution and or a proposal. I'm not sure we know yet. So we brought a proposal tonight with change a little bit. So we'll go back and do a little bit of work. It'll be after December and then we'll come back with some ideas. And for me again, I don't want to raise taxes if I don't have to, but I would rather raise taxes 0.3% on recreation and 0% on medical. If that meant the same amount. Just trying to protect those that are using marijuana as a medical youth. So that's what I'd like to just continue to voice as a priority. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. And comma forgot what I was cued to say. But I do think that to Councilmember Price's point in terms of. Addressing density and equitable distribution of licenses throughout the city. I think expanding green zones will expand opportunity for that and I do think we as a council have to also be realistic to the market demand as well, and that plays a role into where these businesses are located. I'll probably have less than anybody on the council. I have one in my my district. You guys remind me of that often. That's right. On the liquid border. So I don't know why that dynamic is. Perhaps, you know, it's hard to place cannabis businesses in the district because of the current restrictions that we have. We have a lot of parks. We have daycare centers, we have schools. So I'm very supportive of bus. Inconsistent with the state policy. I think that's a smart approach that opened up opportunities for for these cannabis exclusive cannabis equity licenses to be successful in our city. And then again, yes, we'll have that of conversation about. Oversaturation. But I think this is a great starting point, and I'd love to get to a vote so we can get that to work and move this item. Thank you. And then finally, transformers in death. You just wanted to make a quick clarification. I was hoping that my request for and the feasibility of increasing the footage from one 1000 to 1500. The feasibility of it could be a friendly. The woman, Alan. Yes. iPod. My understanding is that that number was 1600 now to match up with state regulations. And that's just the distance that it's from schools and things like that. So I'm not sure I understand. No, I think I think Councilman Van de Haas is proposing to expand the buffer between dispensaries from 1000, which we were not proposing to amend to 1500. Yeah. I accept. Just so we understand, that wouldn't be from ones that are currently in place. It's only for the that the eight new ones. Is that correct? Because we wouldn't be able to change anybody who already has a brick and mortar dispensary. Yes. Then it would be when new ones come in, we would look at the feasibility of doing 1500 from each other for the New Haven. And my purpose for that is to make sure that we give these new dispensaries a chance to be able to be successful and be able to be sustainable. That we can certainly bring back a second map that shows one with an one without. So the council can look at that as we move forward. Thank you. Councilmember Allen. Okay. Okay. So my comments come from Brockton. I just I feel like that the last friendly amendment respectfully makes it more restrictive where we're trying to reduce to the buffer zones and expand. Opportunities for for equity licenses to be located in our city. And that that particular addition seems to. Who might be a little bit more restrictive. Right. It pushes us in the other direction. Now, can you answer that question for me? Yeah. So I need to correct the mindset is when we do buffers from fixed assets, we can certainly plot that on a map if we are doing hypothetical parcels that have not been selected yet because we won't know where they're going to go until they get through their process and bring us a leaf. Those are going to be essentially impossible for us to map so we can give you some ideas of what that means. But we would definitely be shrinking the Green Zone a little bit if we go to 1500 as opposed to keeping it at 2000. And it would just be a feasibility, nothing to actually decide on today, but just to see what what it would look like. So why don't we try this when we add in to. Right, we'll read you up an analysis of what the pros and the cons would be, and we'll have that answer returned when we come back. Awesome. That's perfect. Thank you. And counsel on Mongo. To address the comments of both because of all of them that they have and the previous comments of Councilman Price and to factor in the need for it not to be as restrictive as Councilman Austin has just brought up my. Thoughts on how we can solve this problem right now without having to worry about all of that coming back. Is any any equity dispensary that's proposed within an area that was previously a restricted area would go through a small coop process. Therefore, you'd have that opportunity at the last minute to work with what's already in that area and know that area well, like the peninsula, like a couple of other things to be able to say, would this work? Is that a good idea? I'm trying to come up with a solution so that you don't have a bunch of analysis. I think you're weighing in. That doesn't sound like it'll work. Councilwoman Mongo, just in the interest of talking about the reduction of cost associated with that right now, increased conditional use permit process is pretty costly. And I think with the most recent fee update that the council approved those fees increase again. And I'm going to. Don't don't quote me on it. But I think those fees are upwards of around 10,000 or 10 to 15000. So that's a pretty sizable cost to add to the the equity dispensaries. I see. And it councilmember in addition to the 10,000 I think we can work here at the staff table to accomplish. I hear the council's concern without creating okay not just the cost to the applicant but, you know, processing a conditional use permit. There is not there's reasons we don't see a piece for dispensaries because there's not a lot of conditions that we would add. And we're putting someone through this for nothing. We're just trying to think of a way that we wouldn't have all this. Yeah, I think the one. Thing that that my brother has taught me being an industrial and commercial real estate, is that the loss of time is money. And he would much rather pay an extra $0.25 a square foot to get his location opened now than to wait another 18 months or a year because time is money. And so I was just trying to think of what could we do to get this resolved tonight? Thank you for that additional call. We can do a consultation process here where the applicant is required to have a formal meeting with development services, is required to have a formal meeting with their relevant council representative. And if, based on the location, there is one, a neighborhood association that would not be in approval, it's just requiring them to have that consultation. And I think that would avoid the very costly fees. Thank you. Thank you so much. Great idea. Let me go to Councilman Press and we're going to go to a vote and we keep going back and forth. So we just need to include Councilman Price. And to say support Councilman Sun House's friendly. But I'm not sure if that's still relevant. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So I think we have the motion on the floor, which I'm going to repeat, which is staff recommendation. We're going to add the two friendlies that Councilwoman Pryce made. And then Councilman Sun has this motion as well, which is an analysis of the 1500. But also we're going to bring back the initial staff recommendation on the buffer zone. And then we are also eliminating the tax and looking for a grant as a first option or other state funding, but also authorizing staff to put in the initial 50 grand or whatever the cost is to get the process started. And we are trying to focus on a more merit based process than the one presented by by staff. I think I got that motion correct. That is correct. Okay. With that, there is a motion and a second. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion is carried. Thank you. Let's go ahead and go to item number one.

Recommendation to request City Auditor to perform an independent review of the Marina Fund (TF403), Tidelands Operating Fund (TF401) and Rainbow Harbor Fund (TF411) expenses within the next 30 days to determine whether or not the Marina Fund is subsidizing the non-marina Tidelands areas, and report findings to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager. Additionally, request City Manager to direct city staff to provide City Auditor with the information needed to complete the analysis in a thorough and timely manner.

LongBeachCC_03182014_14-0228

18 1808. I'm sorry, 18. This is a report from the Office of Councilmember Gary DeLong and Councilman Residual, although with a recommendation to request the auditor to perform an independent review of the Marina Fund. Mr. DOANE. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm bring this item forward because boat owners for quite some time had been concerned about inappropriate charges, the marina fund. It become particularly concerning with the potential shortage of funding to commit to complete the rebuild and staff in 2013. Took a look at this and there was a memo in January of 2013 where they felt that perhaps there's $895,000 in charges that might not have been applied appropriately. But then subsequently, they came back after some additional analysis and either the numbers 195 or it could be 488, depending on how you read the memos. There's also some concerned I know Councilmember O'Donnell and others brought up recently. We had talked about the Army Osprey. Marina, was what was the historical should there have there been in the past an ongoing issue where expenses were charged, the Marina Fund, and that probably should have been a Tidelands or another fund. And then finally, I guess it's not clear from this what was correct in 2013, what was corrected this year, what needs to be corrected to make sure that it's certainly proper in for 15 and any trips that might be necessary would occur. So the purpose of this is to ask the city auditor to not recreate the will, but to take a look at the work product and get an understanding of how these determinations were made and then, you know, produce a report back to the council of what it ought to be. So my motion is to approve the recommendation. That. No one seconded. Any public comment on this issue? Please come forward. Identify yourself. You see the yellow light? You have 30 seconds left. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. I'm Tom Mays. I live at 4300 Theresa Street in Long Beach, and I am the president of the Long Beach Marina Boat Owners Association. We support this audit for a number of reasons. I think Councilman DeLong highlighted most of them. We want to make sure that marina funds that are supported through our slip fees are used for marina purposes and not other purposes in the city. We do not like the idea of possibly being a cash cow for uses other than the marina. Our concern in the near term and longer term is that the Alamitos Bay rebuild continues on schedule. It's already fallen behind. You know that additional costs have been incurred because of that. And we know that it's the slip fees that pay for that rebuild. We want to make sure that we pay enough, but not too much. We want a first class, world class marina. And for that reason, we are asking that you support this audit to identify sources and uses of funds to perhaps see what is available for that marina rebuild. And the boat owners will happily make up the difference. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Mr. West, we can count on your full cooperation here. Yes, Mayor. Councilmembers. We do audit the Marina Fund and the Titles Fund annually for the capital through KPMG. I had a chat with Mostow today will participate fully. As you might recall, two weeks ago, the city council directors come back in 30 days with a review of what we're doing with Alameda Space Marina. We're right in the middle of that, and we certainly expect to come back on April 15th with a full report on Marina funds, title and funds that Councilmember O'Donnell talked about that might have switched over to the marina funds that kind of titles back in the eighties. And we'll answer all those questions on the 15th. But in the meantime, I think what Mr. DeLong is looking for is more of a smaller audit regarding the operation of these memos. These memos, contents. And we'd certainly work with Laura Dowd to do that. You know, I share his concern on this. So, I mean, is going to be something I'm going to be paying attention to as well, Mr. West. I want to make sure that the funds that were used in the Marina Fund were and charged off on here were appropriate. And I don't think that should take that long. But I'm going to count on your office's full cooperation here. Mr. DELONG. Mr. West answered the question, and I agree. We're looking for kind of a small just take a review. But, you know, not to recreate the wheel here. And I and at your request, I did talk to the city auditor. I see that she's here. And it's my understanding that she feels that she could complete this with a minimal of amount of involvement from Parks Rec staff as well as financial management. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Well, thanks, Mayor. And I just wanted to kind of concur and say that, you know, I hope that the city doesn't have to recreate the wheel. So the extent she can look at documents and something else is already being done. I know you already have a lot of work on your plate, Laura, and a lot of other priorities. So certainly we want to get this right as an important project. But I hopefully you can do this within your resources and not re-inventing too much of what's already been done. So thanks for looking at this down. Great. Thank you all. Mr. Ross, you you already broached. And that's that we have somewhat of a historical autopsy to look at how the money's been transferred and take a look in. You know, even even when you come back to us, you can open as to whether using the General Tidelands Fund would be appropriate and would it be beneficial to get this project moving. So thank you. All right. We have a motion in the second and I'd of 18 members cast your votes. Mr. good you. Very good you courtesy address. I support this, but I do not support any attempt whatsoever of putting any sideboards on this audit. Let the city auditor do her job. She's a professional. Let her get inside of all aspects of the Tidelands funds as well as the Marina funds, and see if there's been any Bernie Madoff linking of moneys from one place to another. One figure that comes out of mind to mind that needs to be investigated and it could possibly be used with is if on loan that was the two is the 203 nearly $300,000 that Councilman Garcia concealed from the boat the coastal commission relative to the rouge and the guys to take $300,000 of tidelands money and and give it make it a public gift. So one or two people could see an increase in their investment by the raising of Marine Stadium structure to s, which was a prime a epicenter of nocturnal crime, when, in fact, the Long Beach Police Department shows their records show as produced through the public housing . And this is on the subject. Well, this is a 3000 $300,000 subject. We're talking about moneys from the marina area and tidelands area that could be used to this money that has been purloined off or attempted to purloined under a criminal guise, should be investigated and you should not attempt to silence it, and you should not attempt to put sideboards on it. The city auditor needs to know where that $300,000 is. And whether or not those $300,000 could be used as partially to jump start and refinish this and to complete this project and really rebuild project, even if it has to be. And I'm suggesting what they do is revert back to having the city construct the docks out of wood on a gangway by gangway approach instead of duplicating the very terrible mistake it made. Well, thank you, Mr. Goodyear. We're off the subject now. Thank you. Appreciate we got your point. I appreciate it. Thank you. What's the. Point? Well, your point is you want the auditor to have free hand or she will. Thank you. And we'll report back where that $300,000 is. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We're going to move. Members, cast your vote tonight. A meeting. Motion carries April Chess. Item nine Cookery.

Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions and Clean-up at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC_02022016_2016-2493

But the outline of the presentation is to go over the background history of the base a little bit and then discuss the various but the two important environmental programs that are being used to clean the base up. The status of the clean up and the transfer and land use covenants to restrict the land where that's necessary, where there's not unrestricted use. And then I'll touch briefly on the long term stewardship of the land. Next slide, please. I guess I can do that. I can. Oh, I went the wrong way then. Okay. So just so you know what Alameda used to look like in 1915, the Alameda point basically wasn't there. So. I guess I don't have a. There's a laser. There is I don't think have a battery in this either because they didn't advance it anyway. So. And the figure in the left, there's a North-South rail line or it looks like a road that's roughly where Main Street is today. And you can see there's very little land that is. Yes. So this is the only land that was original part of the island. From time to time, people would say, well, why doesn't the Navy just go in and clean it up the way it used to be? That would essentially involve removing Alameda Point, which nobody really wants. During World War two, the Navy started operations here. In 1940, they bought the land from the from the army, and they have expanded it considerably since the current outline over here goes something like this. It's roughly a third of the city of Alameda. The Navy did everything from soup to nuts here. When they were here, they did refueling of aircraft, refurbishing of aircraft maintenance, had a large residential operation, automotive repair. But a fuel handling. The total acreage is about four and a quarter square miles, but 2700 acres, about 40% of it's under water. The Feds decided to close the base in 1993, and the Navy actually left in 1997. So just for comparison of size, very briefly, on the left is a picture of like Merritt. On the right, of course, is me to point. Which is about 17 times the size of Lake Merritt. This. This is a little washed out, but this shows the. Various cleanup areas at Alameda Point. So what the Navy did originally, along with the regulators, has reviewed all the documentation that was available for Alameda Point, interviewed all sorts of people, decided where the potential to were problems and they investigated them, decided what to do about it if it wasn't clean. And then they have implementing the cleanup. So there are two parallel programs to clean it up. One of them is Superfund. The longhand name for it is Cercla or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Where they have. We call it Cercla, but Cercla does not cover petroleum products. Congress specifically excluded that, but the state of California oversees the cleanup of the petroleum issues that at Alameda Point. The circular part which is the non petroleum had 34 separate areas that were suspected needed to be investigated. Few of them needed no work whatsoever. Some of them need a little work and some of them needed a lot of work. The decision making on how to investigate it and what work to do is carried out by BCT or the BRAC cleanup team. BRAC is an acronym for Base Realignment and Closure. It's the Navy, EPA, Etsy and Water Board and I attend these meetings as well, which I think is fairly unique among any Navy bases that that there are. The Navy's come to accept that it was a little tough at the beginning. We have a restoration advisory board, which is a formal community participation with community members on the board and the BCT members also tend. And participate. Petroleum Cleanup has 23 corrective action areas, which are generally collections of issues such as a tank farm or whatnot. Here is an area where there was a rather large underground leak, and this is the cleanup operation. It has since been successfully finished. Both the both the California and EPA have lots of support people both on staff and as contractors. With the state important roles are handled by. Not only the water board and ETSI, but also CDP, which is the California Department of Public Health, to deal with radiological issues and then see Cdph and California Department of Fish and Wildlife . So the cleanups, the strategy for the cleanup should Alameda point are to use innovative technologies whenever possible ended up as quickly as you can and they usually are able to clean it up. If it's only soil contamination at 1 to 5 years, they can clean it up. If it's groundwater contaminated as well. The initial active remediation is 1 to 5 years, but there's sometimes a tail where there's some residual contamination that gradually gets treated further over time, and there will be generally land use restrictions until that is completed. They were also selecting a remedy. They're mindful of the energy impact. The majority of the base is being cleaned up to residential standards. That's unrestricted. The Navy has spent over half a billion dollars out here so far. That's supporting various regulatory agencies, their own efforts, their contractors. Is the amount that they're spending that they have strictly spent and what they expect to spend. They. They also do some local hiring for their cleanups. A lot of the people who do the work are highly specialized and are not from Alameda. But they still stay at Alameda and they eat at Alameda while they're doing the work. So it's it is does have some economic silver lining to it. So the status quo in property transfer. Initially, the city leased about 1000 acres. A little over 300 acres were had been transferred before 2011 because of the term one, which was an area that had only been leased, Navy never owned it, which is down south easternmost portion along the shoreline, east housing, Coast Guard housing, all that was transferred before 2011. About 1400 acres were transferred in the phase one in 2013. The Veterans Affairs got a large chunk of the runways. Four years ago and about 200 acres are going to be transferred this spring. It's in the phase two. So here's another washed out figure. So the the blue is the part that's already been transferred to the city. The white the large white part is the is the vai. The white to the north is the sports complex that was also transferred the the pinkish, which includes Seaplane Lagoon and the and the the piers and a few other areas around there are going to be transferred that spring. There's a small portion out on the runways as well that's in that transfer. And then the the red and purple or parts are going to be transferred in the future over the next. Five years say. Another show, the environmental sites. We're going to talk about a few of them that have been particularly active lately. By the way, many of these have been cleaned up just because the colors there doesn't mean that is still a big problem. Okay. Here's our site, one, which is a former landfill. It's the original landfill that was at Alameda Point and it's in the northwest corner of the runways. When they needed to expand the runways, they essentially dug it up and moved it to the southeast corner, which is seed for that landfill. But at any rate, this this landfill had quite a bit of soil and groundwater remediation work that needed to be done. The groundwater work, as it looks like it's mostly done. There's a little bit more testing to confirm that. And except for revegetation, which is going on now, the soil cleanup is completely done. So the Navy is really proud of that. And they ought to be because they spent a huge amount of money doing it. Seaplane Lagoon has had its remediation essentially completed. They dug out contaminated sediment in the northeastern north west corners that had become contaminated from from material that came down the industrial waste lines from building five mainly and contaminate the sediment. And the Navy moved about 100,000 cubic yards, tried it, tested it, disposed most of it out. Is part of the remediation landfill. Some of it got hauled off site. In the process of doing that, they found 51. Very small items embedded in the sediment that had radio luminescent paint on them like on it, like on a Timex watch or something in the old times. As a result of that which no one knew about when they did the original cleanup decision making, as a result of that, they are amending the the official cleanup remedy to require that any future dredging there be conducted consistent with a sediment management plan which is currently being drafted. An approved. And this is the third site that I want to talk about that is that is actually is active now just for reference. Seaplane Lagoon is is over. People going is here. Main Street is here. Atlantic is here. This is the oval with the airplane right there. So this this blue feature here is groundwater contamination that came mainly from these brown. Hotspots, which is what we'll say, which are where solvents, mainly degreaser, is from. The Navy's operations largely related to this building 3060 got into the groundwater and very slowly migrated over to Seaplane Lagoon. And Navy is has done considerable cleanup there. They are going to do quite a bit more cleanup above this line. Is land that's going to be transferred this spring. So there was that there was. Some saw contamination there, which the Navy has successfully cleaned up. There is one small area here that has cobalt in soil that is unacceptable for residential use. So it's going to be used for a park, completely fine for a park. The only other area where there is soil contamination that requires a restriction upon transfer is the small area right here. In both this case and this case, the reason why the Navy isn't digging it out and hauling it away the same as they did up here is because it is underneath buildings. If it ever makes a difference that this contamination here is actually quite shallow under the building. It would not be a huge effort to clean it up. Anybody want to do that? But since you're going to put a park there, it doesn't matter. See, this is the. I guess we're talking about four sites tonight. Sorry. So this is this is building five. Which was this along with the site that we've talked about just before, or neck and neck for the most contaminated sites at this point. And that's why the ones that they're still working on. Low hanging fruit has been already addressed. There is groundwater where these. Blue Circles are that still needs to be cleaned up in order for it to be acceptable for commercial use. Once that's done, the entire footprint of the building will be acceptable for commercial use but not residential. Same is true for building 400 right here. Those slabs will have to be maintained intact because there is contamination in the soil under them, which is not a problem as long as these slabs are in place. But because they used to drive airplanes on, slabs are over a foot thick. So nobody's really going to get to it. If anybody has to dig through it, they can get permission to do that so long as they, you know, provide a work plan that shows how they're going to do it safely. Then restore the floor. Related to this building is an industrial waste line that is shown here. So is building five again. And again, in Building five, they used to work on radio, luminous radio luminescent paints for refurbishing dials and stuff like that that clean their brushes in sinks. And before the Clean Water Act that all went out in the storm sewer and got routed down to Seaplane Lagoon where it contaminated the sediment. And as they told you, they cleaned that up for. So as a result, is the potential that these lines also were could have been contaminated. They've done a lot of testing on them and they have shown that the contaminant levels are much lower than where than what they had feared initially. And we're looking at some use restrictions so that if they're all on the streets, if anybody ever digs there, they have to follow certain procedures. Decision making is not quite done on it. So there's land use covenants in a few areas that aren't available for unrestricted use. This is run by Dtsc since after it's closed, EPA generally federal EPA generally balance out and involves annual inspections, at least in monitoring. In some cases, it depends upon what the residual material is. And then ditzy sort of remains involved essentially forever if there if there is any contamination that that remains. For example, they they work with this outfit called Pterodactyl so that if anybody ever. It's a permit to dig in order to dig. You have to if to check with utilities and whatnot, it's he gets a call if that location is within an area that has a restriction on it. And then DTC gives me a call or somebody at the city to see whether they've actually. Whether they're violating the restriction or not. Wherever there is any contaminants remaining, the Navy and the regulators do a five year review just to make sure that the remedy that they have selected remains protective, that there isn't any advancement in science that shows that it's worse than they had thought, or that some other reason, it's just not it's just not as protective as they had intended it to be. This is the last slide. So if people want to participate, I strongly urge membership and attendance to the RAB Restoration Advisory Board. The Navy's website is there. The information repository. This wanted me to point in building one. I think that room number may be obsolete, but I don't know the current one. But staff at Public Works and first floor. They'll tell you where it is in the library across the street also has many of the more recent documents. That's it. Thank you for the presentation and council comments. Remember Daisuke? I think the quick comment I just want to say is for the residents of Alameda who are watching or who might watch subsequently via the Internet. This is incredibly important. We, the City Council on behalf of residents, will soon be accepting certain properties. We have accepted, gone through a similar process previously. Several years ago, I think it was two years ago. And now we're continuing that. So this is incredibly important that we exercise our due diligence and make sure to ask a lot of important questions. Thank you. I swear. Can I ask if there is a any kind of funding from the Navy? Or Department of Defense just to pay for the sediment management that's now required because there was contamination that was previously not found and not remediated in the seaplane lagoon. I understand that there is insurance or a future development. There's like three levels of insurance that the cleanup. But there's an added burden now of whoever takes that land, which our next agenda item is us for having a sediment management plan if we ever want to dredge it. And that's an additional cost over and above a standard of. The regular bay restrictions that we have so can address. Yeah. No, no, there isn't. I mean, there's no I mean, the institutional control that was changed in the plans of Peter was talking about was to essentially require this added layer of review. I mean, so there and potential a work plan and approach to how we would do it if we were to dredge in one of so that they they are not I mean that's what's put in place is to have to follow those procedures if and when someone does and there is some additional costs related to managing that sediment. I will say, though, that we did as part of our, you know, analysis and due diligence of this whole process for the Seaplane Lagoon was actually had conducted a Bathymetric survey updated one which essentially means like a topographical survey of the bottom of the sea plate lagoon and determine that it is a very deep lagoon. And in working through the ferry terminal, for instance, we know that we can construct a ferry terminal, that dredging that there would be very little, very little dredging, maintenance shoaling, it's called where the sediment comes in and, you know, builds up and then you got to dredge it. Maintenance dredges, very minimal maintenance dredging, very little shoaling. And so we feel there's actually very little cost implication related to that sediment. And I will say if the dredging in and of itself is very expensive, no matter what, whether or not, you know, wherever you're dredging and there are other contaminants and other things in the soil or in the sediment. And so if we did have to dredge at some point, we don't think we will for the fact we're I'm sure we're, in fact, designing the terminal around making sure we don't have to dredge. And we think there's very little maintenance dredging, you know, to extent. There's a project that's unforeseen at this point that has to dredge. It will be it will not be inexpensive. And we want to try to design it to try to minimize the dredging because of those costs. But um, yeah. That is an important point though, because. I thought I saw somewhere where the married is there reviewing their options, particularly with regard to the matter of dredging. Since the marriage, ships have to be ready to move on a certain notice and that would then have ramifications to the city of Alameda since marriage ships are such a large customer of of of of amp. So I think. There's a lot of interrelated moving parts. And that's why, you know, a presentation like this evening on this is incredibly important. And just because it's important as two tier two differences. One is that the shipping channel does show pretty significantly. And so that is part of the problem is that it does the sediment comes in and builds up and then it has to be dredged pretty regularly. And then the second issue is the Marriott ships are very big and require a certain depth. And so what we foresee occurring in the lagoon we have one benefit is it doesn't show very, almost very little falling to none. And then second is that we don't anticipate that those types of ships in the lagoon, we anticipate ferries and recreational boating and things like that that don't require that same sort of depth. So we have two benefits in the lagoon that are very different from the the shipping channel and the marriage ships. Great. Thank you. The other comments, I want to thank Mr. Russell for your service. You've been doing this for 18 years for our city. You also attend the Restoration Advisory Board meetings, and I would encourage community members to attend the meetings. You don't have to be a member to attend. It's open to the public. They're very educational. And is there any chance you happen to know when the next meeting is? You guys just have one January 14th? Yeah, it's pretty. Every two months. So it'll be sometime in mid-March. And there is a Facebook page for community members to find it on there, too. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. And that's just a presentation, so we don't need to vote. However, it's almost 11:00, so we need a motion to continue our meeting. So moved. Second, all those in favor I motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now we're on six f. Adoption of resolution authorizing the city manager to accept on behalf of the city certain surplus federal property into accept, execute and record conveyance documents in substantial conformance with certain fees to property conveyance documents from the United States of America acting by and through the Department of the Navy to implement the Economic Development Conveyance Agreement for the former

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7166 and award a contract to Keller North America, Inc., of Irvine, CA, for construction of the Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment Facility Ground Improvements Project, in the amount of $1,260,000, with a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $189,000, for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,449,000; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_03172020_20-0239

District five. A six by seven. I hate. I a. Hi. Thank you. Motion carries over. Moving on. Item 25, which is. Will be must contract. Report from Public Works. Recommendation to award a contract to Keller North America for construction of the Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment Facility Ground Improvements Project. For a total contract amount not to exceed 1,449,000 District one. I'm going to go ahead and without objection, go to the go to a vote. I don't see any public comment. Actually, no, I don't see any public comment on this. And so we will go to a roll call vote unless there's any objection. All right, District one. I was. District two. I District three. I district for. High five. I six. By seven. I ate. And. And now. That. We've had a cry from nine. That's nice. Okay. That's tonight. Thank you. We're going to come back to 27, be our last item. We're almost done with the rest of the agenda item 28.

Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or His Designee to Execute a 66-Month Lease with One Option to Extend the Term for 60 Months with Park Street Wine Cellars, Inc. for the Premises at 2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122 (Historic Alameda Theatre Building). [Requires Four Affirmative Votes] (Commercial Revitalization 227)

AlamedaCC_10012019_2019-7181

Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Ninette Mercado in the Community Development Department. So as described, we are presenting a 66 year lease for 466. No. Just now. That's another 166 month lease. That was so for it in 66 month lease. Are you paying. With an option to extend for another five, four, five years for 23, 15 Central Avenue that is formerly was in wine bar and we're transforming it into a wine retail facility. And it's more than just that. And yesterday, the mayor sent some questions over because she's super detail oriented and about what and what the operations would look like in the wine facility. Her concern was that it was just a run of the mill retail shop and that she wanted really something special in that location. So I thought I would give you a few little bullet points that we sent to 202 mailers out for that. For that space, we received 90 inquiries and that some in response to the mailer and just people driving or walking by. We had 35 showings of the of the building of the space. And we received four offers. Of those offers, two couldn't provide us with adequate financials, and we went forward with negotiating with two. And then we countered both of them with the same offer, and one dropped out. And so we moved forward with the Park Street wine cellars. And actually wine cellars is not going to be your run of the mill retail shop. It's going to be a destination. The people who run the facility have a great history and doing and doing just that, running these facilities or running a wine a wine retail shop. They're going to specialize in primarily European wines from Italy, France and Spain, and they're going to have very high end California wines that the idea of their operations is focused around creating a destination rather than being dependent upon foot traffic. They their program will include educational wine seminars, wine and food pairing seminars and Wine of the Month club. They are going to be hosted in their facility and they're going to allow the patrons the opportunity to taste and explore the latest arrivals that come into the shop. And their staff will discuss the wines and give background on each of the wines that are being offered there, and every wine will be able to be sampled in their facility. They are definitely focusing on having the personal touch. One thing of note is Mr. Massy is he won't be dependent on wholesalers coming in and telling in trying to tell him which wines to buy because he himself is a wholesaler. So he'll be able to be very specific in the types of wines that they offer in that shop. Recently I asked to. Mr.. Mr. Massie, how are you different from the shops that are in your look in in the vicinity. And he said that because he is a wholesaler, he can make sure that his wines are of the highest quality and also the fact that they are really going to be a personalized focus on the client, the clients who come in and offer like different sorts of educational opportunities for people to feel like they are wine experts themselves after they leave. The last thing that I like to talk about, I know first of all, the mayor asked about the operating hours and Mr. Massy is proposing to be closed on Sundays and Monday through Thursday, be open from 10 to 7 and Friday and Saturday, 10 to 9. And then finally, finally, Mr. Massy, their marketing program. And then they are asked because they they do have a wine, a website up already. And there was concern about, you know, putting the cart before the horse. And the masses are really trying to create a social media marketing plan they are dependent on. They want to create a a buzz about their app or their coming and then make people want to come and visit and have that experience of wine learning about wine pairing so different wines from different regions. So they really want to create and they have a history of doing this, a space that people will want to come to. So it we believe that it fits in with what's happening on that street, with that with the theater and then our new burger shop, that it's something where people will want to come and spend time and then meander around Park Street. So we think it's a really good tenant opportunity for us. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll just make a quick comment because it's true. I sent Ms.. McCann, I bet she's used to my lengthy emails with questions. And my primary concern was the staff report was pretty sparse. And I just wanted to know who are these folks and why do they think they can make a go of a wine shop in this area? And going forward, when we're considering a lease, I'd love to know more than the monthly amount of rent and the the length of the lease and the names of the lessees. Because. Not only for my own. Purposes in order to make an informed decision. But in this case, we're considering city owned property, and we need to also inform the public. And so I did a little Googling and I found this website, and I was a little surprised that it was out there. But it was it's very nice and it's very informative. And so I know that for more than ten years, Mr. Massy operated a wine business outside somewhere in the Houston, Texas area. And I believe that in 2011, he and his wife and family came to Alameda. And I think that's great. I just feel like I probably shouldn't have to do quite so much sleuth work. But you know me, I will. I will. And so, I mean, I'm I'm excited about this prospect, but let's hear from other council members. Council questions, comments, motion. Um. I'll make a quick comment. Yeah. So there's a time. I mean, I don't want to micromanage, but there are other parts of the world that produce great wines. South Africa produces great wines Lebanon, South Korea, Australia. So anyway, and I've tried Sugar-Free wines, which are actually quite interesting. So just this just I'm trying to cut back on sugar, but I'm of approval of the item. Oh, okay. So, so we have a second in discussion or. Okay, yeah. I'll, I'll go ahead and second. Okay. And then Councilmember Vela. Yeah, I think to the mayor's point, I think a little background is sometimes helpful. Just to give us context about, you know, one of my concerns is always going to be, you know, how is this going to be viable? Are we going to be back at the table, you know, relatively quickly? Are there going to be issues that come up? And I think having that context is always helpful. I know that staff in the past has offered prospective tenants the ability to write us a letter or something like that. I think those sorts of things can be helpful just so that we have some a little more context because we're not at the bargaining table with you. Right. And I think really what we're looking for is how is this going to kind of envisioning what the what the business is going to be like? And, you know, hopefully that the lease that we're negotiating is something that's going to be successful for everyone. And I see that we have the applicant in the audience and I see his hand is up. Perhaps that means you'd like to increase because. So is that all right? Just before he comes up, I would just say I apologize that that the staff report was not as thorough as it should have been. And now I know that the council really wants a lot more context and details. And so in the future, you're going to get what you ask for it. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So, Mr. Massie, come on up. Good evening. Evening. My name is Christopher Massey. And I'll just start by saying that I've been in the wine industry for 35 years and I'm a certified Somalia, trained in Burgundy. And that's why the focus on the European wines I trained there in 1989 and 1990, and my focus has always been on European wines. And I do realize, of course, that there are other places in the world and you will see a smattering of just about everything in the store, from South Africa to Lebanese wines to Finger Lakes wines to just about anything you can imagine is going to be in the store. It's only 700 square feet, though, so we've got to have a focus. And my wife and I will run this the same way that we ran our stores in Houston, and that's with great care and attention to detail and with a customer centric focus. And that's why we launched the the website was just to get the information that were coming and it's just kind of a marketing and it's all we're real, we're very marketing oriented sales and marketing kind of oriented. And so that's, that's why we launched. It's just, it's just an informative piece. If you look at it, it's really here's all about Christopher. If you read the website that's yeah. I got that an opening for 2019. No it was, it was very nice again. That is how I learned about it. Yeah. About you and your experience. It's, it was more that than anything else. And so I can assure you that this this endeavor will completely fly. We've been chomping at the bit since we put in our letter of intent and, uh, May 17th this when we put in our letter of intent. So we are ready to go. I think if you feel like you've said enough, I think there's a motion about to be voted on. Excellent. But perhaps the vice mayor has a question. Any questions? I don't have a question. Okay. I just want to say, I've sat through a few of these meetings and I would like to restart and say I'm really I don't drink wine. You probably won't see me in your in your I don't drink at all. So you won't see me in your store likely. And I say just go there with my wife, who does. But I'm excited and I'm wishing you well. Thank you for supporting this. Thank you. I just want to make sure that we we launch out of this vote in a positive way. And thank you. Thank you. You hear nice. Things. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And I, for one, am excited about a locally owned business. So thank you. And Councilmember Vela made the motion. Someone seconded it. Yeah. Nice to meet you. Me? Okay. All right, so we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor. I All right, that was unanimous. So congratulations. Welcome and good work. Council. Okay, let's see. Where are we? We've got item seven City Manager Communications.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing, and adopt resolution confirming the Bixby Knolls Parking and Business Improvement Area Annual Report, continuing the levy of assessment for the period of October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016; and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with the Bixby Knolls Business Improvement Association for one year. (Districts 7,8)

LongBeachCC_10202015_15-1066

And you're not the infant. But I know what you meant. And so let's let's let's to hearing item one. I'm sorry. To. You can stay there. You don't have to move. We're coming right. Back. Report from Economic and Property Development Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and adopt resolution confirming the Bixby Knolls Parking and Business Improvement Area Annual Report. Continuing the levy of assessment for the period of October 1st, 2015 through September 30th, 2016, and authorize the City Manager to extend the agreement with the Bixby Knolls Business Improvement Association for one year. District seven and eight. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. Yes. Thank you very much. The BBC's Minos Business Improvement Association has is is doing a spectacular job on the eighth District as well as seventh District in its boundaries. It has engaged business owners. It is really engaged the residents and created an environment that is vibrant and thriving today. It wouldn't be possible without a great staff led by our executive director, Blair Cohn, his motivated staff to succeed, as well as our Kate Yoshioka. And they are constantly being innovative and creative in approaches to to keep the businesses engaged, excited and keeping Atlantic Avenue vibrant as well as Long Beach Boulevard. And so. Members I ask for your enthusiastic support for to. Approve the recommendation before us. Okay. And let me turn it over to Mr. Modica to see if there's a staff report. Good evening, Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. The report tonight will be provided by Mike Conway, the director of Economic and Property Development, Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. I make this relatively quick. This item is the annual approval of the Bixby Knolls Parking and Business Improvement Area Annual Report and ongoing levy of assessment. And the report proposes no change in the method of levying the assessment and no significant changes to the proposed activities. On September 22nd, 2015, City Council approve the annual report and set the hearing date for today to hear public testimony and with with that staff's request that Council received the supporting documentation into the record, approve the resolution, continue the levy and the assessment, and authorize the city manager to extend the agreement for another year. Thank you, Mr. Conway. And there's been a motion and a second. Is there any public comment? Good evening. Thank you, Vice Mayor, for beginning, Mr. Koch. And wait, I appreciate that. That was planned. I just want to give you a brief rundown of what's been going on here in Vic's Phenols for the last year. We're kind of at a crossroads this year. And, you know, the song Changes by boy, that's that's been our motto for the last year. So we kind of have the old school starting to retire and we're seeing new school coming in. And we're excited to announce that our Lola's on Fourth Street is coming up to become an all star to open a second location, as is the Twig and Willows Store, also on Fourth Street. And knock on wood, we've got a number of phone calls right now for other businesses looking to do the same thing. Expand within Long Beach, but into the Bixby Knolls area in the near future will see the steel craft project go in at Bixby and which boulevard, which are the cargo containers that will go in that corner with 5 to 7 eateries and activate that part of the district, especially the boulevard of serve the neighborhood as well as all the businesses there. We have said goodbye to our seven year project manager, Krystal Leader, to welcome Kate Yoshioka, who is very active in the city and she's a total dynamo and has really taken the reins and helped us move to the next level here. We've just launched our board in Bixby campaign where we challenge everyone in the neighborhood as well as the business owners themselves to not just not change their whole life, but to make a commitment to change at least one usage from somewhere outside the area, but into Bixby. And also if they get their hair done at the pump or gas somewhere else, make sure they do it here and then brag about it and post it through social media. We had an art component this year, creation of the gallery, which is we took the alley space between two businesses, put festoon lighting, put murals up on the wall. We closed it for special events, specially first Fridays and other events. So creating a public space right in the heart of the district, our utility boxes are being painted. Of course, we were part of the powwow event and the expo building got one of the murals. So we can have Expo in now housing the BIA office as well as the eighth district field office. And the programing is steady with the kids, theater company and activities. Now for seniors that are happening weekly, we have community meetings. We have the major Black History Month celebration every year. And of course, it's the arts hub for first Fridays, our facade of streetscape improvements. We've now painted over 40 buildings in the district and installed lighting all over to make sure that we are plenty vibrant, clean and safe programs are always the priority. We just hired a kid from Lonely City College to be our clean team, so he's out three days a week, picking up trash, reporting graffiti and anything else that he sees out there. And our security team hired the private security CSI that's out five nights a week and also three days a week, making sure that the district is safe. We're doing more outreach to our members, including our Bixby Business Breakfast, which is great time to get everybody together before they go to work and fill in what what we feel we've got doing. I'm not going to hit the 60 seconds here. I got just a few more food and wine. Coach coaching can wait. Still maintaining our monthly events and programs. Yes, we're seven and a half years of our walking club, 92 books into our literary society. We continue to push the city city's black agenda with our monthly critical mass rights. Of course, First Fridays has grown from a handful of businesses now to being the most important night for retailers and for the neighborhood. We partner with many community groups and recently hosted the I-Team and we're about to launch our Big Smiles Good Spirits Club. We'll let Mr. Austin speak on that. We have plenty great progress, what we call the Promised Land, but we must think, of course, the seventh and eighth District for their their support. The mayor and the city managers are partners in public works, development services, language PD and of course, the fire department and couldn't do it without the help of all the other bids and associations and all of our community groups and neighborhood leaders that we partners with. So we're having a good time up there. It's a very fertile land. Babies are being made. And we thank you for your time. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. But I'll defer to Councilmember Ranga since this is his district as well. They could go through Richardson. I want to congratulate the Beatles, B.B. King, for everything you're doing. And I just saw that you are going to be starting your good spirits club in the first establishment. The inaugural is going to be taking place in my district, the mighty seventh at the Pure Trenches on tour 22nd from 630 to 830. I hope to see people there and thank you for all you do. And congratulations on being a new dad. Councilman Richardson. Thanks. So, Councilmember Austin, Councilmember Arango, how jealous. How jealous we are. This is just fantastic. We're so excited about I mean, the whole city is excited about what's going on in Bixby Knolls. I think it's fantastic. I'm honored to cast a vote tonight and I'm going to do what Councilmember Dawson requests and cast an enthusiastic vote in support of this. I want to learn about what Bixby spirit is as well. So count, count on me. I'll be there to to help kick off the Bixby spirit. So thanks a lot. Councilwoman Price, thank you. I want to congratulate you on all the excellent work that you've been doing and on the baby, of course, just a minor thing. We've brought the baby to its first council meeting. You. You do excellent work and your council representatives are major champions of the efforts that you guys do in your bid. Unfortunately, you're not my favorite bid, but you're a pretty close, close second. You guys do really amazing work and there's some amazing businesses coming there. So thanks for all you do for the city and for all you do for your bid. Thank you. Thank you. And is there any other public comment on this item? CNN members cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. And if we can go back to Mr. Million's item. 25.

AN ORDINANCE authorizing an agreement with the Arboretum Foundation for support of the Seattle Japanese Garden.

SeattleCityCouncil_01112016_CB 118595

Please read the report. The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee Agenda Item 15 Council Bill 118 595 Authorizing an agreement with the Operating Foundation for support of the Seattle Japanese Guardian, the committee recommends that the bill pass with an abstention from Councilmember Harrell. Councilmember Bagshaw. Thank you very much. I will be addressing this since our former colleagues, Councilmember Rasmussen and Councilmember Gordon, are not here today to do so. This particular legislation proposes a mechanism for us to ensure the financial sustainability of the Japanese garden, and the legislation proposes the transfer of the fundraising responsibilities for the Japanese garden from ARC. That's her Association for Recreation Council to the Arboretum Foundation. The Arboretum Arboretum Foundation will assume responsibilities, as it does already for the Greater Arboretum. And all of you know that the Japanese garden is in the heart of the arboretum. So the foundation's duties, should we approve this will include fundraising, membership, program management, volunteer recruitment and event management, as well as fundraising and public outreach. The transfer of the duties is supported by a number of organizations, which I will speak to in just a moment. We also have heard some opposition from a few individuals, but what we are hearing from the Arboretum Foundation, the Parks Department, ask the Japanese Garden Advisory Board. And last week, I received a letter from Tony Omar Eguchi, who is president of the Seattle Tea Ceremony Association, that they are recommending that we proceed with this. The foundation will create a Japanese garden committee with a dozen members to address the multiple needs of the garden. The Arboretum found out a foundation has staff and board members that have demonstrated interest in and involvement with the Japanese culture. And you heard from several of them today, including Diana Doshi, who is here to speak to us, and Roger Williams. Also, Terry Holmes was here as a former board of Park Commission. So I'm going to just briefly talked about the basic obligations of the Arboretum Foundation, which will be to replace ARC as the primary support organization to recognize Seattle Parks and Recreation. That's our Parks Department. As the owner and operator of the Seattle Japanese Garden, for the garden to continue to work with the Parks Department to raise funds, recruit volunteers and so on. We will also support implementation through the Arboretum for designated events, coordinate and train volunteers, and to expand and implement the Japanese Garden Membership Program. There will be much more, but this is the basic outline. The committee recommended that we proceed, and as a new board member and Vice Chair of the Parks and Seattle Center Committee, I recommend that we approve this as well. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw. Are there any other comments on Council Bill 118595. I'll just make some comments. I'll reiterate the comments I made during the committee where I abstained, and that is that I think the goal, the goals are noble. And what we're trying to do, we're trying to have a premier Seattle Japanese garden. And it seems as though if you look at Portland as the model of one of the best in the country, that they seem to develop a core competency, a certain organization that strictly focuses on that kind of entity as opposed to it being part of a larger portfolio. And while I think the Arboretum Foundation is an outstanding organization, my concerns was whether the Parks Department had looked at other options or what those options were, and I didn't think that they presented any other options other than sort of moving forward. The Arboretum Foundation. I am going to support this legislation, but I would ask that the the new chair continue to really sort of do a deep dove on what other possibilities might be, what support the Arboretum Foundation may be. You may recall during the committee discussion, I asked the question whether the sale Japanese garden will be a standalone five one C3 in ten or 15 years or what the plans are there. And there was somewhat of a rich conversation, sort of mixed signals there and what may make sense down the road. But certainly as an interim step, this is what the department is at least suggesting. So I will support it, but I think a lot of work still needs to be done. So having said that, are there any other comments on this bill? Be noted. Please call the role on the passage of the Bill. Burgess by Gonzalez Herbold Johnson Suarez O'Brien. All right, so I beg Shar President Harrell. I. Nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and chair will sign it. Next we have one, two, three, four, six appointments, I believe. And and can you read all six into the record at once, please?

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Fire Department; authorizing the Fire Chief to execute and administer, for and on behalf of The City of Seattle, an interlocal agreement with 29 agencies that operate independent fire departments within King County to provide one another with automatic emergency response services under certain circumstances.

SeattleCityCouncil_12172018_CB 119431

The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities, New Americans and Education Committee Agenda Item 26 Council Bill 119431 An ordinance relating to the Seattle Fire Department authorizing the fire chief to execute and administer for one for and on behalf of the City of Seattle and Interlocal agreement with 29 agencies that operate independent fire departments within King County to provide one another with automatic emergency response services under certain circumstances. The committee recommends the bill pass. Kathryn Gonzalez. Thank you. Council President This ordinance authorizes the fire chief for the Seattle Fire Department to execute and administer an interim local agreement with 29 agencies operating independent fire departments within King County. This ALA allows the individual fire departments listed in the agreement to provide each other with fire, rescue and emergency services during emergent situations when those jurisdictions are stretched beyond their capacity. One example of this situation occurred on November 10th, 2018, when there was a four alarm fire at a lumber yard near the ship canal in Queen Anne. During that incident, almost all Seattle Fire Department resources were on the scene, and Chief Scoggins was able to call on partnering jurisdictions to have some of their trucks and firefighters backfill in neighborhoods throughout Seattle and respond to the various other nine on one calls so that the fire department could address the four alarm fire. Fire chief has been in discussions with the other 29 jurisdictions on this agreement for the past year, and this new ALA would supersede existing automatic or mutual aid agreements that have been in effect between these fire agencies and the committee by unanimous vote recommends that the full council adopt Council Bill 119431. Very good. Any questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. Make sure I Gonzales, i herbold II Johnson, President Harrell II six in favor of an opposed bill. Passed and shared with Senate. Please read items 27 through 37.

A RESOLUTION requesting King County and the State of Washington to increase services to address behavioral health conditions.

SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_Res 32026

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. The committee recommends that City Council adopt, as amended, the resolution. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on the resolution? Councilmember Strauss, please. I think your council president has more point of order for as we are voting, if when you request the clerk to call the walk, you call the item in which we are voting for. Following along the agenda, I just know there's so much we're voting on today. Sure. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, please. Thank you so much. Just a couple of words on this resolution. We all know that the impact of the pandemic on our mental health has been undeniable over the last year and a half. The unprecedented anxiety, pain and isolation of the past year and a half have led to negative mental health impacts and occasionally dropping into self-harm and gun fire, assault and other forms of violence. We want to note that this lack of adequate mental health resources is felt by Seattle residents every day at funding. Our behavioral health system is primarily a county and state responsibility. I'm pleased that our partners at King County are supportive of and aligned at. That leads to better support for Seattle residents that are struggling with behavioral health challenges. City is willing to do our part and we're looking forward to the county leading the way. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any additional comments on resolution 32026? Agenda item five. Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of resolution 32026? Agenda item five. Want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. As was KERA. I. Petersen. I. Council President Gonzalez. I. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Resolution 32026. Agenda item five is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read the title of item six into the record and the item six Resolution 32027.

On the motion and order, referred on May 4, 2022 Docket #0578, for the confirmation of the appointment of Sandro Galea as a member of the Boston Public Health Commission's Board of Health, for a term expiring January 6, 2024, the committee submitted a report recommending that the appointment ought to be confirmed. The report was accepted; the appointment was confirmed.

BostonCC_05252022_2022-0578

expiring January 15, 2025, submits a report that the appointment ought to be confirmed and Dr. Numbers 0578 The Committee on Public Health, Homelessness and Recovery, to which was referred on May four, 2020 to docket number 0578 message in order for the confirmation of the appointment of Sandro Iliya as a member of the Boston Public Health Commission's Board of Health for a term expiring January six, 2024, submits a report that the appointment ought to be confirmed. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The Chair now recognizes Councilor Murphy. Councilor Murphy is Chair of Public Health, Homelessness and Recovery. Councilor Murphy, you have the floor. Thank you and thank you for reading all of those. So I do. For docket 035 for I motion to substitute the language in the original docket. By adding Philomene, Baptiste will be appointed as an at large member of the Boston Public Health Commission based on an order from the mayor's office. The original docket listed did not listed as an at large member, so I did want to change the language there. Motion to substitute that these matters are sponsored by the Mayor and the Committee on Public Health, Homelessness and Recovery. Should I? Take a look. All those in favor, say. Oh, okay. And just. Mr. Clarke. You don't have to do a motion for it to be seconded. All those in favor of the motion to substitute. Please say. Thank you. Thank you. So these matters are sponsored by the mayor and the Committee on Public Health, Homelessness and Recovery. And we held a public hearing here in the chamber on May 20th, 2022 to take testimony and consider these appointments. In attendance was myself as the chair of the committee, and I was joined by President Flynn and Councilor Baker. Dr. Ojukwu to Executive Director of the Boston Health Commission, and PJ McCann, deputy director for policy and planning at the Boston Public Health Commission, attended the hearing, presented testimony and responded to questions from the chair and councilors. The presentation included an overview of the mission, jurisdiction and composition of the board and the duties and responsibility of the appointed members of the Boston Public Health Commission's Board of Health. In testimony in full support of these appointments, in re appointments to the Boston Public Health Commission's Board of Health under the Enabling Act, the Board of the Boston Public Health Commission serves as the Board of Health for the City of Boston. This act creates one seat on the board for the Chief Executive Officer of the Boston Medical Center. Two for representatives of community health centers affiliated with the BMC. In one to represent organized labor. Aside from the BMC, ex-officio seat members serve three year terms in. The Chairperson of the board is selected by the Mayor. The Enabling Act grants the Board the powers and duties of boards of health under Massachusetts law, except certain powers and duties previously assumed by other agencies. The powers of the Commission are exercised by or under supervision of a board of seven members appointed by the Mayor and may adopt, amend and repeal reasonable health regulations. The board's meetings are public meetings subject to open meeting law, and their records are subject to public health record law. The committee reviewed the resumes and credentials of the appointees. The appointees responded to questions from the chair and other councilors regarding their qualifications, relevant experience, background and areas of expertize. Based on these testimonies and information presented at the hearing and having considered the same, I respectfully report that these appointments in re appointments ought to be confirmed. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Murphy will not take a vote on each of these docket separately. Councilor Murphy, the chair of the Committee on Public Health, Homelessness and Recovery, seeks acceptance of the committee report and confirmation of Docket 353. All those in favor say I. I would say the ayes have it. The appointment has been confirmed. Councilor Murphy, the Chair and Committee of Public Health, Homelessness and Recovery, seeks acceptance of the consent of the Committee report as amended and confirmation of docket number 354. All those in favor say I. I are those opposed. They may. The ayes have it. The appointment has been confirmed. Councilor Murphy, the chair on Committee on the Committee of Public Health and Public Health Homelessness Recovery seeks acceptance of the Committee Report and confirmation of docket number 377. All those in favor say I am opposed. Nay, the ayes have it. Five, seven, seven. Sorry, guys have it. The appointment has been confirmed. We have to do it again. Are we good? Are we good with just that? Perfect. Uh, and, Mr. Clarke, would you please amend the attendance report to indicate Mr. Will, by counsel, will present his. Councilor Murphy, the chair of the Committee on Public Health, Homelessness and Recovery, seeks acceptance of the committee report and confirmation of Docket five, seven, eight. All those in favor say I. All those opposing this have it. The appointment has been confirmed. So see, we're going to move to motions already and resolutions. Thank you. Counsel filed for divorce. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I. You did see my light. I just had a question through the chair to the maker or to the chair. And I do get in conflict. It precluded me from attending the hearing. But when we strengthen the residence requirements, several years ago, we did get a commitment from the advice of Public Health Commission that they would adhere to that. And I just notice that we've got an address of Framingham and we've got an address of Brookline. And I know we've got some of the brightest minds right here in Boston, and I don't see Framingham or Brookline stepping up to the plate to help us siting detox facilities and halfway houses and recovery homes. So I just threw the chair to the maker. Want to know whether or not they had any response to that? Unless it's a specific seat designed to go to a specific person, say an executive director of a community health center. But I'd just like to sort of get that on the record and let the Boston Public Health Commission know that they committed to this body several years ago during during the period. So when we strengthen the residence requirement that they would be sending us, their representative would be from from the neighborhoods of Boston. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Flaherty. Councilor Murphy, the floor is yours. So I did check with that and we asked them both because they weren't hiding that they live in Brookline. In Framingham. And I was told that the enabling act says lives or works in and they both work closely in the city of Boston. But as you recall, we can check to see if. The cast of. So at this point, I want us to finish and remind them that they made a commitment to this body, that they would obviously make best efforts to when they're doing boards and commissions, that they be residents of the city of Boston. So I know they know that they have folks that work for the Boston Public Health Commission that are from the neighborhoods of Boston that would be most suitable, obviously, to serve in that capacity. So willing to, I guess, withdraw the inquiry to not block this. But they need to know loud and clear that the Boston City Council expects them to honor their word as it pertains to the residency requirement in the city of Boston. Thank you, Councilor. She removed two motions, orders and resolutions. Mr. Clarke, can you please read docket number six eight to. So we still have time to solve. We still have. Without speaking. Perfect. So before we do that, we're going to stay on matters of most recently heard. If we can please read Mr. Clarke Docket 04802482 Dockets 483. Docket 4842486. Dockets 4932496 in docket 499 together.

AN ORDINANCE relating to fees and charges for permits and activities of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, related fees by other departments, and technical corrections; amending Sections 22.900C.010, 22.900D.090, 22.900D.100, 22.900D.150, and 22.900G.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); and repealing Section 22.900E.060 of the SMC.

SeattleCityCouncil_11232020_CB 119913

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? All right. Victory. First group completed. Moving now to the second group, which is items seven through 11. Will the clerk please read the short titles of items seven through 11 into the record? Agenda item seven 311 Council 119913 lead to fee and charges for permits and activities of the sale, department of constructions and inspections. The committee recommends that they'll pass countable 119914 going to the Department of Parks and Recreation, establishing the 2021 to 2022 fee schedule. The committee recommends the bill pass resolution 31975, authorizing an exception to the level of general fund support to set up parks and Recreation by three fourths of the City Council. The committee recommends Bill pass with Councilmembers Macheda Herbert Gonzalez, Forest, Lewis Morales, Peterson, Strauss and Favre and Councilmembers Salant to post Council Bill 119915 relating to drainage services of Seattle Public Utilities. The committee recommends the bill Pass Council Bill 119916 relating to wastewater services of Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends that the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk, for reading those into the record. Colleagues, with the exception of Agenda Item nine, which is the resolution related to Seattle Parks and Recreation Department, these items that we're about to consider and vote on were all passed unanimously out of the Select Budget Committee. Again, with exception is agenda item nine. And so I suspect that there may be comments on that particular agenda item when when I call for them. So for now, we're going to go through each item just like we did in the first group. And the first one up is agenda item seven. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119913. Agenda item seven. Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. Peterson Yes. So what? Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez Yes. Lewis Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. 9 a.m. favored unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item eight. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119914. Agenda item eight. Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Morales Yes. Macheda. Yes. Peterson Yes. Swan Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez Yes. Lewis Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine 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? Item nine Are there any comments on resolution 31975? Agenda item nine. As members of what you are recognized. Thank you. This bill gives the city the authority to do budget cuts to the Parks Department larger than would have would otherwise legally be allowed. I have argued that this budget is an austerity budget, cutting essential funds from departments like Seattle Parks and Recreation. Shockingly, some council members have claimed that the cuts do not exist. But if the cuts do not exist, then council members would not have any reason for this bill making the cuts to be legally allowed. In the Budget Committee meeting last Thursday, my office and the People's Budget Movement fought for a budget amendment to increase the tax rate of the Amazon tax to prevent all budget cuts across the city. If council members had supported that, then this bill authorizing cuts would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, no other council member voted yes on that approach. While this bill is only necessary to excuse the cuts to the general fund, the reality is that there are even more drastic cuts to other parts funding. There is an alternative to budget cuts and my office will continue to fight for it. So I will be voting no on this bill authorizing cuts to community centers, pools and park maintenance. Thank you. Actually comes from a salon. Are there any additional comments on resolution 31975? Agenda item nine. Hearing, no additional comments will occur. Please call the role on the adoption of the resolution. Morales Yes. Mosqueda Yes. Petersen Yes. Sarwan no. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor. One opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation? Item ten. Are there any comments on Council Bill 119915. Agenda item ten. Hearing no additional comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Morales. S Mosqueda. Yes. Peterson. Yes. So what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis? Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor. None opposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item 11. See. Are there any comments on Council? Bill 119916. Agenda item 11. Councilmember Peterson, please. DG Council President, colleagues, this is an increase in wastewater rates that's passed through from King County. And we do have a statement of legislative intent that was approved at committee to look deeper into this issue where these rates from King County are just passed directly on to our ratepayers here in Seattle. So I will be reluctantly voting yes on this. We don't really have much choice because they're passed through, but we are going to be looking into this further in the future. Thank you. Appreciate that. Reminder, Councilmember Peterson, any additional comments on agenda item 11 Council Bill 119916. Hearing no additional comments. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Morales. Yes. Mosquera. Yes. Peterson. Yes. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Juarez. Yes. Lewis. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. 9 a.m. favored unopposed. Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. We just made it through group two. Now we are going to group three. Will the clerk please read the short titles of items 12 through 16 into the record? Agenda items 12 316.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a contract, and all necessary amendments, including term extensions, with the County of Los Angeles to receive and expend Department of Homeland Security grant funding for the 2017 State Homeland Security Program, in an amount not to exceed $1,857,345, for a period ending February 29, 2020; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications Department (DC) by $379,000, in the Fire Department (FD) by $1,328,345, and in the Police Department (PD) by $150,000, offset by grant revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12042018_18-1073

Okay, fine. Item 20, please. Would you please read the item to do 20? What do we know? 22. 22, please. Item 22 Report from Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communication. Fire and Police Recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute a contract with the County of Los Angeles to receive and expend Department of Homeland Security grant funding in amount not to exceed 1,857,345. Citywide Councilwoman. Mrs. Pierce. She? You. You want a staff report? We can't quite. If we have Reggie Harrison's ideas about if anybody has any questions. But this is simply to get $1.8 million to spend for our city. Thank you, Miss Harris. We don't need you. We don't need you tonight. Let's put it that way. Yeah. Okay. At this moment. Excuse me. Yes. Okay. Let me see your hand. Would you like to speak? Okay, fine. Could you have placed a vote? Public comment? No comment with anybody in the public like I speak on this item. Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Supernanny hi. Councilwoman Mongo. Vice Mayor Andrews Hi. Councilmember Ranga. Councilman Austin. By. Councilmember Richardson.

Recommendation to direct City Manager and all appropriate departments to report back within 90 days on establishing a citywide Tree Replacement Program that establishes standards and streamlined processes for maintaining the community's urban forest and promoting the health and safety of City trees, from the time they are planted through maturity.

LongBeachCC_04202021_21-0335

Okay. You can do eight in ten pretty quickly. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay, let's do attention very fast and then we'll go to the study session. But communication from Councilwoman Mongeau, Councilwoman Allen, Councilwoman Price, Councilmember, your UNGA recommendation to direct city manager to report back within 90 days on establishing a citywide tree replacement program. Cardamom mango. Oh, thank you. Over the last four years, I have discovered that there are so many different tree replacement programs that residents are often confused and misinformed about the pathway to get a pathway tree. It's important to me that we not have a system where there are four different areas of funding and four different places you could get a tree and four different timelines to get a tree based on that you embark upon. So for those reasons, I bring forward this item to have the city manager look at and better understand what our options are. Since putting this item on the agenda, I've received a lot of amazing comments, mostly from neighbors on the park, but I've also learned a lot. Today, Councilman Allen hosted an amazing Climate Action Committee meeting of the subcommittee of the City Council, and we talked about one component of tree replacement. But I also mentioned at that meeting and I'll add it here, two things that residents brought to my attention. Replacing trees, one for one does not necessarily mean that you're replacing the tree canopy that's so vital to our tree network and to some of our utility partners believe that when a tree is in the way of their. Business need that they just decapitate it. And we need to have a plan in place that requires those utilities to replace that tree canopy and those trees and then appropriately remove the tree. Not just leaves this. 15 foot stump in the middle of sometimes walkable areas and the such that has no value. And then those roots are not being removed in a way that we'd be able to plant a tree again in the future. Tree canopies are a big component of health and equity and air cleanliness, and it's a really important part of our city. Too many parts of our city. And I know Calhoun's and they have spoke very eloquently about some of the challenges in her district related to tree canopies today and the additional heat and health impacts. And so I feel that this is a really important component of getting our city on the same page in terms of how we can ensure that the maximum number of trees with a maximum impact to residents will be planted. So thank you for all who supported the item. Thank you. Let's go to public comment, if there is any in the other council. Our first speaker is Marina Hernandez. Hi. I'm just at a respective time. Thank you for taking on this item. I was waiting for 2 hours. I'm really glad that we got to it. I just want to say that I really think Councilwoman Mongeau and all the other council members that signed on to this. It is this what's addressed in this. Recommendation is exactly what happened to me. I live on a street with a ton of mature jacaranda and eight of them are slated to be removed. And when I came out I, I saw a sign and they just left me with the responsibility to follow up. Either I can apply for a permit on my own or I can get on some lists. It just seems like if the city is going to remove a tree, it should be the city's responsibility to. Replace that tree. If there was a streamline process, it would just make it a lot easier. Um, I formed a committee a we inundated. Our. Councilwoman Mungo's office. With a comment. I appreciate her responding to those. I just think that that can that can be mitigated in the future. If there was a streamline process and it was very clear to residents about how and when and what and all that surrounding how trees are going to be replaced. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for the third. Thank you, Councilor Maria Ringa. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank Stacey. Let me rephrase it, Councilwoman Mandell, for inviting me. To join in. The same tweets are very important to my district as well. And I'm glad that we're going to have a man here that's going to replace trees. And replant them, which is, I think, very important for our districts. Thank you. Councilwoman. As Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have to recharge my laptop so I can turn my video back on, so hopefully that happens in a minute. But I wanted to thank everyone for bringing this item forward. Councilman Ronda and I actually have been going through a major tree replacement procedure because of the magnolia tree issue, and I'm sure it's in other districts as well. But it was prolific in both of our districts and I thought that the tree replacement policy in those cases was fantastic and there was a lot of work done with the community. Organizations to select. The replacement trees. And so anything we can do to make sure that a process like that is similarly followed throughout. The city and in. For decades to come would be very much appreciated. So thank you, Carol and Randolph, for this item. Councilwoman Allen. Yes. Thank you. Councilman Mongo, for bringing this forward. Even when I was a councilwoman elect. Right. Partnered with Councilman. Price on a tree planting program in the second district. So trees are disasters and they benefit everyone. And I'm excited to see the report back in three months. This is good stuff. Thank you. Councilman's and day house. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Councilmember Mongo, for this item. I think it's a very important I think one of the things that's the most important, as you were mentioning, are the canopies and the relief that they provide, especially when when the it's very hot out. I live in a district where it's not very common that my residents have air conditioning. So in the summer times, that's where they find relief going outside underneath canopies. And it's great to be outside. So I absolutely support this and I know that we're because of Earth Day. We're having a lot of tree planning in my districts that actually this week and next week and I'm just thrilled about that. So this is perfect timing. Thank you, Councilwoman Monk. Thank you. That concludes council comment. Please cast your vote. Roll call. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. That concludes all the items that were requested to be moved up and so now will begin just the regular order. We have a study session and then after study session we have general public comment and then the rest of the agenda. So certainly we have a hefty, hefty night ahead of us. So why don't we turn this over? I know that the staff might need a minute to set up the study session, so why don't we just take a minute recess and we will start in just one minute. So we back in one minute with the study session on which will be by our city staff and violent crime and how we're addressing that. Thank you. Okay. We are going to go ahead and get the council meeting back into session.

Recommendation to approve the restoration of departmental and fund budget appropriation adjustments related to the elimination of employee furloughs for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2021 (FY 21) in accordance with existing City Council policy. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05182021_21-0471

Vice Mayor Richardson. Yes. Well, she carries. Item 36. Adam, 36, is a report from Financial Management. Recommendation to approve the restoration of departmental and fund budget appropriation. Adjustment related to the elimination of employee furloughs for the remainder of fiscal year 2021 through. I can I get a motion in a second please? Mr. Monica, do you want to add anything? Nothing to add on this one. Okay. There's a motion to say. Councilman Allen seconded Councilmember Ringo. Members, please go ahead and do a roll call vote. And one minute, Cindy has arrived. Councilwoman Allen. I can't remember. I can't subpoena Councilwoman Munger. Yes. Councilwoman Sara. I. Also member Virunga. All right, Councilman Austin? Yes, Vice Mayor Richardson.

AN ORDINANCE extending the required completion date for final report of the task force to make recommendations on the creation of a King County immigrant and refugee commission; and amending Ordinance 18085, Section 3.

KingCountyCC_03302016_2016-0187

Thank you. Any comments? Others voting. I appreciate i. I as opposed nay the minutes approved as written. Takes us up to number five which proposed ordinance 2016 0187. And this is an ordinance extending the required completion date for the final report of the task force to make recommendations on the creation of the King County Immigrant and Refugee Commission. This is a pretty straightforward issue and just changing the date. So, Mr. Reid, would you like to talk to us about that? Okay. Very briefly. So you are aware and have been. Actively involved in. Leading the council discussion for the. The county's discussion on. Issues related. To the increasing numbers of immigrants and refugees. In King County. And you recall that. In those discussions, the Council has indicated an interest in exploring the potential for a commission, an immigrant. And refugee commission, to help address other. Needs of these incoming residents. In that context, you expressed interest. In receiving input from community voices in helping to shape any such commission. And so last year through Ordinance 18085, you established an immigrant and refugee task force to make recommendations regarding. Our Commission membership duties of the Commission and the mission of that Commission. That Task Force has been. Meeting since October one of 2015. And has transmitted a status update on February 1st. That status update is included as part of your package to. Effectively carry out its work. The Commission. I'm sorry. The Task Force has undertaken a series of of robust outreach efforts to to the various immigrant and refugee. Communities it has undertaken what's. What are referred to as community conversations in various locations. Throughout the King County. Region with immigrant and refugee communities. The commission is about halfway through that process. So they have scheduled 20 outreach sessions, at least 20 community conversations. Nine have happened. I believe 11 are. Yet. To go. I'm sorry, 11. Have happened. And they are yet to go. And it is noted that the existing reporting deadline, which is May 31st of this year, will be a challenge to meet with that robust outreach effort. They, in that context, have requested. An extension of about. 37 days to July eight of this year. The legislation before you does accomplish that, that revision extends the reporting data for. The Immigrant and Refugee Task Force to July 30. And July 8th of 2016. Madam Chair. Thank you. All right. Well, I think that's pretty straightforward. And they're halfway through, as you said, they've had 11 meetings. They have nine more to go. And I think that's great that they're working so hard on this. And I also thank you for the background data on page 43 that it was quite interesting. So if there are no questions about that, I would take a motion. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, would you like to make a motion? Be happy to, Madam Chair, move approval with a do pass recommendation of proposed ordinance 2016 0187. Thank you. There are no other questions or comments. Please call for the vote. I'm sorry. Wait a minute. I didn't see your hand up. I'm sorry. I had a question on the Immigrant and Refugee Task Force when we had a particular day by which they were supposed to provide certain information. And as I understand it, they asked for an extension. And I was talking to the counselor, and I can't remember whether or not you talked about that yet. So they did have an interim report that was due on, I believe, February 1st. That interim report was transmitted and. Actually it is included as part of your packet. So you want to look at the latter part of. Your package, you'll see that interim report. So there is a final report that is. Due according to the. Ordinance that approved last year. Final report due May 31st of this year. Again, that that date is the one that is going to be a challenge for them to meet. So they request an. Extension of that date to July 8th of this year. And did you already talk about that? Yes. Yes, we can talk about. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I favor giving them that. It's, you know, extension because I want them to have an opportunity to do the very best job they can and articulating and laying out what they think would be most helpful to the immigrant and refugee communities of Cancun. Thank you, Manager. Thank you. And that is exactly what this does. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we have it before us. And so, Kirk, would you please come for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Baldi. Councilmember Dombrowski, Councilmember Member by Councilmember Gossett. Hi, Mr. Caldwell. Hi. Councilmember McDermott, Councilmember up the road, Councilmember Yvonne Bauer. Madam Chair, I am Chair. The vote is seven. I is no nos and council members, unlike Robin von Erichs. Excused. Excellent. Thank you very much. And that takes us up now to item number six. And this is proposed motion 2016 0117, a motion approving the fourth quarter of the 2015 expenditures for emergent needs and anticipated projected costs.

Recommendation to approve the destruction of records for the Legislative Department, Council Districts 2, 4 and 5; and adopt resolution.

LongBeachCC_01082019_19-0007

Thank you, Mayor. Remember the city council items five, six and seven all deal with the destruction of records for various departments. Item five is the Department of Development Services. Item six is records from financial management in item seven deal with records from three of the council offices, districts two, four and five. At since the time that the agenda was posted, we've received public record request to either inspect or to look at the receive an index of what records are being destroyed. And so what we'd ask tonight would be to amend the motion on all three of these items to authorize the city to destroy these records once we have completed and complied with the public records request that are currently pending at the city. Thank you. Okay. Can I get a motion in a second for that request? The emotion, like any public comment. Please come forward. Very good to hear Kirk as he addressed. Unless you have something to hide. I would hold off destruction of any records for 90 to 120 days, by which time the U.S. attorney will have established a strong foothold in this city. But if you've got something to hide, why, I can't stop you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I think we're no other speakers. We can take these, I think, as a group. So please cast or do the roll call vote, please. Yes, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember Pearce, Councilwoman Price Councilmember Super or Councilwoman Mongo i. Vice Mayor Andrews. Councilmember. Younger i. Councilmember. Okay. Now we're going to go to a public guy who if I call your name, please come forward. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me let me let me go and do that. I'm 13, ma'am.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Issue a Notice to Proceed with Macks Craic Inc. (dba Mack5) for Construction Management Services for the Cross Alameda Trail through Jean Sweeney Open Space Park and to Appropriate $160,000 to the Cross Alameda Trail Project Budget from the General Fund Available Fund Balance. (Recreation and Parks 5191)

AlamedaCC_11152016_2016-3513

Open Space Park and to appropriate 160,000 to the Cross Alameda Trail Project budget from the General Fund Available Fund Balance. Right. And I pulled the him in because it's 160,000 from the general fund. And I wanted to give staff an opportunity to share why it's important to to fund this at this point instead of having it go through our budget process. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. So what this is what these services are for is for construction management services, for the cross Alameda Trail, the portion through Jean Sweeney, Open Space Park. As you know, that project is grant funding from that active transportation program, which is managed by Caltrans and Metropolitan Transit Commission Transportation Commission. So because it's grant funded, we need to keep it on a strict schedule and timeline. So we need these construction management services, which really are critical for a project of this size so that we have someone out in the field who really is helping us manage the field conditions that come up and change orders and things like that. These types of soft costs are not often included in grants and are not included in this particular grant, so we need to find funding sources for it outside of the grant sources. The other part, funding sources that we currently normally would use like development impact fees are currently not available and so thus we brought it forward for to use general fund moneys. Thank you. Counsel, do you have any other questions? Just for clarification, Miss Voltage, this is just for the cross Alameda Trail. Within the park itself, it's not covering what we call the gap between a couple of segments of the park. Thank you. Of the trail, rather. Right. Thank you for that clarification. It is. It's for both to a certain extent, a portion of this grant does include that gap coverage. And there's also we're putting additional public works is putting additional dollars to make sure that gap is is done even above and beyond what was proposed for this grant. So we're melding those two together. Okay. Remind us what's being done for that gap that is more than just green paint on a road or. It is it's it's intended to be more than green paint on the road. The proposal that's gone before the Transportation Commission is is to take the lane the most terrible directions with the lane closest to the Starbucks in those businesses and make it into a protected two way bike lane. Thank you. Found if. I was like I just want to Jennifer base for use transportation planning director. But we are we're looking at health care. If we had a design that he was talking about that went to the Transportation Commission in January of this year, and it did contemplate taking it and we're trying to avoid taking that. LANE There were issues with AC transit and needing a bus stop. We're looking at taking actually the center median out and there's kind of an unused landscaped strip in the sidewalk that we're looking at so that we might be able to keep the lane. And so we're looking at some options are our intent is to have a two way cycle track that would connect with the ramp project, the ramp up opposite of Memorial Parkway and Jean Sweeney's you'd have a two way protected bikeway all through that corridor, but it's very tight and it's between two intersections. It's going to take a little work, but we're shooting to try to take the the most recent design to the Transportation Commission January, but definitely a two way protected bikeway. Okay, that sounds good. And as long as they've got chipper and that's the area across from the housing authority offices and come with independence the Housing Independence Plaza, is anything being done? I know it's not anything being done about it. Crossing is a part of this. Is that easy looking at that the transportation commission. Yeah, we're looking at it. The it what I think you're referring to is whether or not there's a lot of people that kind of cross. There's not we're looking at a Mid-Block crosswalk there and whether or not we can accommodate it. And the housing authority has actually gone after some grants. And then we are going to be coming through with some of the money from Measure B for dedicated transit lanes. And we're going to some other opportunities if we can't afford to do it as part of this project, because it it's very constrained with those two intersections. And we would be looking to do it as part of a subsequent phase that once the Housing Authority gets a grant or as part of the larger BRT project, we're looking to see if we can try to accommodate it. But it's a very tricky stretch in trying to figure out all the different pieces of it between those two intersections. It's complicated. And so with a bus stop there, as well as the two way bike lane and then maintaining the lanes and making sure we don't create any issues at the intersections. So. We're trying, but I'm not going to tell you for sure that we're going to accommodate as part of this initial phase. But it is something we want to try to accommodate as part of a later phase. Okay. I appreciate those updates. Thank you both. I want to add, I did meet with staff out there from both the housing authority and our public works. And they are trying to figure out and for those of you that don't aren't following, what we're talking about is directly across from the Starbucks. We have housing there at Independence Plaza. And unfortunately, you know, we have a lot of elderly people and it's really hard for them to walk all the way down to the crosswalk. It's a long ways around. And so, unfortunately, they go halfway across to the center median and then go across. And they also. So so we are looking. So I know housing authority as well as our staff is trying to figure out how to solve the problem. And it's very important because unfortunately, the walk all the way around is just very, very challenging for a lot of our seniors that live there. And everybody, I think you want to. You know, I just wanted to make a brief comment. Not to lose sight of the fact that this does keep the big chunk of the cross Alameda Trail through the park on schedule and it keeps the park on schedule. So those are important things to me and I'd like to move approval of the item. I'll second that. I just want to make. I just made a comment that, you know, this is another exciting project that's coming before us tonight. So I'm very elated to see this and the previous soccer field project. And I look forward also to the discussion regarding the ease about which I had some communication with staff. So I certainly support this Cross Alameda Park project. Thank you. All those in favor of my motion carries unanimously six a introduction of ordinance approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a lease with Pacific Pinball Museum for three years. With. No extension options and an early termination right for both the city and tenant in Building 169 Suite 121 located at 1685 King Street at Alameda Point. Thank you. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I believe at the last council meeting you guys consider. That and sent staff back. To make some edits to the lease. Those edits were made, the tenant agreed upon them and for the public. The edit that you requested was. A mutual termination. The lease currently. Is a three year term and it's in our enterprise district. And the council. Thought that because. We are getting. Some very serious inquiries. In the enterprise district, it was important for us to preserve some flexibility in the lease. And so we we. Negotiated and provided for that and the lease before you tonight. I really appreciate that. And that rates mutual was the change, correct? Thank you. That being said. But just to clear clarify, either party can early termination, correct? It's actual party. It's it's it's it's not mutual. It's not mutual either party. That's right. I think that both parties have a benefit now, whereas in the past there's only one side. Yes. Okay. That was the correct move. The introduction of this first reading of the ordinance. A second. Any other questions or comments? I'm ready. All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Six B public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending master fee resolution number 121912. Add and revise recreation and park fees. Who's presenting this? This voltage was earlier, but with the wreck and park fees. There she is. See, we are moving right along this evening. We always miss you when you're not here. They are going to beat my 9 p.m. estimate. Hmm. We're going to be sorry. Talking rotary in the hallway. Thank you again, Mayor and council. So I'm here tonight to talk about the 2017 recreation and park user fee schedule. We always bring this to you in advance. Normally the rest of the user fee. Thank you. Citywide occurred during the budget process. LAPD, Alameda Recreation Park Department's a little bit different because of our summer programing for a July one start date of of our users are user fees would be difficult in the middle of our big summer program. So what we do is we bring it to you annually around this time and then the start date becomes for all of these fees, we become January 1st and then it gets incorporated into our citywide user fee schedule. So what we do annually is we put this feast schedule together very intentionally. We compare it to other neighboring and comparable recreation and parks departments in nearby cities. We also take into account similar services offered here in Alameda. And we also just take into account the unique aspects of Alameda Recreation and parks and then also balance it with our budget needs and affordability for the community. Some of the challenges that have impacted field rentals and registration fees. As you probably know, the state passed a minimum wage that is now increasing annually. And so given that we have about. 150 to 200 part time employees. That certainly impacts our budget. And those part time employees are the ones that are the bulk of our staffing costs, not the bulk necessarily, but they are a significant amount of staffing costs because they're the ones that are out in the field with the kids and running our programs around Alameda. What we also try and do. What we do with this is we include both direct costs, which are arts and craft supplies and the balls and everything we do out there for the kids. The facility costs utilities, the lights. We also include indirect costs such as the administrative staff. And we have our front desk staff that handle all the registrations. We have our account tag that manages all the deposits and all of the invoices. So all of that gets rolled into these fees. So since I've been here, I've always managed our budget on a cost recovery model. And what I do is I use this pyramid. And to me, this is very important in how we look at our programing and our fees for our programing. And really the approach is that on the bottom of the pyramid, you have the most high community benefit. Those programs that affect the most people, the most at risk people, whether it's seniors that are on a very limited income, whether it's children in different areas. So those for us are programs like those at Mastic Senior Center, like our Free Parks and playgrounds programs. Now we have our Free Park Baseball League as well that we brought back the old T-shirt league. And I'm particularly proud of those because those are completely free. And in this day and age, that's extremely, extremely rare in the recreation world, to see a program where kids can literally just swing by their local park and play in a supervised activity for absolutely no charge. So those have the most community benefit and those are ones that there's no cost, there's little to no cost recovery. In the middle, we have the general individual benefit. Those are, you know, I want to take a yoga class or summer camp classes. Those are programs that people can choose to take if they can afford it. Those things generally pay for themselves. On the top, we have the very individual benefit, like choosing to play adult softball or to rent a club for an event. Those are things that actually make money and we use that additional money so they make more than it cost for us to put those things on. But we use those to offset the high community benefit down at the bottom of the pyramid. So with the goal of getting as close to full cost recovery as is feasible. So the fees that we made changes to for 2017. You see here before you. They're also in the staff report. The main changes are the field use fee for Alameda resident Alameda organizations, which is 75% more of their roster being Alameda residents. It's going from $2 an hour to $3 an hour. That is already significantly farm in a way below our any neighboring city. Most of them are 10 to $15, some $25 an hour for their residential use. Our non Alameda League fee is going from $4 an hour to $30 an hour. And while that does seem like a big leap, we actually in reality, first of all, we wanted to create a significant spread. So that's really prioritized in addition to how we allocate our fields by our allocation policy. We also just wanted to make sure it's focused for Alameda residents and the only organization that was using it was not paying quite the right fee structure. So they're fine with it because they were already paying close to this amount. All of our youth program fees are going up 3% to 5%. That includes things like our summer camps or after school programs. And the the driver of that we debt. We historically increase it 3 to 5% every year or two. And this year the drivers, certainly the minimum wage increase behind that. We also this year now have our brand new, wonderful and still high school swim center. And so with that, we have told the swim teams for a very ample water polo. All of the aquatics teams since even before this began, that as soon as we had a new facility, the fees would go up. The just our fees are extremely low for aquatics in comparison to other comparable cities where $15 an hour for al meter organizations and our neighboring cities generally are about 45 to $50 an hour. Our justification was always that our facilities were so aging and so deteriorated and were not competitive level size. So now that we have an Arsenal swim center, which is its competition level size for water polo, for diving, for swimming, it's a beautiful new facility. That fee is going up. It's still significantly less. The neighboring cities, as you could see, about half and the swim teams are all aquatics teams have said they're fine with this and they they know they've been preparing for it. We share that with the school district. The school district is aware of the fee increase as well in the. But where does the money go? Oh, do we share the money? I'm sorry. I did somehow with the school district. No. In the which you'll see coming before you soon are the joint use agreement with Alameda Unified School District. The City of Alameda schedules all of the use for both facilities and in return we also keep all of the fees.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to work with the Human Relations Commission to update and expand its mission and scope, and change its title to the Long Beach Equity Commission, in line with recommendations from the Racial Equity and Reconciliation Initial Report, and return to the City Council within 90 days.

LongBeachCC_01192021_21-0053

And that's how I will proceed, since I don't have access to the Q system. So we'll start with item 17 and I'll make the motion on that one. Let's hear item 17, please. Item 17 is the communication from Vice Mayor Richardson. Councilwoman Van de has Councilwoman Allen, Councilwoman Sara recommendation to direct city manager to work with the Human Relations Commission to update and expand its mission and scope and change its title to the Long Equity Commission. Thank you. I'll go ahead and get started. So this is a recommendation from my office, and it's consistent with two recommendations in the Racial Equity and Reconciliation Initiative report. The Human Relations Commission has a long history. It began in the sixties with the civil rights movement was disbanded in 1981 and was revived in 1989 in response to calls from community groups and local ministers in response to an issue of police misconduct and police brutality within the city. Very same issue that led to the creation of the Citizen's Police Complaints Commission over the past few years has been discussions at the Human Relations Commission, and even more so now about aligning with a lot of the work that's happening here within the city to date. And by aligning the Human Relations Commission with work that's directly in line with the Office of Equity, the implementation of Racial Equity Reconciliation Initiative. Some of the important work that the City Council is doing, what we do is ultimately expand civic participation, transparency, oversight into some of this work . And so a citizen commission is is certainly something we're interested in. The motion initially says change the Office of Equity. In talking with the Equity Commission, I certainly support that. That's what's in the reconciliation report. But, you know, in talking to the commission and and community groups, there is an interest in having maybe a combination of equity and human rights. I think it's all fine. I think what's most important to me is alignment. I also want to just acknowledge the letters of support that have come in. We've received letters, support from Jessica Suma, from the Economic Development Commission, Walter Larkins, the Chair of the Economic Development Commission, the Lobbies Ministers Alliance, CCG, the LGBTQ center , Long Beach Forward Lobby, Center for Economic Inclusion, Success and Challenges and others. And so I wanted to thank everyone who participated in this, I think in alignment with all the steps we've done today, this is a good step the city council can take. The idea would be the commission is going to work with staff, come back to city council the next 90 days with the plan. And at that point we can vote to update and modernize our commission. And again, I think it makes sense. 30 year old, you know, this commission has been in place for 30 years. So has the PCC. They both sort of came out of the same moment and PCC has been modernized. I think it's time for the Office of Equity to be I mean, the excuse me, the Human Relations Commission to also be modernized. So those are my comments. I'll open up for a second and then we'll go to public comment. Is there a second? Second. Who's that? Sara. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Let's go to public comment and then we'll come back for council comment. I'm Clark. Our first speaker is Alyssa Gutierrez. Getting me Mayor and City Council. My name is Lester Gutierrez and I serve as chair of our city's Human Relations Commission. I'd like to thank Vice Mayor Richardson and the co-sponsors of this item for bringing this forward. The HRC strongly supports the proposal before you and is looking forward to working with the city manager's office to develop recommendations on modernizing the HRC role and updating our name to better. Reflect the core. Of our work. For decades, the HRC has been an ally and advocate in the fight for a more. Just and equitable on beach. Uplifting the experiences and needs of all marginalized communities. The very communities we've been talking about all evening low income residents, communities of color, rent burdened families, grocery store workers, members of the LGBTQ plus community women. Our current ordinance, written over 30 years ago, does not fully capture the realities of how injustice and inequity show up and more importantly, where they originate and how to address them. We know today that in order to create a more equitable city, we must go upstream and address inequity at the root in all its forms. As the city works to institutionalize equity, it's critical that an independent citizen commission has the ability to advise city staff and council on. Both practices. And be on hand to provide accountability and partnership. Throughout the process. We look forward to engaging our community partners over the next few months to identify what changes to our purview is needed in order to be a more effective advocate for all of our communities experiencing inequity. It's time to update the Human Relations Commission ordinance to reflect modern approaches to addressing inequity and human rights issues. Please vote in support today. Thank you, Mayor Richardson, and thank you to our fellow co-sponsors. Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Amy Erickson. Good evening, Mayor. City Council, thank you so much for having this item on the docket tonight. I'm here as a. Lifelong resident. Of District two here in Long Beach and also been on the commission for over four years now. And I think it's really important that we make these. Steps to. Work. Alongside the work that is happening. With the framework for reconciliation. I would like to speak to a couple of those pieces, one of one being what we heard tonight. Every time we have public comment tonight. We've been hearing about how important equity is in our city and in in the systems that we have in the city government. And it came up over and over again that we that the city. Is dealing with issues of equity. At the Human. Relations Commission level, we would like to be able to not only. Be on public comment and give recommendations to you as council. Members. But be able to work with city staff. Who are doing amazing work in the Office of Equity City Manager's. Office, the Health Department, to make sure that every system. Throughout the city is looked at with an equity lens and can work towards doing the work that needs to happen alongside. The almost. 200 items in the framework for reconciliation. I just think it's so important that there be an opportunity to update the ordinance as this commission was formed over. 30 years ago, and I'm sure you'll hear. More about tonight. But it's so important. Right now to take a look and see what we can do. I also appreciate Vice Mayor Richardson for thinking about the title of this commission. I think titles are very important, and so making sure that over the next 90 days, as. We go through staff work to and to look at this and really look at what we do as a commission. I hope that we can take a look at what other council members want and what other commissioners want to see what this title could be. I think human rights is very. Important, and some people might think that if we think only about equity, we're not thinking about. The other items that really take care of our human needs and our community and those needs. Of marginalized groups. Not only including those that are being referenced. In the framework, but also. Our queer community, our community of women here in the city. And so we really want to take a look about how we can handle taking care of our community in a way that other commissions don't have the purview for. So we want to make sure we handle that. As past chair of this commission, we did a lot of work around our mission, and the mission is to inspire and support social justice and equity in the city of. Long Beach and to foster mutual. Understanding and respect for all. That's very important at this time in our. In our city's life. And I think it's really important to work alongside the framework. For reconciliation as well. I look forward to hearing what the next steps are. And thank you so. Much for this item. Thank you. Our next speaker is Corey Allen. Hi. Vice Mayor and council, this is Corey Allen. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be before you today. I serve as the District four Commissioner for the Human Relations Commission. And I want to thank you for. Your leadership on this item, as well as the co-sponsors for. This. The Human Relations Commission, as the vice mayor mentioned, has. Been at the forefront of a lot of these. Issues around equity. Around. Supporting the community and making sure that we are responding to. The work that's happening on the ground. You heard the vice mayor. Mentioned several of the iterations of this commission. And one. Of the other things that in. Its previous life this commission really championed was the human dignity. Program and. Really working on hate crime. Statistics and understanding how to de-escalate issues around hate crimes and make sure that. We were really working. In communities of color and in our LGBTQ communities to ensure that we were providing those resources as well. And I certainly. Would be remiss if I didn't. Acknowledge and call out Teresa. Gomez. Who is our amazing staff member who has been with this commission for several years, as well as Katy Balderas, who who has joined us every single week or every single month for our commission meetings. Just know you have. A dedicated crew of community leaders, a diverse crew of community leaders who are. Fighting hard alongside you as counsel to do this work. And we're excited to join you in this new iteration of our commission. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Eduardo Lora. Good evening. My name is Dr. Eduardo Lara, a professor in the department at Cal State Long Beach. My areas of expertize, for context purposes include social justice and intersectionality. I'm calling tonight to lend my support to this progressive change in the Human Relations Commission. I'm going to applaud the city council sponsors and mayor for bringing this item forward. It is an inflection point for the city to shift from a human relations model to equity is a modernization of this commission, bringing it up to speed to both the framing and best practices for advancing equal opportunities for our city's residents. To be clear, this item is aligned with the spirit of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts that have swept non-profits, businesses, universities and now government institutions. Adhering to diversity implies there's representation across various identities. But with attention to historically marginalized groups, a commitment to equity ensures that fair treatment to all, while recognizing that each person and community has different circumstances and may require different resources to bring about equality and inclusion. The steadfast commitment to Building a culture of belonging. In other words, if you're a resident in Long Beach, you belong and are entitled to a seat at the table. Whatever language you speak, regardless of documentation status, you belong at the heart of these three pillars of justice that braids them all together. In other words, diversity, equity and inclusion efforts are brought together by a common vision to distribute resource equitably aligned with social justice, preferably through a lens of intersectionality. It's important to note that intersectionality was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a legal scholar and black woman. She came up with the framework in the late eighties to help convince legal community that just because we bring about further equality for black people and women, it doesn't necessarily advantage black women. An intersectional approach remedies that. As a queer Chicano researcher, I've seen the benefits of intersectionality as an approach for equity and also the empowerment of Latino communities. This item will help operationalize the recommendations from the reconciliation report. This will also help close three institutional gaps at the municipal level. Community voice, empowering community residents and crystallizing a formal structure for this. Empowerment is going to be lost on anyone tonight. This item is sandwiched on a day in between the celebration of the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And the inauguration of the first woman, a woman of color. As vice president kamala harris. It is equity policies like this one that can create opportunities for the next king and Harris. I look forward to seeing where this inflection point takes the city of Long Beach. Thank you very much. City council and mayor. Think your next speaker is Gregory Sanders. Hello everyone, and thank you. I actually applaud the genesis of the original human resource lease with the Human Relations Commission. However, 2020 was the alarm clock that has awakened us to the fact that names do matter. We've seen the replacement and even the removal of names on things as small as retail products to the evolution of massive fan based organizations like the Washington Redskins to the Washington football team. So moving forward with expanding the role of and a shift from being identified as a Human Relations Commission could not be more timely and even more relevant. The core values that actually underpants, sustainable community development, interdependence, empathy, equity and intergenerational justice are the pillars of the city's reconciliation efforts. So if we build this correctly, the Equity Commission is a viable vision towards an even better Long Beach being constructed. A lot of people want to skip ahead to the finish line of racial harmony. They want to get past all of this tension and unpleasantness to place to a place where wounds are healed and everyone sings Kumbaya and the past is laid to rest. But Benjamin Franklin said justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are. The Equity Commission can gently disturb the comfort of those unaffected while actually encouraging and empower those that are. Thank you so much. I appreciate you all. Talk to you later. I think your next speaker is James Sweitzer. Good evening, honorable man. Members of the City Council. My name is James Wilder and I'm a third district president and executive director of Long Beach Forward. Before I jump in the comments, I'd be remiss to say that I hope that we can be together in person soon, or at least on video in these digital meetings. Because I too was wondering what colorful bow tie and glasses that Pastor Sanders were. So I wish I could see that sometime in the near future. Nonetheless, I'm here tonight to talk to you and ask for your support and our organization asking for your support on this item. Our organization, Long Beach Forward submitted a letter of support in this item and asked for your affirmative vote to expand the purview and scope of the Human Relations Commission. So whether we're black, indigenous, Latino, Cambodian, Filipino, LGBTQ young people or seniors, it is vital that we all see the diversity and culture of Long Beach prioritized within our local government. And that means moving from equity from pages in a report to tangible policy recommendations and decision making is the next bold step that the City of Long Beach must take to build on that foundational work that has come from so many, so much community driven activism, the absence of equity and, of course, the framework for racial equity and reconciliation. The Human Relations Commission has consistently played a strong role within our local government for a more just and equitable Long Beach, uplifting the experiences and needs of marginalized communities, and also translating this into tangible change for people's lives. So expanding the official purview of the commission will aid the Commission in fulfilling its mission to inspire and implement equity in the city of Long Beach and also foster a mutual understanding and respect for all. And I want to be clear that working towards equity is not an easy process. Equity requires that we understand the path without being trapped in it, embrace the present, without being constrained by it, and look to the future guided by the hopes and courage of those who have fought before and beside us. And as city leadership continues to work towards advancing Long Beach into the new decade. We must also plan for a just and fair inclusion into a society where we can all participate, prosper, and people can reach their full potential. Committing to that equity commission is a solid step in that direction. I thank you for your commitment to advancing racial equity, and please vote yes on this item. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Needham. Hello, Mayor and city council members. And all these. Great people I've been listening to on the call. My name is Jesse Needham. My pronouns are she and her. I'm here representing the California Conference for Equality and Justice CCJ. I'm also a Long Beach resident. Thank you to Vice Mayor Richardson for putting forth this agenda item. CCJ enthusiastically supports the expansion of the scope of the Human Relations Commission and the name update outlined in Agenda Item 17. In the 1990 and 2000. The Commission and CCJ or CCJ, as we. Were then known, work together to. Respond to and prevent hate crimes in our community. And we look forward to working with the Equity and Human Relations Commission. Sorry, Equality and Human Rights Commission. To address ongoing needs to uplift values of equity and inclusion in our. City and address the racism, bias. And bigotry that harm people in our communities. We also ask Council to call. On the city manager and other budget. Decision makers to. Ensure that the Office of Equity in the Health Department have adequate funding and staffing to support the Commission's work. A name change that focuses our attention on the need for equity in our city is important. But Long Beach must put our. Proverbial money where our mouth. Is when it comes to supporting the commissioners and city staff to put ideas into practice. Long Beach residents must be able to trust that when concerns about inequity are brought to the commissioners, that they have. Sufficient resources to do further research and make policy. Recommendations and take action to with the city based on their findings. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Suleyman Gonzalez. Thank you both, Mayor Richardson and City Council. My name is Selene Gonzalez. I'm human relations commissioner representing District nine. So the Human Relations Commission has been a strong ally and advocate in the fight for a more just and equitable Long Beach. Expanding the purview of the Commission will aid the Commission in fulfilling its mission to inspire and support social justice and equity in the city of Long Beach and foster a mutual understanding and respect for the city of Long Beach engages in efforts to institutionalize equity and infuse an equity lens through our practices, policies and decision making. It is critical that an Independent Citizen Commission has the ability to advise city staff, city manager and City Council on best practices and be on hand to provide accountability through. Through partnerships. In the process. I love Blondie and it is time for us to update the Human Relations Commission's ordinance to reflect the modern approaches to addressing inequality and human rights issues. Thank you. Your next speaker is Tiffany Davey. Good evening, Honorable Mayor Bryson, City Council Tiffany and David, District four residents. I am in support of this item which aims to go beyond simply renaming the Human Relations Commission to the Long Beach Equity Commission. I particularly look forward to seeing amendments to the purpose members functions and most importantly, to the authority the Commission has, as it currently outlined in the Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter two, Section 44, which was last amended in 1989. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. So now we'll go back to the Madam Clerk if there are any council members queued up. Yes, we have. As Woman Sun has. Thank you, Madam Cook. I just wanted to say thank you to Vice Mayor Richardson for bringing forward this item. I think that, you know, this is very important going forward, especially in the times that we are living in right now. I think that, you know, one of the things I've always advocated for was a commission for quality of health of our residents. And I think that this is the perfect commission to implement that into. And I think that it is very important to be equitable when dispersing whatever resources we have from the city. So I think that it's very fitting right now for this commission, and I really do thank you for your leadership on this and for your vision. And I'm happy to support you. And if somebody has not yet taken the motion, I would like to. September 15. I believe. Councilmember Councilmember. Okay. And I should have gone to her to comment. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. And again, thank you for your leadership on this. Certainly. Thank you, Councilmember Ciro. Yes. And I, too, want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for bringing this item forward and his leadership in ensuring that we're making alignments and modernizing the way that we address inequities in our city as it relates to the framework for reconciliation. And we have made a lot of changes to the Office of Equity, such as moving it to the city manager's office, expanding it in staff size. And I think it's also important that we also do that at a commission level to ensure that there is an alignment on the human relations side and making sure it's relevant to the time and the current environment we're in. And, you know, human relations is a lot about addressing and improving interpersonal relations among individuals and groups. And a lot of the causes are of of it are racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism that's been you know, that causes these differences and challenges we face in ensuring that our communities are united . And so it makes so much sense to me to ensure that we also have residents and leaders that are that can speak to these issues and address it and give us feedback and that are representing our residents at the commission level. So that's why I'm so supportive of this item. And, and I and so thank you very much for all of the community members that committed and gave your feedback. And thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any further further council comment, Madam Court. That concludes Council comments for this item. I also have a Councilwoman Allen. I have a comment as well. Okay. Thank you. I also want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for his leadership on equity and conservation and to all the community and for their input as well. I signed on to this item because I too believe in equity, just like my predecessors who took timely action last year relating to reconciliation. And I want to be respectful to all the valuable work that was done prior to my joining the body. I would also be open to alternative names and look forward to seeing the proposed mission statement and scope of responsibility that ensures that the body continues to be fully inclusive to all of our communities and advocate for the protected classes. I do look forward to hearing back in 90 days from the Commission. What's the best way to represent and serve all the diverse communities that have suffered from inequity? Thank you. Fantastic. Thank you. Let's have a roll call vote, please. And so a woman Sunday has. I. Councilwoman, Councilwoman Ellen. I. Councilwoman Pryce. I councilman's a bona. Fide. Councilwoman, Mongo. Right. Councilwoman Sara. I'm Councilmember Granger. Hi. Councilman Austin. All right. Vice Mayor Richardson. I. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE imposing a tax on engaging in the business of distributing sweetened beverages; adding a new Chapter 5.53 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Seattle Municipal Code Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.025.K, 5.30.060.C, 5.55.010, 5.55.040.A, 5.55.060.A, 5.55.150.E, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, and 5.55.230.A.

SeattleCityCouncil_06052017_CB 118965

Thank you. The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the report from the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. The report is Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. Jan Item one Constable 118 965 Imposing a tax on engaging in the business of distributing sweetness sweetened beverages. Adding a new Chapter 5.53 to the limits for code and amending Saddam's Code Sections five point 30.0 ten five point 30.25 point K. 5.30 .06. C. 5.50 5.0 ten 5.50 55.0. 45.50 5.0. 60.8 5.50 5.1. 50.80 5.50 5.1 65. 5.50 5.220 and 5.50 5.2 30. The committee recommends that the full council pass the bill as amended with the divided court with councilmembers Burgess, Johnson, O'Brien, Gonzalez in favor and councilmembers Herbold and so on. Opposed. Thank you. Before I relinquish the mic to Councilmember Burgess to present the Bass legislation. Just based on previous discussions, we have six six amendments. And so why don't we let Customer Burgess discuss the Bass legislation and I'll just keep working down the order. And Katherine Johnson did a good job during the prep time, so we already knew the order and the discussions. So, Councilman Burgess, one should lead us with the Bass legislation. Thank you very much. I'm going to walk through a brief timeline of how the council considered this legislation. I'll then talk about the basic motivation and justification for the tax. I'll read a section of the basic legislation and then yield back to Council President Harold to walk us through the amendments. So the Council began consideration of this matter in the spring of 2016, over a year ago, and that included meeting with various community groups. Public health advocates got green, for example, labor folks a wide variety of business interests. On February 21st of this year, Mayor Murray mentioned in his State of the City address that he would be forwarding this legislation to the council, and we received that on May one. The committee held for discussions of this legislation on May three, May 17, May 26 and May 31. In all of that work, what we found is that the scientific evidence is incontrovertible that sugar sweetened beverage consumption leads to negative health outcomes. Communities of color and young people are disproportionately targeted by the beverage industry's advertising and marketing campaigns. Black children and teenagers see twice as many ads for soda and other sweetened beverages compared to white children and other teens. Sugary drinks are the leading source of excess calories, far surpassing other snacks and sweets that may also have other nutritional benefits. Liquid sugar has zero nutritional benefits. Sugar sweetened beverage consumption is linked to the development of many serious chronic illnesses, including type two diabetes, obesity, heart disease, hypertension and dental disease. Daily consumption of just one sugary drink increases a child's chance of obesity by 55% and diabetes by 26%. These diseases disproportionately impact communities of color. Prevalence of obesity is highest among black adults, followed by Hispanic, white and Asians. Black and Hispanic adults are twice as likely to have diabetes than their white counterparts. Black adults are more likely to have cardiovascular disease. Sugar sweetened beverage taxes work. Other jurisdictions where these taxes have been imposed have seen a drop in sugar sweetened beverage consumption. Based on those facts the ordinance declares in Section one. That the city finds and declares that the expansion of access to healthy and affordable food. Closing the food security gap. Promoting healthy nutrition choices. Reducing disparities in social, developmental and educational readiness and learning for children. Assisting high school graduates to enter college. And expanding services for the birth to five population and their families are of utmost importance to creating a thriving and livable city for all of the people of Seattle. Therefore, through this ordinance, the city intends to exercise its taxing authority as granted by the Washington State Constitution, and is authorized by the Washington State Legislature to raise general revenue for the city and to use that revenue to provide broad based public benefits for residents by funding programs that achieve these purposes. Council President Herrell. This was adopted and recommended for passage by the committee. Thank you, Councilman Burgess, and thank you for your consistent leadership in this regard. We appreciate this. So we're going to start off with Councilmember Herbold. If you're so prepared to talk about what we will refer to as Amendment G. To Councilmember Herbold, you have the floor. Thank you. Let's get myself ready here. I thought we were taking these in order, but I can quickly get situated here, so I have two. I want amendment that accomplishes two things. And it is entitled Council Amendment G two and it is on the Goldenrod paper. First was some introductory remarks that both addressed the amendment as well as the minority opinion coming out of committee. The two amendments accomplish two things one reduces the tax rate, the per ounce tax rate, and the other tries to address the just disparate impact on low income people and people of color. These are the same objectives that I was seeking to accomplish in committee but was unsuccessful. The tax, if passed and enacted, will support a lot of great programs like addressing the food security gap with fresh bucks, food banks funding pre-K and Seattle colleges 13th year. I absolutely support those programs. However, this kind of use tax result in the tax burden being greatest on those with lower incomes. There's been dispute whether or not this is technically a regressive tax because people aren't required to buy sweetened beverages. Nevertheless, it remains that people with lower incomes will pay a larger percentage of their incomes on this tax than higher incomes. I'd go further to say that the bill, as it is currently proposed, is actually punitive because it is at a tax rate that is higher than alcohol, cannabis or cigarets. And that's why I proposed in committee the tax to be lowered to $0.01 per ounce. That amendment failed, but my new amendment proposes 1.2 $0.05 per ounce, and I will distribute a chart that will both demonstrate on the front page the total amount raised with this amendment with both parts, and then on the second page will demonstrate that this brings. The. Tax more in line with with alcohol. Basically, you can see that on the second part under sweetened beverage in the red, the last line for Coke two liter. This still results in a 32% reduction in use and is more in line with other jurisdictions that have passed a tax like this, the majority of them taxing at a penny an ounce. In addition, this tax, as proposed, has an additional layered, disparate impact on low income people and people of color. The Human Rights Commission today sent us a letter that stated The toolkit analysis made clear that the amended legislation, including diet sodas, addressed inequities inherent in the bill. Despite this, the Council excluded diet sodas from the legislation, creating a loophole that largely exempts wealthier individuals from the tax that more disadvantaged populations will experience. This will have a real impact on those who buy soda, regardless of the ultimate health impacts. And it's unfair to exempt sodas that are consumed by wealthier individuals while targeting those consumed by historically disadvantaged populations. So my second attempt to amend this legislation to address those disparate impacts since my efforts to remove diet of I'm sorry, add diet to the the products being taxed in committee did not secure the necessary number of votes . I'm trying to address the disparate impact on low income people and people of color by adding sugary coffee drinks, a higher cost product that are also more likely to be consumed by people with more disposable income. I drink diet soda. I drink sweetened coffee. I'm trying to actually tax the unhealthy product that I myself consume because I just don't think it's fair to spread to not spread the cost of food security programs and early childhood education programs to consumers like me. This is a primary principle of equity. We spread the cost of programs that some people use to everyone. So there's been some concern about by adding coffee and not including diet. Whether or not that gets to the revenue target that we're seeking to get. And I would propose by adding sugary coffee. If we get to a revenue target above $18 million a year and with about 7.4 million of that coming from sweetened coffees. And you can see on the second page of the handout, we make some calculations based on some studies on the amount of coffee that most consumers drink. We on average drink three cups of three, eight ounce cups of coffee a day per capita. Multiply that times 365 days a year. The National Coffee Association says that about 56% of people actually sweeten their coffee. And I figured I don't have a I don't have a citation for this, I must admit. But I extrapolated about one in five of those 56%. People might use Sirups to sweeten their coffee as opposed to to sugar. The number of adults in Seattle right now is 595,000 adults a year. And at a tax per ounce, it at 1.2 $0.05 per ounce. That results in about 7.4 additional million dollars a year. So I believe that hits the objective of the number of dollars raise. It still reduces the use of these products. It has a reduced impact on low income people and people of color. One thing I have heard a concern about is that this might negatively affect concern about milk in stores, in closed containers. I do have an alternate version of my of my amendment. I did not meet the 12:00 deadline. I literally heard about the concern about milk in stores at 1130 this morning. I'd be happy to distribute that alternative, but council would need to vote to waive the rules to hear it. So thank you, Councilmember Herbold. So at this point, we have a live motion on the table. I was a little unclear on your alternatives. So should we just let that. Remain silent for the moment and deal with your base amendment right now. So fine. So we have an amendment to basically reduce it to one point to five, the actual rate and the other subset of components that Customer Herbold described, just to make sure our discussion is live, is there a second? It's like, okay, it's been moved in second. And so would anyone else like to address the amendment proposed by Councilmember Herbold? Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, I want to start by just thanking you for you've spent a lot of work trying to kind of thread the needle on this. And I really appreciate that. I'm not going to support the amendment, though. And the reason for me is that what I think is the most punitive of what's happening here is the way the beverage companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi target billions of dollars of advertising to persuade people to consume a product that we all know is unhealthy for communities and the way that they disproportionately target low income communities and communities of color, as Councilmember Burgess outlined in his opening comments. And that is having severe negative impacts on communities. And we know that we've seen around the country how an appropriate tax can help reduce consumption of this product. But we also have heard from community leaders who come from these communities that are being targeted, who are living with the negative health impacts of folks consuming these sugary beverages and have said, look, we are open to this. In fact, we're here embracing this. As long as you ensure that you make the investments back in our community so that our community members have equal access to healthy foods, and that food security gap is closed. And once we open the access for those products, what folks tell us time and time again is our community members will choose healthy products if we have access to them. This bill is a balancing act for sure, but I believe the current legislation at 1.70 $0.05 with the direction of focusing the investments on access to healthy foods and closing the food security gap is a bill that I'm going to support, as is not this amendment I would support , including diet beverage. We try that in committee. I don't believe there's an amendment before us today, but if it came up today, I certainly would support that again. I do not support making exemptions for other products beyond what's already in the bill. And I want to just take a second to thank the community members who've worked so hard, especially those representing communities of color and low income communities, to help us do the best we can to get this right so that we can have those positive outcomes. Thank you. Councilmember Brian. So we still have a motion for an A. We have an amendment in a second. Is there any other comment before we vote on the Casper Herbold amendment? Ready for vote? Everybody. Okay, so it's been moved in second to lower the tax rate to 1.2 $0.05 from the base legislation. All those in favor say I and raise your hand. Okay. I'm sorry. I was just so we have to. I said it, but I. I don't know why I said it. I was trying to get some rhythm. I'm not voting for us. All those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No, no. So it fails. It's 66262, two, no less. Eight counts, six or two. Okay, so let's move to the second one. That's just getting too much. Mike Tyson, thank you. So I have a lot of paperwork in front of me, guys. I know. So I have an amendment here and I want to address it. And I'm not naive to think that I have an overwhelming support, but I want to address some comments. So you should have a copy of B4, which is an exemption for handcrafted beverages that during public comment took some criticism that I will describe why I'm supporting it or that fails or not. Will, will, we'll see. But I want to talk I want to address some of the concerns. So just to keep it alive, I move to through Amendment four, which is an exemption to handcrafted beverages. Is there second? Second. Thank you. So you guys are slow on my second. By the way, this notion of let me back up that when this tax when I first started researching this tax, which was quite some time ago, when I looked at what other cities were doing, I was not even a proponent of it. Then for this very same reasons we heard today that it seems to be taxing poorer communities. It's regressive and in it just didn't feel right in my heart. And so I started looking at the. Researcher looked at the tobacco industry and looked at how the tobacco was sort of being taxed and looked at what are referred to as sin taxes and try to get a little better educated on how it can reset community norms and reset behaviors. And then I looked at all of the benefits of what we can do as a city when the state and the federal governments don't seem to be fulfilling their obligations. And then I changed my outlook on this and became a supporter of what I was calling a soda tax. And it was that a soda tax? We called it that. And when I saw the one proposal and it brought up all the bottles of soda, that's what I thought when I met with labor. I then became aware of the impact on jobs, which incredibly. Concern to me. And it was, quite frankly, in my office where we thought about this retraining dollars, the 1.5 just didn't magically appear. It came when we started looking at what we can do with the 13th year in retraining many of these workers, which, quite frankly, in this country, we're going to have to do more and more retraining, some manual jobs for other types of jobs. And this has to be very intentional in our country. So so that's so that became part of the base legislation. When I look at what the city is known for as sort of a coffee capital, to say that this is an elitist exemption is, quite frankly, offensive. And you don't do your constituents a great service by calling it an elitist tax. I think it's an exemption when we look at the 1500 small coffee shops that are affected, the demographics we're trying to target. We have close to 1700 coffee shops, most of them just small moms and pops that I thought this was not the target product or the what we were trying to do to remedy obesity. So it seemed like a smart exemption for where we are trying to head. And so we proposed it. And that was my logic. And that continues to be my logic, to continue to focus on the products we think are causing the most harm and not for it to be as all encompassing as it sort of became. So that's my amendment. Are there any questions or any statements that I don't like to say either for or against the amendment? Councilman Beck. So here, before. I really have more of a question at this point, and I'm trying to deal with the logical perhaps inconsistencies here, but you're talking about 15 to 1700 small coffee. They call them a coffeehouse or some independent. But you just brought this forward this morning. How does how do we distinguish these 1500 small businesses from the other small businesses that are offering sodas? If what's happening here is that we're saying we're trying to this is a public health model that we're trying to really bring forward. And if we're saying anybody who is offering, you know, the syrupy plungers that still sugar, it's still going into people's system, how is it that we can say, well, one's okay and one's not? You know, fair question. And I do want to clarify a point that Councilman Gonzalez made this morning. I keep using the reference to coffee shops, but it certainly covers many more products than the coffee shops. It covers. It covers bubble tea as an example, which is a popular drink at the Chinatown International District. So there's 1700 coffee shops, of which I said around 1500 or so were just small ones. So I think you're asking the question, how does if I am sympathetic toward the small businesses that are doing hand paws, why would I be sympathetic toward the small grocery store that has the canned sodas in there? That's a good point and one that I would say that probably is a weakness in my position that that when I traveled around the world and I was in Japan just a couple of weeks ago, quite frankly, we are known as the coffee capital. That's part of our core competency. People fly here to taste our coffee, not just Starbucks or Tully's or Seattle's best, but the whole I mean, we created created a hub. And so I have a little partiality, I guess, toward our core competency when I think about coffee shops is probably why I keep inadvertently referring to coffee shops . But I do look at the small businesses and quite candidly we are being as progressive progressives as possible and we very easily I mean, if we are as progressive as we say, we could very easily tax bottled water. Right. We could very easily exempt a small grocery stores on the corner that do a certain amount of revenue and said they are exempted as well. We may end up doing things like that in the near future. So. So. So I don't have a a policy argument as to why small stores aren't exempted from the surtax or their sweetened beverage tax. Any other questions or concerns? Okay. So I'll call for a vote. And I don't see overwhelming enthusiasm, but that never stopped me before. You know that all those in favor of amend amendment be for. Please raise your hand and say i, i, i i. That's 8 to 0. I think all those opposed say no and raise your hand. No. Okay, so that's not passing. We move to Amendment A, which is councilmember, whereas and by catch my words before I do, let me get some forewarning on the order. I should have done that at the beginning. So we're my plan is to go. Councilman Moore as Councilman O'Brien, Councilmember Brian and Councilmember Burgess in that order. So I think you know what the subject amendments are. Sorry I didn't do that at the beginning. Councilmember Whereas the microphone is yours. Thank you. Council President I'm going to briefly make some comments, some of that I will be repeating what I shared with you this morning. But before I begin, I do want to thank Councilmember Herbold for all the work that she did on looking at the reduction. But also I was very impressed that she wanted to make sure that milk based beverages did not get the exemption. I'm inclined some point to revisit that issue someday. So I want to thank you for your work on that. The amendment I have proposed will declare that food banks and meal programs are an acceptable use of funds under the spending plan. As I mentioned this morning, this is a groundbreaking opportunity for the city to create a dedicated funding source specifically to ensure everyone in our communities have enough to eat. For the past several years, local food banks have reported double digit increases in the number of people seeking their services. However, the city has only been making inflationary adjusted investments to most program budgets. This leads to programs continuing to try to serve more people with less resources. I hope today my colleagues will join me in approving this amendment to establish our commitment to basic food access across the city and across our communities as they shared this morning. Everyone in this city should have a right to eat. I want to thank Councilmember Burgess and other council members who work with me on this, that when we went back and looked at the priority in the spending plan, that we did focus on public health, nutrition, food scarcity and access to healthy foods. However, as you can see in my amendment, I wanted to include community based investments to expand food access and to include such as food banks and meal programs that may seem insignificant to some people that it needs to be said, but it does need to be said. The ink does need to be on the paper because I believe and I'm sure our community groups believe as well, that food banks and meal programs are the heart and soul of community based investments. And as I shared this morning, we had an emergency food situation when the food bank closed down in Greenwood and moved to Snohomish County. Therefore, the North Helpline Food Bank had to absorb much more people, even though they should not have accepted some people based on their zip code. They did it anyway because they didn't want to turn people away. We spent two months trying to find $25,000 just to open up that second food bank. With the help of the mayor and the president and some of my other colleagues, we did secure $20,000 from the mayor's office in HST. And we now have the Bitter Lake Food Bank, which is the North Help Line edition. And I say this because this is real time, real life, present day situations where people are going hungry. I know we spend a lot of time talking about nutrition and what sugar does to our diet, but there are communities where people don't eat. They don't have the luxury of saying, I'm going to have a bubble tea, I'm going to have a Diet Coke, I'm going to have a latte. They don't eat. So what we know now from Bitter Lake will serve 188 people per day. That's well over to well over 1200 people and duplicated people. My goal today is to secure a revenue source, a secure funding source for food banks and meal programs. We have never made a financial, economic or tax revenue commitment to food banks or meal programs. And it's time we make a moral commitment that in this city everybody eats. We have an opportunity to dedicate a revenue stream to make sure people, families and those experiencing hunger and the wonderful folks that run and maintain food banks have a opportunity and can rely on a revenue stream and a source that we make a financial commitment to such a basic human right, which is food. As I shared earlier, a lot of our food banks, not just North Help Line. Do more than just provide food. They provide an information. Social services for Medicaid. Medicare. Housing, Eviction Prevention. Rent Assistance. Food Day Packs. Hygiene Packs. North Helpline has a clinic that's open five days a week. We provide baby food, diapers, infant needs, baby formula, orca cards, transportation vouchers. We also provide language assistance. And we work with all of our constituents in the immigrant community. So what I'm saying is, is that people don't just go to food. Banks for food is often a central place, that people go for everything because that's all that's the only place that they can go. And while I respect the process with HST, I just don't think it's fair that food banks have to get in line. Pardon the pun, every year to beg for $38,000 to run to to deliver food to people again. On a personal note, I think the most difficult question we faced as a society is, again, whether or not we have a diet soda, a latte. I think the most difficult question we face next to homelessness is that we simply don't have food for our people, and that's unconscionable. So I'm hoping today that my colleagues will vote and approve my amendment. Thank you. Thank you, councilmember suarez. So I'm going to construe councilmember walls as comments as a motion to amend a which adds food banks to the list of potential expenditures and it has been seconded by Councilmember Rowback. So any other comments before we call for the vote? Thank you again, Councilman. Whereas all those in favor of amended a vote I in raise your hand. I opposed. Okay. So we're one for three. Here we go. Okay. So, Councilmember O'Brien, you are up, sir. Great. I'll go ahead and move. Amendment D, which is on the pink sheet. Changing language under subsection B of section three. Is there a second? Thank you. We talked about this at some length at the briefing this morning, but I'll just go over really quickly. The language under subsection B says the remainder of the net proceeds from the beverage tax shall be used to support in order of priority, and that the first priority is where the language will be changed. The new language would read Expanding access to healthy and affordable food, closing the food security gap, and promoting healthy food choices through programs including but not limited to and then a list, a series of six programs. As we discussed before, there was language about public health in that opening line. It's still public health. Nutrition programs are still listed as one of the programs that can be could be funded. And also those public awareness campaigns, capital investments to help promote healthy choices. The impetus behind the change in this language, some argue it's just a wordsmithing that was to really center that top priority of focusing on expanding access to healthy, affordable food and closing that food security gap. It also says including but not limited to. So this is not intended to bind anything for matter to just prioritize to the committee that will be making recommendations that this is a top priority for us. Thank you comes from Brian you've made a motion and it has been second and any further comments all those in favor of amendment D vote I in raise your hand I oppose the ayes have it. Councilman Brand, I would like to go through it for Amendment F. Yes. So Amendment F speaks to the community advisory boards role in evaluations. I will go ahead and move that to the second floor. Moved in second. If this is a little more technical in nature, we have a whole section on evaluations, as we do with lots of innovative legislation like this, which I fully support. This simply adds a sense within that paragraph about evaluations that says the evaluator will collaborate with a sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board to develop the evaluation, hopefully self explanatory beyond that. Very good. And thanks for talking about that this morning during briefing, are there any further comments? Just council member back? Sure. I'm certainly going to support this. I want to ask whether we can specifically ask for diet drinks to be looked at a year from now, as well as this handcrafted beverage that we discussed earlier and doesn't have to be in the legislation. But I would just like to get the sense that if we're going to have this evaluation, that we include these other options as we are seeing how this tax works or doesn't work for people in our city. My amendment doesn't address that. I personally would certainly support that, although I don't think it's timely at this point to put anything in here. I don't believe that any language in the bill around evaluations prohibits us from having conversations about doing that and including that. And so my suggestion would be to work with you offline as we move forward and to see if there's support to do that. Thank very much all those. So we have a motion a second all those in favor of amended F say I and raise your hand. I oppose I have it so amended amendment F is approved. Amended I Councilmember Burgess, thank you. This is an amendment to section 5.53.030. This is the section of the ordinance that imposes the rate and this is amending sub paragraph two by adding the language where a product is produced from more than one concentrate. The rate on each component shall be calculated proportionately so that the combined tax on the total yields the 1.75 per fluid ounce charge on the resulting beverage. This is a technical clarification, mostly to guide the rulemaking authority. As the rules are developed for the concentrates service, I would move. Amendment one excuse me amendment I. Second. Any further discussion on the amendment proposed by comes from Burgess. All those in favor of amended amendment. I raise your hand and say I. I opposed. The ayes have it for amendment. I that, I believe concludes all of our amendments. So in a moment here, we're going to close some debate. I think Councilmember Burgess would like to take his home, as I always say. Thank you very much. So a couple of thank you, colleagues. Thank you to each and every one of you for engaging, especially in the last month or so on this legislation. As is true with much of the legislation we pass here, it's a balancing act between what's the right thing to do. What's the what's the evidence, what's the Science Show? I know on the diet issue, we had a very healthy discussion at committee, and I think several of us agreed that there's really no right or wrong answer on that issue. We chose to go without the diet this time. I think the most persuasive of that to me was that the scientific evidence is just not there yet, but it may be in the next few years, and that's why I think would be worthwhile for those of you who remain to revisit that topic sometime in the future. But I want to thank a few folks who have played a really key role in advancing this legislation, Dr. Jim Krieger and all of his public health colleagues in the medical profession. Thank you for your strong and unwavering advocacy that Coleman and your advocacy in Washington State for healthy kids. For how many decades now I don't remember but a long time thank you to got green and the other community groups especially people coming out of communities of color and advocating forcefully yet respectfully the whole time on this has frankly been very impressive. So thank you for lending your voice to this effort to Save the Children Action Network. Thank you. You guys are active all over the United States for children. You've been active in Seattle for many years now, and we appreciate that, too, Mayor Murray, for proposing the original legislation and his two staff members who who worked on this the most, Robert Feldstein and David Mendoza. And then finally to Sarah Day on my staff who did all of the work and was really very detailed and would come back from meetings and would plop down in her chair and say, So, Tim, I'm going to argue both sides of this because everybody has great arguments and then we had to sort through all of that. Thank you, Sarah, for your very good work with that. I think we're ready to vote. Thank you very much, Councilmember Burgess. Any further comments? Councilmember Herbold. I've tried to get the primary sponsor the last bite at the apple, but you're recognized. Thank you. I just wanted to say I'd really hope to get to a place where I could support this bill. I offered amendments to address my concerns about the punitive nature of the tax to make it more in line with other products that we tax, that we want reductions in use, as well as the disparate impact on people of color, jobs and small businesses. I specifically offered amendments that were designed to preserve the goals that I shared with my colleagues, namely the revenue target of 50 million identified by got green, making sure that we only included products with a demonstrated negative health impact by taking out diet and putting in sugary coffee. And three identifying a rate of tax that preserved a 32% impact on reduction of use. I'm really disappointed that my efforts were not successful in convincing my colleagues and consequently, sadly, I'll be voting against the tax despite my strong support for the programs it intends to fund. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. And I'm going to recognize Councilman, whereas we actually do have a minute or two, because after we vote, I'm going to have to move us at ease for a while while central staff prepare some legislation so we have a moment to catch my words. You are recognized. Thank you very much. First of all, I want to I'm glad to see that the chair and the committee approved adding funds to support workers in any potential displacement of jobs due to the decrease in the consumption of some sugar sweetened products. I want to thank Councilmember Burgess for making sure that we talked about an adding the 1.5 million funding for retraining and placement programs for workers adversely impacted by the tax. And a particular. Thank you to the Teamsters. To Lilly Cordova. Lilly got back to me the information that I was concerned about, the number of jobs by classification that could be affected by the decrease in sales. She actually broke that down into drivers warehouse fleet, mechanics, production, merchandizers, merchandizers, etc. and also what particular companies? Columbia distributing Southern wine and spirits. Shasta. Safeway. Pepsi. And Coca Cola. And also I learned and was listening to public comment. And again, I want to thank Lily because she got this information to me quickly that there were people in Philadelphia that did lose jobs between 16th May 2016 and May 2017 when they did pass this. Now. The reason why I'm saying this is because I think that we should rely on facts and the record. In Philadelphia, there was a job loss of about 140 jobs, mainly sales reps, drivers and merchandise positions. And those companies were Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Canada. Dry, I believe. So we met with the labor folks. We met with the Teamster folks, and we met just about with everybody, including the food groups in the food banks, in the community groups. And I'd like to say it's it's nice when everyone can come together and at some point we can agree to disagree, but know that we're doing something for the greater good of our city and our people. So thank you. Thank you for those words, Councilman. Whereas so we're going to call for the vote now, assuming there are no further comments, will you please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill johnson. Hi. Suarez. AI O'Brien. Hi. Bakeshop. Hi, Burgess. Hi. It's Gonzales. I Herbold President. Harrell I. Seven in favor want to post. So. The. Bill passes as amended and share with Senate. Once the bill as amended is ready for signatures, it should be ready for signature in a few moments. So at this time, we're required to do it in open session. So we're going to be it is ready. See, that was well done. Wow. People can clap now. All right. Yes, we can clap now. Thanks very much. So the bill passed and Cher will sign it in open session. And is there any further business cover for the council? I see a couple of hands, Councilman Burgess. First, I move to be excused on June 19. Second June, and it's moved and seconded. Council member Burgess be excused for June 19th. All those in favor say I oppose. The ayes have it. Council member Gonzalez I move. Sorry, I move to be excused from the full council meeting on Monday, June 12th. June 12th it's been moved and segment Councilwoman Gonzales be excused for June 12th. All those in favor say I opposed the ayes have it. Councilmember O'Brien. I moved to be excused on June 19th, and I'm not telling you where Council member Burgess and I are going. To move in segment. The council member can be excused for June 19th. All those in favor say I oppose. The ayes have it. Any other business to come for the council? I want to say that we stand and your neighbor and have a great rest of the day.

Proclamation Declaring April 8 through April 12, 2019 at National Boys and Girls Club Week. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC_04022019_2019-6703

Okay. Next is a proclamation declaring April eight through 12 as National Boys and Girls Club Week. All right. This is always a big observation. So do we have. I thought I saw some young people out in the hall. Anybody from Boys and Girls Club here. Come on up here where there's shirts. Come on up and then. Yeah, we like to see. Yeah. The more the merrier. Hi, everybody. Hi. You want to go to the mic and tell us your name and introduce these lovely young people? My name's Nathan. Yeah, I'm athletic director. All right, come on up and tell us your names, everybody. My name's Eric. Hi. My name's Davis. Hello. My name's Isaiah. Hi there. My name is the. Hi, my name is Salem. Nice to meet. You. My name's Issa, and I'm the arts and crafts coordinator. Very nice. Well, here's a proclamation that I'm going to present to you. So for more than a century, they don't look that old, do they? For more than a century, boys and Girls clubs have helped put young people on the path to great futures. Over 4000 clubs served some 4.1 million young people through membership and outreach. And over 4200 of these youth are Alameda residents. Both the Alameda Boys Club, Boys and Girls Club offers programs and services to promote and enhance the development of boys and girls by instilling instilling a sense of competence, usefulness, belonging and influence. And. Whereas, the Alameda Boys and Girls Clubs doors are open to all youth from all schools and backgrounds every day and evening after school, on weekends and during school vacations, being the only facility in Alameda that provides this service. And. Whereas, the Alameda Boys and Girls Club mission is to enable all young people to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens which they facilitate. With their high. Tech computer labs, world class, commercial kitchen, edible garden and State of the Art Youth Development Center. In addition to afterschool homework help and tutoring, the Alameda Boys and Girls Club offers free dental vision and medical screenings from local medical professionals and assists with access to follow up care. The Alameda Boys and Girls Club is at the forefront of efforts to provide education and career development. Vocational skills, character and leadership skills. Health and life skills. STEM and technology skills. Fine and performing arts and sports. Fitness and sports. Fitness and recreation programs. And. Whereas, the Alameda Boys and Girls Club ensures that youth are offered a safe and supportive home away from home, providing quality support services and recreational programs. Now, therefore, it be resolved that I Maryland as he Ashcraft, mayor of Alameda, do hereby proclaim April eight through April 12, 2019, as National Boys and Girls Club Week in the city of Alameda and proudly call upon the residents of Alameda to join me in recognizing and commending the Alameda Boys and Girls Club for such beneficial and important services for the youth in our community. So with that, would one of you like to say a few words about what you are doing at the Boys and Girls Club? Come on up. Well, there's a lot of different projects that are going on right now that I'm I'm involved with the athletic program. So we have a lot of teams, basketball program after school. My offer for leagues to grades three through fifth grade and does numerous things. And then I could probably tell you more about the arts and crafts and things like that. So my mother used to tell us a little bit about you. Do I appreciate? Just a minute. I just recently moved up to the arts room, so I'm just kind of trying to learn what the. Kids like to do. Have them, like explore. Be able to work with all the things that we give them and see what they can make with them. All right. Well, thank you very much. And here is your proclamation. Thank you. For. Love. Wait a minute. I can't hear what you. No. You can't go in the back. I'll be back. How we are, we should hold the proclamation. Oh. Okay. All right. Coming back. It can be a little bit like eating all of. Your weight. Very, very nice to meet you. Thanks, face. We have three speakers under all communications. Okay.

Approves an agreement with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado to provide medical insurance coverage in 2014 to eligible employees with a contract amount not to exceed $59.408 million (CSAHR-201419383-00). (TECHNOLOGY & GOVERNANCE) Approves an agreement with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado to provide medical insurance coverage in 2014 to eligible employees with a contract amount not to exceed $59.408 million (CSAHR-201419383-00). The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-19??-15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-16-14.

DenverCityCouncil_01052015_14-1062

I just pulled this one out. This one actually relates to the amount that we are authorizing for Kaiser. But I had several questions and I see Heather Britton here, and I know that Heather would know the answers. To these questions there, certainly know where. To find them. And I will mention that I was asked questions. Before the meeting started. By citizen. And so I'm going to ask that some of this be discussed here. First of all. The bills themselves authorize the. 2014 year contract and we're now 2015. I know this is customary, but would you please explain why we're doing 2014 business today term? It's all timing. Actually. Heather, could you just introduce yourselves for the record, please? Heather Britton I'm the benefit manager with the Office of Human Resources. It's a timing issue. I visit you guys frequently. In fact, in for 2014. I visited you in August of 2013 to receive approval to purchase all of these contracts. By the time we make our way through the contract approval process, the division of insurance, so on and so forth, with our 13 different contracts, it takes pretty much all year to get the final contract language. So this is just sort of. Buttoning things up. You guys already approved the purchase about a year and a half ago for these contracts. Okay. My second question is, it was commented on what a. Large amount once. You added all seven amounts. Together. Can you mention whether this includes both the employee premium and the city contribution? And this was the Kaiser? Yes, it includes both the employer employee premium, but it also includes all employees. So it's the. Career service. Group and fire and police in that Kaiser's Kaiser number. Thank you. And the last one was not connected to these contracts, but since I had you up here, there was an approval to do a bonus. For those who wanted to participate in the wellness program. Has that been paid out to employees? It did. There was a brand new wellness program I presented to you all in, or at least that Technology and Governance Governance Committee for completing a wellness incentive. Employees were rewarded really with the $240 one time incentive, and that was paid on their first December check. Thank you very much. Any other questions on things? 1062 CNN. Thank you, Miss Britain. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Ortega. I just want to mention that when we. Discuss these bills last in committee. We also talked about the fact that folks from Human Resources are going to begin having conversations with city employees about the fact that our plans for next year are going to be different. And so for 2016, we're going to start having those conversations early with employees because some of it is complex. And I just want to remind folks that not to be surprised that, you know, human resources will begin coming to the different city agencies to talk about how the changes will impact them in 2016 and be able to answer all those questions early. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. So you know the comments on this one, Madam Secretary, one to your next one, which should be 1112. Councilwoman Ortega, what would you like for us to do with this? So I have questions on all three of these, and the questions are the same. So if we can just address them all together, go ahead. That would be helpful. So I'd like to address these with I see Aaron in the audience from DIA. So my questions are, number one, there's language in here that says it's eliminating midterm refurbishment requirement and it looks like this is extending or. Allowing the contract to be renewed. I'm not sure if these are PDC premium value program concessions. No. So help me understand with this, eliminating the mid-term refurbishment requirement means on all three of these contracts.

A bill for an Ordinance authorizing and approving an Amended and Restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan to expand the boundaries of the Urban Redevelopment Area, to authorize the Phase Two Urban Redevelopment Project and to create the Phase Two Property Tax Increment Area and the Phase Two Sales Tax Increment Area (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the Amended and Restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizing the expansion of the Urban Redevelopment Area, addition of a project, creation of the Phase Two Property Tax Increment Area and creation of the Phase Two Sales Tax Increment Area, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-13-15.

DenverCityCouncil_06082015_15-0302

The estimated taxable value following redevelopment is anticipated to generate approximately $400,000 per year in net property tax increment and approximately $380,000 per year in net sales tax increment. If we were to use only these incremental tax revenues to reimburse the developer for the eligible expenses of the $6.5 million, the repayment would occur in approximately 21 years. However, the amendment to the Cooperation Agreement will allow for the incremental sales and property taxes from the Source Project, which are approximately $325,000 annually, to also be used to repay the Phase two project obligation. This combined repayment structure is expected to shorten the repayment period by approximately seven years, saving approximately $1.9 million in total tax increment reimbursement payments. The amended and restated urban redevelopment plan must continue to be in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan or Plan 2000 and its relevant supplement. Beginning with comp plan 2000, the project as an approved amendment to the plan for several citywide objectives, policies and actions in the Plan 2000, including encouraging quality infill development that offers opportunities for increased density and more amenities. And that broadens the variety of compatible uses, enhance existing business centers, and establish new business centers in a manner that offers a variety of high quality uses that support Denver's business environment, complements neighborhood residential areas, generates public revenue and creates jobs. Identify areas in which increased density and new uses are desirable and can be accommodated. Support development of neighborhood business centers that serve adjacent residential areas in existing neighborhoods and new neighborhoods within redevelopment areas. And use public private partnerships to facilitate development and redevelopment projects that advance the city's goals and objectives. Blueprint. Denver identifies Brighton Boulevard in general and the area site specifically as an area of change where growth is to be channeled to where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs and services. With fewer and shorter auto trips situated along Brighton Boulevard, the projects as mixed use infill development are consistent with the city's goal of increasing activity along major road and transit corridors. The Source Project created new light industrial retail office and commercial space. The Phase two project furthers and complements the source project by adding a hotel, retail, light, industrial and amenity space. And approximately 300 stalls have structured parking to serve not only the patrons of the projects, but also neighborhood users. The projects together will create a cohesive space that will enhance the existing restaurant and urban marketplace environment, a destination hotel to foster tourism in the River North area, which will catalyze existing and new retail establishments and businesses. The River North Plan states that Brighton Boulevard corridor can become an attractive gateway to downtown Denver from I-70 and calls for the creation of a dynamic and compatible mixture of uses that serves and takes advantage of proximity to downtown and access to I-70. The Phase two project is ideally suited to forward the vision, purpose and goals layout laid out in the River North Plan, including the following. Promoting economic activity. Reactivating a vacant and underutilized site on Brighton Boulevard. Build upon the unique land uses that exist and identify redevelopment sites and opportunities that foster the creation of a compatible mix of uses. Add new development to the current uses and structures, creating a unique environment, both in terms of an eclectic mix of uses and exciting, innovative infrastructure. Encourage land uses that effectively increase the day and nighttime population of the area, providing the impetus for future commercial development. The 38th and Blake Station area plan states that the Brighton corridor is envisioned to have more intense development, with a greater mixture of commercial and employment uses and taller building heights than the area south of the station. The Phase two project furthers a number of objectives at the 38th and Blake Station Area Plan. The Station Area Plan acknowledged that more intense development, taller building heights and a greater mixture of commercial and employment uses are appropriate along the Brighton Boulevard corridor. It also recognized that the Brighton Corridor section of the station area north of the U.P. tracks is envisioned to have more intense development with a greater mixture of commercial and employment uses and taller building heights than the area south of the station. And finally, it noted that Brighton Boulevard is also the front door to the River North District. It should be a place where pedestrians find interesting shops and galleries and feel welcome to walk or visit. The general objectives of this urban redevelopment plan are to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions and to stimulate the continued growth and development of the urban redevelopment area. The Phase two project meets the following objectives of the amended and restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan to renew and improve the character and environment of the Urban Redevelopment Area and its surroundings by preventing or ameliorating economic, physical and environmental deterioration. To eliminate the present and growing factors which contribute to the blight in the urban redevelopment area. Such blighting factors are detrimental to the community and represent an economic liability to the city. To more effectively use underdeveloped land within the urban redevelopment area. To build to build upon present economic strengths near the urban redevelopment area. To encourage and protect existing development immediately adjoining the urban redevelopment area. By creating conditions from which these adjoining areas can draw new economic strength to improve the economy of the area by stabilizing and upgrading property values to enhance the current sales tax base and property tax base within the city. By stimulating the growth in assessed valuation and sales tax collections within the Urban Redevelopment Area to provide access to employment opportunities for low income and unemployed Denver residents. To create a local business climate that serves the neighborhood so that area residents can shop in the neighborhood, which could enhance city air quality improvement efforts. And finally, to carry out the objectives of the Plan 2000. In addition to making the finding of blight, council must also make other findings required by the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. These findings include that a feasible method exists for relocation of displaced individuals and families and business concerns. No individuals or families will be displaced from dwelling units as a result of adoption or implementation of the amended and restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, no relocation plan is necessary for individuals or families. Similarly, no business concerns will be displaced as a result of adoption or implementation of the amended and restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, no relocation plan is necessary for business concerns. Written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the resolution setting this public hearing. City Council requested Dura to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first class mail to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment area at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. No more than 120 days have passed since the commencement of the public hearing before City Council on the plan. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on the amended and restated Urban Redevelopment Plan. The amended and restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan contains no property that was included in a previously submitted urban redevelopment plan that Council failed to approve. Conformance with with the Denver Comprehensive Plan. On May 20th, 2015, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the amended and restated urban redevelopment plan conforms with the Denver Comprehensive Plan and its applicable supplements. A letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing. The plan provides maximum opportunity for redevelopment by private enterprise. 3330 Brighton Boulevard, LLC currently owns the Phase two parcel and is prepared to undertake the project. The school district number one in the city and county of Denver has been permitted to participate in an advisory capacity concerning the use of tax increment. Denver Public Schools has been consulted and has provided a letter of support for the amended and restated plan and the use of tax increment financing. A copy of this letter has been submitted as part of the record of this public hearing. Finally, the city and county of Denver can adequately finance or agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve redevelopment within the amended and restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Area for the period during which incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and Doura to address additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. In closing, the Denver Urban Renewal Authority is pleased to bring forward this amended and restated urban redevelopment plan to facilitate the full redevelopment of the area. As I mentioned earlier, the Source Project, which has been very successful, created new light industrial retail office and commercial activities along Brighton Boulevard. The Phase two project furthers and complements the source project by adding a hotel, retail, light, industrial and amenity space as well as structured parking to serve not only the patrons of the projects but also the broader neighborhood. These projects together will create a cohesive space that will enhance the existing restaurant and urban marketplace environment. A destination hotel will foster tourism to the River North area, which in turn will catalyze existing and new retail establishments and businesses and continue to support the city's vision for this important corridor. We ask for your favorable consideration of this amended and restated urban redevelopment plan, and I will be happy to answer questions when the time is appropriate. Thank you. Huggins. I'm going to call the four speakers that we have. First speaker is Kyle Zeppelin, second speaker McKee Zeppelin, third speaker Jason Caplan and fourth speaker Justin Croft. No. Thank you, Madam President. And members of council. My name is Kyle Zeppelin from Zeppelin Development. Address is 3457 Rigsby Court in Denver. Just wanted to provide some more background on the project. The source, as Tracy mentioned, is hopefully a good, good addition to the community in Reno and Denver. It includes it's basically a new version of an old idea, a public market and includes a butcher, a baker, a brewer, a couple acclaimed restaurants. The goal is to create a compatible flow of people that supports all the businesses and hopefully a great experience. At the same time, the opportunity with the neighboring site is really to expand on on the success of the project and how well it's been received. There's what we're doing on that side is basically adding 300 structured parking spaces, which is kind of a necessary evil to be able to provide that. The reality is that people do drive and try to accommodate that. There's we're basically doubling the size of the market. HALL So it's a modern form of what you see at the source. A lot of complementary functions there. We have a kitchen store. There's a significant amount of makerspace. So there is a ceramicist, there's pie making. And that's that is really combining basically the production elements with the experience and getting to know some, some of the people behind the products. So not having things just show up on your plate or in your glass, but actually having that become part of the experience. There's a major art component and then we're also including a major feature of the project is the hotel function. So it's a 100, 100 room hotel. It reflects a lot of the same design sensibilities. There's glass, garage doors and rooms. He experienced the light and and the views, but also be able to open up to the fresh air, a different kind of design than is typical. The whole character of the place is really drawing, drawing on what you see throughout the neighborhood. It's independent, it's local, it's creative. And they go with with the hotel. The market hall is to really be able to the in the expansion is to be able to reach a much broader audience, more of a national, international audience, to want to come experience some of the more interesting things, interesting people throughout the region. So appreciate your your consideration of the project and happy to answer any questions. Thanks very. Much. Thank you. Our next speaker, Micki Zeppelin. Good evening, Madam President, and members of Council. Thanks for another opportunity to speak to you. I've been involved in Rhino for some 15 years, and with the support of council and particularly Council President Monteiro, we were able to do the source and open in 2013. That project has really been a transformative project, I think. Tracy mentioned some of them, some of the assets, but it's really changed the neighborhood. And last week you heard on the bid and the give and I think it's as a gathering place, it was largely responsible for those things happening. It was really a place for community and has really become part of really the city environment. It's really created a a real place in the city. And I think with this new iteration, we're moving toward not only a place for the city, but really a national place. The hotel really is a unique kind of place that doesn't and won't exist in any other city. And I think you're going to see lots of travelers and nationally and internationally come to the source of this project. And it's really an important part of National Western. We've talked about National Western as appealing to the tourist. Also with a great art community. We're going to see really people attracted to Denver and to this arts community. And I think it adds significantly to the prestige of Denver, and I'm pleased to be part of it and. Hope you will support us. Thank you. Thank you. Jason Kaplan, followed by Justin Croft. Thank you. Council President and members of the city council. I'm Jason Kaplan, and I've been involved in commercial and residential development since about 2002 in Colorado and nationally. I represent River North Investment Partners and I am partners and co-developer with the Zeppelins on this project. It's been interesting and a lot of fun to work with the Zeppelins because they they as as you witnessed with the source, they have a specific vision that is very unique to real estate development. And in conjunction with that, they are really great at getting things done when there is a challenging project. And I really respect that. It's really good to be their team member. In addition to them, another very important team member is the group behind the St Julian in Boulder. And they are our operating partner. And one thing that's great about them, well, there's a bunch of things, but one thing specifically is their local. Another thing is they they understand the the superior quality of hospitality that's needed to function a hotel at the highest level. And then the last thing that I'd like to mention is they have a joint vision with us or together where they see the opportunity to provide a unique, a non-corporate hotel experience in the River North neighborhood. So with the team and with with DRA, we've, we've focused on a lot of different aspects for the development, but a few I'd like to specifically point out are to maximize the zoning of 12 stories. You typically are seeing one, two, five story buildings and, and in hopes of your support, we'll be able to utilize that zoning. Another thing is the 300 space parking structure in an area where you typically see surface parking lots. Another thing that the project will do is enable regional stormwater project. And then last but not least, and maybe the the most important is it really creates a dynamic project in the area in River North and on Brighton, which everybody really wants to see. And I, I'm available for questions when the time time is and I appreciate your support and, and I hope for your consideration or I appreciate your consideration and hope for your support. Thank you. Thank you. Justin Croft. Thank you, Madam President, and members of Council. My name is Justin Croft. And I am here with Zeppelin Development. I was project manager on the sauce and I'm serving as project manager on this project in front of you today. I was here last week to ask for your support on the Rhino bid and the gig, and just want to say thank you again for your support on that project. The vision that's been spoken about today, I just want to reiterate for this project is that it really is a highly public project and a project that we believe speaks to a lot of the values of the neighborhood, which I've had the good fortune to really understand closely in my work with the Steering Committee on the bid of the guide and doing some work with the art district as well. Just to briefly mention a few of the items that we believe that this project supports as far as the values of the neighborhood, one that it activates the street contributes to vibrancy in the district in that way, that it attracts small and supports small and creative businesses, which is really a vision that we have to attract and support independent businesses. A lot of makers in this project, and we believe that with the hotel component there will be even added support and people seeking out these specific independent businesses. It's a development that supports biking, walking and use of transit in the district being what will be a very active node, even more so than it is today in close proximity to the 38th and Blake Station and really supporting multimodal use. Also, with travelers coming from the airport and being able to utilize the hotel, we also believe that it maintains some of the gritty character of the area while working to enhance its livability. And you'll see there are a lot of kind of gritty elements with the architecture. Hard to read from this rendering, but they include use of recycled concrete, use of corrugated metal and some of the other things that up development has been known for. And then also, of course, contributing to a. Regional parking solution for. Right now. So thank you very much and asking for your support today. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions for members of council? Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Madam President. So I think one of your last points, Justin, is something that I want to hone in on. So we're talking about 305 parking spaces in the structured parking lot. And so that was my question. Is it meant. To serve just the new development or the source? And then you talked about a regional solution just then. So if you all could collaborate or elaborate on that, that would be helpful. Yeah. So that parking garage is certainly larger than we would have built parking for this project. So the idea is that it really is publicly available to people who would like to park there and walk in and, you know, travel, visit throughout the district as well as the patrons. Specifically visiting the project. How many spaces are actually. Required for the project itself? 150. Okay, so it's doubling. So I recall in when we went through budget hearings last year, there was funds appropriated, I thought, for curb and gutter. In this. Year's budget on Brighton Boulevard. Is that true? And if that's true, like when does that commence? It's a silly question. Or is that a silly question? Thank you. My name's Andrew Johnston with I'm the manager of financial development for the Department of Finance. Your question was in regards to when with the construction commence on Brighton Boulevard, with the street and the curb and gutter as it's projected to start in first quarter of 2017. So I'm assuming that's before when this project would commence. Is that correct? Or after. If it should be approved? I'm sorry. No. 2016 is when the construction is supposed to commence. Oh, I see. Okay. And then I just want to ask a couple of questions. Is there bus service on Brighton Boulevard going up that way? Okay. And then I recall also as part of that carbon gutter that there would be bike lanes. Are those going to be built in 2016, first quarter as well? So the reconstruction is scheduled to commence in 2016 and the plan is for redoing the entire street curb gutter and it will include bike lanes. Okay. Thank you. And then just finally, a quick comment. I've never heard somebody say that they actually had grittiness as a value. I think that's a very interesting urban design concept. I hope to hear more. Thank you. Councilman Shepherd, Councilman Fox. Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for Tracy. Tracy, in the materials that we received. We talked about the tax increments. It said available at stabilization. I presume that's when it's built out and getting the full amount. Correct. Would you would you translate for me what you intend to get toward this project? I presume the 6,970,000 is the problem. That's what you're solving for. Is that. Correct? The if I may. Let me see if I can find the the gap is 6.5 million. That is what I'll refer to as the principle of the gap. And then so what happens in a reimbursement structure is that that it redevelop or is responsible for still financing those costs. And then the tax increment is used to repay that obligation over time as the tax increment comes in with interest. Okay. So the 6.9 million councilwoman that was on the slide that had the various costs. That is a summary of the type of costs that we would be looking to reimburse. Again, the lion's share of that is the the parking garage. Would you tell me how much money do you intend to put toward this project? That comes, first of all, from the property taxes that it actually has involved in its lot. Then how much in the sales tax? I have the annual, but I don't have the total. And then how much you intend to contribute from the adjacent lot? And then tell me what percentage of public money is going to go toward the whole project? That was a lot of questions. Let's see if I can get them all in order. Well, they all deal with my favorite subject money. Mine too. So the amount of property tax increment that is expected to be generated from the phase two project. So the parking garage, the additional retail in the hotel is $400,000 per year. The sales tax increment from again the hotel project is projected to be $380,000 per year. And then the amount that is currently being collected from the Source Project, which is the number that I have with me this evening, is a combined sales and property tax is 325,000. But I want the total of what you are planning in each one of those lines to contribute. Because what I don't have is the number of years you are expecting each to contribute to the project. Sure. So on the source project, it will be that $325,000 per year starting in 2018, 2019 and going through 2024. That is after the source obligation is repaid and then it allows for that $325,000 or so per year to also be paid to to this project. All of that will be paid to it. The other two amounts, the 400,000 and the 380,000 in property and sales tax increment respectively will begin being paid as soon as it is being generated. So as the project is under construction and is completed, it will begin to generate that tax increment. It will be paid as soon as it is available, even in advance of the amounts coming from the source project. Because again, we have that period of time before the source project is repaid. To then be able to put all of these sources together for a hope for expected repayment in about 14 years from now. But you don't have it broken out according to the source of where it's coming from. No pun intended of the source. The actual line item there. So I apologize, Councilman. I'm not following the the question there. So I just jump to the last question. What percentage of this whole project are you intending to use? Public tax sources, meaning all of those that you've just talked about, those are all taxes that would have gone into the general fund per se. What? Well, actually, now they some of them would have gone into the school district, but they would have all been public tax sources. What percentage are you intending to use for this $41 million project? The six and a half million dollars is about 16%. Of the total project budget. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Fox, Councilman Ortega. And a person that. Oh, no. So my first question is for Kyle, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. It wasn't clear from the drawings if parking will continue on the source property or if you're looking to build out the whole front part of that. Assuming that the garage is going to be enough to park both both properties, both structures. So the intent is for the source property for that parking to remain intact. We would go ahead and repave the parking lot that would serve as basically short term parking to serve the source. Right. And then the structured parking would serve basically the surrounding neighborhood, including both hotel and the source. How many spaces do you have on the source site? The source is currently approximately 50, but 50 surface parking spaces. Plus, we use the neighboring lot as as kind of overflow parking. And how many do you have on that site? Approximately 150 spaces over there. Okay. I had one other question, and this is more I don't know if we have anybody from the planning department that was involved in looking at the project. I don't see anybody. Okay. Then I'm going to ask you this question. Tracy and Kyle, you may want to chime in as well. We've been working with the Planning Department and our Office of Emergency Management in looking at just some design issues around developments adjacent to railroad land, where we have consistently railcars that are not always necessarily compatible with either residential or largely populated areas. And I don't know if this is something that has come up so that in the design, looking at how we protect human life in the event that there might be some kind of incident on the rail corridor. I know, for example, in the past we've had various incidents where, you know, some of the residents have had to be evacuated and in so I don't know how much that is part of the thinking in terms of how are we addressing any potential. I know, Kyle, you talked about roll up windows. So can you just speak to that a little bit? So the the site layout has the parking structure at the back of the site. So that effectively creates a buffer where there's emergency access all around it. So we've basically tried with we're meeting all the requirements for life safety in that way. Another consideration is trains are a fact of life. And right now, um, at taxi we have uh, 20 acres down the street mixed use project that's gotten some acclaim and there's 20 or 30 bands of tracks. In some ways we talk about grittiness, but it really it adds to the ambiance. It is something that people are attracted to. It's not as polished as maybe more established parts of town, but there's a certain amount of creative freedom that you get in a neighborhood like this that isn't necessarily possible in other parts of the city. So I think you answered the question by talking about the parking garage being the buffer. So I appreciate that. All my other questions have been asked by previous colleagues, so yield to them. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Brooks. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, some of the questions were asked around the regional parking. Kyle, I believe I know the answer to this, but I'm going to have you. You're still encouraging multi-modal options on your site, though, correct? Absolutely. We're intending to max out the count for bike parking. We're just a few blocks away from the new Rhino's state, the new station. And right now, that's that includes a bridge connection. That's a connection between the neighborhoods. So the goal is for people to leave their cars behind, whether it's in our parking structure or somewhere else, circulate throughout the neighborhoods, support local business, and hopefully have a great experience along the way. Yeah, you know, this regional park, it is important for folks coming outside the area like these fine folks here and Chris Moore may be coming to enjoy, but we want folks within that vicinity to ride their bike or walk or catch a ride or something. The zip cars and all those. You still have parking for that, right? Smart cars. So yeah, we have some extensive we have dedicated car to go spaces over at the source. Okay, but we'll scale up to address the new development. Great. Okay, Tracy. Just a big, big, hairy question for you. So recently at the state, as quick as last week, the governor signed into law HB 15 1348, which impacts Dora Urban renewal authorities and tax increment financing projects. And it's a it's called a fairness bill. And I'm just wondering, there's a lot of speculations on how this bill may affect projects like these that are coming through. But I'm wondering how this bill you can speculate how this bill might affect this project. I don't believe it will affect this project at all. And I. With one eye watch, said David Broadwell. As I as I'm talking through this the bill it was just signed by the governor and it becomes law effective August 5th of this year. So the action taking taken tonight clearly will be well in advance of that. The other requirements of the bill don't then come into actual effect until projects undertaken on or after January 1st of 2016. So this project being approved now being a really the the final project, final piece of this urban renewal area, we do not see there being any impact of 1348 on this project. Okay. So I'll let it go because we got a long night tonight. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Robb, followed by Councilwoman Lehman. Thank you, Madam President. I'm hung up on parking questions as well. Sort of like Councilwoman Shepherd, because we both represent districts where our folks are crying for parking and very disturbed, at least about a perceived, if not real, lack of parking in new projects. So my first question on the parking is the garage parking that's financed a great deal by the tax increment. Will it be free parking or paid parking? Very. Thanks for the question. So the goal with with the parking is, is to really enhance the flow of people. We do have the ability to charge for parking. We have a surface lot now that we don't charge for specifically for that purpose. So really, you know, the intent is to offer the first couple of hours for free and then be able to kind of keep the costs down from there. It will be to an extent, market driven. Um, but we're not the, the parking to a large degree waits down the project economically, which is part of the parking. Always waits down projects, doesn't it? It does, especially in this case, because there there isn't a street grid, there isn't an alley. So there's basically, you know, no outlet really to put it. So it really kind of increases the burden to to do do a little bit more. Okay. So my next question is for Tracy Huggins. So we did something similar at the Loewenstein in the parking garage that was free parking. How do we legitimize using tax increment to build parking that people are paying for or. Are not paying. For. Or are paying for at some level after 2 hours or in the future could be charged. So remember that the primary objective of our involvement is to eliminate the blighting conditions in a way that is consistent with an outcome that the city is looking for. So we take the project as it is presented to us, which in this case is the combination of the hotel, the parking and the the other retail space. And then within that, once we have identified what the financing gap is, we then look for those public purpose costs that we can then reimburse. Parking is clearly one of those because it is a a use that is necessary to support the project by the public to be able to come and enjoy the project. So in saying that we are paying for the parking is true because that is the most obvious public purpose cost in there and it is the cost that is creating the financing gap in this project, just as it was a cost that was creating the financing gap in the loan scheme. Okay. So other developers that aren't getting TIFF are required to build a certain amount of parking. How do we legitimize building twice that amount on the public dollar? So this again goes to the the emerging development along this corridor. And so that was one of the things that was important for us, as well as for the city administration when they were evaluating this project that this was going to be parking in excess of what the project itself required because there is additional development occurring along this corridor and having a reservoir of parking to be able to basically serve those overflow needs. Will there be parking on this street as it's designed? When Brighton is built out. Yes. I'm trying to recall the designs. And it was like it was. I don't. There's limited parking if there is some parking. But I don't think there's much street parking. We know if it will be metered or free. I don't know the answer to that. Okay. And finally, this is a question maybe for Sky Stuart or the administration. I believe that we invested in the in DC see capital improvement projects, $44 million in our 2015 budget summit. There were lots of different uses of that. But how much of that was infrastructure investment in this area? That's a great question. I don't remember the total amount off the top of my head that went specifically to infrastructure. You're right, there were different. Components in there, including some park uses and some. Street uses for Brighton Boulevard. But I can get you that breakdown. And 44 million is about four times our annual discretionary IP, is that correct? That sounds right. And I think it was 47 million. Okay. Thank you. That's one, Rob. I'm done. Oh, thank you, Councilwoman Lehman. Yes. I don't know who to ask this question. For, but you. Said there was a storm water project as part of this because somebody explained that to me. And also talk about the relationship. Between. This project and seeing that the. Light rail that's there is out of the floodplain. Sure. So there's a stormwater outfall that serves the Montclair Basin. It runs through the neighborhood that takes up approximately 30 feet off one side of the site. So there's basically construction on that stormwater pipe that's occurring simultaneously with the project, construction that we've been able to work with public works and come up with a phased approach where it basically works for everybody. So it creates some inefficiencies for land use to have that taking up a significant area. We've been able to work together to come up with a solution and organize the construction so that it's compatible. To what year are you building it to the. 100 year flood. Or the five year flood or what are you. So that the project meets all the requirements for stormwater with both water quality and detention? So I think that's not particularly in a flood zone, but the stormwater pipe in question is really originates in a couple neighborhoods over and then it runs through the neighborhood. So basically serves a neighbor, some neighborhoods more in Montclair, basically further east, it just runs through the neighborhood. So it was in their capital budget. They had a pretty tight schedule to be able to work with RTG on the construction. So we're able to work together to to accommodate that. Okay. I would just like more information about that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Just a follow up question. Excuse me. On this particular point related to the stormwater, this is a project that came to committee last week, and I'm not making the connection between the project. Is the project being asked to offset any costs towards that? Or help me understand how the Montclair Basin and the Parkville Basin project that we have moving through the city now that moved out of committee last week. For different the different. Interfaces with this project. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Brooks wants to take a shot at your. This is this is totally different project. This is a 33/33 Street outfall. What we were talking about in committee was a larger regional Park Hill Basin and Montclair Basin. So. Okay. I'd like to learn a little bit more about the difference between the two, because I know that for the Montclair Basin, we were we're actually moving a major project forward that deals with that in the Parkville Basin. So. Thank you. Any other questions from members of council? Team, then the public hearing is closed. Councilwoman Fox, you rang in where? You just want to comment time. Okay, great. Same with you, Councilwoman Ross. Yes. Brooks okay. Thank you. I'll I'll go ahead and allow for other people to speak before me. This project is in my current district, but let's go ahead and start with Councilwoman Fox. Madam President, I'd be glad to defer to you as the council person. Mayor, so let me come second. Okay. Councilwoman Robb, I agree. Go ahead. And then you can speak after us to. I'm good to Councilman Brooks. You know, I'm not going to help you. All right. Okay. I will speak. So it just seems like yesterday that we were dealing with the major issues on this property when it was loaded with empty truck trailers and crime and illegal dumping and pollution. And I'll even throw some graffiti in there. So I want to say that I'm very excited to see the transformation on this property come so quickly and have a clear and progressive vision. The original project of the source has been an anchor for economic growth along Brighton and it's great. The next level is able to continue in the creation of the hotel market and a production hub that will continue to make River North or Rhino an innovative engine for Denver. I think through the years that I worked here and firmly believe that this project complements the momentum happening in Reno and also the attraction that we will have to the future National Western Center and also the development for this area. So I am 100% supporting this going forward, and I would ask that my colleagues support this effort as well. So. Next one up is councilman fights. Thank you, Madam President. I agree with much of what the proponents have said. This area is blighted. Certainly the Zeppelin and his group do excellent work, supported many of the projects they've had, including the tax increment financing on the first block that's now being absorbed into this. So there's a lot that I like and I have no objection to having a hotel there. But I am not going to be supporting this tonight. First of all, when you consider the financing charges, Tracy, based on what you said, the public will be putting in 17% of the project very close. I take a look and I want you to envision. Two squares. They showed it on the on the screen. But in vision square, a convention square B, square A was the first project. And that was one where I actually did vote for some tax increment financing for and that was the original source. And that's just about to be paid off in 2018. And the usual idea of tax increment financing is that you build a project and then after you have had some of that increment helping to build the project, then that money goes back to the originating tax sources such as the school, such as city funds, mean it's a way to also invest in our future with this project. They want to build a hotel, a private hotel. This is not a public project. This is a privately owned hotel. And they don't have enough money in tax increment, sales tax, the property tax coming off that part of square B where the hotel is going to be built to finish it off in the time frame that they feel is economically viable. So they're going to go back and absorb block A so that the money doesn't come to the tax sources, to the schools, to the city. It's going to be used. Now, in addition to those things that are being generated by BLOCK B, to pay 17% of this private hotel and parking, which I'm now discovering may have some charges connected to it. This, to me is not the role of tax money to to build a private hotel. And so as I look around, I feel this one is off the mark. If they wanted to do it privately, I'd be all in favor of it. But to use tax money in there, I am not convinced it's that blighted, that particular just square of cement. And so I will not be supporting this project. Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilman Rob. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. That was before that. Yeah, I'm struggling with this a little bit tonight. I definitely agree that making Zeppelin Kill Zeppelin are visionary developers without their vision. Literally, the Zeppelin vision, Cherry Creek, the Golden Triangle, and now the Brighton Boulevard Reno area definitely wouldn't be the same. But. And it not but but and we are legitimately putting considerable dollars for infrastructure into this area, as my questions indicated. And it's it's very exciting. But when we add to the infrastructure dollars we're already putting into their tax increment for parking, we are further investing in an infrastructure for the area beyond the project, beyond this project. And Endura projects have a but for argument, but for this money they couldn't happen. And yet we are over parking. The other side of that is, Hey, terrific, it's great when we have a chance and we have the land that we can provide an innovative parking solution. But the consequent is consequent is that areas that need parking and are paying considerable sales tax to the general fund and do not get sales or property tax relief are disproportionately contributing to the infrastructure in this area and in the areas where parking is in such demand. It's because there's not a lot of land up here. At least we have land. So this solution can't innovatively be transferred very easily to other areas. So I am just scratching my head on this one. But if I do vote no as I listen to the rest of the comments, I think you can understand my reservation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Councilman Brown. Thank you, Madam President. More than a decade ago, when I was a greenhorn, city council member does take a while to relinquish that title, I guess. Greenhorn. But anyway, I toured Brighton Boulevard, spent about a half a day there and I came away with one simple thought and that was that. This really isn't Brighton Boulevard. It's barbed wire boulevard. So I personally changed the name. And after that tour, if someone would have told me that in the final weeks of my campaign excuse me, of my service on this council, that there would be a hotel proposed for Brighton Boulevard. I would have told them that there were smoking local weed and now you be able to get both from Brighton Boulevard. But I am excited, as you are, about this project and Micky and Kel, especially Micky, thank you for your vision because this place, frankly, when I thought it was an embarrassment and we had the taxis coming down from DIA and that was their entrance to our city and it's changing and it will continue to change. And it's no longer Barbwire Boulevard, it's Brighton Boulevard. And you should be proud of what you've done because we are very grateful. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Brown. Councilman Kennish. Thank you. Madam President, I am supportive of the project that's been described. But I chimed in to, in response to Councilman Rob's question, because one of the things being a long time follower of tax increment financing from long before I was elected, we had an evolution in state law where originally project dollars could only be used on the project site. And, you know, several years back, the legislature changed that and allowed for them to be used for the betterment of the area, including outside the immediate site. So if you were to think I get the question about the additional parking being independent from the project, but in theory nothing would stop us from actually coming forward with a proposal just like we did in the downtown area. TIFF If you remember, you know, thinking about using sources outside the area for this. So if we if we had the hotel as one project, nothing would stop us from having a proposal to use some of that increment for a parking garage should it be needed . So in my mind I, I have a pretty strict view of the, but for analysis as well. And, but what we could do in two swoops we can do and one is, is my view of this so that if we believe that these parking spots are necessary and we do have the opportunity to do them and they are worthy of our investment, it should not matter necessarily that they're being packaged with the 150 that are necessarily required for the hotel. I you know, so there's an efficiency in my mind to doing something together that we could have done separately. And it doesn't necessarily get to the deeper part of your question regarding overall city resources, which is is one that I share, frankly, in terms of, you know, this council for two years advocating for a greater amount of staffing and dollars for infrastructure in areas experiencing change. And, you know, we get some positions and some investment in those areas, but we continue to need to advocate for that in this upcoming budget cycle. So I do believe, however, that we can't miss an opportunity this time limited, right. So that this land will not be available if we don't seize it now, because we can see the pace of change happening in Brighton as well. So it seems prudent to me to, to go forward while we have the opportunity, I would strongly urge just to be charging for the parking because I think that we know if you build it and it's free, then people will come. They won't make the choices that you've described. You've described a process by which you want people to think about taking a bike and think about taking transit. They won't go through that exercise if it's really free and easy. And we should make parking available for those who need it as residents. But for those who have those other options, I do think that it behooves us to think smartly about how we use this resource that we're investing in. But I will be supporting the project tonight as well as, you know, this component of it that's been called into question. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. So this is my old council district and I can remember when many of these warehouses on Brighton Boulevard were used for raves. We often had the police down there. You know, it was not the thriving area that it is today. And there's been a lot of work and a lot of investment in the part of many different individuals and businesses in this in this area. I've been to the source on numerous occasions and both parking lots are always full. So Kyle, when you said basically we have 200 parking spaces there today and and almost all of them were utilized during your busiest times in the evenings, sometimes during lunch hour on weekends. So I think until we have the infrastructure in place, that makes it easier and more convenient for alternative means of transportation, biking to the site . It's not really safe to bike on Brighton Boulevard right now. There are no curbs, no no real bike lanes that are safe. I mean, people are kind of taking their hands and their lives, their lives in their own hands by by trying to ride on this corridor, especially with some of the big truck traffic. And so I think the need for that many parking spaces is warranted, especially given the fact that you're going to add that much more commercial space on the site, you know, the hotel with 100 rooms and an additional element to the project. So it's absolutely going to be needed and. Over time, we will see more and more people biking to the site and using light rail. Once it's open, actually, there will be commuter rail on that stop. Yeah. Um, but I think in general, this is a great project. We knew that when you did the source that this other site, which you all had purchased, was going to be coming next. And we weren't sure exactly what all that was going to entail. But to see a hotel there, I think it will absolutely be utilized. And again, with the proximity to national western and the kinds of changes that were we're seeing come about for that, I just think this is a great project and look forward to, you know, the opportunity to see all the other new things that will be there. So I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Brooks. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this is exciting to be able to take take on this district starting on July 20th. And I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for being in the wild, wild west. I think Councilman Brown called it barbed wire street, but this is the wild, wild west out there. And, you know, to have a council person advocating for these kind of projects means a lot and not to the to the folks on the private side. And so I appreciate that. You know, if you have not been on Brighton recently or in the past, I invite you to go and I invite you to go because Brighton is in the middle of a renaissance, an incredible transformation. If it's if it's not smart, it will lose its edginess, it will lose its grittiness, it will lose all that cool factor. But people go there for those specific issues. They like the gritty. They like for whatever reason, no street lights, no curb and gutter, nowhere to park your car. They like that. And that's what makes it cool. And I just want to commend, number one, the Zeppelins for being told what they couldn't do. I didn't ask them this question. But there are folks in the hotel industry who do not believe that a hotel is viable and bright and I'm putting my money on the Zeppelins just because taxi one and two I never thought would make it years ago. On the other side of the river, when. When Brighton wasn't even hot. And so these. These folks really invest and put their money where their mouth is with nothing, no infrastructure at all. In the middle of one of the worst basins in the city today, Montclair and Park Hill basis, but yet they're putting in investment. And so I, I am excited to support this project. And, you know, I believe that. And just shake my head. Shake your head, Tracy, if I'm right or this is all this is our property tax you're using our property tax are using sales tax and property say, okay, so there is a lodgers tax that still will be recouped and is coming to the city. Correct. And so, you know, Councilman Futz is is you know, when we have this conversation, she is always keen on the financials, but I always want her to talk about the other side of the equation, too. And what what else is this property generating for the city? It's not a zero sum. We're just losing money. We're actually gaining tax increment from this area as well. That is going back to the general fund. And I think it's important to realize that. And although it's, you know, it's just 100 rooms, I can guarantee you these rooms are going to be for most of the year. And I think that's important. So, you know, I will be supporting this. This is just we will also be building a bridge to connect with the 38th and Blake Station, which will just be on the back of this building as a city. And so if folks who are coming from DIA do not want to stay at the hotel, that that we're building it right there at DIA or they don't want to come to Union Station now. They have one room hotel and one of the coolest arts arts district in the country. And so I'm excited to support this. And I want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro, I think the Zeppelins. For their courage and for their vision and putting this project together. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Fats. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to clarify one thing that was said. It is not the intention of the administration and potentially the intention of this council to have the lodgers tax that is being generated or future generated from this project or from any other project to go into the general fund. If there will be an issue going to the people, most likely if this council sends it to the people to use the lodgers tax for the stock show and that area. So it is not something that would be going into the general fund. Oh, yeah. How many books do you want to respond? And we also have a comment from Councilwoman Ortega. You know, me and Councilwoman Fox can be talking all night about this issue, but, you know, they're not 100% of all of the taxes that we are recouping. Is ours going to the stock show? When that goes on, on the ballot. And so we are paying down debt. We are paying down debt for the convention center until 20 2021. Somebody can help me out there, but I just think, you know, it gets real complicated in there, but it's not all going back to the stock show. You are correct that the convention center is included in that, but it's not intended to fund filling potholes. Councilman Fox, Councilman Ortega, did you? Councilman Brooks raised my point. I was just going to ask Andrew Johnson to help us clarify that. But I think Councilman Brooks covered. Are we good? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 302. BROOKS Hi. BROWN Hi, Fats. No can eat lemon. LOPEZ All right. Nevitt I. Ortega, I. Rob Shepherd, I. Susman Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results tonight. Two names. Ten eyes, two nays. Council Bill 302 has passed. I also wanted to just give a minute. A request was made by Tracey Huggins from Denver Urban Renewal Authority to just take a second to make a comment. Thank you for this. A formative of personal privilege. And also let's also not forget the companion council bill for the cooperation agreement as well. Why don't why don't I go ahead and do that? Perfect. Thank you. Councilor McKinney, will you please put companion bill three or three on the floor? Thank you. Madam President, I move that council bill 303 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilwoman Fox. The bill that we just passed with the tax increment and this bill are companion bills. So I'll be voting against this one as well. Okay. Thank you. Other comments by members of council CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call on 303. Brooks, I. Brown I thought, how can each. Lehman I. Lopez All right. Nevitt. Ortega Hi, Rob. No. Sheppard, I. SUSMAN Madam President. All right, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Ten Eyes. Two nays. Ten Eyes. Two nays. Council Bill three. All three has passed. Okay, now I will invite Tracy Hogan's back up. Thank you, Madam President. As you know, these projects take a long time for us to put together. And this will be the last urban renewal project that we bring before this council. So on behalf of myself, the entire staff of. Dora, our. Board, I want to thank each and every one of you for your careful and thoughtful consideration of each and every one of these projects. Over the years, we have undertaken projects in almost everybody's district. And it is certainly our hope that those projects were beneficial for you and your constituents and wanted to thank you for your service . Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Council Bill 56 approves a zoning map amendment. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments and council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. Councilman McKinney, will you please put Council Bill 56 on the floor? Yes, Madam President. Thank you. I move that council. The statistics be placed upon final consideration and do pass it. Thank you, Councilman Brown. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 56 is open. May we have the staff report? Madam President, Members of Council David Jaspers, senior city planner with Community Planning and Development in front of you with rezoning of 195 South Monica Parkway. This is going. The request is to go from ESU d x that's urban edge single unit with a 6000 minimum square foot lot to SMU three. It's in Council District five. In the hilltop neighborhood. And it's at the location intersection of South Monaco Parkway and Cedar Crescent. Our park is directly to the west of this location. The request is to take this property, which is just over 2.3 acres. It is currently a single story. Church property owner Cedar Metropolitan LLC is proposing a rezoning to allow multiple units of residential building on site. As I mentioned, the rezoning was for that ESU, DCS two, SMU three, SMU three is the suburban neighborhood context multi-unit with a three storey maximum height. I'll run through the existing context of the site, including the zoning, historic district and structures, transit service, land use and building performance scale. Here. You can see the zoning on site, as I mentioned. Yes, you do. To the north is a townhouse district that is actually the garages of the townhouses that are still in the are to a to the west of the site to the south is more single unit and there is SMU three along Monaco, um, to the south and of course to the west is OSA, which is the open space of Chris Moore Park itself. Uh, the historic district. The church did receive a certificate of non historic status last year, so it is clear that there is RTD Tram Transit Service nearby. Route 65 runs north south on Monica with 30 minute frequencies for most of the day and Route three runs along Alameda, one block to the south and the east west direction with 50 minute frequencies during peak periods and 30 minutes the rest of the day. Zoom into the site a little bit more and look at the existing land uses. As I mentioned, there is the church there in the site. The only other uses are townhouses on. The only other uses on the block are the townhouses where the park single family neighborhood and to the east is apartments directly to the south side daycare. Visual cues here. What we're looking at here is the site itself of the church. Um, to the east across Monaco is the apartments which are approximately two storey apartments with some taller apartments behind it. Complex to the south, it's the daycare on the top and the closest single family home across the street to the from the site on the south side, there's Chris Moore Park. There's the townhouses that are actually on the block in question. And this is on the northern boundary of the site. You actually see the entrance parking lot to the church. The garages to the top of the townhouse are directly in front of you. And to the right is a maintenance facility for the park. Quickly learn through the process. Planning Board heard this case on January 21st and forwarded it to the Council Subcommittee. Two different meetings there in February and March. Four neighborhoods and plans. The City Council was to hear this as a public hearing back in March. It was continued to the stage. That was partly and due because of the different public outreach that was occurring from the applicant. As you see, there was lots of letters of opposition in support for this case to consider. It's my understanding at the time of the staff report, the applicant was seeking a restrictive land use covenants that would be required on the property that has a limit the density of allowed various different building forms and vehicular access. That is not what you're considering today. You're just looking at a straight zone district and I would ask the applicant to answer questions regarding that potential restrictive land use covenants. But we are looking at is our review criteria.

A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as “park” under section 2.4.5 of the city charter, namely Centennial Park (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Designates 5.5 acres of land as Centennial Park located at 1301 Elitch Circle, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-5-14.

DenverCityCouncil_11172014_14-0930

Brooks Brown, I. Mr. President. Hi, Mr. Secretary. Please close the voting and now the results. 99199912 961 has been ordered published. The last bill for introduction, I believe was 930. Leader was called out by Councilman Nevitt and will technology will catch up it was councilman that. What would you like for us to do with this? Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, I am calling out council bill nine 3931 932 933 934 936 and 937. But it's just for a comment, so you don't actually have to put them on the floor. All right. Well, then go right ahead. So I just wanted to point out, each of these bills designates certain number of acres of land in the city as parkland. And this is land that has been open space currently but is not designated as parkland and by the action of nine 3931 932 933 934 936 and 937. We are taking many acres of land and moving them from a more fungible category open space into a much more protected category that is specific designated parkland. And I point that out only because this administration has gotten a lot of criticism from some quarters and this council has gotten a lot of criticism as an enabler of bad behavior on the part of the administration. With respect to Parkland, the the argument is that there's no respect for Parkland, that we view Parkland as as as fungible and something to be disposed of at will. And I just need to point out that this is designating as Parkland a lot of acres that have not been designated for years and years and years may have been open space, but the administration is moving forward with actually designating this land as parkland. In fact, this is not the first nor I think is it the last. I don't know if there's anybody here from Parks and Rec who can answer that question. Mr. Gilmore. I'm glad you're here. So you can cover my ignorance as to the details. Now, you were doing a pretty good job. I'm Scott Gilmore. Deputy executive director of Denver Parks and Rec. This is actually the fourth and fifth round of designation. We've been designating Park Land for the last two years. This actually will bring our. Total up to about 70%. So when we started this process, about 68% of the park land that was available to designate was designated officially. We have moved that number to about 80%. So we are moving that that forward. And so it's very exciting to have this moving, this process forward. We will continue to move forward and designate all the park land that we can designate that is that is legally able to designate. So it's a process where we have to work on title. We have to work on surveys. We need to do this properly because there are a lot of lines, property lines and utilities and other things that we have to work on. So it's been a and it's been an interesting process. I do want to give a shout out to the eye and see the eye and see the inner inter neighborhood cooperation. And they have put together a committee that supports me and that gives me a lot of input on parks that they feel that should be designated or other things that I should work on and the Parks Department should work on. So I want to give them a shout out and tell them thank you. Great. Likewise. Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Shephard. Actually, Scott, if you could come back. I thought since I had you up there, I asked this point of clarification during committee, but I want to ask it again tonight. If any District one residents are watching. Can you? I believe that 933 regarding Highland Senior Center Park does not include the rec center that is located there, nor the land that's under it. Is that correct? Yes, it does not. There are some title issues that reside on that, that piece of parcel. So we cannot designate anything that does not have clear title. So we don't have clear title to that. So we do have clear title to all the park land that's directly adjacent to it. And so we are designating that parcel and that's what the ordinance is. I thought during committee you said that DOJ actually. I think I. Didn't get a chance to check on that. And I think DHS has some type of ownership on that, that building. And the parking lot. What about the parking lot? The part of the building. So I'm not I did not look at that. I apologize. Okay. So perhaps if I could get clarification. Okay. I'll get to that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard, are there any other comments on 930? All right. That concludes the bill for introduction. Now moving on to bills for final consideration, and I believe the first one was 81, called out by Councilwoman Montero. Secretary, you want to tee that one up? And while he's doing that, Councilwoman Montero, would you like for us to do with that? I would just like to make a comment. Go right ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. This council Bill 881 is on final reading, and it's an intergovernmental agreement with the regional transportation district. And what it does is it provides for the construction of the 35th Street pedestrian bridge over the East Corridor Rail and the acquisition of the relocation of the Union Pacific Railroad Yard office. And it appropriates 1.350 million four from RTT funding for the construction of this pedestrian bridge in Council District nine. And so this bridge is very important because what it does is it's a connector for the neighborhoods that are west of the railroad tracks like Globeville Ballpark in West Reno to the station. And it's an essential part of the 38 Blake Street Station where there's new development blossoming. It'll bring commerce and access between West and North Rhino neighborhoods and will create new pathways for neighbors where they didn't have it before. And once this bridge is done, you'll be able to go from Larimer, Walnut, the Blake area, to Brighton Boulevard and down towards the River and Globeville. So this will infuse the already vibrant Reno, our district, with new mobility. This was part of what was originally identified by the 2003 River North Plan, the Reno plan. And so I just want to close by saying that based on my experience in the Highland neighborhood, the 16th Street pedestrian bridge, the Highland Bridge was very catalytic to the growth and the vibrancy and connectivity for Highland and their connection to the Platte street merchants and also to the Central Platte Valley. So I'm really, really excited. And also want to say that this involves agreements with Union Pacific, with Regional Transportation District, the Railroad Transportation Administration and the city and county of Denver, and has been in the works for two years. So it's great news for the neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Monteiro, any other comments on 881 scene? And we'll go to the next one, which was 896, I believe, called out by Councilwoman Shepherd. Catherine Shepherd, what would you like for us to do with this? I just have a question to someone here from arts and venues. Thank you. So I think I ask this in committee, but I'm not sure I got a definitive answer. And this is the bill regarding the Contract with Access Digital to provide ticketing, sales and related services for city owned operated venues. So typically with these types of arrangements, the company will charge a surcharge on top of the ticket for their service. And knowing that that can really make your dollars add up, especially if you happen to be buying several tickets for, let's say you have a large family, that kind of might quickly become very cost prohibitive if you're paying those surcharges on top of that ticket. So my question would be, will there still be the ability to walk up to the window and purchase those tickets directly without having to pay the surcharge? Sure. I'm Brian Kitch with Arts and Venues. And the simple answer is yes, that with any of our venues that there still will be a walk up option, including at Red Rocks. You're going to have to hike to get there, but especially on day of show, there will be that option and part of those are set by the promoter. But the deal with access calls for no ticketing fees at the box office. Okay. That's exactly what I wanted to know. I think it could be tough for larger families. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Separate. All right. So you know the comments and 1896 will go through the last one, which I believe was 927 cut out by Councilwoman Fox. Councilman, what would you like for us to do with this?